Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Evidence or essay? 2 RE: Evidence presented by MONGO 3 Spyware 4 Pseudonymity 5 Removal of section of evidence given by "Name Redacted" 6 Request for Civility in Discussions of Making Light and Teresa Nielsen Hayden 7 Private Evidence?

[edit] Evidence or essay?

SlimVirgin's contribution appears to be an essay rather than evidence, and probably does not belong on the evidence page. It strictly gives her opinion and line of argument on the issue, without citing any actual events or diffs. Daniel Brandt's contribution is similarly mostly in the nature of a statement of opinion, though it does at least make some references to actual events. These statements would be better placed on a talk page, or as proposed principles or remedies on the Workshop page, than on the evidence page. *Dan T.* 04:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I note that, since I wrote the above, several other additions, coming from "both sides" of the issue, also seem to be more essays and opinion pieces than presentations of evidence. Perhaps I'm wrong about the intended purpose of the evidence page? *Dan T.* 15:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. I thought that the evidence section was meant for both concrete evidence regarding the happenings in the case, and for your general thoughts about the case. I could be wrong, though; if there's a more appropriate place to "essay-ish" opinions on the issue, I'd gladly move my evidence there. Melsaran (talk) 15:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Evidence presented by MONGO

Mongo quotes a conversation he and I had back in 2006 as evidence that I was a "harasser" and a "troll". Says Mongo:

Even after the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO case was settled and the remedy that links to ED "may" be removed, I was harassed about it when I removed only a few links so, many, times, it, could, only, be, because they thought it was funny...to troll my talkpage about something that I was obviously not interested in chatting about.

I would just like to point out that the conversation I had with him was a good faith discussion, and I sincerely apologized to MONGO for upsetting him by discussing an unpleasant subject with him. [1]. I did not find his distress at all funny-- the "funny" is a 2007 quote from a completely different context that had nothing to do with MONGO.

Ironically MONGO's mischaracterization of my 2006 interaction with him probably violates NPA and CIVILITY, but I think repoting it to one of the notice boards would probably just inflame the situation, not resolve it. I know MONGO has had trouble with this in the past, and I sincerely am open to any suggestions as to how I can help MONGO understand that I am not trying to harass him/troll him. --Alecmconroy 05:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

submit this as evidence. Viridae^Talk 05:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ya think? his allegations are sufficently far removed from the issue at hand that it seems a waste of space to trouble the arbs with it. I'm not a party, nobody's suggesting any remedies involving me. There's a certain "Don't Feed The Distractions" principle that makes me think this is best left to talk. --Alecmconroy 06:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Alecmconroy was warned about his harassment, he was but one of many people who harassed me after I was merely doing as the MONGO ruling permitted and endorsed. The facts of the case are, that partisans for ED and other websites of similar manner will wikilaywer to death any arbitration remedy that results in banning links to websites that post personally revealing information about our editors.--MONGO 06:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Mongo-- ad hominem doesn't help anyone. Please do not call me a "troll", a "harasser", or a ED partisan. We all know you've been warned on multiple occasions that this is a "problem behavior" for you. Everyone in this Arbitration has been working well together, acting under the mutual assumption of good faiths. Don't spoil that now. You and I have a philosophical difference of opinion about what Wikipedia should be, but that's no reason for us to just start name-calling. --Alecmconroy 06:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Is that what I called you? My "philosophical difference" in opinion about what this website is all about is well detailed on my userpage...I'm here to write an encyclopedia and to work with others who have suffered harassment to try and find a way to ensure they don't have to deal with the same badgering and wikilawyering nonsense that I did.--MONGO 06:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The goal of saving others from harassment is a virtue indeed, Mongo, but it is not the only virtue. Consider-- as of this moment, you are presenting evidence to the Arbitration Committee that that I "trolled" your page and "found it funny". You are testifying not that we had a difference of opinion, but that I intentionally harrassed you for my own amusement. That is a very serious charge, and you should take some time to seriously consider whether you really believe that is true.

If, upon reflection, you find that you truly do know that I'm just a good-faith editor here to do my best to improve wikipedia-- that's fine no harm done. Everyone gets hot under the collar and makes hyperbolic posts. I'm thick skinned, and it doesn't distress me that somebody in an intense debate can sometimes get a little angry.

Or on the other hand, maybe you weren't overwhelmed by anger, but instead you just care so deeply about your principles that you think falsly disparaging my character is the only way to salvage what you see as an essential Wikipedia policy. That also wouldn't concern me-- we have an entry on "ad hominen" for a reason, and it is often an effective debating tactic.

What does truly concern me, however, is the prospect that you might truly, in your heart of hearts, genuinely believe I'm a "harasser" and "troll". That you might automatically equate disagreement with bad faith, that you may be unable to distinguish one from the other. I genuinely hope you're just angry, or that you're just resorting to namecalling in the absence of better arguments. But if you, having had over a year to look over my actions, having received my multiple apologies, and having gotten to know me-- if you still really believe what you say in your evidence section.... then it is probably only a matter of time before you are indefinitely banned from participation in the project for contributing more to discord than you do to harmony.

A year ago, after our conversation, I apologized, and I called on the larger community to reach out to help you, because I realized from your actions you were a good person who was having a problem. I didn't ask them to block you, I didn't ask them to desysop you-- I just asked them to help you understand, so that you would be able to stop future occurances of that behavior. In the end, we failed and you failed, and the behavior continued, and now Wikipedia has one less admin to help with important tasks.

I face a similar quandary now. The Evidence you present is unconscienable, and I'm a bit at a loss as to how to help you in the situation. Proposing some sort of warning be administered to you is unlikely to help you-- you've already received several such warnings. Propose a block or a ban would just be admitting defeat-- giving up any hope of solving your behavior problems. I thought time might resolve the situation, buti over a year, I believe I've been nothing but polite and respectful towards you-- yet still you accuse me of harassment and trolling. I'm a little unsure what to do to help you.

All I can think of is to say is this: Seriously look at the evidence you presented and ask yourself if that evidence is what you truly want your contribution to this very important discussion to be.

I hope my words help. I truly do. --Alecmconroy 08:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The evidence is in the diffs...your continued badgering led to increasingly less polite comments by me, and many commentators on AN/I[2] responded to your complaint that indeed, you were badgering and wikilaywering. My point is, by bringing your badgering up, that this is what I faced when dealing with those who want to link to websites, even after the arbcom has said not to. An arbitrator eventually adjusted all the links in accordance with the remedy anonymously voted on in the MONGO case. You badgered me about my removal of about 20 of them...if arbcom passes a remedy that states that links to other websites "may" be removed...surely, the badgering wikilawyers will harass those who do such removals. I'm a little unsure what to do to help you. I hope my words help. I truly do.--MONGO 20:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

A few people did say I handled the conversation poorly by failing to pick up on your Wikistress. I'm one of them-- I've apologized several times for upsetting you. By throwing it back in my face now, a year later, is a continuation of the problem behavior you've exhibited in the past. --Alecmconroy 11:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is that you saw an extremely inappropriate post, trivialising the fact that people have had their jobs threatened and their families harassed, and mocking those who have suffered in that way as well as those who want to treat them with consideration, and instead of being disgusted, you said that it made you chuckle. That indicates that you don't really care very much about the distress that was caused to MONGO and others. ElinorD (talk) 11:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. But remember, I was the one who deleted the Rutabaga as inappropriate--- it was you who readded it back. And my chuckle was at the use of the Rutabaga as a literary device, not at Mongo's pain. If Mongo genuinely believes I have found his pain comical, then I happily and sincerely apologize for that as well. --Alecmconroy 11:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The noble goal of protecting people from harrassment is hardly served by cheapening the very concept of "harrassment" by labeling legitimate commentary with that name. *Dan T.* 12:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the one who cheapened the concept of harassment, Dan, is yourself, in that extremely inappropriate Rutabaga post. ElinorD (talk) 11:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

On the whole concept of badgering-- consider the story the 19th century zen master Tanzan.

Tanzan and one of his students were once traveling on a long journey. They came to a river where they saw met a lovely girl, wearing a silk kimono, unable to cross without getting wet.

"Come on, girl," said Tanzan at once. Lifting her into his arms, he carried her across the river, and set her down when they reached the opposite bank.

Since monks were forbidden to associate with women, the student looked at Tanzan disapprovingly. He kept his criticism to himself for a long time, refusing to speak to Tanzan for several hours. Finally that night, the student could no longer restrain himself. "Master, I do not think it is appropriate for monks to carry a woman, as you did."

Tanzan replied to the student: "I left the woman back at the river. It is you who have carried her this far."

If, in Summer of 2006, I badgered Mongo by raising important questions about a controversial ruling, then clearly I should have had that very essential discussion in a different venue-- and I apologized long ago for any upsetness he experienced by my discussion. But when, a year later, Mongo introduces it as an ad-hominem attack in an arbcom case in which the good faith of all parties is not in question, who is it that is truly guilty of badgering? --Alecmconroy 11:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spyware

Regarding Mantanmoreland's evidence link (to an attack site attacking the attacker who made an attack site! how neat!) where it alleges "spyware" on WordBomb's part: I'm a techie geek myself, so I'll comment that, while the technique used by WordBomb to pretend to be somebody else and do a sneaky technique to gain information about others was not very kosher, it wasn't as all-powerful as the critics would like to scare everybody into thinking. He didn't embed viruses, trojan-horses, or spyware on Slim's computer, in the sense that those things are generally regarded by computer professionals. What he did was send an HTML file that included an embedded image on his server, which, if opened in a web browser on the end user's computer, will cause the graphic to be requested and thus a log entry made at the server's computer giving the IP address of the requester, and possibly some other information such as a referrer URL where the image was embedded. This could reveal some personal information, but it won't scan the user's hard drive and transmit information from it to the sender, as implied by the comments. Probably the writer is referring to how, if a referrer URL is given to the file on the recipient's local hard drive, that would reveal facts about their directory structure, but at least the browser I use has the good sense not to send private files like that in its referer data; perhaps this might vary for other browsers. Anyway, good sense in safe computing, in this time of widespread viruses, spambots, and the like, is to be highly wary about opening any files that come to you in ZIP archives from people you don't know well. *Dan T.* 16:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This is part of a general pattern of using loaded terminology, like "stalking", "harrassing", and "spyware", in a manner that is highly stretched and contorted to cover things that are not quite what you say they are, in order to convince people that there's a uniquely evil thing to get into a moral panic about. *Dan T.* 16:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

So what's your IP address? I'm sure you'll be happy to share since its no big deal. Thatcher131 21:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It really isn't. Mine is 65.102.1.93 Zurishaddai 23:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Any time I go to any website, I'm revealing my IP to its system administrator, if they choose to look at the logs. If it's a blog, forum, or wiki, and I make any sort of post there leaving my name, I'm letting the admin connect my name to the IP. Since I'm not a privacy freak (I use my real name anyway), it is no big deal to me. *Dan T.* 00:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you believe in forcing your attitude on others involuntarily? Are you in favor of discarding the privacy policy and granting checkuser access to every admin? Thatcher131 10:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that the use of this technique was a good, nice, friendly, desirable thing to do... just that it wasn't "installing spyware on her system" or any sort of absolutely unspeakably evil thing worthy of a horrendous arch-villain. *Dan T.* 11:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing like so absolutely unspeakably evil as removing a link to a site that enables stalkers to find out where someone lives, or to a site where they discuss an administrator's underwear and whether she thinks about being raped. ElinorD (talk) 11:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It's unreasonable to assume that any genuine stalker is so unenterprising as to be stymied by the removal of a link to a site that Google indexes. Mangoe 13:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Web bug. All good email clients should automatically block them. And this is my ip -> 166.166.224.24 00:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC) :)

Also, your ip address is normally included in the email headers, so if you don't want your ip known, make sure that your email client isn't sending out your ip. 166.166.224.24 00:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The biggest deal for most users about revealing an IP address is the possibility of a DDOS attack, which means you can't edit wikipedia for a while due to clogged tubes. That may be a good thing? If you have a dynamic IP it's even less of a big deal. 61.99.151.93 04:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudonymity

Durova's list of famous authors who used pseudonyms brings up the question "And your point is?" It's apparently intended to argue against the straw man that "Pseudonymity is crooked and evil" or something to that effect. Maybe some on the "attack sites" are actually arguing that (though on some of those sites the authors use pseudonymity or anonymity themselves). However, it is not something that seems to be a common line of argument here. Rather, some have been suggesting that preserving the secret identities involved is not as intense a moral imperative as proponents of pseudonymity argue, and "outing" is not necessarily as much of an act of pure evil as is regularly suggested, though doing it against the outed person's wishes is certainly not a nice, polite thing. The famous-persons list actually bears this out, since the real names of those people are actually known and are included in the opening paragraphs of their biographies. One might add the case of James Tiptree, Jr., actually Alice Sheldon, a notable science fiction author of the '60s through '80s who was a woman writing under a male pseudonym, and was in fact outed against her will by a fan who stalked her to the post office box where she received her correspondence. That's just the sort of behavior that's treated as the apex of evil when done to Wikipedians, but her "outing" was in fact reported in the science fiction press, and I don't know of any publications being declared "attack publications" and banned from being referenced in the more respectable SF magazines as a result of mentioning the author's real name once she had been outed. *Dan T.* 11:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The big issue around pseudonymous editing is, of course, that it can be used to cover malign editing. That's the substance of the attack upon certain people, particularly as it revolves around the ASM.net case. Gary Weiss is alleged to be administering Wikipedia; Judd Bagley is alleged to be on WR. There's also the issue that the apparent lack of discipline in Wikipedia allows it to be used as a base to launch very high profile attacks against outsiders, beause in general the NPA policy is only held to protect editors.

The thing is that anonymity is already considered to be a limited right, because the campaign against sockpuppets transgresses it. I think we shouldn't address exactly how limited that right should be, as that is really a policy question. But the discussion must admit that it is not unlimited. Mangoe 12:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Not so, Mangoe: an editor's actual identity isn't necessarily part of a sockpuppet investigation. Durova^Charge! 03:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Giving real names isn't the only possible transgression against anonymity. Mangoe 12:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what other transgression you mean, but I see no contradiction here. When I investigate possible disruptive sockpuppetry the question I seek to answer is is this the same editor who did this other stuff? I have no idea what Runcorn/Poetlister's real world identity is, and frankly I don't care. The key thing is that they're the same person. Occasionally a real name plays into one of the more complex investigations, and when it does that happens because of the editor's own disclosures. I've repeatedly asked ArbCom to clarify the appropriate limits for that in some way that doesn't boil down to WP:ILIKEIT v. WP:IDONTLIKEIT. In the absence of formal clarification I've proceeded conservatively and with the utmost attention to consistent standards. If you wish to claim otherwise, that is a very serious allegation against my administrative ethics. I dislike innuendo: please withdraw it or follow through appropriately by adding my name to this case and supplying a well-researched set of diffs as formal evidence that I may rebut formally. I have every confidence that the facts will back me up. Durova^Charge! 14:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, though, that since Wikipedia is in the real world, asking if two editors are the same person is a real world identity question. Indeed, even recording IP addresses for people who don't establish a user name is a small transgression against anonymity, as it is used to presume that people editing from the same address are probably the same person. I'm not trying to argue against investigations of sockpuppetry, and I don't think this is the place for me to complain about abuses I may or may not have identified. That there may be abuses is irrelevant. The point is that our notion of anonymity here is not the absolute thing that has been implied in the ban on naming names; it is a complex balancing of a variety of concerns, and surely therefore is a policy matter that needs its own discussion and consideration of context. But also, as several other people have pointed out, in a contest between it and the Bug Three core policies, it is inevitably going to give way. That is why external criticism of Wikipedia is from time to time going to name names; some people are going to try to bend Wikipedia to their real-world objectives, and real-world reporting/investigation of that is going to tie the editor name with the real name. We have to adopt a more sophisticated approach to this than saying that "naming names is bad." Mangoe 15:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

GDFL licensure requires some notation of authorship and Wikipedia has chosen (and fully disclosed) that an editor's IP address will be used in the absence of a registered username. I'm not sure how you argue that as a transgression - perhaps you're attributing a different position to me than the one I've actually taken? Durova^Charge! 06:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I can appreciate how this can require people to use some sort of identification. Of course, it creates fictitious people when multiple "anonymous" people use the same IP, but that's frosting on the cake. And it means they aren't fully anonymous. It's a passive limitation on anonymity, but it is a limitation. But when we move to identification of sockpuppets, the whole point is active identification of people as being the same "real world" person. We even have Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets which has 189 subcats for different people. I'm not saying this is bad; I'm just saying that we already accept that the right to anonymity is already limited on the basis of how someone behaves in Wikipedia. And the greater world takes the same viewpoint. If someone's editing, say User:Judd Bagley/User:Wordbomb, presents issues in the eyes of outsiders, they are going to expose that person if they can and if it's relevant. There's only so much we can fight that principle. For example, the identity of Gary Weiss as a Wikipedia editor is very much in the background of the whole BADSITES controversy, as it figures in two of the cases we've been discussing. I have no idea whether the identification typically made is accurate, but if he is an editor, the nature of his edits is real-world relevant. And it would be relevant for much the same reason that sockpuppetry is relevant. Mangoe 14:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I wish I had a nickel for every time Bagley and his apologists have promised thunder and brimstone in the media flowing from what he has alleged. There has been substantial negative publicity, against Bagley. Just read the section on ASM in Overstock.com. You anti-badsites people have an arguable case, but when you glibly repeat his smears you just make yourself look bad and damage your case.--Samiharris 15:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Since when has anyone here repeated his "smears"? I'm not saying that his accusations are true; in fact, I don't want to defend him at all. Even were his accustations true, they wouldn't sway my opinion of him. However, if they were shown to be true, it would reveal a long-standing COI issue. The point is not whether or not they are true, but rather that they are a prototype for a situation which, if it happened, would potentially be very damaging to Wikipedia. BADSITES would be a significant impediment to handling such a crisis because it could used both by the perpetrators and unwitting bystanders to prevent the truth from appearing in Wikipedia's pages. And it's simply a matter of time before that cirsis arrives, because there are malifactors who aren't as clumsy as Bagley was. Essjay's lies, after all, weren't detected until (a) Brandt looked at how much editing he was doing and questioned whether he could hold down the job he claimed he had, and (b) Jordan accidentally/on-purpose put up a conflicting description of himself that allowed someone to compare the two and raise questions.

Attempts to bend Wikipedia to the purpose of outer-world conflicts are going to continue forever; it's only a matter of time before someone mounts a sophisticated enough attack to succeed in co-opting their little part of it. And I suspect that it's only a matter of time before someone co-opts adminstrator powers in doing so. When that happens, editor identities are going to be notable. Period. We can prepare for that day now and put some controls on the attack sites weapon, or someone will surely use it against us. Mangoe 21:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"Since when has anyone here repeated his "smears"? Since you commenced doing so in this discussion. Attempts to bend Wikipedia to the purpose of outer-world conflicts are going to continue forever which is Bagley's five dozen sockpuppets have been blocked and more new ones are being blocked each day. When you interject his lies into talk page discussions, which is what Bagley's sockpuppets do in a less nuanced way, you become part of the problem not the solution.--Samiharris 14:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

In the specific instance of Will Beback's behavior toward Teresa Nielsen Hayden, what I gather from corresponding privately with him is that he harbored some suspicion that we were the same person (or some such) and when I lost my temper and told him to get lost, he then had a look over at Making Light and found material that displeased him and so began cutting all links.

A quick trip to Google would establish pretty clearly that TNH and I are very different people. I know her and she worked in the same office as my husband at the time of the incident, but I am not her.

As nearly as I can tell, focusing on patterns in edit history, etc. (and substituing that for on a sensible evalution of whether two wellknown non-anoymous people are the same person) is partly what led Will Beback to make a mess. --Pleasantville 12:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If I gave the impression that I thought you were the same person as TNH then that was a mistake. I never thought that. Rather, when you went reacted so harshly to me I looked on Google to see if there were off-Wiki discusons that might have inflamed the situation and that is how I found the material on Making Light. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of section of evidence given by "Name Redacted"

I am puzzled by what was up with this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration%2FAttack_sites%2FEvidence&diff=159318236&oldid=159233886, in which comments by someone going by "Name Redacted" were removed on the basis that the person speaking was a banned user. Since the individual hadn't come to the point yet, it wasn't clear what he intended to say. But it seems a bit off-key to censor such comments in what is essentially a discussion of censorship. --Pleasantville 12:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not up to speed on this particular user, but here's a complete list Fred Bauder 22:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Civility in Discussions of Making Light and Teresa Nielsen Hayden

I am disturbed by the tone adopted by some editors in discussion of Teresa Nielsen Hayden and of Making Light in the context of te various discussion pages of this Request for Arbitration. I request that contributors to this discussion refrain from snide remarks and use of deragotory terms such as "kooky", in keeping with the spirit of WPCIVIL and WPNPA. --Pleasantville 13:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Private Evidence?

How much evidence has been submitted privately in regards to this case? How much private discussion has occurred between individuals with interest in this case and the arbitors?

None, Some, Lots?

This case appears to be a public airing of grievances and evidence, but is a large amount of private pleading taking place off Wiki? Uncle uncle uncle 20:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It will not be known publicly. Those who know privately are either keen to keep it private (otherwise it would have been produced in public) or are under an obligation to keep it private. One can only trust that there are excellent reasons to avoid wider scrutiny, ironically an application of AGF usually absent from the situations that engender the submitting of evidence privately. LessHeard vanU 20:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I would have been more comfortable submitted the correspondence I submitted privately. It would have been nice if that option were generally known if in fact it is in use. --Pleasantville 16:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, the whole notion of secret evidence is a sort of dangerous one. I hope, for example, that in a case against a specific party where that party might be facing sanctions, they would be allowed to see all relevant evidence that was submitted against them, for example. I don't think it's much of a problem here, where we've had so much public discussion, but it would be unfortunate to ever see a case where Arbcom said "You're banned on the basis of secret evidence that you didn't have a chance to rebut and we're not telling you what the evidence was". Seems like humans have tried that kind of thing in the past, and it usually turns out badly. --Alecmconroy 23:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a sidenote - revealing whether or not there is secret evidence, or even the quantity of it (which was all that was asked), would not violate anyone's privacy by any stretch of the imagination. —Random832 14:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)