User talk:Alison/Archive 62
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Accomplice to outing?
Alison, you're obviously aware that on Wikipediocracy - which you co-founded and currently moderate - there is a post right on the home page and a discussion, in a forum that you're actively commenting on, that outs a Wikipedian in an overtly malicious way. From where I'm standing, this makes you at the very least an accomplice to the outing, if not an active facilitator, as you have the ability to stop the outing at any time. I'm having a hard time seeing how this is compatible with you continuing to be an editor, let alone an administrator. Do you intend to do anything about this outing? Prioryman (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hi there. I'm not a great believer in guilt by association, so I'm not going to take some unilateral action on Wikipediocracy. From my perspective (and that of others), both sites are quite separate and distinct and indeed, we've already been over that argument before. I'm a pretty diligent oversighter here, and deal with privacy issues on a daily basis here. I don't, and never have, divulged any private or personal information from this site anywhere else, and resent your implication here. If you have any issues with that, I suggest you present your case to AUSC or Arbcom - Alison ❤ 23:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- It's not a case of guilt by association; it's much more direct than that in your case, I'm afraid. I would agree that it would be "guilt by association" (which I'd reject) if you were merely another member of Wikipediocracy. You're much more than that - you have a direct responsibility for managing it. You could click a button and make the outing go away. Ordinary members of Wikipediocracy can't do that. I'm well aware that you're an oversighter here, which is why I'm having a particularly hard time seeing how you can be responsible for dealing with privacy issues here while simultaneously also being responsible for privacy issues on Wikipediocracy but doing nothing about them. If someone posts outing information here, you'd oversight it. If someone posts outing information on Wikipediocracy ... what exactly do you do about it? Prioryman (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- If you do nothing about outing on Wikipediocracy when it's only young-ish adults (and their parents) that are the targets, Alison - would you take the same approach if it were children that were the targets? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Alison is not to blame for any of this. The wikipediocracy site and its use on wikipedia has degenerated. Various users on wikipedia who are moderators there do seem to have a conflict of interest. It has unfortunately developed an underlying bullying culture because of one or two or three rogue moderators. However, Alison is out of all that from what I can tell. Her presence there is a good thing, just as it was on ED before the site was taken down. I doubt that she could have any influence on her fellow moderators. Jayen466 is one of the only reasonable ones over there and I don't think he's comfortable with recent events. Mathsci (talk) 10:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that Alison has not caused this. However, her status as a moderator there means that she could prevent or at least mitigate it, by removing the blog post in question and closing the thread discussing it. She quite obviously hasn't taken these actions. Why? What is Wikipediocracy's policy concerning privacy violations? As I asked above, if someone's privacy is violated on Wikipediocracy, what does she do about it? Prioryman (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Prioryman, try to bear in mind that not everyone takes the "with us or against us" approach when participating both in WP and the sites that are critical of it. Besides, even if Allie could delete the blog post (I don't think she can BTW... not all forum mods are blog mods), she couldn't do it on a whim (any more than she could delete and salt WP:OUTING for the benefit of someone on Wikipediocracy). --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 13:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- That's a fair point about forum mods not being blog mods, but I would still like to know (1) whether it is in fact within her power to delete the blog post, (2) whether she has made any effort to have the the blog post taken down or to pull the thread in which it's being discussed (which certainly does seem to be in her power), (3) what Wikipediocracy's policy is towards privacy violations and (4) what Alison's own role is in terms of dealing with privacy violations. There is an additional issue that I'm still mulling, whether it's possible for Alison to be an oversighter here dealing with privacy matters while simultaneously presiding over privacy violations on Wikipediocracy. I don't think those roles are compatible. Prioryman (talk) 13:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- The second point is as fair as the first. The stuff in the blog post -- regardless of how tasteful or appropriate it is -- was and still is already out there on the interwebs, and Wikipediocracy is just another place out there on the interwebs (WP policies don't seem to even port well to Commons, much less non-WMF sites). We do on occasion deal with privacy issues on the site, but we don't put a big policy statement out about it, per WP:BEANS ;-). --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 23:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- That's a fair point about forum mods not being blog mods, but I would still like to know (1) whether it is in fact within her power to delete the blog post, (2) whether she has made any effort to have the the blog post taken down or to pull the thread in which it's being discussed (which certainly does seem to be in her power), (3) what Wikipediocracy's policy is towards privacy violations and (4) what Alison's own role is in terms of dealing with privacy violations. There is an additional issue that I'm still mulling, whether it's possible for Alison to be an oversighter here dealing with privacy matters while simultaneously presiding over privacy violations on Wikipediocracy. I don't think those roles are compatible. Prioryman (talk) 13:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Prioryman, try to bear in mind that not everyone takes the "with us or against us" approach when participating both in WP and the sites that are critical of it. Besides, even if Allie could delete the blog post (I don't think she can BTW... not all forum mods are blog mods), she couldn't do it on a whim (any more than she could delete and salt WP:OUTING for the benefit of someone on Wikipediocracy). --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 13:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that Alison has not caused this. However, her status as a moderator there means that she could prevent or at least mitigate it, by removing the blog post in question and closing the thread discussing it. She quite obviously hasn't taken these actions. Why? What is Wikipediocracy's policy concerning privacy violations? As I asked above, if someone's privacy is violated on Wikipediocracy, what does she do about it? Prioryman (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Alison is not to blame for any of this. The wikipediocracy site and its use on wikipedia has degenerated. Various users on wikipedia who are moderators there do seem to have a conflict of interest. It has unfortunately developed an underlying bullying culture because of one or two or three rogue moderators. However, Alison is out of all that from what I can tell. Her presence there is a good thing, just as it was on ED before the site was taken down. I doubt that she could have any influence on her fellow moderators. Jayen466 is one of the only reasonable ones over there and I don't think he's comfortable with recent events. Mathsci (talk) 10:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- If you do nothing about outing on Wikipediocracy when it's only young-ish adults (and their parents) that are the targets, Alison - would you take the same approach if it were children that were the targets? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
"I'm not a great believer in guilt by association". I am. "not everyone takes the 'with us or against us' approach...". I do. And with good reason. Alison would do well to consider that she could be wrong (in this case likely is) and better consider the wishes and feelings of her colleagues. The notion that guilt by association is always mistaken or that one need never take sides is life is simplistic and mediocre, and Alison would do well to cogitate on the saying "he who lies down with dogs gets up with fleas." For my part, some of The People Under the Stairs have called me a "notorious pedophile" and credibly threatened to have me outed and, I gather, lynched (this is in addition to the usual low-level hum of "idiot" and so forth). Because of The People Under the Stairs, I feel unable to attend Wikimania if I wanted (they've threatened to covertly photograph and dox attendees) and am reluctant even to attend Wiki meetups. This is material loss to me and the Wikipedia and unfair to a person who is simply trying to enjoy a hobby and be a decent contributor. I understand the attraction of slumming with the demi-monde, but consorting with persons sworn to damage and destroy the Wikipedia is not consistent with being a Wikipedia editor let alone admin in my view, and other outstanding contributions (and they are outstanding) don't earn free passes here. If you were consistently battling these people that'd be different. But you're not. I don't expect an insightful reply, but am at least hoping that an admonition to "grow a thicker skin" is not forthcoming. Tell that to my wife. Herostratus (talk) 15:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I guess we found out the answer to my earlier question. Sad. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Time for you to resign?
Alison, I think it's very unsatisfactory that you've ignored most of this discussion and the questions that are being asked of you, and your initial response was equally unsatisfactory. To put it bluntly, I don't think it's ethically acceptable for you to be both an oversighter and a Wikipediocracy moderator. You have to choose between the two. I've raised this at WP:AN#Time for Alison to resign?. Whether it goes to ArbCom or not is going to depend on your response. Prioryman (talk) 09:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Nope. Not time for me to resign, sorry. And I won't be part of your witch-hunt, neither. I've done absolutely nothing wrong here, and work diligently at my various tasks - such the time that I have, as I'm busy IRL too. I've even had to oversight your personal information here (and would do so again. Dem's the rules here). Good luck finding examples of my misdeeds here with oversight or checkuser, and I can say that with confidence as there are absolutely none. If you've problems with any of this, go ahead and contact AUSC or ArbCom and let them manage the issue, but I'll not resign on your say-so, thanks all the same. BTW - I have absolutely no access to the blog over on WCY, and couldn't edit it even if I wanted to - Alison ❤ 10:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Now, if you'll pardon, it's 2:30am where I am. Bedtime! - Alison ❤ 10:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Regrettably, the discussion at ANI has been closed so there was no chance of my explaining there to you how and why Oversight and other advanced permissions would allow Alison access to all the admim flags (because she needs to see deleted posts, and often block people) and would thus autoconfirm her as an admin (other positions simply ADD function to the user) regardless of whether she resigned as an admin or lost the confidence of the community; Oversight access, etc., is decided by ArbCom and Office, and is based on the observation of that persons performance of those roles. I hope that you understand that for whatever reason you thought you might have some traction with your allegations of misconduct by third parties on a third party site, you are not in a position to effect the work that Alison performs at WP. It may be of some comfort to you to realise that Alison's talkpage is less trafficked as ANI, and that less people will thus come to the opinion that you are a moron. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC) (former admin and Oversighter)
- Between the two of you (Alison on her own behalf and LessHeard vanU on behalf of the rest of us), you have covered the matter with exceptional precision. What's more important, you made me laugh. Prioryman, for someone who has done almost everything wrong on WP that an admin and/or editor can do, and for which you lost your admin tools under a very dark cloud, you might consider a little introspection, a little look at the causes you have supported, before you start trying to put pressure where it will only backfire. Bielle (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Grow up, the pair of you. It's frankly juvenile that you're both stooping to personal attacks rather than addressing my concerns. I haven't asked Alison to resign as an administrator; the concern is over whether it's appropriate for her to be both an oversighter and a Wikipediocracy moderator. The blunt fact is that Alison has actively participated in moderating outing threads on Wikipediocracy. Can you explain to me how this is compatible with her responsibilities for protecting privacy on Wikipedia? Prioryman (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- "Grow up..."? You are talking to someone who did that in the 1960's and 70's - and is anyway rather uncivil a way of talking, don't you think. Now, what part of even if Alison did 'resign or lost the confidence of the the community' in her handling of the mop, she would still have those powers in her roles as Oversighter and Checkuser - which is not in the purview of the general community to have removed have you failed to understand? The people who oversee, or just simply see/saw (/me waves), her actions as a functionary KNOW she can be trusted with privacy issues. They are also long familiar with her activities on other sites that have or do contain material that might be considered unfortunate or even damaging to Wikipedia and some of its editors, and they are aware of both the distance between Alison and those making those comments and also Alison's efforts in mitigating the potential for damage. I would ask of you, Prioryman, just how Alison's removal of WP functionary accesses will limit off WP criticism and outing - and what do you know of Alison's efforts in diminishing what is published on those sites? Unless you can demonstrate, or provide a decent theoretical basis, how removing the flags here can help in stopping off wiki outing, harassment, etc., then you are risking the very good and needful work that Alison now does on WP by having her resign the mop. I would like your considered (and politely worded) response before giving you the benefit of any further response. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oh it's even better than that; Alison was (or is still? not sure) an admin at Encyclopedia Dramatica, so she once held the ultimate Triforce. Kinda like a Gordie Howe hat trick; 1 goal, 1 assist, 1 fight. Such power in the hands of one must be treated with care. Tarc (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm no longer a sysop on ED, though I still know one or two. I left shortly after ODB died and didn't really go back. You bring up an interesting point, though. I've clearly and deliberately linked my accounts on WCY and WR (now banned from there!) with my WP account, and indeed, with my RL identity. It's right there on my userpage. Having said that, I note that many folks on here who are complaining bitterly about those who involve themselves with other sites that they find distasteful, are themselves pseudonymous. The take-home message from that is that if you wish to involve yourself with other sites that people like Prioryman and Seren find objectionable, it's best to de-link both identities or you'll be hounded to the ends of the Earth for it. Thus, we will have less accountability and everyone loses :/ - Alison ❤ 18:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- It's complicated. The fact of the matter is that Alison is, in my experience, exceptionally strong-minded and of good character. That being so, as a practical matter it probably doesn't matter in her case that she has a foot in both websites. I think she's nearly unique in that, though, and it doesn't set a good example for others. For instance, I had the experience of one particularly credulous and weak-minded Wikipedia admin reading a complaint about me on Wikipediocracy's forerunner (Wikipedia Review) and then coming over and blocking me here, even though (as one might expect) the complaint was entirely without merit. (He was admonished by ArbCom for that and immediately left the Wikipedia, but still.) So people in general should not do this and I do wish Alison would not do this. It doesn't look good. But on the other hand there's no material harm and while it's valid to complain about it, there's such as thing as making your point and going in peace, it's not justified to hound her about it. It it was someone else that'd be different. Herostratus (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm no longer a sysop on ED, though I still know one or two. I left shortly after ODB died and didn't really go back. You bring up an interesting point, though. I've clearly and deliberately linked my accounts on WCY and WR (now banned from there!) with my WP account, and indeed, with my RL identity. It's right there on my userpage. Having said that, I note that many folks on here who are complaining bitterly about those who involve themselves with other sites that they find distasteful, are themselves pseudonymous. The take-home message from that is that if you wish to involve yourself with other sites that people like Prioryman and Seren find objectionable, it's best to de-link both identities or you'll be hounded to the ends of the Earth for it. Thus, we will have less accountability and everyone loses :/ - Alison ❤ 18:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Grow up, the pair of you. It's frankly juvenile that you're both stooping to personal attacks rather than addressing my concerns. I haven't asked Alison to resign as an administrator; the concern is over whether it's appropriate for her to be both an oversighter and a Wikipediocracy moderator. The blunt fact is that Alison has actively participated in moderating outing threads on Wikipediocracy. Can you explain to me how this is compatible with her responsibilities for protecting privacy on Wikipedia? Prioryman (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Between the two of you (Alison on her own behalf and LessHeard vanU on behalf of the rest of us), you have covered the matter with exceptional precision. What's more important, you made me laugh. Prioryman, for someone who has done almost everything wrong on WP that an admin and/or editor can do, and for which you lost your admin tools under a very dark cloud, you might consider a little introspection, a little look at the causes you have supported, before you start trying to put pressure where it will only backfire. Bielle (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- FWIW, although I'm not a fan of either WR or WO -- browsed a few times, never registered or posted on either -- I respect your personal choice to do so and, more importantly, your work here on Wikipedia. And if someone has crap to say about you, they should post a diff of any action taken on Wikipedia which damaged the project or just be quiet or go start a badsites Rfc. NE Ent 03:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps in 2006 or 07, I wrongly accused Alison of having a COI due to the various flags she held here and at ED and WR. While I understand why Prioryman feels that this could be a COI and asking Alison about this is one thing, but demanding a resignation is another. I just want to let others know that Alison has done as much if not more than anyone else on Wikipedia to protect the privacy and to stop the harassment of our editors.--MONGO 16:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Another uninvolved comment here - I don't think being a member or moderator of Wikipediocracy, or any site, should be a resigning matter for an admin. But I do find something pretty hypocritical about Alison's strong views on BLP expressed on her userpage (e.g. 'Remove BLPs by request of the subject. It's the right thing to do.') combined with her status as a moderator on Wikipediocracy and formerly on ED. Wikipedia has far higher standards for writing about living people than either of those sites: I'm pretty sure neither Wikipediocracy nor ED has ever had anything even remotely resembling a BLP policy. Robofish (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Both MONGO and Robofish make valid points, I guess. At the end of the day, I agree with MONGO about Alison's very high value here giving her something of a pass, I guess. I guess my question is: Alison, why? If the Wikipedia doesn't take up all of your online-play time, why Wikipediocracy? There are a million other websites. Why that one? Herostratus (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Let's make an analogy to a different issue. French copyright law says that you can't illustrate Wikipedia articles with photos of buildings unless the architect has been dead for at least 70 years, so the articles Scottish Parliament Building, Sydney Opera House and Turning Torso currently violate French copyright law. Commons administrators living in France have the technical possibility to delete images from Commons (including the infringing photos in the mentioned articles). Do you think that French law enforcement officers should fine French Commons administrators if they do not delete the images? If the French Commons administrators were to delete the images, the administrators would just be desysopped and the images restored. What would happen if a Wikipedia administrator who is also an administrator at one of the mentioned forums is ordered to delete content and the administrator chooses to do so? Would the content go away, or would the administrator simply be desysopped at the forum so that the discussions can continue? What makes you think that the administrators of those forums have the ability to remove the discussions from there? Someone suggested that you can't be an administrator at both Wikipedia and Wikipediocracy at the same time since the privacy policy of Wikipedia conflicts too much with the privacy policy of Wikipediocracy. Does this mean that you can't be both a French resident and a Commons administrator at the same time, since the copyright law of France conflicts too much with the copyright policies on Commons? Should people residing in a dictatorship be refused to participate, because Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy conflicts with lack of freedom of speech? That said, I do see a big problem with the websites, and I'm not sure how to best handle this. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- How is the behaviour many people are exhibiting here different from bullying? Whatever the alleged facts of the alleged case, hectoring and bullying a fellow editor has no place here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
German account?
Hi, does this account belongs to you? --Zollernalb (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- No, sorry, that's not mine. The German Wikipedia was one of three I couldn't unify when SUL happened, as they were previously taken. So no - it's someone else - Alison ❤ 10:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- ok, thank you. --Zollernalb (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Not exactly the most appropriate template, but close enough
|
The Template Barnstar | |
| Thank you for User:Alison/c; it is most helpful! I'd vote for making it an official template. -- Avi (talk) 20:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC) |
OS
Thanks. Mathsci (talk) 09:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi there...
per #Alison is Away ..<waits....> "Beep". Hi Alison, How ya doing? First, I'm really bad at the (talk page stalker) thing, but I did notice a day or two ago an issue or two. I just wanted to throw my two cents in as well. I personally applaud you for being aware of and active in "other sites" - it shows a well rounded, open minded line of thinking. Just as we do in article space, taking the time to research and be involved in all points of view, it allows a more NPOV and more informed line of thinking to be developed. Kudos to you for that. So if someone degrades you for looking at nasty old wp:badsites ... well then ... "something something .. about teaching grandma to suck eggs .. something." So just wanted to give you a thumbs up. Here's your barnstar {--> "*" <--}. (I'm lazy - so shoot me. :)) — Ched : ? 09:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi here
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
TheJoshy (talk) 06:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Scientom
I was aware of Scientom's "return" since you took administrative action on his/her accounts. In fact, much like Flyer22 I was fairly sure that I recognized some socks over the past few months. But without CU nor a valid reason to even request a check, I kept my feelings to myself. Ever since his return, I tried to give them their space, but the POV behavior has not changed and the problematic editing has continued. I can handle the problematic edits myself, but I would ask you to keep an eye on any edits that may be an attempt to evade scrutiny. Thanks. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 22:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Your recent OS action
Hi, you recently hid a post in the history of WP:AE where an association was made between a user's old and new username. This creates some problems for continuing with the AE thread, as I don't think we can close it without making the association between the two usernames (which is readily apparent from onwiki data) explicit. Do you have any advice about how we should proceed? Thanks, Sandstein 06:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- Ugh - well, yeah, I knew this was going to be a somewhat sticky one. The person who filed the original comment withdrew it and contacted OS. However, it's not strictly oversightable, per policy, as the information is clearly available through a previous rename. Having said that, concerns were voiced and because it's also EEML-related, I considered it best to revdel. I'd rather you didn't make that explicit association at this time, though. Let me check in with the rest of the team on this one - Alison ❤ 06:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking into it. My personal view is that it would be better to undo the oversighting, because if we can't associate the two usernames, we're essentially blocked from enforcing the arbitration decision. That can't be the intended effect of a user renaming. Sandstein 06:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know who "the team" is but policy (Wikipedia:Changing_username#transparent) is clear on renames. It's not doxing to mention a users' previous name. NE Ent 11:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- Alison is referring to the oversight team. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- Ent, per WP:OUTING It also applies in the case of an editor who has requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found. Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for Oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia so the old username cannot be tied to the new one. Prioryman got blocked for doing this. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- I think it best that the oversight is overridden. If it was invalid, personal discretion can only inflame an already incendiary situation. It's essential that people can see exactly what is going on here. Giano 18:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- Alison - yes, sorry, revision-deleted rather than oversighted, thanks. I've now closed the enforcement thread, as the identity issue did not seem to present a practical problem after all. Just to be on the safe side, I've also rev-deleted similar material from my talk page. But in general I'm not sure that the association between a sanctioned user's old and new username should be kept hidden, as this may impede subsequent enforcement. After all the user did voluntarily choose their old username and thereby reveal any associated personal data. Is there any precedent or policy about this? Sandstein 19:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sandsteinn. do you have reading issues? Again from WP:OUTING "It also applies in the case of an editor who has requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found." Is there a part of that you do not get? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see where WP:OUTING contains that text. Sandstein 05:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Darkness Shines is the one with "reading issues" (snarky, but turnabout is fair play), apparently. That passage was removed on November 1st without incident or challenge. Perhaps a refresher in WP:CLEANSTART is in order here, as people like DS tend to forget that if a person invokes a "clean start", they are expected to not return to the topic area that got them into trouble in the first place. That is why editors like Fae, Prioryman, A Nobody, and a countless host of others have their prior accounts bandied about freely; they did not, and apparently cannot, shake bad habits. Tarc (talk) 12:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see where WP:OUTING contains that text. Sandstein 05:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sandsteinn. do you have reading issues? Again from WP:OUTING "It also applies in the case of an editor who has requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found." Is there a part of that you do not get? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- Alison - yes, sorry, revision-deleted rather than oversighted, thanks. I've now closed the enforcement thread, as the identity issue did not seem to present a practical problem after all. Just to be on the safe side, I've also rev-deleted similar material from my talk page. But in general I'm not sure that the association between a sanctioned user's old and new username should be kept hidden, as this may impede subsequent enforcement. After all the user did voluntarily choose their old username and thereby reveal any associated personal data. Is there any precedent or policy about this? Sandstein 19:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Russavia
has used the RL name of VM three times here Can you remove them per WP:OUTING please. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)