Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hillman/Dig

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. There are many problems with this nomination, including 1) in general, pages should not be nominated for deletion by persons not wishing to see those pages deleted; 2) the addition of extraneous section breaks tends to particularize debate, and is disfavored; 3) Tallies of opinion during debate are disfavored; and 4) MfD is never a good place to make a policy proposal. Of the 90 kilobytes below, a large portion is irrelevant. The pages will be kept, and I will edit them for personal information, not including IP addresses, which are routinely presented as evidence in ArbCom cases. Xoloz 16:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Hillman/Dig

Two other users have raised concerns about what they feel are privacy violations in the subpages listed at this page in my user space; I am seeking community feedback by the unusual procedure of nominating them for MfD myself. Please note the pages I am nominating are the subpages listed at User:Hillman/Dig. CH 22:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: The subpages listed at User:Hillman/Dig are part of my on-going research in connection with my goal of proposing some new policies, ironically including a policy regulating digging, which would address the concerns raised by User:Tim Smith-User:DrL on my user talk page. One of the uses I have in mind for these subpages is as examples of actual "digs" in my unfinished essay on Digging, and I ask that contributors to this debate examine the pages in question only after having read the (unfinished) draft, because this essay explains much essential background concerning my motivations for creating the subpages currently under MfD. Unfortunately this draft is very long, but that is because the issues raised by "digging" are extraordinarily complex. I respectfully ask that the Wikipedia community permit me to continue my research into wikishilling and similar quality control problems. I feel that this research, while clearly highly sensitive and potentially troublesome, constitutes a legitimate aspect my ongoing work on formulating and proposing possible new policies, an arduous process in which my essay is only the first step.---CH 22:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I wish to add a bit of background: User:Tim Smith and User:DrL were closely involved in a recent deletion review in which I was not an original party, but in which I commented extensively. Tim seems to have threatened User:Linas and some others who didn't vote his way with blocking, in addition to myself. I feel that the contribs of Tim Smith (talk • contribs) suggest that he may be violating this policy:

Users that abuse measures of introducing new cases may be declared vexatious litigants, prohibiting them from filing new requests under such categories. If the user feels they have valid grounds for a new case they may be directed to contact one or more Arbitrators (named on a case-by-case basis).

—From Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Precedents#Abuse of processes

I again respectfully request that contributors to this debate carefully examine not only the subpages under MfD but also read my (unfinished) essay on Digging, where I make the case that pages similar to some of my experimental pages (the subpages under this MfD) should be kept as documentation related to ArbCom actions in specific cases or in relation to monitoring for reconstitution of socks/anons of permabanned users in cases where it can be documented that this has been attempted. I would have preferred to lay my case before the Wikipedia community only after having had time to complete my essay, but my hand has been forced. However, I hope and believe that there is already ample material presented in the current draft of this essay to establish my good faith in this matter. Respectfully, CH 23:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I specifically asked DrL (talk • contribs) and others not to edit the subpages under MfD while this discussion is ongoing, so that I could get the best informed feedback. Unfortunately, she has disregarded this request as can be seen from her edits. This may be a violation of

XfD processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked, whose perspective is against ones beliefs, or which is not yet presented neutrally. Using XfD as a "protest strategy" in an editorial or NPOV debate is generally an abuse of process and the article will usually be speedy kept.

—From the official policy on deletion

I ask again that DrL not edit these subpages and that she respect the outcome of this MfD. ---CH 03:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: "Solicitation": I left messages

1. on the talk pages of the participants in the recent deletion review, including User:Asmodeus,
2. on the talk pages of a few others users who had commented in my talk pages recently,
3. in the talk pages of WikiProject Physics and WikiProject Pseudoscience (because the members of those projects know my cruft control work, so can verify my motivation in various "digs").

AFAIK, this was in no way improper; if anyone thinks otherwise please cite a policy in my user talk page. In any case, the closing admin can check my contribs just after I created this MfD to see who I contacted to alert them to this MfD. ---CH 00:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment To repeat something I noted on User:Hillman/Dig: the individual subpages exhibit a great variety of behavior from clearly good edits from a user who clearly has a "conflict of interest" if this is narrowly interpreted (the Sci Am anon) to clearly bad edits from users who have now been permabanned. This of course reflects the origins of these pages as research for future policy-making discussions. I tried to phrase my statement to suggest that participants may want to vote KEEP or DELETE on the individual subpages listed on User:Hillman/Dig, since this would be valuable feedback to me in terms of whether or not there is community support for various classes, e.g. I expect there might not be much support for public "pre-emptive" monitoring or monitoring the case of mild linkspam, but there may be strong support for public pages monitoring for socks/IPs identifiable with banned users, or for monitoring for violations of ArbCom rulings. Actually, what would be most helpful would be for the community to allow me to keep the questionable pages for policy purposes, perhaps with the priviso that I make a good faith attempt to get the cooperation of the users involved. Reason: in policy-making disucssions, it would be very helpful to have explicit examples of "digs" which the community generally agrees should not be done in public, or not kept after concluding that nothing untoward is going on (the Sci Am dig would be a perfect example of something which I agree would not be kept except as an example of something not to keep.) So, time permitting, by all means vote on the individual subpages and if possible note exceptions you would allow for policy-making discussions. TIA---CH 00:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Note I am going on a short wikibreak as per User talk:Hillman and have blanked User:Hillman/Dig/Langan as per David Mestel's request. I was concerned that commentators in this MfD should see substantially the same pages, but the MfD has now been munged in any case, so it seemd reasonable to comply with his request. I plan to be back sometime around the middle of next week and understand that David will urge his "client" DrL to do likewise since I think David and I can probably negotiate some mutually acceptable permanent solution to the specific issue of the fate of User:Hillman/Dig/Langan. I repeat my request that, as a courtesy, other users not modify essays or the remaining Dig pages in my user space in my absence. Feel free to leave comments in their talk pages or (to avoid fragmenting discussion) in my user talk page.

I am concerned that this MfD not be hijacked into a policy discussion. The whole point of writing my essay and gathering evidence to explain the nature of the QC problems which concern me is to have a policy discussion, but please see Wikipedia:How_to_create_policy etc. for how to do that, and note that historically, hasty proposals tend to fail. I have some further suggestions for Obsidian Order below as per his request for suggestions. Thanks to everyone who took the time to comment here! I read every comment carefully and of course I plan to study any further comments made in my absence once I return (I presume I will be able to find an archive of the MfD, which should be closed by the time I return). Your feedback is invaluable in helping me help the Wikipedia Community to start to grapple with the difficult policy issues raised by wikishilling and digging. ---CH 17:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment. My "threat" to Linas was the use of {{npa2}} in response to these personal attacks, and my "threat" to CH was a notification that some of the "dig" pages violate the Posting personal details section of the blocking policy. The arbitration decision refers specifically to Requests for comment and Requests for arbitration; since I've never filed either type of request, it obviously does not apply to me. Tim Smith 04:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep While this sort of think could become an attack page or "enemies list" at the moment it looks like a good-faith effort to identify users suspected of using anons and sockpuppets fo perform non-neutral POV edits on articles of interest to Hillman. Just because user page says unflattering things about another user, that doesn't make it automatically bad. This looks like valid research for a future Wikipedia policy proposal. Dgies 23:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Totally unnecessary nomination, there's nothing in the pages that isn't completely the norm in evidence pages for Wikipedia disputes and places like WP:AN/I. Most of the users documented in the pages look to have been recipients of adverse arbcom decisions and continued to abuse Wikipedia and as such, those pages are well-justified as related to arbitration enforcement. The remaining users appear headed that way. At most, rather than deletion, these pages should be moved from user space to project space and governed by some policy TBD. While extending the utmost respect to CH for her willingness to bring up the matter for community discussion herself, an MfD is not the right place for it, and in any case is premature, if a more extensive statement is being developed. There are indeed complex issues to be tackled in a policy discussion about this stuff (and I have various ideas I'd want to set forth) but an MfD is no place for that. I suggest that CH withdraw this MfD and open a self-RfC instead. Phr (talk) 23:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC) (Addendum per the template at the top: CH invited me to participate here via my talk page, but I was already following the situation on CH's talk page and would have come anyway. Also, I participated in the CTMU DRV but not in its AFD. I did participate in a few of the other Langan-related AfD's. Phr (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Phr, I discussed MfD versus RfC with Jitse Niesen, and decided to go for MfD because Tim Smith has repeatedly threatened me with blocking, and I understand that under MfD I have protection against this but not under RfC. ---CH 00:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I saw Tim Smith's whining at WP:ANI#Dig pages about these pages and getting absolutely nowhere with the admins. The only thing he can do right now to get you blocked is close his eyes and wish real hard, and I don't think that's going to work. His threats are not backed by any evidence of consensus, so they mostly indicate that he is operating from an m:MPOV. They should be documented as such. Phr (talk) 02:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow! I've already had to warn this user to assume good faith, but it looks like he needs to attend to our civility policy as well. By the way, my "threats" consisted of notifying CH that the "dig" pages violate numerous Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including the Posting personal details section of the blocking policy. Tim Smith 05:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:AGF, "Yelling "Assume Good Faith" at people does not excuse you from explaining your actions, and making a habit of it will convince people that you're acting in bad faith." Phr (talk) 05:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, and in this case, as I've said, my actions are motivated by the fact that by naming presumed real-life identities, CH is violating the Posting personal details section of the blocking policy, which states that "Users who post what they believe are the personal details of other users without their consent may be blocked for any length of time." Tim Smith 06:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLOCK also says "Admins are never obliged to place a block". You do not seem to grasp the concept that you do not get to unilaterally decide whether any user is actually blocked, no matter what they do. Your requests for administrative intervention got nowhere, the admins you approached approved of CH's activities, and CH is clearly doing her best to act responsibly and I'm sure she will cooperate with any admin requests that might come. So I think the likelihood of her being blocked is close to zilch, regardless of your desires. If you want to participate thoughtfully in a discussion of a complex issue, that's great. But your constant harping about blocks isn't impressing me. It just sounds like frothing and empty threats posturing. Phr (talk) 08:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't call for CH to be blocked. There's a difference between (1) pointing out blockable activities in an effort to stop them, and (2) calling for a block. Again, I caution you to be civil. Tim Smith 14:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I corrected "empty threats" to "empty posturing". Hope that helps. Phr (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, I don't see any argument in favor of deleting it. Bubba73 (talk), 00:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as a bystander in all this, I can't see any reason for them to be deleted, and the self-nom is pretty much a helluva good faith motion to get it considered. rootology 00:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Before someone inevitably brings up that it's inappropriate to "connect the dots" between users and IPs, there is indeed legitimate and needed uses and times for such behaviors, if a legitimately good faith belief that abuse to Wikipedia can be uncovered and potentially stopped. Many people do this for research towards RfCs, RfA, ArbCom, and to build a case for asking for a CheckUser. If done collabaratively in particular, it's unfair to simply say "do it on your own Wiki", when not everyone has the resources, skill, or savvy to do so realistically. Out of the way user space is a fine use for this. As long as you don't try to do it in secret, or react defensively to the discovery of such research prematurely, there is nothing wrong with this practice if done for good purpose, as it does have a legitimate application towards use within existing Policy. Perhaps an addendum to all this is that all User Pages be required to have the link that discloses the existence of all user sub-pages, for pure transparency. Because, after all, secrets are an inherently bad thing. More people should be as proactive and as supportive of the ultimate success of the project as Hillman. rootology 00:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I agree with rootology regarding adding this to my user page, but right now that page is pre-emptively locked (I think) re the LA Times. On an inclusion/deletionism note, I've long since changed my mind about schools, incidently. If nothing else, this kind of link can be good reminder to users to clean up broken links and suchlike.---CH 00:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Disclaimer: I was in the AfD for CTMU here. Odd that I won't agree to user delete his own pages. I did not interpret anything on the pages as a "hit list" or attack page. Self-MfD nomination, in the spirit of full disclosure, kinda defeats the purpose of having such a list. And, if any of the users/IP editors do not want this kind of information gathered, then they should not contribute to WP. Cuz everything, including this posting, is logged and readily available. I had a much longer posting cooking in my sandbox, but given Pfr's comments above, we will have to see if this MfD discussion escalates, or moves to a more detailed forum. — MrDolomite | Talk 00:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting point--EVERYTHING here is functionally publically logged. I fail to see any arguments against connecting the dots with already available information to find possible abuse. Worst case: nothing comes of it, and it's dismissed. No harm, no foul. Best case: a vandal is caught. Every argument vs. that I come up with in my head seems to always come back to an analogy of a politician or celebrity calling foul if the media "sets them up" with already available public records... rootology 00:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per rootology (including the associated comment). I will only add this in my dealings with CH, he has operated entirely with good faith and intentions. --EMS | Talk 00:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. He/she is one of our best editors, has done a lot to improve WP, and has taked a lot of abuse for doing it. Bubba73 (talk), 01:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep; as long as this process is done with a transparent purpose of preventing further abuse/disruption of Wikipedia, it is certainly appropriate. (ESkog)^(Talk) 01:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per arguments presented above. Skirmishes about article content is a way of life in WP. Of course, there are world wars for the soul of George W. Bush, and major battles over the Bogdanov affair. But far, far more numerous are the skirmishes that aim to control far smaller territories of the noosphere. These skirmishes are quite serious and important, and the loss of too many threaten the very integrity and existance of WP. Serious editors will flee when the neighborhood is invaded by goblins and pests. Chris Hillman is exploring the topic of "pest control", acting as the community policeman. These are a reasonable set of working notes. linas 01:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious delete - Is this kind of thing really necessary? I was asked to look at this page because of my DRV vote on Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe. Honestly, I don't know what this MFD has to do with it ... but anyway ... since I was asked, I will attempt to offer an opinion. In theory, we are here to write an encyclopedia. Everyone may or may not be focused on that goal and for the most part, that's ok. For example, some people may enjoy writing about sports or biology or television and don't really care about the big picture - they just enjoy their topic area. And that's fine. But it all contributes to the purpose of writing an encyclopedia. This list and, for that matter, the hotly debated Kelly Martin list of last week, do nothing to support writing an encyclopedia. If someone behaves badly, take the appropriate action ... post to WP:AIV or WP:ANI ... seek conflict resolution ... whatever. But honestly, this type of thing is just going to get on people's nerves. Two of the people you have on your tracking list have asked you to remove them. Good old fashioned decency says you ought to abide by their wishes. In one case, on User:Hillman/Dig/Langan, you give personal information about DrL. This is obviously 100% inappropriate and regardless of the outcome of this discussion, an administrator ought to delete that page and re-create a version without that personal information. Troll ... not a troll ... I don't know and really don't care - revealing someone's real-life personal information is wrong. The bottom line is that Wikipedia is not MySpace. Thus, delete. BigDT 02:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. While I don't think there is anything intrinsically wrong with the page (as tracking sock-puppets and noting editor conflicts of interest is in the encyclopedia's best interest), I really don't see why this needs to be hosted on Wikipedia. Most of this material would only be needed if an RFC or ArbCom case were launched, as part of a case to demonstrate inappropriate edits. Until then, having the page public serves little purpose, and only stirs up accusations of wiki-stalking. --Christopher Thomas 02:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep It's fascinating information, and how the devil else would we have seen it (except, occasionally at selected ArbCom cases)? Wikipedia even AT BEST operates by "concensus", but how can you have consensus when stuff like this is going on "behind the scenes", as it were? And that's not even getting to the issue of two ignorant people outvoting one expert. This is just looking at what happens when ballot boxes are "stuffed."SBHarris 02:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment ...as the notice is up now, I did let three people know about this, as I thought it'd be of possible interest to them, but they have nothing to do directly with the case itself. Two would probably be pro-keep, the other I'd imagine an almost certain delete. rootology 06:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The information Hillman has gathered is readily available to anyone who has followed the various sagas and used a bit of deductive logic: the "dig" pages really just provide a list of edit diffs which illustrate certain behavioural patterns, sometimes with commentary to provide background. It is not as if Hillman is making requests for checkuser on everyone who makes edits they don't like, and then posting those details along with personal contact information (home telephone number, address, etc.) out of revenge. In many cases the people concerned disclosed their real-life identities anyway; every bit of information there is in the public domain, and so I cannot understand why it is a problem with regards to privacy. Hillman has also been deliberately discreet about the existence of the pages, and the main reason that everyone knows about them now is that Tim Smith has made such a big fuss. Wikipedia is currently facing a huge problem with wikishilling, vanity, autohagiography, and general abuse of the system; these pages are the attempt of an editor who is legitimately concerned about making this a better encyclopaedia, to illuminate various patterns that abuse might take in order that this goal can be achieved- so the pages are relevant to Wikipedia. Therefore, if the pages do not contravene basic decency and norms to do with privacy, and are of immense import to Wikipedia, I cannot see why they should be removed. Byrgenwulf 06:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

N.B. It is perhaps important that I declare that I have been heavily involved in one of the cases that Hillman is documenting, the CTMU affair. Also, it is obviously this recent fracas which has brought Hillman's endeavours to the current discussion, because the primary concerns have been raised by Tim Smith, the individual who had an article deleted because of my AfD nomination. Byrgenwulf 06:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep for all the reasons listed above by previous contributors; it's a good faith attempt to improve Wikipedia. As a user profiled on the dig pages I can only say I find it all amusing in a Daliesque fashion; privacy is not an issue since the info is all public domain -- it's merely connecting the dots. Putting this onto Wikipedia enables this data to be improved Wiki-fashion and is entirely consistent with Wiki-philosopohy. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• keep as per EMS. ps: I came here via [1] William M. Connolley 08:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. User:BigDT is right in saying that we're here to write an encyclopedia, but I think it is important to note that not everyone's motives are so noble. Digging uncovers the less noble motives and could perhaps help a little bit in protecting the encyclopedia. — mark ✎ 08:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If this analysis had been done in regard a particular duplicate account set I've been monitoring (I hesitate to say "Sock Puppets", because he's only been editing from one account at a time, leading to the hypothesis that he's forgotten his password and creates a new account with a similar name) is merely a new editor who doesn't understand WP:NFT and other Wikipedia policies, or a sock of a banned user. I'm not sure I understand all the techniques involved, so I would appreciate it if others would continue to investigate identity (or at least ISP and location) to the extent possible by only using Wikipedia itself (excluding those versions which are in actual violation of the "posting personal information" policy). (I was invited here by CH because of my activity in one of the relevant Langan AfDs. I'm also watching articles mentioned in one of the other Dig subarticles, and I appreciate his findings on one of the article talk pages.) Nonetheless, I probably would have found the page eventually, as I attempt to monitor MfD, so I don't think this comment should really be considered "solicited". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Full disclosure: I was pointed to this page; however, I noticed the Dig pages a couple days ago while checking the recent contributions of editors I've worked with, something I do occasionally (when the need to procrastinate rises up within me). In all probability, I would have noticed this MfD going on before today was out, anyway. That said, I see nothing wrong with compiling information which is essentially gained by close study of contribution histories. I have edited pseudonymously for two and a half years now, but I haven't been a fanatic about concealing my personal identity: anybody crazy enough to scan six thousand diffs could figure out who I am IRL, I wager, though why anybody would care I don't know. Likewise, I fail to see the harm in collecting information which is already publically available. Should any of the issues documented on these Dig pages come to a "higher court" like an ArbCom proceeding, then these good-faith collection efforts will have a legitimate use toward improving Wikipedia. I think it speaks well of Hillman that they chose to keep these pages in userspace rather than hiding them as text files on Hillman's own machine like a conspiracy of one. Anville 15:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG DELETE - Posting personal details about Wikipedians, particularly in conjunction with unsubstantiated allegations which may encourage their misuse, is a blockable offense, as are personal attacks and disruption (see WP:BP). No exceptions are given, and such behavior cannot be validated by any kind of vote or review. Hillman should be blocked, regardless of any rationalizations he/she manages to concoct - e.g., "these pages are just a big experiment to save Wikipedia from the scourge of vanispamcruftisement!" - and regardless of how many of his/her fellow travelers turn out to register their approval of various weapons in his/her deviant tactical arsenal.

  The responsiblity for Hillman's blockage rests on the Wikipedia administrators, right here and right now. There is no need, and no justification, for delaying Hillman's blockage until this MfD runs its course; according to hard elements of Wikipedia policy, he/she needs to be curbed now, period. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a convenient source of bandwidth and server space for vindictive personal abuse. Tracking is one thing; posting personal information alongside harmful allegations is quite another. Such tactics can only lead to problems for those who employ and condone them.

  Incidentally, a quick look at the User:Talk pages of the above voters will reveal that almost every one of them was invited over here individually by Hillman. In other words, Hillman is guilty of something which in the legal profession is called "stacking the jury". Regardless of whether this practice is standard operating procedure here at Wikipedia, the legal profession generally regards it as unfair and dishonest, and for very good reason. Asmodeus 19:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Asmodeus, you were invited here on your talk page, here, as were DrL, Tox, Michael Price etc.: all people who voted "keep" in the AfD and DRV; I think Hillman tried to tell all parties to the recent events about it. So your allegation of them stacking the jury doesn't really hold, irrespective of your argument about blocking, etc. Byrgenwulf 19:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment - This edit has much to say about where Asmodeus is coming from here. As someone who is pushing an alternative theory to GR but who

• also accepts that it does not belong here and
• that in Wikipedia GR should be documented as it is current understood,

I have very little sympathy this Asmodeus and his position. I think that WP:AUTO is very relevant here. --EMS | Talk 19:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Get your facts straight. The theory you mention is not, by any stretch of the imagination, "an alternative to GR". As for the WP:AUTO guidelines, I have not violated them, and that stands regardless of who I am. Specifically, I am not the author of any article about myself by any name whatsoever, and I've edited a biographical article only in response to transparent vandalism and name-calling. That's explicitly allowed, even for the subjects of the articles themselves. (Why do so many of the people around here seem to understand nothing about Wikipedia policy, yet cite it like holy scripture at a prayer meeting?) Asmodeus 16:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Asmodeus, please remember WP:CIVILITY. Particularly because EMS was not talking about the CTMU, but rather about his own views on GR, which are somewhat unorthodox, but which he does not use Wikipedia to tout. Why not get your own facts straight before commenting? Byrgenwulf 16:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps EMS does indeed have his/her very own "GR alternative". However, this is plainly irrelevant to his/her obvious misreading of WP:AUTO, which is indeed a simple matter of fact. In all fairness, this misreading may be at least partially due to certain false allegations spread by others, notably including Byrgenwulf himself. Asmodeus 17:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason for my WP:AUTO comments is that Asmodeus was asserting in This edit that people have carte blanche to edit articles about themself (as well as engaging in other conflicts of interest) in Wikipedia. My point is that this is not only not so, but is dealt with in a Wikipedia policy. --EMS | Talk 22:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I asserted no such thing. I did say that the original authors of theories should be allowed to edit articles on them if those articles "deal with complex, hard-to-understand material and the authors confine their edits to corrective or protective changes." That's well in line with policy. Similarly, WP:AUTO says that biographical subjects can make corrective or protective changes to biographical articles as well (after somebody else writes them). If you don't sympathize, that's fine, but please don't accuse me of things I neither did nor said. Thanks. Asmodeus 23:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I support the guidelines given above, but in those cases I feel that the identity of the editor ought to be known. Otherwise, you leave the door open to abuse. --EMS | Talk 17:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Response Byrgenwulf's comment raises an obvious question: could the original jury in the "recent events" to which he evidently refers - the set of people whom Hillman has invited here - possibly have been inappropriately selected in the first place, e.g., by somebody who knowingly mislabeled the subject matter of a disputed Wikipedia article and took this misleading information to exactly those (inappropriate, technically unrelated) sectors of the Wikipedia community that were most likely to support his own actions with respect to the events in question? If so, then it would immediately follow that Hillman's invitations are stacked as well. (In fact, as Byrgenwulf is well aware, it has already been shown that this is exactly what happened.) Asmodeus 20:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• My concerns are these. (1) Posting personal information about a user, including their real name, contravenes the Posting personal details section of the blocking policy. (2) Publically recording a good-faith user's "bad" edits on a dedicated page is demeaning and disrespectful to them. For vandals and block-evading sockpuppeteers, it is sometimes justifiable, but to treat good-faith editors with such disregard is a breach of civility.

User:Hillman/Dig/Anderton Delete. User's contributions seem to be in good faith.

User:Hillman/Dig/Androcles Weak delete. User's numerous personal attacks are already documented at an RfC.

User:Hillman/Dig/Borg Delete. Seems to be a good-faith user.

User:Hillman/Dig/Bogdanov Keep as a sock record, but remove any personal information posted without consent.

User:Hillman/Dig/Frieden Delete. Notable public figure with good-faith edits.

User:Hillman/Dig/Gomez Delete. Spamming in November/December 2005, but mostly to talk pages.

User:Hillman/Dig/Haisch Delete. Notable public figure with good-faith edits. Mentioned his conflict with Hillman in a recent LA Times op-ed.

User:Hillman/Dig/KraMuc Keep to watch for IP socking by this indefinitely blocked user, but immediately delete speculation about his real-life identity.

User:Hillman/Dig/Licorne Keep to watch for IP socking by this indefinitely blocked user.

User:Hillman/Dig/Langan Delete. Good-faith users. Immediately delete speculation about real-life identities.

User:Hillman/Dig/Marinchev Delete. User barely edited. Immediately delete speculation about real-life identity.

User:Hillman/Dig/Reddi Keep to watch for socks.

User:Hillman/Dig/Salsman Delete. No useful information, and risks antagonism.

User:Hillman/Dig/Sarfatti Keep to watch for socks of this indefinitely blocked user.

User:Hillman/Dig/Schubert Weak delete. Mild linkspam.

User:Hillman/Dig/SciAm Delete. IP's talk page already notes connection to SciAm and links to further discussion.

User:Hillman/Dig/Tesla Delete. Indiscriminate tracking of IPs, some with good-faith edits.

Since the users and circumstances tracked by these pages are so varied, I encourage the other participants to likewise individually break down their opinions. Tim Smith 21:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• None of those indicate a reason to delete the page, except for possible actual (not speculative) real-life identity. "Notable public figure with good-faith" but misguided vanity "edits" is a reason to publicly track those edits. No change in my "vote". Any RL speculations based on information other than Wikipedia itself and whois should be removed, under WP:LIVING. Nothing else comes close to violating anything but WP:AGF. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Arthur, I think that indicates a significant misunderstanding of WP:LIVING, which is a policy about biographical articles in Wikipedia's article space. It does not apply to discussion pages, user pages, etc. Look at the partisan ranting that goes on in the discussion page behind the biographical article about any well-known political figure for an obvious illustration. See also the Francis Schuckardt arbitration's apparent endorsement of the distinction. I do not believe user space should be a free-for-all where everyone has carte blanche to post anything they can find about anyone; there are some subtle issues going on here, that should be discussed in an RfC once this MfD closes. However, WP:LIVING is simply independent of these. Phr (talk) 03:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Well, here's the posting from my sandbox, as written earlier. Will continue to monitor this as the MfD discussion unfolds. — MrDolomite | Talk 22:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Note that the original lead paragraph was already posted above, so we join this comment already in progress...

So, broken out so I could keep track, and to modify as MfD discussion proceeds, here's why I think that.

• As to issues brought up here by DrL in this edit

• WP:BLOCK I will continue looking for "personal details" (which in my book is email addresses, blood types, phone numbers, etc). Summary, a few IPs/users are associated with RL names. And not because it was made up, substantial evidence and patterns are given for each.

• User:Hillman/Dig/Salsman Uh-oh, user's RL name given, though on the users' own talk page the user almost gives himself away. Marginal.
• User:Hillman/Dig/Frieden another RL name associated with a user. Not really a strech to figure that out, as his username is Friedenr. Were the IP edits by that user done by that person? Hard to say, but since they were definitely done by someone from that university, a reasonable person would say yes, based on the pattern of edits. Oops, didn't see this dead giveaway edit.
• User:Hillman/Dig/Haisch RL name, but ponied up by user here.
• User:Hillman/Dig/Gomez gives RL city/country of user, but seeing as the user is using what is presumably, his full name as his id, and the ability for anyone to IP lookup, I don't think this is real cat out of the bag.
• User:Hillman/Dig/Licorne RL name is listed, but it wasn't like it was made up, see here.
• User:Hillman/Dig/Schubert RL name is listed, but after reading the page, and the User talk:Perspicacious, again not a huge leap.

• As to issues brought up here by Tim Smith in this edit

• WP:CIV nothing jumped out. Hillman seems to go out of his way to stay WP:NPOV
• WP:AGF nothing jumped out. Could the whole thing be considered bad faith? Kind of a leap, a (maybe not perfect) analogy would be a lawyer/private eye/ombudsman/law enforcement. Of course it could look bad; that's why they are investigating.
• WP:NPA nothing jumped out; were some comments unflattering? yes; have I seen worse on an WP:AfD? definitely.
• WP:NOT yep, per WP:NOT a free host
• WP:USER WP:USER#What can I not have on my user page? none of those bullets specifically qualify. WP:USER#Removal could come into play, was there a previous notification given, as in "..the community lets you know that they would rather you deleted some or other content from your user space.."?

• Ok, I didn't see anyone bring this up (yet).

• WP:NOR I could see how this could be seen as WP:NOR, but if you are writing about patterns and edits on WP, and citing internal history as well as external links, that's ok in my book.
• Could all of this information be kept external to WP? Sure. But given the amount of WP link info/history/etc, I'd sure keep it in my user space too.

 — MrDolomite | Talk 22:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• NOR is only for articles, not user pages etc. Phr (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't remember where, but there was a recent ArbCom case (possibly the Iloveminun one) where the ArbCom explicitly endorsed keeping notes on people's behaviour in your user space. WP:NOR doesn't apply outside article namespace. This isn't the best place to be having this discussion, though; I recommend an RFC. Stifle (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment See "Keeping notes" on the Iloveminun "Proposed decision" page. Four Five members of ArbCom have signed their agreement to the proposition "It is acceptable to make a subpage to keep notes which document another user's behavior. Care should be taken to keep a factual record which avoids personal attacks on your own part." No oppose votes or abstentions to date. In fact, Minun (a.k.a. Iloveminun) is likely to be banned for attempting to destroy a page containing such notes. Anville 02:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Handy tracking mechanism, a well-organized one-stop resource. --Calton | Talk 00:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• comment. I previously voted to keep. Since then, I've read more of the pages, and I think that these pages should be seen by a much wider audience, to see what can be done about this type of problem. Bubba73 (talk), 00:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, legitimate tracking of long-term POV pushing by an editor with an excellent history and supporting a clearly stated encyclopaedic agenda. Just zis Guy you know? 08:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I second Tim Smith's concerns and his comments about specific pages. Most should be deleted; a few which are dedicated to perma-banned users and do not contain prohibited personal information can stay. ObsidianOrder 17:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Obvious and Strong Delete - Although Wikipedia has obvious problems with vandalism and questionable edits, these problems need to be addressed in a systematic manner by its administrators rather than through ad hoc initiatives by users. There are several reasons for this.

WP:BLOCK explicitly prohibits posting personal details, including speculation. Some of Hillman's watch pages include speculation about the name, location and place of employment of a given target. For example, my own "watch page" contains irrelevant, poorly sourced personal information and speculation, including an irrelevant report of teen drug abuse, complete with unpleasant aspersions on my "character".

WP:LIVING states that "poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page" and that "These principles also apply to biographical material about living persons in other articles". So WP:LIVING applies to all articles on Wikipedia, including user pages.

WP:NOT Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not and should not become a collection of "public watch pages" maintained by unverified users for the purpose of monitoring other users and speculating about their RL identities. The unregulated creation of "watch pages" by users can (and certainly will) be extensively abused.

While Hillman may have good cause for suspecting vandalism in some cases, some of his/her/its other targets are clearly good-faith users. After all, who is Hillman to decide who gets "watched"? He/she/it's not even an administrator. Leave Hillman's "watch pages" standing, and others will inevitably spring up. Potentially, everyone on WP can have his or her own set of "watch pages" in user space, targeting any other editor with suspicions, personal details, and unpleasant allegations with respect to which he or she has limited editing rights.

Who verifies the identities and motives of the watchers? There is a reasonable amount of circumstantial evidence to the effect that the "Hillman/CH" identity constitutes a shared account. It would appear that Hillman's "research" comes down to an essentially anonymous experiment in social psychology, and that Wikipedia has been taken for quite a joyride. Allowing unverified individuals to register at Wikipedia and erect such pages in their user spaces is a road down which Wikipedia would be wise not to proceed.

Which pages should stay and which should go? Although, some users may bear watching, this would need to be done at the administrative level. Leaving it up to users, anonymous and otherwise, will inevitably lead to chaos. DrL 17:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not sure whether CH is an admin. If not, I'd be happy to make a nomination. There are plenty of anonymous admins and CH would be fine as one. I note the irony of Tim Smith's attempts at "digging" CH's identity while himself complaining about "digging". I similarly note the irony of DrL complaining of other people's anonymity while asserting anonymity eirself even in contexts where there is a clear question of conflict of interest.

  I've done some digging about CH myself. So far, I'm satisfied with what I've found. Phr (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Then you must have found something that I didn't, because everything I've found tends to confirm that Hillman is a multiple-user account (many people pretending to be one person by using one name and one account; that's the opposite of sock-puppetry, where one pretends to be many by using multiple names and any number of accounts). If you have evidence to the contrary, you'd only be doing Hillman a favor by following "his" advice and pursuing a full disclosure policy. (You probably needn't worry about violating Hillman's privacy - Hillman evidently doesn't see anything the matter with that.) Asmodeus 22:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

the irony of Tim Smith's attempts at "digging" CH's identity - hardly ironic, I would say fair. if digging anyone is legitimate - a point which I am not prepared to grant - it would surely be digging the diggers. Basic principle of reciprocity, golden rule and so forth, you know. ObsidianOrder 07:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete them all. To me, this appears to be a terrifyingly voluminous exercise in posting personal information on Wikipedia. If this isn't what WP:BP#Posting_personal_details is written to prevent, I can't imagine what would be. Do these pages really, deeply help the encyclopedia? —ptk⁂fgs 12:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• comments. I have no general objection to Wikipedia editors keeping subpages where patterns of editing are studied. Maybe all such pages should be collected in a single (very public) Wikipedia category? However, there are some potential problems with "digging" into edit patterns. I think that special care needs be taken with wiki pages that are devoted to "digging". For example, "internal evidence including an apparent 'confession'" was cited (this was changed the next day) by User:Hillman as evidence for linking someone's real name to edits performed by two Wikipedia usernames and an IP address. This sort of matching of a real name to usernames/IPs should be fully documented. Links should be provided to the evidence so that other members of the Wikipedia community can confirm that the usernames/IPs made the real name public and that evidence linking that real name to the usernames/IPs is clear. If the association is not clearly documented, then the real name should not be mentioned. User:Hillman could just as well used an alias such as "Mr. X". Anyone using real names on wiki pages devoted to "digging" should state clearly why there is a need to mention a real name when discussing particular edits/editors. The same high standards of care and restrictions should apply to any other personal information (such as where editors live, where they work) that a "digger" associates with edits/editors. It is not clear that User:Hillman has taken enough care in the posting of personal information about the Wikipedia editors that have been studied. Wikipedia needs to establish clear policy for "digging".--JWSchmidt 21:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep all - Hillman is using these pages to track the edits of users who are suspected of being involved in the subjects of the articles they are editing, often controversially. All of the information that I see posted is public knowledge. At some point, saying that speculation and evidence concerning the real names of editors should not be allowed starts being a serious limitation, since it is important to know when editors have serious conflicts of interest in their edits. If a person is editing their own biography anonymously, it is important that others know that. The pages could be moved to a private wiki, but I personally think that they should stay here. --Philosophus ^T 06:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: From WP:STALK: "Posting another person's personal information (legal name...regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself". Full stop. And, in any case, no allegations of sockpuppetry have been made against my client DrL. A request for checkuser was turned down. --David Mestel^(Talk) 13:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not a court. Please stop treating it like one. While WP:STALK does say that, we also have WP:IAR, and there is significant support for these pages, and for uncovering the conflicts of interest of these editors. At some point, knowing the identity of these types of editors becomes important. If, for example, DrL is the person who Hillman shows evidence she is, then that highly casts into doubt her description of Langan, and more recently, her description of a documentary about Langan, since it would be highly implausible that such a person could follow NPOV, even if they consciously tried to. As for illegitimate sock puppetry, I did not claim that DrL was using any illegitimate sock puppets - I was trying to give an example of one reason why it is important to know when an editor has a serious conflict of interest. In fact, one of the main reasons the RfCU was turned down was because it wasn't about sock puppetry, but about confirming the identity of DrL, and there wasn't really any violation of policy involved. --Philosophus ^T 14:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Gee, right from the Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates page, subsection What Advocacy is NOT: "...A lawyer-client relationship..." and "...Advocates are against wikilawyering. ..." Good thing that "The AMA is an independent association and is not subject to any committees or other external controls." because if it was, one would imagine they would have to ask User:David.Mestel to leave for violating the spirit of the group. My 2c. — MrDolomite | Talk 15:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Mr. Mestel, should he attempt such a thing, will discover that anything even resembling a legalistic approach to Wikipedia disputes, not only gets a person nowhere, it gets them extremely rapidly into deep deep doo-doo. I'm reminded of the old joke about why attorneys make poor airplane pilots (They forget they're arguing with God...) SBHarris 17:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It seems to me that Advocate Mestel is merely trying to do his job fairly and expeditiously. "Wikilawyering" (see Wikipedia: Wikilawyering) "refers to the frowned-upon practices of: (1) Using formal legal terms inappropriately regarding Wikipedia policy. (2) Asserting that technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express. (3) Hiding behind misinterpretations of policy to justify inappropriate edits." I have not seen Mr. Mestel doing any of these things. Please don't muddy the water in this very important Wikipedia test case, which is now linked to a possible charge of conflict of interest on the part of MfD intiator Hillman. Thank you. Asmodeus 18:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You cannot possibly be serious, Asmodeus. You speak of avoiding "wikilawyering" in one breath, and in the next you speak of a "charge" and a "test case". Also, I cannot believe that you are actually serious about anyone wanting to rip off/suppress the CTMU. It scarcely needs suppressing, since it is so thoroughly obscure, and unanimously ignored by all but the popular press and a fringe science group, and anyone wanting to plagiarise it must be incredibly foolish. You have absolutely no proof whatsoever of what you are alleging, and I think you are merely blustering about in order to ascertain Hillman's identity to sate your own curiosity. This borders on the absurd. Byrgenwulf 18:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I am perfectly serious. WP does not require that advocates or editors waste their time chasing after inappropriate or cumbersome synonyms just to avoid terminology which has been co-opted by the legal profession. There is no reason to think that Advocate Mestel is unaware of the difference between the legal and Wikipedia contexts, or the connotations which they respectively bestow on various terms whose usage is perfectly natural under the present circumstances. If you want to uncover an instance of Wikilawyering, I suggest that you look for something more extensive or pedantic.

(Continuation) I'm also perfectly serious about a possible conflict of interest involving a possible shared account on the part of MfD initiator Hillman. As most of those here are well aware, you (Byrgenwulf) managed to get the CTMU article removed on AfD by knowingly misrepresenting it to a segment of the Wikipedia community consisting of non-experts in metaphysics who are miltantly opposed to what you misleadingly called "pseudoscience" (they know this because they are the ones to whom you misrepresented it as such). The problem, of course, is that (1) Hillman was arguably instrumental in helping you do that; and (2) it appears that Hillman's own contributions (such as they may be) could overlap the CTMU (which is in fact notable by Wikipedia standards, and which you clearly do not understand). When one is doing purportedly original work in a given field, one is not allowed to use the editorial procedures of an encyclopedia to suppress reportage on a competing theory covering the same field, unless one can cite a very detailed and solidly verifiable consensus (as opposed, for example, to merely flinging epithets and making diversionary accusations). If one were to do this, then one would be guilty of a conflict of interest by definition. Please do not underestimate the gravity of this situation, or the seriousness of the charges...er, allegations...uh, accusations...but no, that's not quite right either (darn that legalese, it's everywhere!)...against Hillman. Asmodeus 18:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Since Mestel also refered to DrL as his client while making threats to go and get Hillman blocked, I'd say there's a problem with connotations of words, for sure. Advocates have wards or charges or simply users they're helping. They don't have "clients." I will assume good faith and merely note that under the circumstances, clarification is in order.SBHarris 19:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• I am definitely not serious Hmm, I couldn't quite figure out where in Style (manner of address) should making "Advocate" a capitalized title be added. Yours Truly, The Not-So-Esteemed-Chief-Cook-and-Bottle-Washer and Wikipedia Editor MrDolomite. And for adding this comment, I have sentenced myself to reviewing WP:TIGERS and WP:COOL while I have A nice cup of tea and a sit down. — MrDolomite | Talk 19:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• This is all the funnier (advocates giving themselves capital letters) for the fact that the Wikipedia AMA is a volunteer group and has no formal standing. Nor any power. Nor any special privilege, as a person admitted to the bar has, to argue cases "before the bar" on behalf of somebody else. They do have one use I can see, which is to speak for somebody who has been unfairly blocked and cannot speak for themselves (Wiki policy forgot to allow for that, and seems to think ArbCom cases can be constructed and submitted by email). But that's not a problem we have here. SBHarris 20:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Mr. Mestel did not capitalize the title "Advocate". I did, simply because I attached it to a proper name. I don't think there's anyone whom I owe an apology for that, except perhaps Mr. Mestel himself (inasmuch as it seems to have exposed him to a withering barrage of empty shells from the peanut gallery). In any case, I think that we should let him do the job which he has kindly volunteered to do on Wikipedia's behalf. Thanks. Asmodeus 21:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sorry if my use of the term "client" caused confusion - I simply use it as a concise method of describing the person I represent; it is not intended to signify anything deep. As the charge of Wikilawyering, that term refers to encouraging obedience to the letter, rather than the spirit, of the policy. This is exactly what WP:STALK is designed to prevent - the revealing of personal information about other users without their consent - it's a perfect example. --David Mestel^(Talk) 07:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur with David Mestel. This is precisely what WP:STALK was intended to prevent in spirit, even if it does not list all of the specific types of info posted by Hillman. Also, charges of wikilayering against DM are preposterous, since he is precisely going by the spirit and not the letter. ObsidianOrder 08:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The very first sentence of WP:STALK begins "Harassment is defined as a pattern of disruptive behavior that appears to a reasonable and objective observer to have the purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person or persons". I don't see Hillman's pages as having that purpose. Phr (talk) 08:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't see Hillman's attempt to dish the dirt on users without their consent, even describing it himself as "digging", as an attempt to cause negative emotions, speculating as to their real name, place of residence and marital status? --David Mestel^(Talk) 08:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I see it as an effort to document various apparent abuses, for the benefit of the encyclopedia. The specific disclosure you're referring to, for example, points to a serious conflict of interest that the editor in question didn't disclose when editing certain articles. CH's disclosure IMO was intended to prevent that undisclosed conflict of interest from undermining the encyclopedia's integrity. Any resulting effect it might have on the conflicted editor's emotions, positive or negative, is incidental. If CH was aiming to cause DrL distress with the disclosure, the page would have been written much differently and CH would have announced it in more places. For example, I personally only looked at the pages because one of DrL's associates complained about them at AN/I. Phr (talk) 09:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

If there is abuse, let it go through the regular channels (mediation, RfC, ArbCom etc etc). Some of the subjects of these pages have been through that and I'm not especially concerned with those (although some followup seems meritted, I would say how much and what kind should not be an individual decision). If there isn't abuse, then there is no case and hence no reason for public scrutiny, is there? What we have here is private suspicion leading to public scrutiny even though no actual case can be made against some of those editors... this is definitely harassment in my book. ObsidianOrder 10:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I wonder whether it wouldn't be better to split this MfD, since there are substantial differences between the different pages. For example, some are in relation to banned users or those strongly suspected of sockpuppetry, while others are in relation to editors in good standing with a legitemate wish to retain their privacy. --David Mestel^(Talk) 08:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd personally disfavor splitting it for now, since CH has already expressed willingness to take those differences into account, and I see the MfD mostly as a referendum on the intention behind the pages and the sensitivity that went into selecting and presenting the data. CH is already taking Tim Smith's suggestions into consideration so I'd just as soon wait and see what happens with that, before splitting out further MfD's. Also, there's some confusion here about "privacy"; Wikipedia already has a privacy policy and the dig pages don't within a mile of violating it. This is a discussion of whether some specific information that's already 100% public should be on Wikipedia instead of elsewhere. If CH (or anyone else) had taken the dug up such information and posted it anonymously to Slashdot instead of under eir name on Wikipedia, that would be protected under their free speech rights and nobody could do anything about it. CH in my opinion really is showing great care in this matter. Phr (talk) 09:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

    Just because something isn't illegal doesn't mean we should allow it on Wikipedia. For example, making legal threats isn't illegal, but is strictly forbidden here. --David Mestel^(Talk) 09:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

    I completely agree with the sentiment that "just because it's legal doesn't mean we should allow it on Wikipedia". That's why the details matter. We can't just say "well, it's legal, so it's ok"; there might be good reasons against it. We also can't just say "well, it has personal information, so we have to delete it even if there's good reason for having it". The issues with these specific pages are subtle enough that we're having a community discussion about them, and a lot of us do feel there's good reason for keeping them. Phr (talk) 09:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

    Given that the reasons are, at least in some, cases, shaky at best, I think that users' overriding right to privacy in their personal life trumps that. --David Mestel^(Talk) 10:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I hope nobody minds, I sprinkled a few section marks through the article, to make it easier to edit. I hope I didn't break up the flow of any sequences of comments. Feel free to move them if I did, and to add more of them as needed. Phr (talk) 09:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

  Thanks; it does make editing much easier. --David Mestel^(Talk) 10:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Unless I miscounted, I found:

• Keep -- 21 opinions
• Delete -- 5 opinions

The voting appears to split along rather predictable lines: the majority seems to view this as a more or less benign activity, with some concern shown, and some leeway granted. Of the minority, two are involved in a recent and very verbose, very wiki-lawyered dispute and are accused of being the same person. A third was involved in previous disputes along similar lines (as were many of the 'keep' voters), and two newcomers to this type of case. linas 03:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment Come on, now. As everyone knows, the "majority" were invited here by User Hillman because they had previously participated in an AfD to which they were lured on the false pretext that its topic was "pseudoscience" purporting to be "physics". In other words, they were deliberately misled by somebody who had cunningly calculated that they would react by supporting his position. As one of those awful wikilawyers might say, the jury was stacked like bales in a hayloft. User Hillman, evidently pleased with the results, simply renewed their invitations in the expectation of a repeat performance, and it is no surprise that they obliged. (By the way, which two participants are "accused of being the same person", who is doing the accusing, and on what evidence?) Asmodeus 05:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, unless you have actual evidence of Hillman soliciting users. --David Mestel^(Talk) 11:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Response Of course - I'm trying to assume good faith wherever humanly possible. It's just that early on in this process, I checked the talk pages of the participants and found that most of them had been RSVP'd by Hillman. (For example see linas' own talk page.) I also noted that many of them had participated in the CTMU AfD/DR, in which it was established that misinformation regarding that topic had been posted in inappropriate places (special-interest pages other than the actual category of the topic). Please see here and here. Hillman therefore knew that he was merely re-selecting a group of participants which was artificially selected in the first place, and which in the large had previously supported him against the subjects of his "dig pages". (Even if some of Hillman's invitations have been deliberately removed from the talk pages of the invitees, they should remain in the edit histories.) Perhaps this helps explain why there was an early influx of "keep" recommendations in this MfD, and why the tally is incredibly lopsided given the extremely hurtful and violative nature of Hillman's abusive digging enterprises. Asmodeus 14:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Linas, in your perfectly legitemate attempt to discredit those arguing for keep (this is an established part of the XfD process), it would be helpful if you named those on whom you comment, to facilitate response. A brief reply to your last comment: part of it seems to be a Catch 22, since either one has been "involved in previous disputes along similar lines", or one is a "newcomer to this type of case". --David Mestel^(Talk) 11:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I suspect I'm one of the "newcomers" described in the half-completed tally description. I was hoping that a detailed characterization of all the "kinds" of keep supporters would appear soon, but I guess that's taking longer.

Honestly, I don't feel comfortable posting in much detail on a thread like this. In fact, there are a lot of edits I've wanted to make on some controversial pages in main space -- edits I think would be real improvements -- but if the consequences of making those edits could leave me on someone's "dig" page with speculation about what city I live in, who I may be married to, or what I do for my employment? And jesus, what if I forget to log in and suddenly the digger's got my home and work IP's run through GeoIP? Forget it. No couple of improvements are worth it if someone who disagrees is going to start "digging" into my life in meatspace and chronicling it in a bunch of user subpages. No, not even if I'm notified about it and offered "compromises".

Sure, I'll bet there are some marginal vandal- and sock-fighting strategies that can be gained from interpreting the personal details and attack page policies to spike out this kind of behavior, but the cost is too high.

Sure, you can make distinctions between some of the pages. Some only have info on IP's, without any personal info speculation. The Langan page, though, is terrifying. I cannot imagine reading that and not thinking it's posting personal information.

Absolutely, the blocking policy does not require that the user who created these be blocked. All I'd like to see come out of this is for the entire digging project to be removed. If the only way to ensure their deletion is blocking User:Hillman, then I won't object. It seems like that user pretty much only deals with digging pages these days anyway.

So, what if digging could enable high-accuracy sockpuppet intervention, with real stopping power? It's a good question. But asking it with dig pages always seems to be WP:POINT, no matter how I try to look at it. If the bots get better and the volunteers get broken, we may have to revisit this in the future. I can wait.

Is this sufficient to allow my opinion to be reclassified from unnamed "newcomer" to perhaps something else? Thanks.

—ptk⁂fgs 11:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

After giving the matter considerable thought, I would like to float the following policy. This is not (yet) written up as precisely as it should be but it should serve to start a discussion, I hope.

One: _Any_ information about people (editors or anyone else) may be posted on any page (article, talk or user pages) _only_ if it passes the same test as it would have to pass in order to be included in a biographical article about that person, if one existed. So conjecture, rumor, hearsay or any other kind of poorly sourced info is right out. If I say that X did Y, I had better have a link to a newspaper article (or equivalent reliable source) that says that. Note that Wikipedia edit history is itself a source, which obviously may be treated as a reliable source on the subject of which user id made what edits, but nothing else.

Two: _Any_ information about editors' _real-life_ identities may only be posted if (a) the editor explicitly stated it (in which case it is courteous to link to that edit) or (b) if the editor is a notable person (for example, they have a Wikipedia page about them) _and_ they have said they are that person _and_ the information comes from a reliable source _and_ it is not one of certain classes of information we don't want to disseminate (such as private phone numbers or addresses). So when it comes to real-life identities of editors, you can either just quote what they themselves said, or if they are a notable/public person you can say things which would be suitable for inclusion in their bio page.

Three: _Any_ information pertaining to the _online_ (as opposed to real-life) identity and activities of an editor is fair game, if it is reasonably well sourced. So correlating edits of different anons in order to determine whether they are the same person is ok, but guessing that person's name or what city they live in is absolutely not ok. The vast majority of information of the type typically posted to the ANB (for example to track sockpuppets) is of this type, and hence not affected by this policy.

Four: The above three guidelines may be waived in regard to certain editors, if necessary to deal with particularly obnoxious cases, but only through a certain administrative process (to be determined; perhaps as part of an ArbCom ruling? or an RfD - Request for Digging?). In any event, it should be necessary to establish _first_ that someone merits such scrutiny before applying it, and the process for doing so should involve a number of people. I really don't much care about the details of the process, as long as it is not a one-person decision, and as long it can be appealed.

Five: None of the above should be construed to mean that an individual editor cannot engage in digging, as much as they want - but they cannot post the results of that on Wikipedia except if it meets the above guidelines. In other words, dig to your heart's content - if you find something that you think merits an administrative waiver, contact an admin, get a waiver, and then post it.

Motivation:

One: privacy is one of the cornerstones of civilized society. While in fact there is a wealth of information about all of us is readily available online, communities require the polite fiction that that is not so in order to function. Everyone may (and undoubtedly will) scrutinize everyone else as much as they want, in private. But to make the scrutiny public without an extremely good reason destroys the functioning of a community.

Two: scrutiny of the type that Hillman engages in can and does turn people away (arguably, she does it precisely in order to turn away people viewed as undesirable). This is not the Wikipedia way. For those unfamiliar with the specific cases, many (not all) of those people are productive editors who make good-faith edits; they are not vandals. Such scrutiny should really be reserved to a very small number of cases, and engaging in it should not be the decision of one individual. When in doubt, assume good faith, and consequently don't dig.

Comments?

ObsidianOrder 08:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

1. I don't think an MfD is the right place to discuss such a proposal. The MfD should stick to the narrow question of whether the specific pages under discussion should be deleted or not deleted. That decision should be completely independent of other hypothetical pages that might have some characteristics in common.
2. The reason we have an MfD about these specific pages (rather than about the general principle of allowing such pages) is indeed to decide whether a "good reason" exists for having these specific pages. My "keep" vote, for example, expresses my opinion that for these specific pages, a good reason exists. It by no means applies to other digging that other people might post. Phr (talk) 08:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Obsidian, we have had previous discussions on the difficult issue of digging (thanks for reminding me where to find that, incidently) and I appreciate your input! I would like to discuss this with you and others further. My hope is that despite the large gulf between our current positions, in civil discussion we can find some common ground to help us author (perhaps) competing drafts of a proposed policy regulating "digging", which clearly we both agree is urgently needed.

However, I strongly agree with Phr that this is not the place to propose a new policy; see Wikipedia:How_to_create_policy. I am concerned that the MfD will be distorted if you start discussing this here. Also I am about to go on break for a week as per my user talk page and I hope you won't rush to propose a new policy as per the HowTo in my absence, since this matter concerns me too! Here's my idea: you move this section to someplace in your user page (leaving a note with a link here) and refine your draft proposal. I'll be back in a week and will start drafting my own proposal and will leave a note on your talk page so we can link discussion of the two drafts. Please note that there is some good advice in the page I've cite and ones it links to about how to propose a policy in such a way that it actually becomes enacted after discussion and modification. Note that being hasty seems to guarantee failure. Hope you are agreeable to my proposal. ---CH 16:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Phr: thank you for the comments. I have never been involved in writing a policy so I would appreciate any suggestions on how to proceed. I will look for a more suitable place to post this.

At the same time, it is certainly relevant to the MfD, for several reasons: Hillman specifically said she wanted to have the MfD serve as a spur for formulating policy; people reading the MfD would be thinking about the very same issues; and I think if one agrees with the general outline of this proposal it provides a way to examine the merits of these specific pages. Namely:

Is the info on the pages in question reliably sourced? No, it is mostly conjecture.

Is it info about real-life identities? Yes, much of it is. (and it is prohibited by existing policy: WP:STALK)

Is it provided by the people in question themselves? No, it is not.

Have the people in question behaved in such a way as to merit special scrutiny? I would say most haven't (although opinions will differ on that).

Was there any kind prior of community decision process to determine whether they merit scrutiny? No, there was not. Regardless of the answers to the other questions, that is the absolute stumbling block. The correct order of business is to delete the pages, then look at cases and decide whether they merit extra scrutiny (and by that I mean: a similar level of evidence as would be needed for other administrative action against the people in question), and then restore the pages for those who do. At a glance, Sarfatti is the only one of those who already pass that criterion, but then again there are a number of pages dedicated to tracking him already.

ObsidianOrder 09:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The info is sourced with diffs from edits provided by the people in question. What you call "conjecture" others would call "reasonable inferences". WP:STALK is about behavior done with the intention of causing emotional distress, which IMO was not the goal of these pages. The community process to determine whether the people in question have behaved in a way as to merit special scrutiny is, in fact, taking place right now in this MfD. I haven't commented much on the specific behavior because an RfC (not an MfD) is the right place for that. But you can interpret my "keep" vote as an expression that in my opinion, the people in question have behaved in a way that merits extra scrutiny. Phr (talk) 09:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC) (Forgot to add): Re your discussion of delete first and discuss after, that makes it a bit difficult since people can't see what they're discussing. I think what happened was not ideal but was not too bad: Tim Smith posted about the pages at AN/I, several admins looked at the pages and chose not to intervene, and now we're here. We do appoint the admins because we trust their judgement about stuff like this. If the pages in question were really bad, they'd have done something immediately. (And I could add, many of us are here because Tim chose to call admin attention to the pages publicly instead of privately. Admins are supposed to have email enabled. Until Tim did that, AFAIK the pages were sitting unnoticed in CH's userspace with at most a few of CH's fairly close co-editors aware of them.) Phr (talk) 10:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I understood your vote to mean that ;)

The info about _online_ activities is indeed sourced, and I think is not in question. The info about _real-life_ identities is pure conjecture, or I would rather say "wild assed guess", for example: User:Hillman/Dig/Langan#Gina LoSasso or User:Hillman/Dig/Frieden. Whether it is a "reasonable" inference is utterly immaterial; it is not properly sourced.

"WP:STALK is about..." - I think it is quite clear that posting personal information is not ok regardless of intent. It is a bit less clear about what is personal information, but ... I would say any information about someone who is not a public figure (in the newspaper sense) and which did not come from them directly is "personal". ObsidianOrder 09:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You may be confusing user pages with enclopedia articles. Encyclopedia articles have to be sourced. The pages in question are investigative notes and as such are perfectly free to contain relevant conjecture for further study. I didn't see the stuff at the Langan page as irresponsible. I believe I looked at the Frieden page but I don't remember specifics. Phr (talk) 10:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not confusing the two; I'm proposing that in regard to personal information all pages be held to the same standard as article pages. Re: Langan - I am shocked that you think that is ok. Depending on whether User:DrL is who CH thinks, the conjecture ("wild assed guess") on that page could either be seen as damaging to two people because it isn't true, or damaging to one person because it is. There is already a policy which touches on this, WP:LIVING: "Editors should remove any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material from biographies of living persons and their talk pages, and may do so without discussion; this is also listed as an exception to the three-revert rule. This principle also applies to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia.". This applies to user pages as well, obviously. ObsidianOrder 10:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, you're right, it does say that; I mainly remembered the recent arb case saying stuff only had to be removed from talk pages if it was actually libelous [2]. I will think about this. Phr (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: delete first, discuss later: I think WP should certainly follow its own policies. Many of the dig pages claim to give the legal names corresponding to certain usernames. This is explicitly prohibited by WP:STALK. Ergo, those pages should be speedy-deleted. There is nothing to talk about here. We can have a nice discussion about coming up with a new policy after we have actually shown that we follow established policy, otherwise why bother? ObsidianOrder 10:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

These WP: documents that you're talking about are internal editorial policies that shouldn't be broken without a good reason; however, in any particular instance, the project is entitled to decide (usually by community discussion, which is what we're having now) whether to enforce them or not. The project is in these cases answerable only to itself as long as it doesn't break any laws. To get acronymish, see WP:IAR (which has been toned down a lot since I looked at it last, hmm). All these WP:* policies you speak of are subidiary to WP:ENC. And as several people have mentioned already, privacy (which is not a WP:*) is at most indirectly impacted here; we're discussing whether a particular expression of public info is ok. Remember it's a deliberate decision, not an accident, that the Wikipedia software displays the IP addresses of non-logged-in users to everyone, and not (say) just to admins. It's for the precise purpose of helping track down abuse, the addresses are displayed expecting us to type them into WHOIS, and they're constantly used to do things like identify spammers and vanity edits (another example of connecting supposedly anon edits to real-world identities). The dig pages are there to investigate apparent abuses of a particularly insidious kind, and CH has in my opinion written the pages carefully to cause as little distress as possible and to not overdisclose, while still documenting the relevant info. So I'm looking at them mainly with an eye towards whether they benefit the encyclopedia, and in my view they do. Phr (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, once the personal information digs do become verifiably sourced -- that's when I probably get so spooked that I just shut down my account and go do something else. WP:BLOCK#Posting_personal_details makes no distinction between accruate and speculative posts, and I don't see a reason it should. —ptk⁂fgs 12:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• I concur with the proposal. However, perhaps the Village Pump would be a better place to propose it. --David Mestel^(Talk) 08:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Village pump might be ok too, I guess. I haven't been there in a while because of how excessively large the pages get. I'd prefer that it wait til this mfd closes and maybe til people get back from Wikimania. Phr (talk) 08:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• A well-formulated proposal like this is precisely what's needed. There is no doubt that Wikipedia has problems with stalking, POV-pushing, conflict of interest, sockpuppetry, gaming the system, and other counterproductive behaviors. In order to preserve the encyclopedic integrity of the Wikipedia Project, these issues need to be addressed clearly and in light of existing conventions. Guidelines like these, which consistently relate all of the core policies applicable in the present context, are absolutely crucial to that end. Without them, all we have are people attempting to "game" their own ill-considered policies into place while ignoring policies which have already been clearly and legitimately established. DrL 13:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep in mind: "The wikilawyers and trolls always want a codified set of rules on an issue, so they can subvert the spirit while adhering to the letter" (Charles Matthews). I'm fine with having some rfc to clarify our thinking. In the end, though, things like the dig pages need to be community judgement calls. Phr (talk) 13:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

    That's all very well, but I think that this does need some serious clarification, which is probably best put towards formulation of a policy or guideline in order to prevent disputes in the future. --David Mestel^(Talk) 18:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

    • So, shall we, then, move this off to someplace where proposed policy is discussed? I haven't seen an XfD before where folks were introducing new policies to redefine the debate, at least not on the same page. I believe it is legitimate to worry that folks will be tempering their opinions with "what might be" if this policy ever gains wide consensus. —ptk⁂fgs 12:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.