On 8/2/07, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
As for limiting the damage: what people have been trying to tell you -- and what some people just don't seem to get -- is that the measures being taken *aren't* limiting the damage. For one, the outing itself is already done; the worms can't be stuffed back into the can.
Kirill, you're quite right that the damage can't be undone. Whether or not Sarah is the person that Brandt believes her to be, removing a message from her talk page at this stage won't prevent people from finding out that Brandt believes her to be this person. (Or if it does, in a few cases, it also causes other people to find out, as removing posts can draw more attention to them. So we lose and gain at the same time.)
But something very important has been overlooked: preventing people from seeing who Brandt thinks Sarah is is not the only possible motive for removing those posts. Another reason is the strong likelihood that she doesn't want those posts. How do we know that? Well, common sense, to start off with, and then the fact that before the recent increase in attacks on her privacy she had frequently argued in favour of removing links to sites that out people, and finally, the fact that some of the people removing the posts are known to be friendly with her, and might have a better understanding of her feelings than those who have criticised the removal of the posts.
It's not possible to hush up this rumour, but it should be possible to create an environment where contributors who have given a lot to Wikipedia and have been harassed as a result can feel that they have the support of the community. Creating such an environment is good for Wikipedia, but I sometimes feel that's overlooked. As one of the MONGO rulings said, "Wikipedia users, especially administrators, will not permit a user under attack to be isolated, but will support them. This may include reverting harassing edits, protecting or deleting pages, blocking users, or taking other appropriate action."
Allowing people to indulge in a long discussion on Wikipedia as to whether or not Sarah really is a spy and whether or not she really is the person Brandt believes her to be creates an environment where stalking victims who have contributed a lot feel vulnerable and betrayed. That's not good for the project. As you yourself endorsed in the Abu badali arbcom case, "the feelings of other users matter". Sarah's feelings matter.
Some people have suggested that it's not possible to make things worse by posting about it. I scalded my hand once, and for some time afterwards, it hurt more when I sat near the fire or when I washed in warm water. Touching a wound can make it worse. We don't say, "Oh, this person is wounded anyway, so there's no reason to take any special care. Let's poke to our hearts' content." At least, if we're kind, we don't.
Does all this "suppression" make Wikipedia look bad or ridiculous? If handled properly, it shouldn't. It should be possible to remove threads calmly, stating that Wikipedia has a policy of not engaging in, encouraging, or promoting speculation about the identities of anonymous contributors, and another policy of removing any poorly sourced material that might affect a person in real life. And that article, frankly, is a not a credit to journalism. The fact is, we remove material all the time, because of OTRS complaints, or because we see that it could affect people. Think of Jimbo's courtesy blanking of the Badlydrawnjeff ArbCom page. Think of the deletion of the Daniel Brandt discussion page.
I've been very impressed with some of the things written by arbitrators, and especially by you, Kirill, when it comes to the respect we should have for the feelings of people who might be affected by material on Wikipedia. There were some amazingly sensitive and wise rulings in the Badlydrawnjeff case, particularly "Basic human dignity" and "Do no harm", and I think they were drafted by you. But you never said, "Unless, of course, the person affected happens to be a Wikipedia editor."
As Jimbo said, "Wikipedia is not here to make people sad."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OFFICE#Intent
Elinor