Wikiversity talk:Community Review/Pseudonymity and external correspondence

Questions

Maybe the best way to go so far as adding questions goes is to add them when they have 3 supports, or a majority of supports if there are more than 3 votes? --SB_Johnny ^talk 16:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Should there be a special policy regarding pseudonyms and anonymity regarding Wikimedia participants?
• Should our IRC channels be logged?

Anyone who publishes a characterization of an identifiable person forfeits their right to do so anonymously. Scholars are responsible and accountable for their work, especially if their work is to construct original theories of mind or characterizations of another person.

All IRC channels should be logged and published, especially those used for backroom deals by the Ruling Dark Junta.

Moulton 19:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I take it then that you think these questions are worth discussion? --SB_Johnny ^talk 21:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• I do. —Moulton 21:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

There has also been a bit of discussion at Wikiversity_talk:Privacy_policy#Referencing_published_authors. I think that we really need to have a full Review of these questions and how situations involving pseudonyms are handled at wv. --mikeu ^talk 21:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm Glad to be here i look forward to peruse my hobby to teaching and learning.

• There has been precious little rational discussion and a whole lot autocratic pronouncements. I do think these questions need to be discussed, and ethical best practices developed. —Moulton 22:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the two questions above miss the mark and distract from the issues. I suggest instead:

• What basic rights do authors that publish their work have?
• What basic rights do authors have to their correspondences/comments?
• Can authors through their actions automatically relinquish rights?
• What form should release of rights or permission take?

-- darklama  19:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

To my mind, the authors whose works are reviewed here have the right to respond to the reviews and to challenge reviews that they consider unfair or unscholarly. —Moulton 19:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I think they should also be given the right not to respond as well (and the right not to be pestered about that). While I agree that these questions are deeper and more philosophically interesting, I also think they're less pragmatic. There's room for both approaches though. --SB_Johnny ^talk 20:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• The Null Response is one of the options that an author is free to elect. However, an author whose published work is under review does not have the right to alter or redact the signed work of a scholar who has published a review of their work, nor does an author whose published work is under review have the right to shut down (or attempt to shut down) Wikiversity because they are unhappy with an independent scholarly review. —Moulton 21:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• I think the answers to those questions have practical uses. What a few people have written, suggests people may agree that authors have certain rights, and disagree whether some rights are given up or forfeited when authors do certain things. I think the solution is to come up with a baseline by asking questions related to rights. If a person answers No to your first question, that does necessary mean people think there should be no policy, it could mean people believe there should be a policy that applies to anyone regardless if they are a Wikimedia contributor, or have never even heard of a wiki before. -- darklama  21:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Whatever rights and freedoms an author has, they must necessarily apply to all authors, be they the first one to publish on a topic, or the second or third author to address and review the issues on the table. —Moulton 21:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Through the mere act of typing out this statement and saving this page, I agree to automatically and "irrevocably release [my] contribution under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 and the GFDL." TeleComNasSprVen 09:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

What is this in response to? I agree that people agree to release some rights to their works when they click save. Do you believe the only right authors should have at Wikiversity is the right to release their contributions under CC-BY-SA and GFDL? -- darklama  09:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• If I (a known person affiliated with multiple well-known institutions of higher learning, academic research, and public science education) type out a true statement, append my express and recognizable signature to it, and conscientiously save it in this Wiki under the site's prominently advertised contractual license (e.g. CC-BY-SA and/or GFDL), can you, Bilious Kid (an otherwise unknown person in a dank basement somewhere in Darkansas), by acting on your own personal, undiscoverable, unfathomable, unreviewable and unappealable opinion, unilaterally abrogate and sunder that binding contract? —Moulton 10:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• The licenses allow anyone to modify and create a derived work. When you click edit, there is also the statement "If you do not want your writing to be edited and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." Per the license and site agreement there is no need to abrogate and sunder anything. -- darklama  15:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• I have no problem with people creating a derived work (with attributions per the terms of CC-BY-SA and/or GFDL). What I have a problem with is someone altering the original signed work of another person. They can freely take a copy of the original signed work and modify or adapt it per the licenses, but where does the license say the original signed work may be altered or tampered with by anyone who cares to corrupt the record of who originally said what? —Moulton 15:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Diversions

This is extended comment on the comments of Moulton on the attached CR page. Permanent link to comments as they existed when I wrote this. --Abd 00:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• With respect to this section (and the lengthy subsections below), see this imaginary dialogue. —Herr Professor Doctor-Engineer Moulton the Silly Diagnostic Analyst of Pervasively Dysfunctional Systems Hopelessly Overrun by Incorrigible Cluster/B/Folks 15:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Double bind

Moulton, in his section on the review page currently titled "Comment by who?!?", has provided a definition of "Double Bind" with no apparent relevance to the subject of the review. "Double Bind" is then alleged to be "one of the tell-tale markers of individuals manifesting Cluster B Personality Disorders."

This is highly unclear. Is Moulton saying that Double Bind is the predicament of individuals in Cluster B, or is he saying that such individuals transmit conflicting messages, thereby possibly placing others in a double bind? The original double bind work was not designed as an accusation against people, but as a description of a source of conflict in people caught up in a double bind. Normal people frequently give conflicting messages, because normal people are not fully resolved and internally consistent, so the sending of conflicting messages could not be a characteristic of Cluster B.

From other writing, we know that Moulton is alleging that those with whom he came in conflict at Wikipedia are what he calls "Cluster B/Fucks," and he perceives himself as victimized by them, but that would only be possible if he considers them as sources of authority, and he clearly does not. This, then, is just more clumsy rationalization for his long-term attack on these people. --Abd 00:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

With a year of master's psych, I can tell you one thing with absolute certainty: the DSM is worthless. Anybody who quotes it is attempting to leverage something that does not exist either in terms of underlying support or therapeutic strategies.--JohnBessa^talk 02:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Appearance of multiple authors when there is really one

Moulton then makes an argument about the alleged unfairness of a Wikpedia contributor, he apparently names by real name (thus ignoring or presuming the outcome of the discussion here), bringing up that one person may contribute in different venues under different names, thus making a more generalized argument against sock puppetry, one which purports to remedy the unfairness of this by "outing" the individual involved, in all the venues.

• By the nature of publishing in general, but especially of on-line "publishing," it is impossible to consistently discover the "real identity" of the authors, without massive investment of labor, up to and including, if necessary, subpoenas to web sites to obtain confidential information.
• The alleged unfairness only arises if information is amalgamated across the venues, as if it were relevant that a person wrote something in one place, and a supposedly different person wrote the same thing somewhere else. In fact, it makes no different if this is one person or two, because one may simply be copying from another, or they may indeed be the same person. Amalgamation only exists, typically, with a serious effect, between users with different names, on a single web site, where the behavior is called sock puppetry and is generally rejected if used to create an appearance of multiple supports. Ironically, the only example I've seen of this on Wikiversity has been Moulton revert warring, using his Moulton and Caprice accounts, plus IP, signing with yet another name.
• Moulton calls this "gaming the system," but the "system" here would be the entire internet, and the "game" would be mostly moot.
• There may be situations where it is appropriate to expose the real identity of a user. For this to be allowable, there must be necessity. Necessity can trump privacy policy.
• If research into real identities were required, then the use of real names becomes legitimate. However, such research on Wikiversity has not been shown to be required, and guidelines have not been developed for ethical study of wiki behavior. It is clear that wiki studies are allowed on Wikiversity, per se, and difficulties with them have only arisen when the studies were used as a cloak for personal attack, especially -- but not exclusively -- when accompanied by "outing." While there may certainly be gray areas, the problems arose with far clearer abuse, as we can see in the events of the last several days, reviewing Special:Contributions/Moulton, Special:Contributions/Caprice, Special:Contributions/108.1.129.87, Special:Contributions/71.231.122.183, Special:Contributions/129.123.40.50, as well as on meta, m:Special:Contributions/141.154.9.14, m:Special:Contributions/141.154.9.14, m:Special:Contributions/141.154.81.6. In the last set of contributions, Moulton referred to me by my real name, which, as a matter of policy, should be prohibited. It really doesn't matter if I've allowed it to be known or not, that kind of usage was offensive. That was at 17:50, after Moulton had allegedly agreed to stop using real names, and had been unblocked. Of course, he can argue that this agreement was only for Wikiversity. Nevertheless, as a result of the block, a request to extend the global lock on Moulton had been withdrawn. Thus Moulton gamed the system, the kind of behavior he accuses others of.

"can be held accountable"

Moulton then quotes policy where it warns users that they may still be held accountable for what they write, noting that anonymity does not protect against liability claims. This is a general truth and is not any kind of statement about wiki policy. Wiki management, legally, may be obligated to report private information upon subpoena from a court having jurisdiction.

Moulton then writes, Now I would like to test whether this community is willing to allow me to properly challenge such false and defamatory characterizations, whether originated here, or on other WMF-sponsored projects, and to hold authors personally responsible and accountable, and not entitled to anonymity, per the quoted language, above.

He has applied the general warning of the policy entirely out of context. The web sites are legally required to protect privacy and could, indeed, be sued for invasion of privacy under some circumstances by revealing personal information without necessity; further, if a site hosts libel, directed against a real person under their real identity, the site can again be held responsible. Moulton is trying to turn Wikiversity into a court of law, and to use it to host accusations under real names, which, in fact, could create liability for Wikiversity or those who abet the process, at least in theory. Moulton, like all persons who might be harmed by what is hosted on a wiki, may file a legal action for damages. Generally, the wiki, if operating under procedures as does Wikipedia, is only liable if it fails to take down offensive material after a legal demand. Moulton, as part of filing a suit, could subpoena records, showing real IP and thus possibly identity, given another subpoena to the ISP discovered, if the court agrees to issue the subpoena. The Foundation could choose to defend, but might lose, it depends on the strength of the claims made in the lawsuit. Ultimately, as the disclaimer quoted points out, the apparent anonymity of a pseudonymous user name is not a protection against a libel suit.

However, from what I've seen, the apparent libels have mostly been on the part of Moulton, who is frequently accusing by real name, and is thus attempting to harm real reputation, whereas the use of user names confines the "damage." I cannot imagine a court awarding damages to a Wikipedia user who was blocked for allegedly having "no interest in building an encyclopedia," even if it could be shown that this was a deliberately deceptive and knowingly false claim, which, in the relevant case, it was apparently not, it was simply an opinion, and the real name wasn't stated -- I think -- by that person.

This is all an attempt to justify abuse, and we should be careful about writing policy in response to it, though we should certainly consider examples when we craft policy. --Abd 00:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

original research

Moulton then comments on original research, noting that it does exist on Wikipedia. Of course it exists, but that's absolutely irrelevant. It exists there, in articles, as violations of policy, and Wikipedia is chock-full of policy violations, even if only because it is huge, and monitoring and fixing it is difficult, not to mention the existence of factions, sometimes with some power or influence, that have no ethics or little restraint about how they promote their agendas.

This is irrelevant here. Original research is allowed here, that is not the issue; the issue would be ethical guidelines for such research, in general, plus practical guidelines that consider our relationship to the other WMF wikis. If we want to cut the cord and pay for hosting and maintenance of this site ourselves, we could do it, and then we could decide whatever we want for policies and guidelines (bottom line, those who pay, in cash or in labor, get to decide). My opinion, however, is that there is already an alternate site, netknowledge.org, loosely affiliated with us, so why not use this 'versity for what works here, and that one for what needs independence. And running a real or pseudo-court definitely needs independence.

I think that Moulton wants to do it here because of the very connection with the other wikis, he can more successfully troll for outraged response here. Yes, Moulton, that's my hypothesis, my "theory of mind." Based on a year of observation, now confirmed by, again, reading the prior reviews of your "work" on Wikipedia.

One more comment about original research on Wikipedia. Much process on Wikipedia is driven by original research. Indeed, original research is necessary there, when it comes to complaints about editor behavior. That research is almost all done under the user name (or names, if socks are involved), the major exception would be where a conflict of interest is being asserted, and such research will often be blanked on request, after necessary action has been taken. --Abd 00:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Further analysis from Moulton

Here is a key portion of the Privacy Policy, regarding guidelines for content about identifiable living people:

Living people

Wikiversity is open to research projects, but Wikiversity research policy explicitly calls for high ethical standards. Part of research ethics is protecting the privacy of people who are the subject of your research.

You are accountable and responsible for what you write about living people. If a person feels their reputation was negatively affected by what you wrote about them, you could be liable. Anonymity does not protect against liability claims. The reputation you save by checking facts and claims about living people might be your own.

I read that passage as saying that authors who write biographical characterizations of living people, whether they write them on Wikiversity, on Wikipedia, or anywhere else, can be held personally accountable, responsible, and even liable if they publish demonstrably false and defamatory characterization of identifiable living persons.

An interesting case arises when a someone who is initially not a registered member of Wikiversity writes a biographical characterization elsewhere (e.g. on Wikipedia), which then comes under review here. If the original author (say, from Wikipedia) then elects to come here (either under SUL or otherwise) to defend their earlier writings elsewhere, I would argue that local policies on ethics automatically kick in per the above captioned Policy, because they are now locally affirming, repeating, or defending their original writings elsewhere in the course of a legitimate local review of their outside work.

Wikimedia contributors who publish biographical sketches and commentaries about identifiable living people can be found on specific WMF-sponsored Wikis, on IRC, on Wikipedia Review, on public WMF mailing lists, on Facebook, on Twitter, in general multi-recipient e-mail, in Skypecasts (including Not the Wikipedia Weekly), in comments posted in the mainstream and secondary media, and on their own personal blogs. Sometimes Wikimedia contributors use different monikers in these different systems, and they often say more or less the same thing in more than one such venue. It occurs to me that Wikimedia contributors who employ such multiple channels should not be gaming the system by surreptitiously changing costumes or name-tags as they flitter from one Twitter to the next. Let them be identified as alternate monikers or pseuds associated with one person's mind, one person's thoughts, one person's voice, and one person's vote. Why, for example, should <one particular person> have five voices, one as FeloniousMonk, one as Odd nature, one as Centaur of Attention, one as Blogger "Skip" and one as "Jamie F." writing letters to the editor?

While original research is supposedly forbidden on Wikipedia, there is a substantial amount of it nonetheless. I ran into blatant falsehoods on Wikipedia that turned out to be original (and utterly bogus) theories of mind crafted by the allied editors of IDCab whilst haphazardly characterizing the beliefs and views of their hapless biographical subjects who were powerless to protest false characterizations that in some cases have run to egregious character assassination.

So I would like to take the Privacy Policy on a test drive to find out whether this community is willing to allow aggrieved parties like me a fair opportunity to properly challenge instances of false and defamatory personal characterizations, whether originated here or on other WMF-sponsored projects, and to hold authors personally responsible and accountable, and not entitled to anonymity, per the quoted language, above.

I would also like to keep NewYorkBrad's Guiding Principles in mind, and I would like to have that inappropriately deleted page restored as clearly within the scope of such a review.

Moulton 20:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this, Moulton. A few questions:

• As to the first paragraph: do you think "holding people liable" is within Wikiversity's scope?
• As to the second paragraph: I don't read it that way, but see the previous question.
• As to the third paragraph: that "policy" on beta is more or less the invention of you and JWSchmidt. Even if it wasn't, I don't see how that affects the privacy policy, nor does it give any definition whatsoever about who is or is not a community member (SUL included or otherwise).
• The fourth paragraph seems to simply be your opinion. The extent to which I agree with it is probably not all that interesting ;-).
• I understand your frustration as expressed in the fifth paragraph, but I doubt very much that Wikiversity policy will have any effect whatsoever on how policies are enforced on WP.
• Sixth paragraph: I think most people paying attention are a bit wary of you "test driving" anything at this point. Maybe bring that up on the colloquium before barreling into it?
• For the 7th: bring it to RFD.

Thanks again... direct and frank discussion is better, IMO. --SB_Johnny ^talk 23:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in apprehending my thoughts on this topic. Taking your bullet points one by one:

• As to the first paragraph, it is within the scope of Wikiversity to advise participants that just because they are writing here, possibly under a pseudonym, they are not automatically immunized against personal responsibility or accountability, up to and including legal liability for what they write here. It is within the scope of Wikiversity to remind participants that neither Wikiversity nor the WMF is under any obligation to conceal their identity for the purpose of protecting them from such accountability or defending them from personal liability. In other words, YOYOW (You Own Your Own Words) when it comes to responsibility, accountability or liability for composing and publishing false and defamatory characterizations that amount to character assassination of living people of a potentially actionable nature.

• As to the second paragraph, how do you read the meaning of the Policy with respect to the points I addressed in the second paragraph?

• As to the third paragraph, neither you nor I participated in the discussion, last summer, in which the draft Privacy Policy was discussed, ratified, and declared to have been adopted on the basis of 7 favorable votes out of 10. JWSchmidt was one of two people who argued against the draft version of Policy that Ottava declared to be official on November 11 of last year. The cited ethics policy on Beta was expressly incorporated, by linked reference, into the draft Policy that was adopted on the basis of seven favorable votes by Darklama, Ottava, Mike, TheNub314, Adambro, Abd, and Daanschr, plus one wishy-washy support vote by Devourer09. So regardless of who wrote the ethics policy on Beta, those seven people expressly adopted it into the text by linked reference to high ethical standards in the first sentence of the section on Living People.

• The fourth paragraph, which is a response to Guido, is an observation that I (and many others) have made, both in general and with respect to IDCab. In the case of IDCab, the high profile ArbCom case focused extensively on specific examples of such "meritless accusations" against others.

• The fifth paragraph does not address policies (or their enforcement) on WP. It addresses what this local community will allow, for the purposes of applying the Living People section of the local Privacy Policy, as ratified by those seven or eight people noted above.

• With respect to the sixth paragraph, you're damn right they're wary of me test driving the policy. JWSchmidt made it abundantly clear that the draft those seven or eight people voted in favor of needed a lot more work. But that's the Official Policy that Ottava, Darklama, Mike, Abd, Adambro, TheNub314, and Daanschr endorsed, ratified, and adopted. But you, KC, Mike, and Abd test drove it at high speed the last few weeks and (to my mind) crashed bigtime with a lunatic drama that brought disrepute to this community.

• With respect to the seventh paragraph, the reason I am not taking it to RfD is because I am taking a measurement to discover if there are any responsible custodians here who believe they have a duty of care to recognize and correct their own occasional mistakes as matter of personal ethics, rather than cavalierly wreaking havoc with the content of scholarly work and then requiring someone else to do the heavy lifting to clean up their <expletive deleted> messes.

Moulton 09:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Focusing on the first 2 points again: is it within Wikiversity's scope to hold people accountable and/or liable? We're not a court. --SB_Johnny ^talk 14:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• It's not of any interest to me to suggest, propose, or request an inquest. Rather, I am interested in undertaking a scholarly review of the work of other scholars who have published their work here or elsewhere. When I write a commentary, critique, or peer review of another scholar's work (whether on my own initiative or at the express request of a conference organizer or journal editor), it's just a commentary, critique, or peer review (nothing more, nothing less). The author may or may not care to read it, comment on it, or rebut it. If they do care, they are more than welcome to either come here and respond in person or to send a response that they would like appended as a courtesy (as is routinely done in edited journals.) If they would like an organized debate, I'd entertain that as well, provided the community cared to host one here. Otherwise an organized debate can be held elsewhere (such as at Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society). —Moulton 16:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Abd's analysis and commentary

• In the above discussion, Moulton uses a possible real name for a contributor, plus he links (without clear evidence, he cites his own writing as source) to other accounts or possible pseudonyms of the editor outside the WMF wikis. As this could be a violation of privacy policy, and as those actual links were not necessary for the argument he was making, I redacted the post, taking care not to alter the sense of it. Moulton reverted, with the comment: (Please do not tamper with my signed comments. I am personally responsible for what I sign my name to, and it's not appropriate for an adversarial party to alter the signed work of another scholar.)
• Moulton is following the same line of argument that he pursued in 2008, that led to massive disruption here, repeating the same drama. Redaction, specifically shown, and itself signed, is not "tampering." The original remained in history, until and unless revision deleted. From precedent, if I filed another request at meta, this might be oversighted, or not. However, to not delete, if privacy policy is being followed, would require a finding that the outing -- or multiple outings -- were harmless, not objectionable, and that is impractical, creating an administrative burden without any necessity.
• Moulton is not, in this, a "scholar." He's a troll (you really need to use a better description as a troll is anyone who disagrees and is hence "trolling" for abuse.--JohnBessa^talk 02:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)), and that has a very specific and clear meaning. We have gone down this road before. When administration fails, trolls and counter-trolls appear. And I'm seeing, now, the same players as in 2008 (except for me, basically), though a somewhat different supporting cast. See User:Centaur of attention, and User_talk:Centaur_of_attention#Last_warning. CoA was acting in the presence of administrative failure. He was blocked, but, ultimately, what he was seeking was done, for the most part. And recently undone, without discussion. (SBJ's 'crat action was not controlling, it was the unblock of Caprice by Ottava Rima that opened the gate. And, for a time, Caprice behaved, didn't out, and was even a relatively moderate voice in some ways.)
• Centaur of attention was blocked for blanking pages. CoA was taking a radical position, and was blocked after Moulton had been blocked. I haven't checked specifically, but when I've tried to check the pages he'd blanked, the ones I looked at had been deleted. That stood for two years, so the presumption is that it represents consensus, until reversed. CoA was thus indef blocked for asserting consensus, over pages where the very discussion can be disruptive and harmful. And we see this here. Moulton is not allowing redaction, a far less disruptive solution to the outing problem. His argument does not depend on the specific example. My conclusion is that he wants to maintain the names because he knows it will offend. That's trolling, that's been obvious to many for more than two years. Here, he agreed to not use real names, but is still insisting on using what he's in the past asserted was a real name. He's also claiming sock puppetry that has not been established and that is even contradictory to other evidence Moulton has asserted elsewhere, and, again, that's not relevant to our policy here. I left the multiple user names in place, because that is, at least, on-wiki and doesn't out, per se.
• Moulton does not cooperate with redaction that does not damage his argument. He's not interested in scholarship, he's interested in revenge, exposure, humiliation, and irritation, and that's been shown redundantly. This is not a dispute that can be resolved by unrestrained discussion. It wasn't resolved in 2008 and it won't be resolved now, because it's rooted in personality and very personal motivation. While Moulton might change -- people do, sometimes -- the continued participation of Moulton must be based on an assumption that change is unlikely. It's an error to think that there is no solution other than allowing free rein, or banning.
• It is very possible for a block to be understood and applied as a regulatory action, with appropriate bypass under supervision. That's the classic solution in organizations to "disruptive member" especially where there is membership-by-right. Banning the member is relatively unusual and takes supermajority. But conducting a disruptive member from the assembly is routine, and is typically done, ad hoc, as determined by the chair. This does not prevent a motion originating from the removed member from being seconded and debated, and another may present the arguments, on their own responsibility. It is not difficult at all. And it is not unfair. (To overrule an action by a chair takes a seconded appeal. It is put immediately to vote, and very precise rules prescribe the form of what is put to a vote. An appeal is not a censure of the chair, it is purely a vote to confirm the ruling (affirmative) or void it (negative). This reflects the principle that a chair is not a supreme executive but is, at all times, a servant of the majority.) All this has simple on-wiki analogy.
• This CR must be understood in this context, for the issues that are being presented have, underneath them, a heavy agenda. Clarifying the policy is a good thing, but when the very debate over the clarification asserts the thing that is apparently rejected by consensus as harmful, the debate must be brought to order. --Abd 15:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

CR suggestion

For future CRs -- or if there is consensus, for this one -- top level sections -- should be titled with "Comment by [user name]" and not touched by other users outside of necessary process exceptions. The section need not be signed, but if it is not signed, the user name in the section header should then be a link to the user page. Users may generally create subsections under whatever title they choose, as long as it is not, itself, seriously offensive. But only one user should be allowed to edit the entire section. And if a single user (person) creates more than one comment section, that would be abusive socking or other impropriety.

If someone wishes to use a sock to participate in a CR, the user should not participate in the CR, neither directly nor on the Talk page, using another account, and if a user violates this, they should be warned, and blocked if this practice continues, per normal block policy (escalating as needed). A user may fix a problem with this by editing all comments already made to show a single, consistent user name, or this may be done for the user. Obviously, if a user has used an undisclosed sock, the user will have to reveal the identity in order to be allowed to fix the problem, and should point to proof of the identity in asserting the right to make the edits.

It should be simple to verify that a user commenting or editing a section is the named user.

While a point may be made by using a fake name, especially in this CR, that point may be made in other ways -- including by reference to the history of this CR, which is, at present, not in compliance with this suggestion. There were here, two users making such points, Moulton and WAS. I became a third because the contradiction was not being addressed, and that I was blocked for my imitation shows some kind of differential response from custodians, a separate question. I do accept the argument that this CR is covering serious business, (or "seriuz bizness"), which, indeed, is why I did what I did and continue to do. I'm arguing for clear, consistent, and easy-to-enforce guidelines. --Abd 19:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Yup, for this particular CR, I think it's pretty cool that people have found ways to riff off of the silly aspects of the topic. As long as it's clear who said what when it comes time to archive, it's all good IMO. --SB_Johnny ^talk 20:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't mind the comment qwa comment; but let's not enshrine every passing useful comment as policy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_instruction_creep - WAS 4.250 20:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

"Avoid instruction creep" on Wikipedia enshrined aversion to clear guidelines, creating a large percentage of the wasted effort there. I do have a bit of experience, eh? Having clear guidelines for Community Review process would have avoided quite a bit of mishegas here, including a block for me, an unblock request, etc., and a complicated edit history of the CR! Guidelines can be written that cover details that only come up rarely, and hypertext can do this. Clear guidelines and policies do not prevent making exceptions, but when exceptions are made, the guideline or policy should be edited, to show exceptions, so that future generations are not led astray by false expectations. Those exceptions can be footnotes or references to subpages or process, they need not make a basic policy or guideline into a tome, but the lack of clear guidelines, that match actual process and actual community consensus, is part of what makes experienced users have more power than novice ones. --Abd 20:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

"Avoid instruction creep" prevented what is now handicapping Wikipedia's growth. Ignoring it is creating a large percentage of the wasted effort there. I do have a bit of experience, eh? Having clear guidelines for Community Review process would have avoided some problems; but that we have too few rules does not mean any addition rule is a benefit. Guidelines can be written that cover details that only come up rarely, but it usually a mistake to do so. Clear guidelines and policies do not prevent making exceptions; and when exceptions are made, the guideline or policy should be evaluated to possibly, but not usually, show those exception. Making experienced users have more power than novice ones by enabling rule-lawyering though an unwieldy complex set of rules is counter-productive to the goals of the Wikimedia Foundation. Power grabbing is an attitude that is a constant source of problems. -- WAS 4.250 22:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I probably agree more with WAS than disagree. Of course, we don't need an "unwieldy complex set of rules," but having a description of CR process that provides for sections headed by user names, and a template for it, is hardly unwieldy! I then discussed some contingencies that might or might not be in the guideline. My feeling is, in general, that when "exceptions" or missing aspects to a guideline or a policy become a problem, sometimes even with a single user, if there is any reasonable likelihood of repetition, it's worth clarifying the guideline. In this case, the clarification would be toward simplicity..... It's also possible to have a guideline with "practice notes" that are a separate document, attached to each section, that give examples, with or without anonymization. Weird wikilawyered exceptions could be described there. As a general practice, *examples* can speak louder than abstract explanations, where the examples make the purpose of a policy clear.

As to experience, WAS's first edit to Wikipedia was July, 2005, but he was apparently anon before that. Mine was February, 2005. However, my on-line community experience goes back to the w:W.E.L.L in something like 1985 or so, I was a conference moderator. WAS may also have other prior experience.... With my experience and an account here, I can edit resources and sign my user name. --Abd 23:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Straw poll on the pseudonym issue

Just to gauge where people stand on this at the moment (and to see if we might be ready for a resolution), when is it acceptable to use the real name of a wikimedia contributor rather than their pseudonym?

1. If you suspect that you know who the person is

• Oppose way too subjective. --SB_Johnny ^talk 15:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• No Too subjective and can easily be wrong. Not good enough reason. -- darklama  15:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Inadequate. --Abd 16:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment It is customary in academic and scientific work to note when one is considering the evidence, pro and con, for a working hypothesis that is neither confirmed nor refuted, but open to doubt. For example, Jules Violle is widely believed to be the French physicist who also published under the pseudonym Fulcanelli, but the articles in Wikipedia properly characterize that belief as a working hypothesis. I bring up Violle because he is widely credited with observing the phenomenon that is more recently referred to as the "P&F Effect." —Moulton 18:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• strong Oppose - agree with Darklama and SB_Johnny reasons --mikeu ^talk 19:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - Richardofoakshire 15:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

2. If you think the person's identity is beyond a reasonable doubt

• Oppose still too subjective. --SB_Johnny ^talk 15:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• No Too subjective can be still be wrong. Not good enough reason. -- darklama  15:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Inadequate. --Abd 16:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment Same as above. The degree of belief may indeed be close to certainty, but it's still a working hypothesis, even if residual doubt is fading. —Moulton 18:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - agree with Darklama and SB_Johnny reasons --mikeu ^talk 19:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - if the name isn't widely known (Wikipedia, -versity, etc. or elsewhere), there's a chance the user doesn't want it known Richardofoakshire 15:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

3. If the person's identity is widely known among the broader Wikimedia community (including WR, etc.)

• Not sure. --SB_Johnny ^talk 15:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• No This is basically wide speculation. Not good enough reason. -- darklama  15:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Inadequate. --Abd 16:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment Same as above. The degree of belief may indeed be close to 100% certainty, but it's still a working hypothesis, even if residual doubt is negligible. —Moulton 18:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - agree with Darklama --mikeu ^talk 19:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

4. If the person's identity has been published in a notable and reliable source (e.g. the New York Times, not e.g. Valleywag

• Not sure. --SB_Johnny ^talk 15:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Maybe Needs to be defined more. Notability and reliable sources can be used to include or exclude subjectively. -- darklama  15:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Inadequate. We cannot afford to debate if a source is reliable or not. Sources can err.
•  Comment Same as above. The citation contributes to the body of evidence. A good example is the identity of Deep Throat from Watergate. —Moulton 18:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Maybe - this would like need clarification of "notable" and "reliable". --mikeu ^talk 19:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - It can always have been published against the person's will Richardofoakshire 15:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

5. If the person has voluntarily identified themselves to a notable source

• Yes. --SB_Johnny ^talk 15:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Maybe Again needs to be better defined. -- darklama  15:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Inadequate. What's missing is necessity. --Abd 16:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment Same as above. A "confession" or acknowledgement has to be evaluated for its reliability, because more than one person might claim to be Spartacus. —Moulton 18:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Maybe but we would need to clarify "voluntarily". --mikeu ^talk 19:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support - It is in the person's will to be called such, so we may go ahead. Richardofoakshire 15:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

6. If the person has voluntarily identified themselves "somewhere on the Internet"

• Not sure. --SB_Johnny ^talk 15:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• No Multiple people may use the same pseudonym. May not really confirm identity. Reverse situation where a person claims to use a pseudonym and doesn't in reality could cause problems. -- darklama  15:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Inadequate. --Abd 16:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment Same as above. A disclosure or acknowledgement has to be evaluated for its reliability, because more than one person might claim to be Spartacus. —Moulton 18:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Darklama and Moulton --mikeu ^talk 19:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Maybe - Define "voluntarily", define "somewhere" Richardofoakshire 15:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

7. If the person has voluntarily identified themselves within Wikimedia (userpages, mailinglists, discussions, etc.

• Yes. --SB_Johnny ^talk 15:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Yes though with caution as like above no way to confirm person is telling the truth. -- darklama  15:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Inadequate. --Abd 16:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment Such self-disclosure provides half the evidence required to confirm that one person is writing under two different names. What's still needed is a confirmation going the other way (just as AGK asked me to confirm here on Wikiversity that I was the IP editor who posted on his Wikipedia talk page). —Moulton 18:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Yes with Darklama's caution. --mikeu ^talk 14:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

8. If the person has voluntarily identified themselves on Wikiversity

• Yes. --SB_Johnny ^talk 15:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Yes though with caution as there is no way to confirm person is telling the truth. -- darklama  15:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose One may reveal one's identity, in one place, but not intend revelation elsewhere. The real issue here is what "outing" is to be prevented and what is allowed, and if it "outing," that is, if it increases the exposure, which can increase harm, then a balancing interest of the project must be apparent. --Abd 16:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment Same as above. Such self-disclosure provides half the evidence required to confirm that one person is writing under two different names. —Moulton 18:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Yes again, with Darklama's caution. --mikeu ^talk 14:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support - @Darklama: Then it is the person's right to use a fake name - unless they are impersonating someone. Richardofoakshire 15:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

9. If the person has given express permission to use their name within the scope of a particular learning project on WV

• Yes. --SB_Johnny ^talk 15:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Yes but caution should be encouraged as depending how it is done their identify might not of been properly confirmed. -- darklama  15:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose if the user opposes the usage and it is not necessary. "Confirmation" is, again, a red herring. Edits should not appear to out, and revision deletion is reversible, easily, particularly on a showing of necessity. --Abd 16:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment A local scholar can cite "personal communication" as is customary in academic work, and such a citation can be accepted or doubted by other reviewers. —Moulton 18:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Yes with Darklama's caution. --mikeu ^talk 14:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Same as 8. Richardofoakshire 15:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

10. If the person has given you express permission to use their name on WV

• Oppose goes a bit too far. --SB_Johnny ^talk 15:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Maybe I think Wikinews allows this. Trust might be limited to certain people though. Maybe copy Wikinews' approach on this? -- darklama  15:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose unless the usage is, on the face, not offensive. What do we need? A notarized statement? Simplicity of enforcement is crucial to effective policies. --Abd 16:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment Same as above. A local scholar can cite "personal communication" as is customary in academic work, and such a citation can be accepted or doubted by other reviewers. —Moulton 18:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Maybe --mikeu ^talk 14:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Same as 8. Richardofoakshire 15:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this covers the options... --SB_Johnny ^talk 15:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• You might want to consult with Lar. I have a vague recollection that he suspected sock puppetry among IDCab editors who were block voting and possibly stuffing the ballot box. If memory serves, he couldn't get a straight answer when he raised the issue to one or more of them. —Moulton 18:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• The total summary for these options is published below. Feel free to add any improvements to it, if it is lacking in any sort of way. TeleComNasSprVen 02:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

comment on the poll questions

• No. Completely unmentioned was necessity. Necessity can allow what is otherwise prohibited. The classic example from Wikipedia is determining w:WP:COI, and blanking or deleting such discussions, after the necessary facts have been developed and a decision made, is common. The need for this on WV would be rare. On WV, esablishing credentials can improve participation, someone involved with a field is likely to be relatively expert! But also biased, perhaps. We don't have the need to prove COI here, normally. I've disclosed my identity and business interest here, as would any scholar writing a paper. With that and a proof of disruptive editing, I could be banned....

• It is possible to imagine situations where the revelation of real identities could become necessary. Outside those situations, the appearance of outing -- which can be judged from the edit itself -- should be prohibited. When such situations arise, requiring the use of real names, permission from the user should be sought, preferably on-wiki, logged in. If it is necessary contrary to permission, that necessity should be established by consensus, and if there are cross-wiki issues, confirmed more widely if needed.

• There are places where real names are routinely used. In discussing Cold fusion, the authors of papers and cited correspondence are routinely used. These are not "outing" edits, at all, they are discussing sources and educational material. That's why I claim this whole CR is founded on a deceptive agenda, an attempt to allow "outing." If I found out, for example, that a certain published author in the field of cold fusion was also one of the active WP editors at Wikipedia, for me to "out" that editor here would generally be offensive. It is, simply, not the business of Wikiversity. We need special guidelines and ethical policy to cover "wiki studies," that's clear. What we have is offensive disregard of general WMF guidelines and policies, violation of our own policy, and an attempt to cover this by crafting some "real name" usage policy that does not actually discuss the real situation, usage as offense, trolling, attack, in an uncivil manner, without any necessity, the same being asserted in the middle of this discussion, without any necessity. --Abd 16:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• I see that SBJ has asked questions in a way that may have been confusing. He opposes, for example, his own question, which, to state it clearly, as one question, is this: "when is it acceptable to use the real name of a wikimedia contributor rather than their pseudonym?" 10. If the person has given you express permission to use their name on WV. SBJ responds to this with Oppose goes a bit too far. Obviously, he is responding to the question as if it were the only cause of acceptability. But nobody has proposed that! I answered a different interpretation of the question, is this adequate cause for acceptability, and my problem was that it may not be adequate under some circumstances. Certainly if someone has received permission, they may routinely assume that it's acceptable, though I'll give an example of how "permission" was gamed on Wikipedia. But what if the person retracts the permission? How are administrators to know if permission has been given or not, and if it is still effective? This raises a host of issues, and enforcement of outing policy must be simple or it's impossibly cumbersome.

• Now, the example: w:User:ScienceApologist was under a topic ban from all Fringe science articles. He edited w:N-ray. He was blocked, as that is, in fact, a fringe science article. Then he claimed (correctly) that he had permission from an arbitrator, and there was a lot of egg tossed at the blocking admin, SA was quite popular. It developed that he had an agenda to make ban enforcement difficult, he did it in a number of ways, he'd been fairly explicit, and he was then site-banned for three months. Yes, he had permission, but that permission wasn't evidenced, so a block was expected. Further, the edit itself actually had a POV purpose, another problem, but the arbitrator didn't know that! It seemed harmless to the clueless. That edit should have been preceded by a signed permission on the article Talk page, or a reference on the Talk page to a signed permission elsewhere, and SA's edit summary, then should have pointed to the Talk page comment, so that an admin enforcing an ArbComm ban would know about it! (SA was allowed to edit the Talk pages of fringe science articles.)

• Outing policy must be simple to enforce. All I can see as a solution to the problem here is that the use of real names is obviously acceptable in some cases, such as the statement, "Dr. Edmund Storms is Low Energy Nuclear Reactions editor at Naturwissenschaften." It's obviously acceptable with regard to participants who don't object, such as references to Mu301 as "Mike." But sometimes a user will allow a usage in one context and not in another, and it's very easy to use real names in an offensive way. Nobody should be blocked for using a real name with a reasonable expectation of inoffensiveness. In marginal cases, a user should be warned, and one of the keys to a real problem is if the user rejects the warning, and insists on using the name, without necessity, revert wars to keep it in, and is obviously attacking the person named. All this can be judged simply by looking at the edit itself and proximate history. Keep it simple, or a wikilawyer will drive a truck through it. As we have seen. If using a real name causes a fuss, and there is no necessity, it is disruptive. This is what is missing from all the proposed questions: necessity, being worth the fuss. --Abd 19:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'm a volunteer here. Is it necessary for me to exist on Wikiversity? No. Is it necessary for any volunteer's real name to exist here? No. TeleComNasSprVen 06:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• It's irrelevant if an author who publishes elsewhere also happens to be a volunteer here. The question has to do with studying, reviewing, analyzing, or commenting on an author's publications elsewhere. If that author elects to come here to participate in a discussion of their work elsewhere, that doesn't change their identity. At best it adds more information about their identity, if they happen to be using more than one pen name, byline, moniker, screen name, nickname, or pseudonym, above and beyond their legal name. —Moulton15:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Current summary

1. If you suspect that you know who the person is
2. If you think the person's identity is beyond a reasonable doubt
   • Out of the question; both one and two are in the same category, and are exactly the definition of w:WP:OUTING, as stated on the policy page, because such persons have never explicitly released sensitive information pertaining to them voluntarily. "Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia...If you see an editor post personal information about another person, do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information." TeleComNasSprVen 15:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
   • Note that the WP definition of w:WP:OUTING only applies to a person's legal name, not to other nicknames, monikers, pseudonyns, screen names, or street names that a person has either posted directly on WP or linked to. Note that a public complaint and request for oversight amounts to a voluntary public disclosure, affirmation, or confirmation that the street name (which may or may not be a person's legal name) is expressly being claimed by the editor who is voluntarily posting that public complaint/request, thereby logically invalidating the claim of w:WP:OUTING. No one in their right mind would publicly post, on-wiki, such a complaint/request, voluntarily associating their Wiki account with another name that they genuinely wished to remain undisclosed. It logically follows that anyone who prominently posts multiple high-profile on-wiki complaints of that sort is clearly engaged in a concerted campaign of entrapment, counting on the responding Custodian to be too dim-witted to work out the utterly transparent logic of a banal game of entrapment. — Moulton
3. If the person's identity is widely known among the broader Wikimedia community (including WR, etc.)
   • Even if it were widely known and almost everybody who has been involved with work regarding the Wikimedia Foundation, directly or indirectly, knows about someone's real name, that still does not give license to actually publish it on the wiki, because once again, such a person has never given express permission to use it. TeleComNasSprVen
     • TCNSV, why would any person who flatly refuses to engage in civil dialogue, mediation, arbitration, or conflict resolution with an adversary ever explicitly give express permission to their adversaries to use it, even if they routinely post prominent public assertions that they are laying claim to the use of that name elsewhere? Moulton
4.  
5.  
6. If the person has voluntarily identified themselves "somewhere on the Internet"
   • Useless in practice because that other name released somewhere on the Internet might as well be itself a pseudonym.TeleComNasSprVen 15:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
   • Indeed, a person's "street name" is rarely their legal name as required to fit the definition of w:WP:OUTING. And in any event, the English Wikipedia definition of w:WP:OUTING is local to the English Wikipedia and does not necessarily extend to or correspond to any similar concept or policy elsewhere in other WMF-sponsored projects. — Moulton

Simpler suggestion...

How about:

"When discussing or addressing Wikimedia contributors, use their username or an abbreviation thereof unless they indicate that they would like to be called something else on their userpage or through a modification of their signature."

Easy, clear, and simple ;-). --SB_Johnny ^talk 00:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support On the condition that we also add the clause "If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, their wishes should be respected, though reference to self-disclosed information is not outing."^ARBMAC2 (from w:WP:OUTING) TeleComNasSprVen 01:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Simple and clear. KillerChihuahua 22:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support --mikeu ^talk 21:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

How about people in positions of leadership and authority who exercise political power over others abide by the guidelines crafted by NewYorkBrad and passed unanimously in the ArbCom case in which FeloniousMonk was unanimously adjudged guilty of breaching those very guidelines, and summarily stripped of his administrative power. Moreover, how about the leadership here undelete those guidelines and review them in a sincere effort to introduce the concept of ethical governance to this project. —Moulton 06:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

"Don't appear to deliberately piss off what appears to be a living human being by what you say about who they are, what they are, where they live, or indeed anything of that kind of personal nature. Play the ball, not the person. Note the word "appear"." - WAS 4.250 03:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support I prefer the wording by WAS 4.250. I also would prefer something more general than what SB_Johnny proposed. "Do not appear to deliberately piss off living human beings by what you write about who or what they are, where they live, or indeed anything of a personal nature. Play the ball, not the person. If you must, refer living human begins by the name they have chosen to associate with their work, unless they indicate permission to be called by another name either on their user page or through their contributions to Wikiversity." -- darklama  16:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I like that, but with "Avoid giving the appearance of deliberately provoking..." That's more a civility policy thing though. --SB_Johnny ^talk 17:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support fr33kman 08:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support --Abd 01:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment I've been bold and added the proposed message to the {{policy in a nutshell}} template at the top of the Wikiversity:Privacy policy page. TeleComNasSprVen 06:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Richardofoakshire 16:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, this should solve question one, and the notice can be removed. ("A community review is underway regarding pseudonymity and correspondence (statements) (discussions)") - No? Richardofoakshire 13:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Privacy as an Argument?

So far, all the reason for not publishing names I've heard is the possibility of errors - what about the right to privacy? That should be a valid argument against publishing someone's name without his / her explicit consent. Correct me if I'm overlooking something or understanding the situation wrong, though. Richardofoakshire 15:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously overlooked the Previous "Simple Solution" - Sorry :) Richardofoakshire 15:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments copied from my user talk page at wikipedia, I find that they should really rather be here. Richardofoakshire 15:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Richard, there are over a quarter million articles on the English Wikipedia in which the page bears the name of a real person, and the contents of the page presents a substantial amount of information (and misinformation) about them. They have no right of privacy and no functional recourse. And yet you would allow the anonymous biographers here the unlicensed freedom to publish false and defamatory characterizations of identifiable living people under a pseudonym without being held responsible, accountable, or liable for what they write? Surely you jest. —Moulton 15:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.215.169 (talk)

In answer to your question: Defamatory and/or wrong information in biographical articles about living (or deceased, for that matter) persons find by no means my support. There however isn't a necessity for the articles' authors to be known by real name - there are better ways of preventing misinformation: References. If there is misinformation on a page, it will probably not have references, and if it doesn't have those, it will be deleted. Very simple. Anyways, I do not see a reason why the discussion is carried out on my talk page as it has nothing to do with me other than my opinion - and that is better published on the Community Review talk page. I will allow myself to copy both your and my comment. Richardofoakshire 15:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

End copied content

Furthermore, information on persons that is so publicly available that original research is not required doesn't pose a problem for wikipedians - if you wish to change that, you have to change the law. Richardofoakshire 15:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Complete newbie confusion

I am by all intents a complete newbie to the wiki system (I've edited a few things on wikipedia, and just created a page here a few minutes ago), and I have no idea of the history going on here. I made a username for the simple reason that I recognized the name of someone who is apparently involved deeply in this discussion, and had the immediate response of curiosity. Anyway, I say this simply to disclaim that I have no idea what is going on here, and so I am deeply confused. I've tried to read the policy, and I don't understand what the changes are that are being proposed. Could someone explain further?

My concerns, as a completely naive visitor, are the following:

• My university requires me to publish my street name, office location, and office hours. I have recently created a page here, and while I'm happy to debate, discuss, and create content signed by my username, I would be quite unhappy if someone who knew who I was were to connect my username in a public fashion with Persona Person, student of Professor Professora, at the University of Somewhere, without my explicit permission. I say this knowing full well that a bit of Google Fu would probably reveal all, but I would like people to respect my desire to erect even that terribly flimsy screen between my real and online lives.
• Were I to correspond with someone on this site via email or via another website, I would want my privacy respected, even if I mention Wikiversity. That is to say, my email is usually signed with my real name (as I do use it for academic correspondence) and even if for some reason the content of the email were to be revealed on here, I'd be very unhappy if my real name were revealed.
• Suppose that I were being stalked, after having posted to this website using my real name. One recourse I have, to divorce my current activities from things which could personally identify me, is to create new usernames, abandon the old ones, and try to pretend the old persona never existed. Suppose someone I trusted---an RL friend, perhaps---had a falling-out with me and decided to reveal that my new name and my old name were one and the same. That seems like it could be extremely damaging, depending on what kind of stalking behavior is going on. I understand the concerns over sockpuppetry, but I'm concerned about how the project acts to protect people with legitimate concerns the other direction.

Anyway, like I said, I'm a complete newbie, and feel free to delete this entirely if I'm completely missing the point, or missing what this page's purpose is.

[ETA: and I fail at signing my name. Sigh.]Kalany 06:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion a couple sections above certainly suggests that your view is shared by the majority. We should probably add that as a resolution to fix the "loophole" in the current policy so that we can effectively handle this better if it comes up again in the future. --SB_Johnny ^talk 11:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that this would directly address questions 4, 5 and 6 in the several threads above. Thanks for your input; we welcome any and all contributions, especially from those with a degree of understanding from an actual university and maybe some expertise on the matter. Of course, one could always exercise the right to vanish, or hide one's name. In that case, perhaps, creating an entirely different account would be perfectly acceptable. TeleComNasSprVen 19:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

What concerns me about the "right to vanish" is that it seems to preferentially punish the stalkee. That is, in order to "safely" edit Wikiversity, the person would have to give up all ability to edit Wikiversity. This seems like kind of a backwards way to go. Perhaps a policy saying that, in the case of sincere personal concern for privacy/safety/what have you, and on a case by case basis, administrators (or whatever they're called here) can grant the user the privilege of severing ties with an old account, subject to reversal in the case of misdeeds that can only be correctly dealt with by linking the two? Or is that already the policy and I'm missing the point? Kalany 22:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

While this might only add to the confusion, w:WP:VANISH is actually a Wikipedia policy, not a Wikiversity one. We don't have a correlate here that I'm aware of. --SB_Johnny ^talk 22:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikiversity has a history of being very tolerant of users; I think it's been too slow to block, in fact (once one realizes that a short block simply means STOP and should carry no opprobrium). Some of us are working on policy at WV:Bans, and there is a list of banned users at WV:Imposed bans. There aren't any, so far, though there might be one soon. We'd rather that a user who has been blocked, even long term, even globally locked and considered banned over the whole WMF family of users, find a way to participate here peacefully. That might require some "experience," so to speak. Even on Wikipedia, if you want to exercise RTV because you have been "outed" and you need to shut as much down as possible, you can be allowed to continue editing under a new name, you will note if you read the WP policy carefully, provided you notify the Arbitration Committee (and presumably that they allow it). Wikipedia has far higher levels of conflict where article POV is a major issue, and Wikipedia politics can be murder, and less visible, and sometimes administrators are part of the problem. So for both good and harmful reasons, Wikipedia wants your user history to normally be visible, and if you exercise RTV, they want you to actually stop editing, or, at least, stop editing in your familiar field(s).

I was just looking at the history of User:Wikademia, also known as Emesee, Remi and others. A new sock of his was just blocked, but if he followed a reasonable return process that assured the community that he'd be cooperative, I'd bet that he'd be unblocked, no matter what he did before.

Kalany, the discussions here were occasioned by a user who was routinely using real names where the named users clearly disliked it, and/or where it was provocative, causing concern, and where there was no necessity, as might arise on Wikipedia where there is a serious conflict of interest and it's sometimes needed, for that reason, to identify a user as a real person. There really was no doubt that this was against defacto policy, but for complex reasons, enforcement here was lax and this discussion was started partly over a deflected issue, academic practice with real names, I consider that largely a smokescreen. The real issue was civility and harassment. That's why much of this doesn't make much sense.... ripped out of context, as it must seem. Welcome to Wikiversity, I think things are getting better here, though sometimes it's a few steps forward and a few back. --Abd 23:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It strikes me that there are two contexts in which real names might be (wished to be) used on Wikiversity. The first is academic citation: "I got this information from the thesis of James T. Kirk, under the advisorship of Prof. C. Pike, University of San Francisco, published 2263". This seems to be completely acceptable as such. The problem is when you want to say "who is, by the way, also the Wikiversity person known as ThatCaptainWithTheStarship". The second is when someone is presenting themselves as an authority. This is similar to the expert witness idea in court. We (the court) don't have the time to go and examine every statement you make for accuracy: we want to be able to take it on faith. So when someone says "I am James T. Kirk, so I know all about the Klingon/Organian intervention", they're saying "I have the creds, you should take what I say on faith". There are fields where one's argument is all the weight (philosophy and mathematics, for example) but then there are fields where it's much harder to fact-check ("When I was last in the Neutral Zone, I met the Romulan Commander for tea, and she told me a totally different story about what happened with the Klingons. I suggest that your analysis of the politics is biased...").

It seems to me that this is where outing might happen: in the desire to cross-check credentials and sources of bias/error, in situations and fields where this sort of cross-checking may be desirable or even necessary for learning purposes. As another fictional example, suppose I came upon a series of courses on here purporting to teach Romulan history. It's awfully hard for me to go to Romulus and actually fact-check all their sources. I might search up information on the teacher, put together a picture of who I thought they were, just in order to understand their biases. I might then be tempted to share this with other users, particularly in cases where I disagreed strongly with them about something (usually political). For example, if I found out that I was being taught by T'Pau of Vulcan, I might post that to other students, warning them that she might well be playing up all the violence to make the Romulans look savage. T'Pau, however, might be understandably horrified at being outed as someone teaching a course on Romulan history on some human website.

tl;dr version: People might out someone, either in the context of linking a published work with its author's Wikiversity identity, or in the context of credential-checking, in good faith and for good reasons.

On the other hand, both of these seem to me like they should be up to the person in question as to whether the person's real information could be shared.

In academia, it's routine to do the second kind of credential-checking; academia can be an incestuous pit of snakes, and so I can understand folks' desire to carry this over to Wikiversity. I'm not sure what to do about the trade-offs there.

This has been a somewhat rambling post by Kalany 23:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the first case is a prime example of the controversy over the use of real names, and what has sparked what is now known as the Essjay controversy. TeleComNasSprVen 19:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

As I read this I don't really see the Wv as a unique entity, instead I see it functioning in the scope of other web entities, especially the WP and the Jimbo-sphere. I wonder if moulton would be different if this were say, a coffee shop. The point being that we should think in terms of who we are and not the distinct lunacy that makes the WP what it is. I see how the WP is, but I don't see the Wv seeing how the WP is; a crazy cartoon of a kangaroo court (nothing against 'roos). At the end of the day the problem we have is a microcosm: there is a type of person that if you unintentionally and unknowingly do something they don't like, they will never hate you forever and they will obsess about setting this imaginary wrong right in the worst possible way. The therapist has to give them whatever they want, and inject no logic. In real life we likewise have to give them what they want when when can't steer clear of them. They use this to go right to the top, the world in fact rotates around them, and we play their game because the only option is to wait until they turn around and hit them with a rock. Frankly, I actually used to do that(!), but I can't anymore because I am "outed" in local society (but I didn't use to be!). So I wonder why we are letting moulton (posthumously) wrap us around this issue.--JohnBessa^talk 03:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Anonymity: Protecting vulnerable users from public exposure

In my personal opinion, it ought to be the responsibility of users to cross-check any information with other sources. Whilst I appreciate the argument that might regard pseudonymns as contrary to principles of academic validity and accountability, I feel that a person's right to privacy is also important. It ought not to be the business of anyone here to inquire as to why that person wishes to remain private. This might to do with family circumstance, or because they are known to be particularly controversial in their chosen field of work and wish to avoid further public exposure.