Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Dan Murphy		30 December 2013	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024
Clarification request: Extended confirmed restriction	none	none	25 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Dan Murphy

Initiated by Tryptofish (talk) at 20:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Tryptofish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Dan Murphy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 28bytes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [1] Dan Murphy
• [2] 28bytes

Statement by Tryptofish

User:Dan Murphy, previously User:Bali ultimate, recently began a post at Wikipediocracy (WPO) by saying: "Apparently recently resoundingly elected Wikipedia Arbitration committee member "28bytes" is a guy named (name) who also happens to be a longstanding poster here called "Mason" (who I believe has access to some of this website's "seekreit fooruooms".)" Consider how none of the constructive value of the posting would have been lost by leaving out the real life name: "Apparently recently resoundingly elected Wikipedia Arbitration committee member "28bytes" is a guy who also happens to be...". All the naming accomplished was the Internet phenomenon of dancing up and down in pleasure at causing someone else discomfort – and, of course, 28bytes' resignation. If asked, I'm prepared to demonstrate that there are no material differences between this, and the reasons why the Committee recently banned Phil Sandifer. (I hope this time you discuss it on-site.) The problem of deliberately and sportingly outing Arbitrators and other community members is having a corrosive effect on Wikipedia's functioning, including but not limited to the willingness of well-qualified users to run for ArbCom. Dan Murphy has a significant and serious block log. He was recently sanctioned at Arbitration Enforcement. At this point, he is simply WP:NOTHERE. This is not about his activity at WPO. It's about whether it serves the interests of Wikipedia for him to continue here.

You can dispose of this by motion, without needing a full case. I listed 28bytes as a party purely as a formality. His selfless resignation obviates any need for the Committee to act on him. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

@Dan Murphy: According to 28bytes, his reaction to your post was "This has not been an enjoyable month for me...seeing my name and hometown on various websites a few minutes later, there's been very little enjoyment of what should essentially be a fun hobby." And I'll point to how Newyorkbrad recently said: "But such "I only followed the breadcrumbs" arguments have rarely impressed me before...". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

@28bytes: I obviously respect how you feel, but: [3]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

@Arbs: I see that three of you, at this time, are declining. Truly, I think that this is a craven response. Nobody is asking you to tell the moderators of WPO what to do. And you can handle this with a quick motion, much like one of the motions in the Sandifer decision. The issue is whether you should simply be walking away from what Brad correctly calls "a gratuitous, indefensible act of hostility and unkindness". That you would feel unable to act effectively sets a very bad stage for whoever may think of running for ArbCom in the future, and may decide that it isn't worth it. I've recently seen some people say exactly that. You should be able to see from the comments so far that the community cannot deal with this problem without your intervention. If you really do fail to enact a motion, you are not only contradicting your recent precedent about Sandifer, but you are failing to confront an important problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

@Arbs: I've slept on this, and thought about it, and my opinion has not changed one iota. Then again, I can clearly see what you have been saying to me. I had hoped that you could deal with this by a motion. Maybe someone else will start a ban discussion at AN, but I'm just very disappointed. I'm disappointed in ArbCom, I'm disappointed in the community. (And this: [4], good grief!) Oh, and you need to reverse your ban of Phil Sandifer now. You are trying to have it both ways, and you can't. Final score: Bullies 1, Good Editors 0. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by John Cline

I am interested in the circumstances giving rise to this request. I believe a case is warranted and furthermore feel it belongs under the purview of the outgoing Committee.—John Cline (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Hasteur

I seem to recall that there was a case (or case request) a few months about the failed proposal Wikipedia:Attack sites and trying to get it enacted as an ArbCom fiat. I think denying all recognition to said badsite is the best solution. Heck, I would wager that there's probably a new thread that's being launched about this attempt to blackball the site. Hasteur (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Dan Murphy

"28bytes" self-identified on Wikipedia. [5]Dan Murphy (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Iselilja

I am among those who generally wants ArbCom/Wikipedia to sanction users who out other Wikipedians on other sites. In this case, however, we are in the situation that the person who was outed (28Bytes) was an active member of the outing site. I don’t think ArbCom can sanction an editor of another site for outing one of their own. Iselilja (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Mangoe

My impression is that the significant outing was that 28bytes was a particular user on Wikipediocracy, which could not be deduced from external evidence. As far as the "breadcrumbs" argument is concerned, it might be one thing where significant investigation is required, but when the answer is a single click away from the admission, it's not that much of a revelation.

I would add that pinning this all on Murphy is questionable; a reading of the material on Wikipediocracy suggests that essentially everyone who had access to a particular private section on the site had some culpability. Mangoe (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

@Jehochman: Two points. First, your observations about Murphy's motivation is to be interpreted as a personal attack; they should be redacted in the interest our policies.

Second, if I had a Wikipediocracy account, I would feel no compunction about not revealing it and keeping a separate identity there which could not be tied to here. If we are against outing here it surely is a corollary that we cannot expect people here to out themselves elsewhere. Mangoe (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by 28bytes

Dan Murphy is correct, I self-identified on Wikipedia. That he revealed, on an external website, who the owner of an account on that website was, is, while irritating to me, outside the purview of the committee. I request the committee decline this case on that basis. 28bytes (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Nick

There's nothing inherently worthy of Arbitration, unless we're going to drag ourselves down the well worn path of trying to refine, yet again, just how much of what Wikipediocracy does is under the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee and whether behaviour there should result in sanctions here. What will need to be looked at, as Tryptofish sort of points out, is whether the community will want Arb candidates to declare some or all third party website memberships for the 2014 election. That's an RfC issue and that's where we should now be looking, moving forward instead of reversing. Nick (talk) 21:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Hahc21

I am in full agreement of what Tryptofish wrote above. There is a big difference amogst what 28bytes did (I created an article about a videogame I wrote) and what Dan Murphy did (28bytes is _name_). 28bytes never explicitly aknowledged that the name that appeared on the videogame article was his, and he did so intentionally. Murphy went beyond this by not only disclosing 28bytes' real name but also disclosing his private Wikipediocracy account. The fact that 28bytes should have disclosed this account when he ran for the Arbitration Committee is irrelevant here, and it should not diminish the severe nature of Murphy's actions. What he did is quite the same thing that Phil Sandifer did against Cla68, and it should receive the same treatment from the Committee. — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 21:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Bielle

Tryptofish, the quote on which you base your case against Dan Murphy appeared on Wikipediocracy's public forum on Dec. 28, 2013. (If you go to the forum, the thread is entitled "Wikipedia Arbitrator 28bytes is Will Nicholes and Mason"). 28bytes revealed himself on Wikipedia as the author of the game "Duck Attack", and linked to the WP article in which he named himself, on December 20 (all as shown in the link posted above by Dan Murphy). That's 8 days earlier than Dan's post, and there was no "trail of breadcrumbs" to follow but a direct link by 28bytes to his own name.

The only "news" was that 28bytes was also Mason on Wikipediocracy, a revelation to which you say you have no objection. As for Hahc21's complaint about what Wikipediocracy reveals about its members on its site, that's a reach into another universe. Bielle (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Jehochman

Please spare yourselves and everybody else the trouble. Decline this case. Wikipedia is not a battleground. No articles have been directly damaged, and drawing out the conflict would only inconvenience 28bytes. Please respect his wishes. He did the honorable thing already. Jehochman ^Talk 22:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

@Tryptofish, perhaps these thoughts will ease your mind: Dan Murphy seems to be the type of journalist who makes news (or is the news himself), rather than reporting the news. In my view, this is not the right way for a professional journalist to act. It's one thing to report and comment; it's another to campaign for a cause as an activist. I think Dan should act in one mode or the other with respect to Wikipedia. However, there's no harm prevented by banning him, because he's not using his editing privileges to do anything improper AFAIK (please show diffs if you disagree). ArbCom is wise to decline this matter, because there's nothing they can do that would be helpful, and the publicity a case would generate for Murphy only aids his cause, which is not our purpose.

In general, we should deny publicity when somebody engages in gratuitous doxing and intimidation of our editors. Should this activity be persistent and disruptive to the mission of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia office should review the matter and decide how to handle it. An appropriate resolution is probably beyond the scope of ArbCom. Online harassment is unacceptable and there are ways to deal with in in a civil society.

Finally, if any editors at Wikipedia or Wikipediaocracy want to participate at both sites, it's probably a good idea to use the same identity in both places. Eventually the account activities would probably be connected, so why not just declare the connection up front to avoid trouble? This will avoid accusations of spying, misrepresentation, or bad faith. Our editors should not spy on Wikipediocracy's private areas; what happens there should stay there. Likewise, Wikipediocracy participants should not use private access here to breach confidences. Jehochman ^Talk 16:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

@Herostratus, humanity numbers many billion people. Most of them with online access like Wikipedia. A handful don't. We should not give so much attention and importance to a few lonely detractors. Let Dan Murphy be. Maybe he will eventually change his mind. There is no benefit to vilifying him. Jehochman ^Talk 00:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Kumioko

Unfortunately I have to agree that this doesn't need to go through the Arbitration committee. I do completely believe that a block or ban of Dan Murphy is in order though for Outing. The purpose of Outing is to prevent harm to the project or to the individual. While 28bytes did self identify he did not nor was there a requirement for him to do so with his Wikipediocracy account. As such, the revelation by Dan that he was Mason was outing just as if he would have stated his real identity and the cost to the editor and the project is just as real. Additionally Dan's conduct on this site and comments such as the ones on his talk page about how he "would rather gouge his eyes out with a fork than edit" should be proof enough that he is only interested in causing disruption to the project, not to contribute to it. Kumioko (talk) 00:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Carrite

As the self-identification happened on AN, there is clearly no grounds for a case here. 28bytyes (who would have been a great Arb) is Will Nicholes by his own statement. I do wish to add that it's too damned bad that this intended dramafest and attack on Dan Murphy can't be boomeranged into to OP's face. Carrite (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Tarc

All I have to say that it is a shame that this sort of ugliness had to rear its head during the holiday season. Leading upto Christmas, I try to get to re-reading A Christmas Carol, as well as viewing as many of the film renditions as possible (I am rather partial to the slightly silly musical Scrooge (1970), and IMO many of its lessons would do all a world of good here. We've lost a well-qualified and broadly-supported new Arbitration committee member due to some rather vulgar McCarthyist "have you now, or ever, been a member of..." tactics, and we've seen an external criticism site fall suffer a bit of a black eye as a member or two continues to practice a sort of regressive bit of yellow journalism rather than focusing on maters that actually...well, matter. We're all a bit worse off today than we were last week, the only redeemable thing to take form this is the possibility that lessons will be learned for the future.

Comment of 50.0.121.102

Note: Cross-posted from WP:AC/CN at request. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 02:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Since arbcom is the last step of Wikipedia dispute resolution, I don't agree with 28bytes' view that off-wiki harassment that chills a Wikipedia editor's participation in Wikipedia (as surely happened to 28bytes) is outside Arbcom purview. It is clearly within the scope of on-wiki DR. If someone else got outed off-wiki and wanted to pursue on-wiki remedies, they certainly should be entitled to do so. I could go along with Arbcom dropping the case at hand because 28bytes doesn't want to pursue it, and I could see declining it because there haven't been prior attempts at resolution. Normally something like this would first be brought up at AN or ANI, I would think, especially since the relevant private info is already out of the bag. But that's all specific to this particular incident. 50.0.121.102 (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Herostratus

Obviously you can't have people like this in your organization. Dan Murphy is not a person engaged in constructive criticism of the Wikipedia. Dan Murphy is a "hasten the day" advocate and has repeatedly said so (on Wikipediocracy). (For those who don't know the term, a "hasten the day" advocate is someone of the mind "It will be a good day for mankind when the Wikipedia no longer exists, and I will advocate and perform actions intended to hasten the day when that occurs").

The current contretemps aside, and also putting aside the question "is it a good idea for an organization engaged in the business of publishing an online to encyclopedia to offer membership to a person who is dedicated to the failure that business and says so", it's asking an awful lot to ask your fellow editors to work in good faith with a person who hates the organization and wishes it destroyed. I think it goes without saying that no other organization on this earth would do that.

Regarding the current issue, the presumption has to be Dan Murphy went after 28bytes precisely because he would have been a good arbitrator, and an effective ArbCom is anathema to a "hasten the day" advocate like Dan Murphy. The presumption has to be that he chose his timing for maximum disruption to the ArbCom. Apparently one result of the timing may be that the ArbCom will now be short-handed. This is probably intentional.

And we volunteer editors should be expected to engage in collegial teamwork with this person because... ? Herostratus (talk) 23:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Recuse — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 21:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
• Recuse. --Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
• Cross-posted a request above. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 02:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Dan Murphy: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/6/1/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• Recuse. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
• Decline - nothing said so far persuades me that a case is needed here or would be productive. Carcharoth (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Herostratus, what you are looking for is a community ban discussion. You don't need ArbCom for that (the community are perfectly capable of judging this sort of thing for themselves). Before I would accept any case on the basis of what you are saying I would expect that this step had been taken. i.e. only if the community was unable to reach a clear consensus and there was active and current on-wiki disruption from the user in question, would I then consider accepting a case. Carcharoth (talk) 23:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
• Although I respect why this request was filed, I vote to decline it, with these comments:

The public disclosure of arbitrators' and others' private information, and the serious offline harassment by which some of us (including myself) have been victimized as a result, remains of serious concern. Indeed, some such instances of outing—not the one involved in this request—have been accompanied by overt acts of harassment or threats that may constitute crimes.

There are two separate aspects to the relevations concerning 28bytes. One relates to the disclosure that a "high-ranking" Wikipedian was also a "high-ranking" contributor to Wikipediocracy with access to a non-public forum there. Dan Murphy publicly revealed this fact on Wikipediocracy on Saturday afternoon, but it seems that by that time, at least a couple of dozen people already knew it. It is not realistic that this fact would have stayed secret throughout 28bytes' two-year arbitrator term, even assuming (which we don't know) that 28bytes wouldn't have disclosed it himself. Moreover, some respected Wikipedians have opined that the Wikipedia community was entitled to this very information.

Much more troubling is Dan Murphy's emphasis, in the headline as well as the content of his Wikipediocracy post, on 28bytes' real name. Dan Murphy is correct that following 28bytes' "COI" disclosure a couple of days earlier, his name was evident from public information on-wiki. But the name was not relevant to the point Dan Murphy was making on Wikipediocracy (and that he knew would instantly be repeated on Wikipedia), which was the equivalence of 28bytes and Mason.

In his minimalist response to this case request, Dan Murphy has explained why he thinks Wikipedia policy allowed him to mention 28bytes' name; but he makes no effort to explain why he chose to mention and even to emphasize the name. It may not have been "outing" or "doxing" in the strictest sense, but I interpret it as a gratuitous, indefensible act of hostility and unkindness. It would be futile to assess whether that hostility was directed at 28bytes or at Mason. It was felt by neither of those screen identities, but by the living individual behind them.

It upsets me that malicious "outing" or "doxing" of Wikimedians (and worse) may continue to occur, and I ask yet again that the "management" of Wikipediocracy rethink their site's policies in this area. But the particular scenario here is, and presumably will remain, an uncommon if not unique one. The ArbCom is not plotting to take over Wikipediocracy, nor is Wikipedia threatened by a secret conspiracy of Masons.

I also give significant, though not dispositive, weight to 28bytes' request that this matter not be pursued further. For these reasons, while I disapprove of Dan Murphy's conduct, I vote to decline the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Decline, with the same thinking as Carcharoth. AGK [•] 23:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
• Decline pretty much echoing NYB. Courcelles 23:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
• I don't see much in the way of actionable on-wiki issues with Murphy's conduct that would merit a case because of the failure of other dispute resolution. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
  • To add further to some of my thoughts regarding this case. We've had a fair number of recent (within the last year or two) situations where on-wiki disputes and battlegrounds have intersected with off-wiki targeting, harassment, outing, or editorializing. I would not say that you could draw a single precedent from taking those cases together; in some we have desysopped and banned the user in question; in others we have used the off-wiki activity merely as evidence of enforcing an on-wiki sanction; and in others we have done nothing beyond declining a case brought to us as out of our scope. This speaks less to some sort of inconsistency and more to how these cases are special situations of their own. Given the nature and timeline of the outing, the wishes of the targeted individual, lack of an on-wiki case against the user, and other correspondence the Committee has received, I'm inclined to decline. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
• Decline, largely per David Fuchs. Risker (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
• Decline per David Fuchs, and, while not dispositive, after considering 28bytes' lack of objection and wish to have this over with. I would note, however, that this is not a statement that Dan Murphy's behavior in this instance was actually acceptable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)