The situation that has developed due to the manner of Katefan0's exit from Wikipedia has damaged my reputation. All I did was ask Katefan0 to identify herself on her User page. I also posted her identity on Hive2 at the same time, but I'm doing that for any and all of the 900 administrators, as information becomes available.

My immediate interest is to generate a responsible and coherent discussion of issues in this case that is not personal, but instead is focused on journalistic ethics. One principle is that journalists should "remain free of associations and activities that may compromise your integrity or damage your credibility."

I have asked an ethics columnist at Poynter to look into the situation with Katefan0. The fact that this columnist lives in St.Petersburg, where Wikipedia is located, means nothing to me. My guess is that she might be more interested in Wikipedia than other journalists, but I have zero evidence that it is relevant at all.

If this columnist is not interested, then my next step will be to take it to the Senate gallery Standing Committee. I believe they might be interested in reviewing Katefan0's qualifications for a gallery press credential, based on what I read on their site:


This Standing Committee consists of other mainstream journalists, who can be expected to look at the issue from the perspective of journalistic ethics.

If the Poynter columnist has no interest in this situation, and after that if the Standing Committee also has no interest in the issue, then maybe I'll seek a statement from Congressional Quarterly about their own policies that relate to this matter.

In all of these possible actions, I'm trying to get a hearing on the question of journalistic ethics. My original communication to Katefan0 mentioned that "I believe that your failure to identify yourself violates the spirit of journalistic ethics. Administrators should not be anonymous on Wikipedia in light of their power to shape content."

I believe that mainstream journalists will generally frown on members of their profession becoming anonymous administrators at Wikipedia. If I'm right about this, then I want to get the word out. If I'm wrong, then I want to know that also.

This is bigger than one Wikipedia administrator's career. If those who post on this topic cannot see this, then I don't know how to explain it to them.

How did it damage your reputation?

Perhaps from a devil's advocates point of view I guess one could argue you were extorting her by giving her the option to relinquish her adminship or she would get her personal info revealed...

This sort of thing is harming your cause rather than helping it. The more-so administrators are subject to what is viewed as forceful harassment, the less likely they are to reveal their identity as are your wishes. This is going to shift people in the other direction; To slap together such layers of subterfuge as to prevent any connection to their real lives, rather than acknowledge liability by a public connection between reality and the internets.

That's like saying, that public officials should conduct their business transparently; and then saying that prosecuting criminal behavior, will only encourage officials to act like a secret cabal. The whole point of having admins be identified, is so that they can be held personally accountable for their actions; but if they aren't held accountable, then having their identities is inherently meaningless. Wikipedia decided to put a 'spotlight' on Brandt, why can't he return the 'favor'?

The point is, as far as I am aware, this gal hasn't done any content edits to a article on a congressional member, hasn't gotten involved in Brandt politics, hasn't done much anything abusive, but is being picked out of the veritable hat. Brandt's going to contact her employers, press ethics committies... Over what?

Do you think anyone would take steps to have open contact information when this gal has her nickname as a variant on her reporting name and is, at least in the eyes of most Wikipedia, being the target of harassment by Brandt when she hasn't really done anything?

Whether or not the ethics are at stake, this is going to set back efforts to have liability and transparency. It also further strengthens the stereotypical Wikipedian mindset that Brandt is a cook.

For the record, I have no objections that Kathy be a admin on WP, she was as far as I could see not as abusive as most of the admin.

What I do have objections to was her journalistic ethic's that she ignored while being a admin there. She should have steered clear of anything that concerned the US. Congress or its members and refered those to another admin. Directly editing on them for any reason is grounds for a ethic's review from her peer's.

I guess you are going to have to get used to this sort of thing, since Brandt is probably just getting started. If you don't think anything will come of his actions, then just ignore them; otherwise, I guess maybe Wikipedia should think about the real-world consequences of displaying biased biographies of living persons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?offset...ons&namespace=0

There is one content edit of a Congressional article in there for two months (500 mainspace edits).
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=49012764
Not connections, not priv'd information, fairly trivial.

Heck, she hasn't even done much content edits at ALL. There's

• UOT Austin People
• Hook Em Horns
• Sheila Jackson Lee
• What may or may not be a revert with this
• Some stuff to [[Absinthe]], [[Steven_Wayne_Smith]].
• Fairly extensive copyediting to [[Houston,_Texas]] and [[Virginia Military Institute]].
• And cleaning up of the ext-link section for Neo-Nazism. 1

In two months. Aside from that it's protection/unprotection, trivial copyediting, removal of CSD templates, reference cleanups. Not controversial, not involving information having anything to do with her status as a reporter, and having absolutely -nothing- to do with journalistic ethics. On the contrary, there seems to be a far stronger link to Texas, very possibly her home state, than to Congressional topics.

If she was fairly common on pages related to Congress, I could understand it to the point where I probably wouldn't get involved. But this seems like, to Wikipedia and probably to the casual onlooker, harassment. Harassment which does nothing to further the, if my understand isn't horribly wrong, goal of having administrators being connected to real life personas. Harassment which is even under more scrutiny after the Phil Sandifer incident made Florida-state news and internet headlines, harassment which is being generally assumed to have Wikipedia Review as a source among more communities than Wikimedia.

If anything, this will further strengthen the call to keep information far, far, far away amongst administrators, making the task of pursuing administrators more difficult, not less. Katefan hasn't abused her administrative powers, hasn't violated journalistic ethics... It's like suing a girl with cancer.

And, on a final, more philosophical and unrelated note, even journalists have a right to privacy, despite the privacy they are accused of breaching every day.

If she was doing nothing wrong, why not just say who she was? Why leave so quickly? Obviously she hasn't really left, and has just got a new account, but really, come on, why leave like that?

Well, as you can see, Daniel, Katefan0 has the appearance of a victim. That is the blowback. Wikipedia plays up to the this sort of thing. The admins pose as lowly janitors -- janitors with guns that can blow you away. It is a ruse and a trap and you have to finesse it to avoid getting ensnared.

Again, I would jump to conclusions and get all worried about your reputaion. I expect nothing to come of your message to McBride. After all, Kathy is not Morton Brilliant. She is just a reporter and a junior one at that. She has editors to learn from and who are there to defend her in a tight spot (which she is not really in).

I do not think that what you did was especially vindictive (but the easily-fooled over at W might think otherwise); I just think that you barking up the wrong tree: there is no bang for that buck. Anyway, if you were so concerned about ethics, you could have contacted McBride wihtout yet mentioning names.

See, in Gator1's case, his identity did not become generally known, but for Kathy, any yahoo can now take a pot shot at her. But I do not expect the CQ staff to just cave. Real journalism is fairly hard-nosed. Certainly the senior editors at CQ are not wimps. That is why I say: it is not the end of the world for anybody. Oh, sure, there is TONS of psycho-drama going on over at W, but that is no surprise.

If you want to talk about journalistic standards, it might be better to talk about them in the context of Wikipedia. Right now, they exist, but only as lore and mindset. Jimbo has to back down from his childish "absolute and non-negotiable" NPOV stance because that is too amoral for these kids. But they still have not found a way to promulgate that journalistic standards so that they make it up as they go along.

Thank you very much for that analysis. I'd like to see anyone on the wikien mailing list come close to matching your depth of insight.

Well well, I knew she was doing something that was un-ethical. Editing without sourcing, working on congressional members articles. Dabbling in congressional sub-committee's articles. All bad in her professional career.

Second her article about U.S. Air Force Security Service isn't all correct either. She claims it was renamed from Electronic Security Command which isn't correct. The ESC is still active and the USAFSS is a part of the unit.

I know this because I retired from the USAF while I was in the 6916th ESC Command and stationed in Athens, Greece.

Thank you for this report, Hushthis. The appearance of impropriety has been clearly established. If I asked the Standing Committee of the Senate Gallery to pull her credentials on the grounds that her application does not disclose her Wikipedia association, they probably won't do anything because she has already left Wikipedia.

But that also means that she cannot come back to Wikipedia without submitting a modified application. Good enough. Establishing the precedent with anonymous Wikipedia admins vs. mainstream journalism credentials is what I'm trying to do. All it will take is a little bit of publicity for this case.

I would like to see this issue discussed among professional, mainstream journalists along the lines of the need for full disclosure by their colleagues. I don't see how they can argue that "almost full disclosure" is okay. The credibility of the profession is what keeps their paychecks coming. Once they lose that, they have to deal with villagers coming after them with torches and pitchforks.

Meanwhile, they are totally losing it over at Wikipedia. FeloniousMonk just said in the heat of argument that I've called Katefan0's employer "repeatedly." Heck, I haven't even called her employer once, and I haven't contacted the Standing Committee either. (Good grief, it was a long holiday weekend!) I've sent an email to a Poynter Institute columnist, and she seems interested and plans to check it out. That means I'm frozen for a week or two, because once you contact a journalist and they respond that they plan to check it out, you don't do an end run and contact other journalists until they've had a chance to work on the story. (That doesn't mean that someone else can't, since all the information is already out there. It's mainly a courtesy thing on my part, not a rule that involves anyone other than me.)

The old way of doing things is a lot slower than some IRC channel or some AN/I talk page. That's probably why it's a lot more reliable.

Meanwhile, I've got about 30+ days worth of IRC #wikipedia logs, and I plan to make them searchable at wikipedia-watch.org Then you can see all the teenie-boppers whining about "When is Wikipedia going to sue Brandt? I'll donate my entire life savings to it!" And someone about 15 years older usually says, "There's really nothing he's done that we can sue him over."

Where is Wikipedia going? Why are they in that handbasket?

Your my hero Daniel

Thanks for the summary, Hushthis. Please don't delete that post.

Wrong.

* She banned http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Merecat and told me through emails that her decision was based not on the quality of his edits, a point that she cared not about, but banned him for breaking the rules. He was told to stay away from the John Kerry article. Hello?

* The Vigilante Goon Boys involved in writing the Kerry article and getting Merecat "arrested" etc, on Wikinoligarchy were comprised of the norotrious assholes:
** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RyanFriesling
** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kevin_Baas

I'm not sure if Nescio worked on the Kery article but he is a part of this band of fucks.
** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nescio

*This same imbecile, yet nasty group of cabal spies, have harassed many. User:RyanFriesling was taunting Merecat and doing his same tricks of showing up on my (User:Thewolfstar's) page to accuse me in his snide way and gather crap evidence against me to get me blocked by admin Bitchownen (User:Bishonen) and fuckass SlimVirgin. and a host of others.

* Merecat and I both worked on articles written by and controlled by US Democrats. (And btw EU socialists)

* Merecat and I were and are despised by the Wikipedia Royal Cabal. We were banned at the same exact time, and although my getting banned at that time was partly my own fault (I showed them fear), believe me they were looking for an exuse to get rid of me anyway. You know that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KatefanO is NOT a trustworthy person and quite obviously a fucking bitch. This should be evident and self-explanatory to begin with.

That sort of post, by the way, is probably a very good thing for us to do here: documenting some of the ugly realities that the Wikipedia cabalists, in their never-ending circle jerk, censor reference to. That way, when some new Wikipedian runs into an admin who is being an asshole, he might have a place to look that would help him decide if said admin just had bad seafood the night before or has made a career of being an asshole. Also, it would be useful (and sometimes awfully god damned entertaining!) to provide for various incidents the perspectives that are censored on Wikipedia.

Avillia, Just wondering, whose side are you on? I know I'm just an "idiot noob", but you can't really be this stupid. And you are starting to look like one who works for the monster machine at the Wikipedia Dicator Inc.
Is this so? Like I said, old boy, just wondering.

This was all known at the time of the Talk:Houston Chronicle/Mediation. In fact, Katefan0 was sent in as a reliever for Will Beback and she rapdily became an Admin. The Tom Delay matter was at the root of this dispute.

I even sent Katefan0 a message, Hardly mindless partisanship, huh?

No, just mindless. Katefan0 failed to disclose that she was formerly employed by the Houston Chronicle (link redacted). She should have never become involved in this topic without disclosing this; it was a conflict of interest.

I agree. I hope you don't mind if I investigate farther. I was a newbie at the time, and largely was engaged in the Houston Chroncile episode to learn tagteam techniques. But she disclosed at least twice, she knew people on the news staff, and was an employee at one time. I was only learning Wikipedia's policies at the time, but thought it was a conflict of interest. Nevertheless, it was fairly obvious then she had been recruited to do a job Will Beback couldn't handle.

And her reward for this conflict of interest was being promoted to Admin.