User:Buddy431/Laundry Lists, Censorship, and other Thoughts

I have come to realize that Wikipedia, as a whole, as well as individual editors (especially those in positions of power) is very sensitive to criticism. Editors seem unwilling to acknowledge that Wikipedia's processes can break down, or that people with power can abuse it to remain above criticism.

The Great Memory Hole
One particular example, which I highlight only as an example (not to single out the administrator in question) is the deletion of User:32alpha4tango/Censorship at Wikipedia as "An attack page or negative BLP". The page contained exactly two diffs, and no other comments, of a deleted comment and deleted page of the user. One of the diffs was. I don't recall the other one, so I guess the admin who deleted the page has attained his goal of getting me to forget that whatever it was ever happened. If the complaints were truly baseless, if the creator of the page is truly the one who's comments were inappropriate, then what harm is there is letting people view the diffs and come to that conclusion themselves. If, on the other hand, the goal is to deflect any criticism, then deleting it makes a good deal of sense.

Laundry Lists
This type of mentality is often seen at wp:MFD as well, where the term "laundry list" is thrown about. One editor believes that another editor has done something out of line, and so creates a record of it. The subject doesn't want a record of his (or her) alleged misconduct to exist, so asks for it to be removed. The powers that be have decided that such "laundry lists" are "attack pages" meant solely to "disparage another person". Maybe some of the creators of these pages do intend to such a list to disparage another. To this, I reply - if such a list brings disrepute on an editor, it is their own actions that are the cause, not a collection of links to these actions.

But perhaps you say, well, even if these "Laundry Lists" are just a collection of links to things that have really happened, and that pertain to Wikipedia, they still lead to a hostile atmosphere and should be banned. I don't agree, obviously, but it's not a completely illegitimate position to take. However, when pages that are primarily criticisms of how Wikipedia editors in general handle themselves, maybe with some particularly blatant examples linked, with appropriate commentary, are deleted, there is not question that the sole reason is to prevent other people from learning how editors screw up. I refer to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Surturz/AdminWatch, again, only as an example. If we lowly editors are not allowed to document abuses by those with more power, how are we supposed to bring sanctions if they become gregariousness enough?

And this, of course, is where I must make a bit of a meta-observations. There are a number of prolific editors I know (who I won't name, because that would be an attack) who, if they find out about this page, will bring it to MFD. Why? They'll say because it's an "attack page", that its sole purpose is to "disparage" specific editors. I disagree. The examples I have given are not meant to single out any editor. Rather, they are to illustrate that there is a more widespread problem on Wikipedia.

State-Sanctioned Laundry Lists
Sometimes, of course, powerful, well connected editors act so out of line that they eventually are sanctioned - recent notable examples include, of course, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466/Proposed decision. What's troubling, though, is how long it took to be recognized that a problem existed, or for anyone to act on it.

When evidence is compiled for an arbitration case, editors must rely on their memory, as well as painstakingly search archives, in order to demonstrate that long-term abuse is present. Instead of being able to document abuse as it occurs, editors are forced to try to remember it, until they believe that there is enough wrongdoing to bring some type of sanctions. When that occurs, we get one long, bloody (and most importantly, cabal-approved) laundry list of bad diffs. Why is it OK to point out what someone has done wrong when you're trying to punish them, but not when you're just trying to bring awareness to what's going on.

Oversight (or whatever it's called these days)
wp:Oversight, and its cousin, WP:Revision deletion exist for good reasons. Sometimes information is posted that should not be seen on Wikipedia, even in the history. Personal information - real names, addresses, social security numbers, etc. - have no place on Wikipedia. But revision deletion is increasingly being used to delete things that don't need to be suppressed. And while represing things like teh admin is gay is, itself, not a problem, it erodes confidence that suppression is only being used when it is extremely necessary. When we begin suppressing run-of-the-mill vandalism, it becomes increasingly hard to believe that nobody is using the feature to cover up their bad deeds. Even sitting arbitrators have, at times, found it prudent to delete revisions on their user page simply because they didn't like what was being said about them. Luckily, the most egregious example I know was called out and reversed, but maybe that's only the most egregious ones I know of because that's the only one that was called out. When revision deletion is being used left and right to delete any mention of something someone doesn't like, it's hard to have faith in the good faith of the people using such tools.