On the Arbitration page, an interesting idea is presented. MONGO says this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitrati...
"If we started linking in all the posts that proves that website has actively engaged in trying to "out" real identities and allows other egregious attacks, then that might help explain why we don't have an article about that website. Due to information posted on WR, either mirrored from some other site or posted there originally, I can think of at least 5 wikipedians who have left or assumed new identities on Wikipedia to avoid the harassment associated with those posts. That the website actively engages as a forum to collaborate in an effort to "discover" who people are in real life is no mystery...it is transparent.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 19:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)"
In response, Risker says this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration...
"In response to Mongo, I believe that there is good reason to be more upfront about potential risks to registering an account at Wikipedia. I've just gone and checked the information given about registering accounts, and there is very little about the risks of doing so, and plenty about the benefits. It would be good to have a subpage there discussing things like choice of user name, deciding how much personal information to put on your user page, and the fact that (as one of the most read sites on the internet) Wikipedia cannot guarantee the privacy of any person. I would be willing to work on this, but I have no idea who manages that page. [[User:Risker|Risker]] 19:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)"
Is this a good idea? Put up a warning for all new registrations that your privacy is not/cannot be guaranteed by Wikipedia? If there will be no policy to stop people from linking to sites/sources that DO engage in outing our identaties this may be required. If the press got hold of this...
This conversation spawned from some vehement opposition to a proposed policy to ban links to attack, outing, and hate sites aimed at hurting Wikipedians. The policy is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attack_sites
Denny Colt wrote:
Is this a good idea? Put up a warning for all new registrations that your privacy is not/cannot be guaranteed by Wikipedia? If there will be no policy to stop people from linking to sites/sources that DO engage in outing our identaties this may be required. If the press got hold of this...
For all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about common sense, if it's going to help to spell the obvious out to people, then yes, it's a good idea. If people really think that editing a high profile website is a good way to keep their anonyminity, I don't really know what to say to that. Certainly, I'm sure the Foundation isn't guaranteeing anything.
-Jeff
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Denny Colt wrote:
This conversation spawned from some vehement opposition to a proposed policy to ban links to attack, outing, and hate sites aimed at hurting Wikipedians. The policy is:
That has been getting Kafkaesque because the "policy" has been used to *ban links in the discussion about the policy*. That's right, in discussing a policy about whether attack sites may be linked to, nobody may ever use an attack site as an example of why one might want to link to an attack site.
On 4/13/07, Denny Colt wikidenny@gmail.com wrote:
If there will be no policy to stop people from linking to sites/sources that DO engage in outing our identaties this may be required.
The blocking policy has for a long time regarded publishing personal information as blockable behaviour.
On 4/13/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/13/07, Denny Colt wikidenny@gmail.com wrote:
If there will be no policy to stop people from linking to sites/sources that DO engage in outing
our
identaties this may be required.
The blocking policy has for a long time regarded publishing personal information as blockable behaviour.
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com
True, but that is of little help if it is done by people outside of Wikipedia.
Mgm
On 4/13/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/13/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/13/07, Denny Colt wikidenny@gmail.com wrote:
If there will be no policy to stop people from linking to sites/sources that DO engage in outing
our
identaties this may be required.
The blocking policy has for a long time regarded publishing personal information as blockable behaviour.
True, but that is of little help if it is done by people outside of Wikipedia.
Well, the issue at hand is linking to such sites. Linking to people outside of Wikipedia who do this, for the purpose of furthering what they are doing, is blockable under current policy.
Blocking such links doesn't make the sites go away. The sites are still there, it just makes it harder for Wikipedians to keep tabs on it and warn people who get listed.
Mgm
On 4/13/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/13/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/13/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/13/07, Denny Colt wikidenny@gmail.com wrote:
If there will be no policy to stop people from linking to sites/sources that DO engage in
outing
our
identaties this may be required.
The blocking policy has for a long time regarded publishing personal information as blockable behaviour.
True, but that is of little help if it is done by people outside of Wikipedia.
Well, the issue at hand is linking to such sites. Linking to people outside of Wikipedia who do this, for the purpose of furthering what they are doing, is blockable under current policy.
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 4/13/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Blocking such links doesn't make the sites go away. The sites are still there, it just makes it harder for Wikipedians to keep tabs on it and warn people who get listed.
Mgm
Every single link from Wikipedia back to hate sites that out editors if left on-Wikipedia increases exposure and damage to the Wikipedians in question. Why do we need a link that leads in 1-2 clicks to 'outed' personal information to keep tabs on anything? That is what bookmarks are for.
There is no difference between posting on Wikipedia "Mgm is actually Caroline Smith from Yorkshire, England, employed the Guardian Newspaper" or "Mgm is actually Bob Jones from Las Vegas, Nevada, employed by the United States Postal service" and linking back to a Website that says the exact same thing. Both are equally damaging on-wiki to Mgm.
Opponents of protecting Wikipedians even had the very nerve to say that being personally outed was at best an "nconvenience."
Denny
Denny Colt wrote:
Every single link from Wikipedia back to hate sites that out editors if left on-Wikipedia increases exposure and damage to the Wikipedians in question. Why do we need a link that leads in 1-2 clicks to 'outed' personal information to keep tabs on anything? That is what bookmarks are for.
There is no difference between posting on Wikipedia "Mgm is actually Caroline Smith from Yorkshire, England, employed the Guardian Newspaper" or "Mgm is actually Bob Jones from Las Vegas, Nevada, employed by the United States Postal service" and linking back to a Website that says the exact same thing. Both are equally damaging on-wiki to Mgm.
Opponents of protecting Wikipedians even had the very nerve to say that being personally outed was at best an "nconvenience."
Denny _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
May I point out an interesting double-standard here? Most Wikipedians believes that publishing personal information is harmful (I agree with them for the most part, by the way). Why, then, are there no qualms about Wikipedia editors publishing personal information of those that have fallen from favor?
Wikipedia currently has several pages which contain my real name, city of residence, and phone number (granted, I initially supplied these myself, but the point stands). Wikipedia contains virulent personal attacks alleging that I am a neo-Nazi/anti-Semite/Nazi sympathizer/holocaust denier - attacks that still remain on Wikipedia's servers. This all has been copied to numerous websites all over the internet as Wikipedia's content is scraped and spammed by anyone looking to make a few quick advertising bucks, and I have actually received telephone calls from people who got my number from Wikipedia. Yet that information is not removed - or when it is, it is re-instated. (I'll admit all this pissed me off at first, but I've found I don't really care anymore).
So let's get this straight - we're proposing a Wikipedia policy to ban all links to any website which might have a page identifying a Wikipedia editor, and yet Wikipedia editors not only publish personal information on their own servers, they ensure that that information stays in place, and they allow it to be copied by any fuckwad hoping to get some cheap content on the internet that they can use to hopefully turn a profit on.
The "damage" of exposure is overrated, by the way. Now, true, it does give irate people an actual IRL target that they could harass, but most trolls won't go that far, because it could lead to actual real-life repercussions for themselves. It's also argued that it could cause certain editors problems with their employer, but let's be blunt - if a person is an a position that they could stand to lose their job by editing Wikipedia, they have no business editing Wikipedia. There are possibly other arguments for the horrible "damage", but I can't think of any common ones at the moment.
I believe that "outing" Wikipedia administrators may be seen as harassment toward those editors, but I do not agree that it can really be seen as a major threat. I agree that it has no place on Wikipedia, and current policy already states that. Blowing things out of proportion gives trolls even more food than they get from Wikipedia in the first place (and believe me, I know).
I personally believe that [[WP:BADSITES]] is unneeded. Current policy already allows for reverting and blocking editors who post personal information or links to such information. The proposed policy seeks to ban all links to any site that has published the personal information of Wikipedians, but I'll admit that I find the proposal quite silly. There are occasions on which such links are not only beneficial to discussions, but also necessary (in the proper citing of resources, for example, or in relevant articles such as the one on Wikitruth). An outright ban on them would amount to nothing more than blatant censorship.
On 4/14/07, Blu Aardvark jewbowales@wikipedia-lol.cjb.net wrote:
Denny Colt wrote:
Every single link from Wikipedia back to hate sites that out editors if
left
on-Wikipedia increases exposure and damage to the Wikipedians in
question.
Why do we need a link that leads in 1-2 clicks to 'outed' personal information to keep tabs on anything? That is what bookmarks are for.
There is no difference between posting on Wikipedia "Mgm is actually Caroline Smith from Yorkshire, England, employed the Guardian Newspaper"
or
"Mgm is actually Bob Jones from Las Vegas, Nevada, employed by the
United
States Postal service" and linking back to a Website that says the exact same thing. Both are equally damaging on-wiki to Mgm.
Opponents of protecting Wikipedians even had the very nerve to say that being personally outed was at best an "nconvenience."
Denny _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
May I point out an interesting double-standard here? Most Wikipedians believes that publishing personal information is harmful (I agree with them for the most part, by the way). Why, then, are there no qualms about Wikipedia editors publishing personal information of those that have fallen from favor?
Wikipedia currently has several pages which contain my real name, city of residence, and phone number (granted, I initially supplied these myself, but the point stands). Wikipedia contains virulent personal attacks alleging that I am a neo-Nazi/anti-Semite/Nazi sympathizer/holocaust denier - attacks that still remain on Wikipedia's servers. This all has been copied to numerous websites all over the internet as Wikipedia's content is scraped and spammed by anyone looking to make a few quick advertising bucks, and I have actually received telephone calls from people who got my number from Wikipedia. Yet that information is not removed - or when it is, it is re-instated. (I'll admit all this pissed me off at first, but I've found I don't really care anymore).
So let's get this straight - we're proposing a Wikipedia policy to ban all links to any website which might have a page identifying a Wikipedia editor, and yet Wikipedia editors not only publish personal information on their own servers, they ensure that that information stays in place, and they allow it to be copied by any fuckwad hoping to get some cheap content on the internet that they can use to hopefully turn a profit on.
The "damage" of exposure is overrated, by the way. Now, true, it does give irate people an actual IRL target that they could harass, but most trolls won't go that far, because it could lead to actual real-life repercussions for themselves. It's also argued that it could cause certain editors problems with their employer, but let's be blunt - if a person is an a position that they could stand to lose their job by editing Wikipedia, they have no business editing Wikipedia. There are possibly other arguments for the horrible "damage", but I can't think of any common ones at the moment.
I believe that "outing" Wikipedia administrators may be seen as harassment toward those editors, but I do not agree that it can really be seen as a major threat. I agree that it has no place on Wikipedia, and current policy already states that. Blowing things out of proportion gives trolls even more food than they get from Wikipedia in the first place (and believe me, I know).
I personally believe that [[WP:BADSITES]] is unneeded. Current policy already allows for reverting and blocking editors who post personal information or links to such information. The proposed policy seeks to ban all links to any site that has published the personal information of Wikipedians, but I'll admit that I find the proposal quite silly. There are occasions on which such links are not only beneficial to discussions, but also necessary (in the proper citing of resources, for example, or in relevant articles such as the one on Wikitruth). An outright ban on them would amount to nothing more than blatant censorship.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
There have been people who had visits from the police or got passed on promotions, fired or failed to get a job in the first place because of harrasment. I don't call that overrated. It has real world repercussions, but the harrassers hardly ever get caught.
About that last line: Would blatantly censoring harrasment be a bad thing? We are already censoring illegal activities. It may be hard to prove, but harrasment/libel is just as illegal especially if it has effects on the harrased person.
Mgm
There have been people who had visits from the police or got passed on promotions, fired or failed to get a job in the first place because of harrasment. I don't call that overrated. It has real world repercussions, but the harrassers hardly ever get caught.
I would have to wonder, what would have prompted the police to visit these editors? If we're talking about Phil Sandifer's graphic web posting, I personally think that *some* degree of concern was appropriate (and none of that was related to Wikipedia in the first place, rather, an off-site blog and a concerned person who read the blog). If we're talking about something else, then I'm not at all aware of the situation.
If a person is having difficulty with their employer due to their involvement in Wikipedia, one would have to wonder what prompted their employer to be concerned about their involvement? Was the editor contributing while on the clock, was there some form of conflict-of-interest, or did the editor actively post libelous statements themselves?
I'll admit I haven't heard of any cases where a person was turned down for a job because of being identified as a Wikipedia editor, and if I understood more about this, I might be inclined to agree.
About that last line: Would blatantly censoring harrasment be a bad thing? We are already censoring illegal activities. It may be hard to prove, but harrasment/libel is just as illegal especially if it has effects on the harrased person.
Mgm
Harassment is illegal. In most areas, at least so far as I am aware, and here in the states, libel is simply a tort. That doesn't make it right, but it's not necessarily *criminal*. I do approve of not linking to such cases of harassment and libel, and even removing such links in cases were they are not helpful to discussion or relevant to an article. I don't approve of blanket bans on sites that have published information that could be deemed to be harassing or libelous, *especially* if that site has become notable.
On 15/04/07, Blu Aardvark jewbowales@wikipedia-lol.cjb.net wrote:
I would have to wonder, what would have prompted the police to visit these editors? If we're talking about Phil Sandifer's graphic web posting, I personally think that *some* degree of concern was appropriate (and none of that was related to Wikipedia in the first place, rather, an off-site blog and a concerned person who read the blog). If we're talking about something else, then I'm not at all aware of the situation. If a person is having difficulty with their employer due to their involvement in Wikipedia, one would have to wonder what prompted their employer to be concerned about their involvement? Was the editor contributing while on the clock, was there some form of conflict-of-interest, or did the editor actively post libelous statements themselves?
In the case you mention, it would be because contributors to Wikipedia Review attempted to get him into trouble with his employer and the police over his works as a writer of fiction.
- d.
On 4/14/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
There have been people who had visits from the police or got passed on promotions, fired or failed to get a job in the first place because of harrasment. I don't call that overrated. It has real world repercussions, but the harrassers hardly ever get caught.
About that last line: Would blatantly censoring harrasment be a bad thing? We are already censoring illegal activities. It may be hard to prove, but harrasment/libel is just as illegal especially if it has effects on the harrased person.
Mgm
Apparently, the case I thought I saw about this on either the mailing list or WP:ANI is untraceable. Still, I believe we should prevent onwiki harrasment rather than cure it after the fact. Linking to problematic, libellous material offwiki should be allowed but only in a few circumstances.
Mgm
Blu Aardvark wrote:
May I point out an interesting double-standard here? Most Wikipedians
believes that publishing personal information is harmful (I agree with them for the most part, by the way). Why, then, are there no qualms about Wikipedia editors publishing personal information of those that have fallen from favor?
I agree that whatever policy is generally agreed to must be applied evenly across the board.
Wikipedia currently has several pages which contain my real name, city of residence, and phone number (granted, I initially supplied these myself, but the point stands).
When you add these yourself your permission to include the material is implicit.
Wikipedia contains virulent personal attacks alleging that I am a neo-Nazi/anti-Semite/Nazi sympathizer/holocaust denier - attacks that still remain on Wikipedia's servers. This all has been copied to numerous websites all over the internet as Wikipedia's content is scraped and spammed by anyone looking to make a few quick advertising bucks, and I have actually received telephone calls from people who got my number from Wikipedia. Yet that information is not removed - or when it is, it is re-instated. (I'll admit all this pissed me off at first, but I've found I don't really care anymore).
If you are indeed involved in the kind of activities that you describe, your personal involvement in Wikipedia is irrelevant to including this information. What becomes important is whether the activities were reliably reported elsewhere. Since many would consider that mentioning one's involvement with such activities as derogatory, the sourcing of such information is particularly important.
So let's get this straight - we're proposing a Wikipedia policy to ban all links to any website which might have a page identifying a Wikipedia editor, and yet Wikipedia editors not only publish personal information on their own servers, they ensure that that information stays in place, and they allow it to be copied by any fuckwad hoping to get some cheap content on the internet that they can use to hopefully turn a profit on.
We cannot control the behaviour of external "fuckwads".
I personally believe that [[WP:BADSITES]] is unneeded. Current policy already allows for reverting and blocking editors who post personal information or links to such information. The proposed policy seeks to ban all links to any site that has published the personal information of Wikipedians, but I'll admit that I find the proposal quite silly. There are occasions on which such links are not only beneficial to discussions, but also necessary (in the proper citing of resources, for example, or in relevant articles such as the one on Wikitruth). An outright ban on them would amount to nothing more than blatant censorship.
It is presumptuous and arrogant to judge the behaviour of participants on other sites. It is also contrary to the spirit of NPOV to impose that principle on other sites. Of course other sites will engage in libel or copyright infringement, or other activity that may be illegal. Assuming good faith should include assuming that what is put on these other sites is perfectly legal. If there is something illegal there it is up to those affected to demand that they clean up their site. When they do that our links will then be to cleaned up sites or dead.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
When you add these yourself your permission to include the material is implicit.
I'm talking about *information* I had provided (both on- and off-site), not content. Most of the pages I had provided that information on have been removed.
If you are indeed involved in the kind of activities that you describe, your personal involvement in Wikipedia is irrelevant to including this information. What becomes important is whether the activities were reliably reported elsewhere. Since many would consider that mentioning one's involvement with such activities as derogatory, the sourcing of such information is particularly important.
That's the point. I'm not involved with such activities. If I were, I wouldn't call it a "virulent personal attack".
It is presumptuous and arrogant to judge the behaviour of participants on other sites. It is also contrary to the spirit of NPOV to impose that principle on other sites. Of course other sites will engage in libel or copyright infringement, or other activity that may be illegal. Assuming good faith should include assuming that what is put on these other sites is perfectly legal. If there is something illegal there it is up to those affected to demand that they clean up their site. When they do that our links will then be to cleaned up sites or dead.
Ec
Well, at least we agree on this. It shouldn't be up to Wikipedia to determine the legality of external sites, nor should they judge the content except for in the sense "is it notable, and relevant to this article/discussion"?
Wikipedia Review isn't particularly notable, at least not yet, and thus, links to it can effectively be excluded from the article namespace (although I still hold that a single link from [[Criticism of Wikipedia]] would be appropriate.) Links from the Wikipedia: and Talk: namespaces might still be appropriate in select cases, which should be judged on a case-by-case basis, not banned on a global scale.
I'm just using WR as an example, as that appears to be more or less the site which prompted this debate.
On 4/14/07, Blu Aardvark jewbowales@wikipedia-lol.cjb.net wrote:
Wikipedia currently has several pages which contain my real name, city of residence, and phone number (granted, I initially supplied these myself, but the point stands).
You should ask to have revisions containing personal information like your phone number oversighted. Failing that, tell me where the revisions are and I will delete them myself. It doesn't matter that you supplied them initially, there is no reason for this kind of personal information to be anywhere on Wikipedia if the person doesn't want it there.
And yes, I mean in articles too. There's no reason for personal information like phone numbers and street addresses to be included anywhere on Wikipedia (unless someone chooses to put them there themselves, and then only while they want it there).
On 4/15/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
And yes, I mean in articles too. There's no reason for personal information like phone numbers and street addresses to be included anywhere on Wikipedia (unless someone chooses to put them there themselves, and then only while they want it there).
Whether a person adds material about themselves personally is irrelevant to whether it should be there. We never distinguish between *who* added the material - only whether it meets our policies.
As a general rule, I don't think we include phone numbers of any individuals or even organisations. For a start, they're liable to change. And then, who are they useful to? People overseas? I guess there are exceptions like particularly famous phone numbers, but in general we don't need or want them.
Steve
On 4/15/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/15/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
And yes, I mean in articles too. There's no reason for personal information like phone numbers and street addresses to be included anywhere on Wikipedia (unless someone chooses to put them there themselves, and then only while they want it there).
Whether a person adds material about themselves personally is irrelevant to whether it should be there. We never distinguish between *who* added the material - only whether it meets our policies.
As a general rule, I don't think we include phone numbers of any individuals or even organisations. For a start, they're liable to change. And then, who are they useful to? People overseas? I guess there are exceptions like particularly famous phone numbers, but in general we don't need or want them.
I think he was talking about user pages. If a Wikipedian wants to put their phone number on their user page, to help people contact them, should we stop them?
Anthony
On 4/15/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I think he was talking about user pages. If a Wikipedian wants to put their phone number on their user page, to help people contact them, should we stop them?
Oh, sorry, I was totally barking up the wrong tree.
Steve
On 4/15/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
I think he was talking about user pages. If a Wikipedian wants to put their phone number on their user page, to help people contact them, should we stop them?
Anthony
No, and we shouldn't stop them if they change their mind either. We should if it's relevant article content, but personal details like phone numbers and addresses should always be removed if the person it applies to asks for it to be done.
Mgm
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
On 4/15/07, Anthony wrote:
I think he was talking about user pages. If a Wikipedian wants to put their phone number on their user page, to help people contact them, should we stop them?
No, and we shouldn't stop them if they change their mind either. We should if it's relevant article content, but personal details like phone numbers and addresses should always be removed if the person it applies to asks for it to be done.
Sometimes. I certainly have many books where the author clearly tells the reader that he may send comments about the book to a specified address, which happens to be his home address. These are often not particularly contentious matters, but they do give the address.
Ec
On 15/04/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
On 4/15/07, Anthony wrote:
I think he was talking about user pages. If a Wikipedian wants to put their phone number on their user page, to help people contact them, should we stop them?
No, and we shouldn't stop them if they change their mind either. We should if it's relevant article content, but personal details like phone numbers and addresses should always be removed if the person it applies to asks for it to be done.
Sometimes. I certainly have many books where the author clearly tells the reader that he may send comments about the book to a specified address, which happens to be his home address. These are often not particularly contentious matters, but they do give the address.
Bear in mind that we pretty much never include basic contact information even for companies or physical locations, which are places that actively publicise it - we'll say the museum or gallery is located in such-and-such city, or maybe if it's a landmark we'll say it's on such-and-such a street in the centre of town, or what district it's in... but we'll do that as part of the routine flow of text about the building. We don't give a phone number or postal address in the same way editorial common sense tells us not to include ticket prices and hours of admission.
I have a hard time seeing where detailed contact or locational information - any more than "lives in central New York" - is ever going to be appropriate for someone whose residence isn't a household word.
On 4/15/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/14/07, Blu Aardvark jewbowales@wikipedia-lol.cjb.net wrote:
Wikipedia currently has several pages which contain my real name, city of residence, and phone number (granted, I initially supplied these myself, but the point stands).
You should ask to have revisions containing personal information like your phone number oversighted. Failing that, tell me where the revisions are and I will delete them myself.
What about the libelous statements about me that appear to this day? I wrote to info-en asking for the page to be removed. They wrote back telling me to email an arbitrator. I then wrote to Fred Bauder. Never received a response.
Anthony
On 4/15/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 4/15/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/14/07, Blu Aardvark jewbowales@wikipedia-lol.cjb.net wrote:
Wikipedia currently has several pages which contain my real name, city of residence, and phone number (granted, I initially supplied these myself, but the point stands).
You should ask to have revisions containing personal information like your phone number oversighted. Failing that, tell me where the revisions are and I will delete them myself.
What about the libelous statements about me that appear to this day? I wrote to info-en asking for the page to be removed. They wrote back telling me to email an arbitrator. I then wrote to Fred Bauder. Never received a response.
Anthony
What statements are you talking about? Mgm