User talk:Louis Kyu Won Ryu/Craig Hubley

''This page discusses outing problems with a page that had serious errors and verifiability problems. The debate has concluded. Given the errors propagated in this discussion and the availability of more recent cases to discuss, it may be best to delete this page and User:Louis Kyu Won Ryu/Craig Hubley which explains the errors. This page is mostly about the implications of outing. Generic comments could be moved to Wikipedia_talk:outing if needed.''

This page now redirects to Meta. The original is still in the page history, which I propose is deleted. Angela.


 * Not only are interwiki redirects evil for more reasons than I can be bothered to go into right now, the page that it redirected to didn't even exist. That's just silly. I have reverted the page. -- Oliver P. 03:34, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Ok, it was "evil and silly", but I suggest that if people want to address the issue, they create that page at Meta rather than defending this page to get their view across. Angela.


 * I have changed the link to point to an article (as yet nonexistent) in my user space, both for the reasons Oliver has stated, and because the meta is a fossil that lacks active discussion, mainly because few people follow RecentChanges there. Louis Kyu Won Ryu

Summary of positions (for keeping track of who wants what)

 * undelete
 * Camembert
 * Andrewa
 * Wiwaxia


 * keep deleted
 * mav
 * Delirium
 * Adam Bishop
 * Angela
 * Kosebamse
 * Daniel Quinlan 22:55, Nov 9, 2003 (UTC)
 * RickK 04:40, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Noldoaran

No comment on whether it should be deleted, but I'll add my belief that perceived trolling should not be a sufficient reason for bypassing VfD. Martin 18:57, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

discussion
Was deleted by Mav without being listed on VfD, in violation of our process, with the justification that the article constituted "trolling". The article does not fit any of the 9 criteria for speedy deletion, so it should be undeleted pending debate in any case; I would suggest that there is ample reason to keep it indefinitely owing to Hubley being far more famous than many other persons whose biographies have been kept. Louis Kyu Won Ryu 04:20, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Unencyclopedic, hard to verify, and as mav correctly stated, trollish (= may inflame useless debate). No reason to keep. And Louis, it's usually not a good idea to create an article to prove a point. One of the reasons that there IS a mailing list is to keep some things out of Wikipedia's article namespace because they may need to be discussed but are not appropriate for Wikipedia itself. A mailing list discussion is a mailing list discussion is a mailing list discussion. Kosebamse 18:18, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

From VfD: Craig Hubley - there must be many things wrong with "outing" a banned user for whatever reason. I can't see how this is appropriate for an encyclopedia at all. Adam Bishop 00:41, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * a) There was much more to the article than the supposed "outing". b) Since Hubley had publicly and deliberately acknowledged authorship of an article signed by 142.177.etc., it isn't outing.  c) User:Maveric149 had already identified, publicly, the relationship, in a post that is unlikely to be removed and that will remain indefinitely in the public eye.  Therefore, this article did no further harm even if (b) is held to be irrelevant. Louis Kyu Won Ryu
 * Unless any of this can be verified through an independent source (ie, something that's not his website and not the Wikipedia grapevine), this should certainly be deleted. There are probably lots of other reasons to delete it, but that one should do, I think. --Camembert 01:03, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * I believe that the two sources you identify are independent and corroborating. For what else could we ask?  In any event, Hubley, owing to the sheer volume of his Usenet participation, is worthy of an article, just like Tim May; regardless of what we may say about his participation in Wikipedia. Louis Kyu Won Ryu 05:37, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * I don't want to say much more about this, but: The article was about person X. The personal website of person X can hardly, therefore, be considered an independent source. And as much as I like the Wikipedia grapevine, I don't think it makes a good reference (and it too, of course, can hardly be considered independent of this subject). "For what else could we ask?" Well, is there another encyclopaedia or a biographical dictionary or a respected and truly independent website or even just a newspaper article or something of that sort that verifies what was in the article? If so, maybe we can have the article. If not, it's a non-starter as far as I'm concerned. --Camembert
 * Why is usenet participation relevant to worthiness of an article? That seems like a really bad indicator of worthiness to me. He's just some guy posting on usenet, who cares? Adam Bishop 16:42, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * His extensive authorship of relevant articles, regarless of the fact that they are published on UseNet rather than in print, his participation in standards discussions, as well as his activism, make him more important than many of our other biographical subjects. But your point may well stand.  I think that it is best addressed after the article is undeleted so we can see it, work on it, and decide what to do with it.  That's supposed to be the process, right? Louis Kyu Won Ryu
 * Already deleted. The creation of the page is trolling designed to stir things up. --mav 01:08, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Please don't ascribe motives, Mav. I am not a troll. Louis Kyu Won Ryu 05:37, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Undelete, to allow discussion, unless there are better grounds than the above (and there may be, it's a tricky subject, and it may not even be good to list them here, if so just say that). If we need to vary our procedures to provide immediate deletion of things like this (and we may), then that's one thing we need to discuss. Meantime, could a sysop please provide me a copy? TIA Andrewa 16:32, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Andrew, I've e-mailed it to you. Angela 17:49, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)
 * Received, thank you. Interesting. I would still undelete it for discussion, but I would vote to delete it if it were to be listed on VfD. I think abandoning our procedures is exactly what will encourage a certain sort of nuisance, and EofT is likely to be just the first of many IMO. It doesn't look all that damaging to me, especially if listed on VfD in the normal way. Andrewa 01:16, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * This article was already deleted when I saw it listed on VfD, so I don't even know what it looks like. It may or may not have deserved to be on Wikipedia, but given the amount of detail it was in, it certainly didn't deserve to be deleted off the cuff like that. Immediate deletion is for things like where the article title is Elia Kazan and the entire content is "I like rock candy with maple syrup". So undelete. Wiwaxia 23:34, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Oppose undeletion; this was clearly added simply because he was a banned user from Wikipedia (and that's what over half the article was discussing). "Some guy who posts on UseNet" is not a good criterion for inclusion either.  I posted over 4000 times on Kuro5hin and over 6000 times in Slashdot, so do I deserve an article now?  I don't think so. --Delirium 23:48, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)
 * Although, ultimately, I don't think this article should be kept, I do think it should be undeleted and relisted on VfD for the standard five days so that everyone can see it and make their own minds up about it. This will also give the final deletion, if and when it comes, more authority. --Camembert 02:08, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * The "article" was created by Louis as a response to my "outing" of the multiple hard-banned user 142.177. This seemed to me to be a provocative act designed to piss 142.177 off (who has on several occasions stated that my assertion that he was in Hubley constituted slander and libel) and greatly annoy me. That aside, posting to UseNet and being a hard banned user in Wikipedia is not reason enough for him to have an article. Should there be an article on me because I have made 50,000 edits on Wikipedia? That certainly is far more important than posting to UseNet. --mav 03:38, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * It is, as a rule, never a goal of mine to, as you say, "piss [someone] off," though sometimes it is a side effect of my actions. My purpose in creating the article was to get your allegation out in the light where it can be examined.  If such allegations are going to be made, they should be made in public.  The article contents, I thought, were true, were fair to all concerned, and would serve as a point of focus for discussing fair outing in general and Mav's statements about 142 in particular. Louis Kyu Won Ryu 12:28, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I have removed my name from the list of those in favor of undeletion because of my personal policy of refusing to become involved in numerical votes. If someone wishes to settle this based on a count, please don't include me. Louis Kyu Won Ryu 12:28, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Text of disputed article now available at: User:Louis Kyu Won Ryu/Craig Hubley


 * Unnecessary. I had no problem getting a copy when I asked for it, see above. But it doesn't seem to me to violate anything in Policies and guidelines, Draft privacy policy or even Wikiquette. Maybe these all need some work? Andrewa 01:46, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

From VfD, December

 * User:Louis Kyu Won Ryu/Craig Hubley. Created in an attempt to circumvent the normal deletion process. This article was deleted at least 6 times already. Angela. 08:04, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Go for 7. Anjouli 14:18, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * I disagree. This is a user sub page. It is to the user to decide whether one of his sub page should be deleted or not. Ask Kyu, or wait for him to come back. If found offensive meanwhile, just blank it. Anthère
 * I think it is not a good idea to give as a reason to delete that page that it was a circumvent to the normal deletion process. If it was thought *then* (when it was created) abnormal to do this, it should have been refused as an option at the time it was done. It was not declared against the rules then, it was accepted that Louis did so; it has no reason to be declared unproper now.
 * There is here confusion between the decision of the community to remove from the community space (meta) or the encyclopedia space, a page that is either non encyclopedic, or copyrighted, or defaming, or irrelevant, in short a candidate to deletion, AND the fact the community has the right to make a deletion decision over a page, created by a non-banned user, in his own space. If we delete user sub pages created willingly by users themselves, then we officially declare the user space is not remotedly owned by its user. Unless I am wrong, this is not the general opinion user hold on their own pages; that is why for most users, except for the talk page, it is thought bad etiquette to edit them but for typos or link fixing. So on one end many consider bad etiquette to have their personal pages edited, and on the other end we discuss deleting a personal page created by one user with tacit aggreement at that time. I think it is not a good idea :-) If it is done, we may need to change policy on user pages :-)
 * Delete. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
 * Hey, it's just a user subpage. The worst thing about it was the insufficient fame of the person. On a user subpage, we can be as obscure as we want. And as for "circumvent[ion of]] the normal deletion process" . . . how is that any different from Mav's circumvention of the deletion process in deleting something that obviously didn't meet the criteria for allowed speedy deletion? Wiwaxia 15:07, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see nothing wrong with this page in the User: namespace. I'm unclear why the reason it was made is relevant. Seems to me that deleting a User: page only makes sense in copyvio (or perhaps inflammatory) situations. -Anthropos 16:31, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep. 1) I'm new but I'd hate to think that there is an ongoing effort to police user subpages (beyond restricting illegal content or reasonable size restrictions, if any), 2) Deleting it from the original page may be appropriate but deleting tame information about Wikipedia persona-non-gratas (sp?) from sub pages is too Orwellian. Texture 17:43, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * This is not about policing subpages. It is about saying that it is wrong to out people. If User:142.177.etc wishes to remain anonymous, why can he not be allowed to do that? How can you justify a page created to out, or to support the outing, of this user? Angela. 23:51, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * No, a comment on Louis etc's talk page saying "this is wrong, you shouldn't do it" would be saying it's wrong. Deleting pages which reveal our superhero's secret identity is enforcement, so it is policing those pages. Not that I'm saying that's necessarily disallowed (after all, we already police user pages for copyvios), just that it is what is being proposed. Onebyone 00:09, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * It is wrong to "out" people. That said... this page does not appear to "out" someone who is currently anonymous nor was the page created by the person who did/(or did not) first "out" the person.  Those are the two circumstances I could not support.  Many gay performers have been "outted" as gay by the media and you would never find an encyclopedia that would omit that.  If Bob Woodward or Carl Bernstein were to "out" the famous "Deep Throat", would this encylopedia fail to report that? Texture 00:22, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * To avoid duplicating my response to Texture, this is also discussed at User talk:Angela.
 * Delete. This article was deleted after discussion last month . -- BCorr ¤ &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 01:06, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * "Created in an attempt to circumvent the normal deletion process" doesn't make sense to me as an argument. The deletion process is designed to help the article space evolve towards its goal of being a good encyclopaedia. Deletion of a page from the article space means that the community has decided that the page is not a valid encyclopaedia article. It doesn't mean that it has decided that it should be obliterated from existence. There are no rules, as far as I am aware (apart from legal ones that are out of our hands), on what may or may not be kept by a user in their user area. If Louis Kyu Won Ryu wants to keep this page in his user area, there is no reason for him not to, unless he is forbidden to by law, or by some judgement that may be made by whoever owns the server(s). Furthermore, discussion of whether or not it is all right to "out" people is no longer relevant once a person has been "outed". Craig Hubley has been "outed". Regardless of whether that is good or bad, it is a fact. Deleting this page won't change that. -- Oliver P. 17:35, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * I removed this from VfD as there seems to be no consensus over deleting it now it is in the user namespace. Angela. 01:53, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

From User talk:Angela
Outing

I fail to understand your preoccupation with the article that is currently a subpage of my user page. You and several others have on an ongoing basis disregarded process and insisted upon removing this content, first from the encyclopedia, and now from user: space where we are supposed to be able to keep material relevant to the project. And while I will concede that the subject is only marginally encyclopedic (though it is more encyclopedic than many other articles that we have chosen to keep in the main namespace), it is certainly relevant to the *project*.

There are plenty of more controversial and less relevant topics that are present on user subpages. In the entire history of the project, I know of none that have been deleted other than those removed at the behest of their creator.

I am disappointed that there has been no substantive discussion of Mav's outing of the user in question, the veracity of his statements, and the fairness of his making them. That there has instead been nothing but discussions of procedural matters regarding deletion and undeletion of my article is deeply troubling to me. These events, and the actions of you and those who throng to your side, have reduced my sense of pride in the project more than you can know.

I would like an explaination from you as to why you think Mav's actions were appropriate, and what exactly it is about my article that makes you want to censor it.

Louis Kyu Won Ryu 23:36, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * If I have issues with the page, then surely I will have those same issues wherever it is placed ? whether in the main namespace or in your user space. It makes no difference. I still think it is wrong for it to be here.


 * I don't doubt it is more relevant, more encyclopedic, or less controversial than a lot of pages here but that is not the point. The point is that I do think it was unfair for mav to have outed Craig and it was more wrong for you to try to insert this information into Wikipedia.


 * If you want a discussion of the outing, why didn't you try to bring that up in a normal way rather than adding to the problem by creating this page? Are you actually against the outing? I see this page as being in absolute support of it. You seem to think that my desired deletion is in some way against you, rather than against the outing, which you assume everyone supports. This is not the case. If mav's comments could be removed, I would request that, but they can't ? they are on the mailing list. This article, however, could be removed, and I can't understand why you are averse to that if, as you claim, you believe the outing was wrong.


 * I think mav's actions were wrong, and I think this article is supporting those actions, which is why I would rather it were deleted. Can you offer any explanation of why you want it kept? Angela. 23:48, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Angela, it's over. Once someone is outed, they're outed. It's done. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. Mav outed him and that's that. He can't take it back or undo the damage. The mailing list posts get indexed on Google just like everything else, c.f. http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-November/008050.html. It's in google. It's in google's cache. There is nothing anyone can do to out him more than he already is outed, and so my actions did him no further harm.
 * Yes, but this page, in my mind, makes it worse. A

That said, if either Hubley or EofT had asked me to remove the material, I would have obliged. He/they haven't, and I think it would take a rather large stretch of the imagination to believe that he hasn't seen it.
 * I think it's quite likely he hasn?t seen it. A

Where was your condemnation of Mav when this broke in the first place? There was never any censure by anyone. You didn't say a thing! Nothing! You just obliquely supported deletion of the article (once it was created) without stating a single genuine reason, just bromides about process and procedure.
 * Nowhere. There was no point. It was too late. I couldn't do anything about that, whereas I can attempt to do something about this. A

Why did I create the article rather than some carefully worded mailing list post? First of all, the mailing list is not the community. It is supposed to be, mainly, a forum for involving Jimbo in discussions. This is not a matter for Jimbo, IMO, it is a matter for the community. I believe the mailing list is vastly overused (witness the recent posts to it about trivialities like whether to include "Halloween" on the 2002 year article) and try to move discussions away from it whenever possible. Participation in the mailing list is not representative of the community as a whole. Discussions there become circular and are poorly indexed once complete.
 * You could have made a discussion without adding to the outing and bringing to that outing to a new audience (ie- those who do not read the mailing lists). A

I think Mav's actions are wrong, and it absolutely boggles my mind that there has been zero discussion about the wrongness of those actions nor the policy we should have to guide us in the future. How could you have missed the point of the article? I specifically referred to Mav's outing in it and had a link to fair outing. It's hardly a subtle piece of prose. The rest was just biographical boilerplate. Louis Kyu Won Ryu 00:14, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * I agree it was wrong. I just don't think keeping this page on view expresses that. I feel it supports it because it adds to that outing. Why can the page not be deleted and replaced with a discussion on the rights or wrongs of outings of users? Would that not be more useful now that you have got people's attention through VfD and VfU? Angela. 00:28, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Then for heaven's sake, Angela, fix it! It's a Wiki page, remember?  Go on, edit it!  It's OK, you have my permission, if that's what you need.  Make a fair outing article.  Remove the 142 reference from the Hubley article so it's just about him.  If you disagree with what Mav did, tell him on his talk page.  Start a policy discussion on the meta or the pump or the talk page.  Anywhere.  No one besides me has said anything thus far and I'm not here to talk to myself.  I took the first step.  The next step is up to others.Louis Kyu Won Ryu 00:36, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

oh, hello Louis ! Anthère


 * Hi, Ant. Louis Kyu Won Ryu 00:14, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I have a difficult time finding words in this discussion about "outting". I am against it and have much sympathy for your opinion. However, I see problems being an unbiased information source and ignoring facts. If George W. Bush is a cross-dresser and he is "outted" by a close confidant or distant photographer, it needs to be reported. No one has suggested hiding Roosevelt's disability, Kennedy's womanizing, or Hoover's inclinations despite the fact that all chose not to reveal them to the general public. The "outting" is wrong, but the "out" and the how is a fact to be reported. That said... I have a strong interest in privacy and can see what you are trying to support and strengthen. I will most times support you, I just don't on this. Texture 00:44, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes, but this isn't about someone famous is it? It is about a Wikipedia user. What is wrong about wanting to protect others within the Wikipedia community? If someone "outed" me and created an article on who I was in real life, I would hope that in my absence people would vote to delete that. Perhaps people feel differently because the person concerned is supposedly banned, but I feel this makes it worse as he can not come here to defend himself as any edits he makes are reverted on sight by many people. Also, this does not need to reported, as you claim. If that were the case, wouldn't it be necessary to report the real name of every Wikipedia user? There is no benefit to doing this, only harm. Angela. 00:53, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I am split over this topic. I am strongly for individual privacy and anonymity.  I would not want to be "outted" for simply privacy reasons.  However, I am split because I support both privacy and free press.  I want privacy but not at the cost of a controlled media that cannot report known facts.  I even have issues with not reporting adult rape victims whose claims may be false and intending harm, although I support that one since the alternative is unacceptable.  I see nothing wrong with wanting to protect others in the community and I commend you for it.  This is not an issue of revealing the real name of each user. I don't agree that this specific user is not "famous".  This person is a celebrity in their postings, contributions, and banning.  The very definition is in significant public actions done, revealed, and consequences paid.  Celebrity is as celebrity does.  Had this person not created public interest and conflict of note, the page would not exist.  Even the anonymity is in question.  The article indicated that the person admitted to authorship of that user's postings.  I would provide more but I cannot access the subpage at this time.


 * If I provide conflict or notable contribution and am both "outted" and banned then do the following: 1)take action against the one who "outted" me for the misdeed 2)build me a page and provide a neutral accounting of all facts to the same level as any celebrity listed in this encyclopedia. If you take both actions I will feel protected and justifiably served. Texture 01:36, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Angela

If the matter of Mav's outing of Hubley is adequately addressed, and the appropriate policy discussions occur, then once everything is all settled, and the ongoing discussion placed in some accessible location, then I'll request the deletion of the subpage myself.

My current thinking is that if the subpage is deleted against my wishes, I will rehost it off the wiki and place a link to it from my user page. I have a web server that is crawled pretty regularly by google where I can put it where it will remain regardless of what anyone here decides. That is my current thinking, and I'll freely admit that I have arrived at that point out of anger. I may change my mind. Unfortunately, your listing on VfD has polarized my thinking and I am at present just as upset about what I see as censorship of my ideas as I am about Mav's initial actions that started this whole thing.

Louis Kyu Won Ryu 16:12, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Hello, the decision you took over the sub page is a good one imho :-). I am not sure if that will make much of a difference, but small steps by small steps is good :-) Anthère