I just put this on Katefan0's Talk page:


Half an hour later: My comment is gone, no trace in history, page is protected. Golly, if I can't send her a message this way, should I send it to her editor at Congressional Quarterly? What do you think I should do?

Send away.

I didn't know they could remove edits from history.

Daniel Brandt you never cease to amaze me. How you find out who these admin are is facinating.



Yup -- they can delete the page and restore just the edits they want.

This one could get interesting. If her bosses at Congressional Quarterly think Wikipedia is God's gift to humankind (very unlikely in an election year when objectivity and accountability should be important to the media), then perhaps the Standing Committee of the Senate Press Gallery might have a different opinion. If the Committee even slightly leans in the direction of frowning on Wikipedia, it becomes an embarrassment to CQ and a news story all by itself. I don't think CQ can afford to ask the Committee to let their reporter, who also has a secret double life as a Wikipedia admin who edits articles about Congress on Wikipedia, keep her gallery press pass. I sent her an email at her cq.com address repeating what got deleted from her Talk page. If she doesn't either disappear from the list of admins at Wikipedia, or identify herself on her user page, then I'll write her boss. If that doesn't work, I'll contact the Standing Committee.


I think she should probably do this: a ) resign her adminship, b ) identify herself and her employer on her User page, with a current photo, and c ) announce on her User page that she will not edit any articles having to do with Congress or Congressional politics.

And lets not forget that this shows a direct tie between the Senate Press Corp and wikipedia. That could a very interesting link the media in general could enjoy.

Looks like she's already folded up her Wikipedia tent.

What strikes me as odd is this..........

If someone gets found out that they are part of a congressional press agency and they think there is nothing wrong with it why leave? It just shows that they knew it was wrong and a conflict of interest and most likely broke some ethic's rule they are required to abide by.

She also deleted her userpage and protected it.

22:02, 25 May 2006 Katefan0 deleted "User:Katefan0" (Well, that's it for me folks. It's been great getting to know you all.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...User%3AKatefan0

21:41, 25 May 2006 Katefan0 protected User:Katefan0 ([edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...User%3AKatefan0

On the face of it, you may well be right. If the accusation is garbage, then why have such a sudden and extreme reaction?

Possibly she was somebody else entirely and didn't want her identity revealed, but that would just be the same thing by a different name.

My guess is that the accusation is correct, she was outed and decided to cover her tracks. Nevertheless, her contributions remain and are available for anyone with an interest in text analysis to compare the content and style of the two identities.

That's what I was thinking....... If there wasn't any issues all she had to do was admit who she was instead of deleting her tracks or at least trying to.

Might be worth something if Daniel did file a ethic's violation on her though. A outed journalist does make the news very often especially one that used her position as a means to push her POV on wikipedia.

Oh ya... I am pretty damn sure her admin friends knew who she was. Especially "Musical Linguist."

It's a little harder than that, they have to actually mess around with the database itself using scripts in order to remove an edit from the history. An ordinary admin can't do it.

I agree that Daniel Brandt is doing a lot of damage to the unaccountable, abusive admins on Wikipedia. Good job, Daniel! Keep it up.

So they got a developer to remove it. Even more interesting.

BTW -- We see you Mr. Fat boy Phil AKA Snowspinner....... Having fun being a trolling little hobbit there?

I believe I said something to that effect here.

That's why I believe she broke/violated some ethic's ruling she was suppose to abide by and that's why she left.

As fast as she left it certainly does seem to be the case though. No mention of being found out or anything. Nothing about personal info being posted. Nothing. She deleted and blanked and left.

This is a very serious situation for a Washington DC journalist. This person graduated from U.Texas at Austin journalism school in 2001, where she was a senior reporter and deputy news editor at the student newspaper, The Daily Texan. Then she interned for the Houston Chronicle for a year. After that she had minor job in Washington DC, and for the last two years or so has been at the Congressional Quarterly. She is on her way up. For journalists, the "big city" is Washington DC, and that's where she wants to be.

Her job is the Congressional beat. Congress wants to know that the reporters who have the easiest access are of professional caliber. To assure Congress that this is the case, a system was set up whereby selected journalists from a cross-section of major media form a standing committee. This committee decides who gets gallery press passes. She has a gallery press pass.

One thing that a professional journalist must always do is properly and completely identify themselves to those they interview, before the interview starts. I think it is safe to assume that her employer does not know that she became an anonymous administrator on Wikipedia last September. It's also safe to assume that she did not inform the standing committee that her gallery press pass application needed to be modified when she became active on Wikipedia.

On Wikipedia, she was making edits on articles about Congresspeople, and about Congressional politics and political issues. Wikipedia is arguably much more influential than the Congressional Quarterly, even though CQ has a good reputation. Anonymous administrators at Wikipedia have tremendous power to shape the content of articles.

It is clear to me that she should have identified herself as an administrator at Wikipedia to everyone in Washington DC that she came in contact with professionally. Her position at Wikipedia was an obvious conflict of interest to the extent that it was not disclosed.

I don't plan to pursue this at this particular time. I'm not a professional journalist, and while I understand their concerns, I'm not particularly incensed. But some journalists, fearing that ethics scandals like this need to be dealt with speedily in order to preserve what access they currently enjoy in the halls of Congress, may feel differently.

What incenses me are the reactions from Wikipedians over this. You have a high-school student, Jaranda, saying that he was "harassed and blackmailed by that idiot Brandt a few weeks ago," a FeloniosMonk implying that I'm a "professional victim" with a "goon squad," and someone named Cool_Cat who doesn't understand why "Katefan0" decided to quit Wikipedia, and why she allows me to "intimidate" her.

What a tiny, tiny world they live in at Wikipedia. They really don't understand that there's a big world out there, and they cannot get away with playing the same kind of games in that big world, that they get away with on Wikipedia.

I agree, journalists should be honest about who they are reporting to, and this was apparently not what was occurring.


You know, of course, it is libel against you; if you ever want to sue, Id be more than happy to testify under oath that Wikipedia's comments against you have caused me to lose respect for you, and even question your sanity -- Wikipedia makes you seem like a complete crazed cook, and only a self-conducted investigation by myself has reversed those initial impressions, which are still nevertheless regularly assaulted by Wikipedia's campaign against you. As I am a historian, with an interest in the very issues discussed at your NameSpace site, Wikipedia's slander is thus clearly affecting your professional repute.

She didnt exactly hide the fact she was a journalist...

From her now deleted userpage:

"During the daytime (and often into the night), I am a political reporter in Washington, D.C. So far I have been able to tamp down my desire to add myself to a List of newspaper writers. However, my will to resist such things is notoriously weak, so someone else might want to monitor this page."

2005-02-28: Identifies herself by name on aqlogic.com (a wiki, talk page of a User:Grouse)

2005-03-23: Identifies herself as a reporter in Washington DC

2003-11-05: In post 1416, identifies herself as a Congressional reporter

2006-05-25: A search for her last name on the Congressional gallery list reveals that she uses "Kathryn" and not "Kathy," and works for CQ. This is a breakthrough, because there is another political reporter by the same name in the Washington area who writes for the LaRouche organization. But that one has been doing it since at least the mid-1990s. From Katefan0's user page, it is clear that she graduated from journalism school in 2001 in Texas, so she's not the LaRouche reporter.

2006-05-25: Searching back for "Daily Texan" and her full name in quotes it's clear that Kathryn is her full first name.

2006-05-25: The Congressional Quarterly staff page shows that she is still there as a reporter.

2006-05-26: From her latest sign-off: "But this latest attempt to compromise my privacy, combined with a threat to try to somehow have my livelihood taken from me, caps off a long two months of reevaluating whether volunteering here is worth it."

Excuse me, I wasn't the one who compromised your privacy. You were, by leaving a trail of cookie crumbs all across the web. And that was after you stuck your hand in the cookie jar, which you shouldn't have done in the first place as a professional journalist. I merely pointed out what every journalist already knows, and spent a couple of hours surfing the web.

Isn't that what journalism is about -- connecting the dots that others don't have the time or energy to connect?

I find this worrying. Was Katefan a controversial or bullying admin? Or was she just working constructively to build the encyclopedia? From reading this thread I can't see anything that she did wrong, and I find it distressing that she's been treated this way--of course, I am a firm believer in the importance, even necessity, of editor anonymity, quite unlike Brandt, so perhaps it is just a philosophical difference based on that alone. But anyone, I think, can see the concern inherent in one person's philosophical position, like Brandt's, causing serious problems for people in this way, and by extension affecting the encyclopedia as a whole.

First off she broke federal guildelines when she edited on WP since she has a Senate Gallery Pass which gives her full access to all proceedings or at least the majority of them.

She made edits on political figures currently in office most likely based on the information she had gotten. BTW I do believe that in order to get a Gallery Pass you have to pass a Background check by the FBI and CIA.

When she edited she most likely broke the ethic rules on passing information from the Senate floor to WP and the congressional members articles on WP. If she added or edited anything that was ruled confidential she could be in serious trouble with the US Gov. or at the very least the congressional members.

There are way to many possibilities here on what actions she has taken on WP as a admin and editor on political figures. But I know for a fact she was suppose to identify herself as a Senate Gallery Journalist. Because that position does, and is manditory, that a she pass a full background check plus many other security related policies.

Overall it showed "Bad Faith" on her status as a journalist and who she worked for when she did not disclose that.

I echo Everyking's sentiments. Just browsing back through her contributions, it seems as if she's been a valuable contributor and a diligent admin. Unless there's some history I should know about, of course. She mentions having an aged relative to support and cannot run the risk of losing her job. It looks to me as if Daniel's research has been good and has drawn blood, but I must question the aim and the target.

All anonymous admins are fair game. An anonymous admin who admits to being a professional journalist is particularly interesting, because journalists have standards that have evolved over many decades.

I guess it's a philosophical difference. No, more than that, it's a historical difference. I do not believe that the Internet is so wonderful that all the old rules should be thrown out.

The very first question I asked myself was this... If she has not broken ANY ethic rules or released confidential information that these reporters do get from time to time why would she just up and leave? Did she edit a or few congressional member's that she was not suppose to? Did edit them and removed information to have them look better at the request of the Congress Person?

She clearly left a trail -- WP username is the same as her Yahoo nick. Yahoo is like a gold mine for information especially on there forums. She clearly states she is a Congressional reporter on Yahoo. Even says so on a WP talk page.

Everyone needs to think outside the box on this one. Its not a clear-cut case at all. There are many ethical questions I have here about this.

And another thing she has forgotten so easly is that she is a high profile journalist who is easy to track down. However she claims her privacy was violated and tries to convince the rest of them that is the case. All lies. She needs to learn or re-learn her ethics she was taught in journalism classes.

I can follow the ethics question, sort of, but it seems to me that Katefan's leaving has hurt WP, both by losing a good editor and a good admin and that blame for this will be sheeted home to WR in general and you in particular.

My preference is to see WP improve by getting rid of bad admins, or at least forcing them to lift their game. Everyone benefits in that way including WR.

As an exercise in power it was an impressive feat. I think we've got a list of better targets for you to aim at.

Anonymity is very valuable to the project, Brandt. You don't seem to understand or believe that. The level of openness and freedom granted by anonymity is a big part of what has made WP so successful. In any case, though, what benefit can possibly arise from Kate's departure from the project? I can only see harm, and I think you ought to feel guilty about this, and retract your threats to her so she feels comfortable contributing again.

And again both Skyring and everyking demand to think in a narrow minded way instead of thinking outside the box. Typical wiki style and very disappointing.

I don't see why total anonymity would benefit wikipedia, since Wikipedia is not the place to leak controversial or sensitive information. If anything, anonimity is the reason why so many people dare insert false and malicious information into wikipedia articles.
The fact that she doesn't want people to know who she is shows that she knows her actions may be inappropriate.

I think that our objective should be not to destroy WP, but to destroy WR.

If WP improves to the point where WR is no longer neccessary, then we've done our job.

How does forcing Katefan0 out of WP help anyone? We've probably got a few more people mad at us that we'd rather have onside or at least neutral.

Katefan0 might have been the best editor/admin WP ever had but the main point it this...

If she edited political members such as any current serving Congressional Member she did so by using information she has gotten as a Seante Gallery Journalist. I view that as a high ethical question. If you don't then you have issues to think about.

When she made edits to remove the KKK connection on a certain Congressional Member to read ex(?)KKK connections that clearly shows bad faith as a journalist when she knows that the fact is that this member of congress was part of the KKK at one time. Trying to make this congressional member look better on WP ruin's its encyclopedia veiw because in Brittanica it states without any reservations that this member of Congress was connected to the KKK but renounced his association.

Now is that right for her to show a POV in favour of this Congressional Member? Is that ethical of her as a Senate Gallery Journalist? NO its not.

Do we have enough on her to file a complaint with the senate?

The function of a journalist is to get information out. I can't see anything wrong with a journalist editing WP using information they have gained as part of their job. It's not like they are breaching national security or anything. They are expected to gain information from Congress and publish it.

The ethical question is that maybe she should have identified herself as a political journalist on WP, but I really cannot view this as any great sin. We're not the police or the AJA or the CQ - why on earth should we care?

Do you know for a fact she didn't edit and add anything that was a national security issue ? I can't but that is the point. We have NO clue what she added or deleted was ethical or not.

ITS BAD FAITH so stop being WP:DICK's about it. She edited without fully disclosing who she was and what her job entailed. She edited MANY congressional leaders articles.

Personally I have a mind to find each congressional members article she ever edited on and calling there offices in Washington and informing them of the Journalist edits done on them without her disclosing her identify on WP and her direct connection to the Senate Gallery Press Office. That will certainly light a fire under someone's ass there and demand a answer from her and her employer. Not to mention in her position not asking permission to edit any of them.

I don't know who said it, but no, they did not get a delevoper to remove the edit.

They did the way any admin normally does it (without the page move). Developers can do it easier and actually remove the edits from the database, but this was not a case of that. Normally the developers are only called in for cases were someone in charge doesn't want even an admin to be able to see it, or if the page history is very, very long as it fucks up sometimes and it rapes the servers.

The only thing bad about Katefan0 is she always top posts on wikien-l, fucking annoying.

I've got a clue. If she had edited WP to include material that was sensitive to national security she would have had a lot more than WR on her case!

And you avoid the other issues that are important so conviniently.

I don't know the ins and outs of this case, and I've previously suggested that it is not necessary to chase after all the admins, but the fact that she got a message of sympathy from SlimVirgin suggests Daniel Brandt is doing something right. It is necessary to increase the level of accountability in the Wikipedia project one way or another.

Indeed....

Personal accountability regarding behavior should, I believe, come through process and community involvement. This is nothing even remotely like that.

*sigh* how sad the blinders of logic are used here. Oh well maybe they should take some ethic's classes in college like I have done.

Well I also see MusicalLinguist giving a great deal of support and she's a problem admin. But without some specific reason to chase after Katefan0, I have to express my severe reservations.

Wikipedia is just a website. Having status on WP is neither here nor there in the grand scheme of things except for Jimbo who gets all the glory (and takes all the flak). But losing your job is a big deal. I know a bit about Washington and it's a town where if you fall off the ladder, things can get real tough real fast. Destroying someone's career or life is not something that should be done lightly. If you want to talk ethics, ask yourself just what sort of ethical code allows you to do this just to prove some point.

Ohhhhh a nice wiki-reversal tatic...... Our ethic's was pointing out that Kathy did not identify herself as a professional journalist working on the Senate floor with access to information that might have beeen used to favour one political party over another. Editing political articles including current Members of Congress where she should have not been in the first place. Further she edited and even went so far as to protect articles pertaining to the Members of Congress which is certainly a bias approach in her ethical position as a Journalist on the Senate Floor.

I could go on and on but I am sure you still will not get that no matter how many times I have repeated that here.

Ethically speaking say you are a member of some great importance and me as a journalist with inside information or an agenda to to smear you or praise you and I edit your article on WP under the adminship role. I know your dirt or I know your praise and make edits according to the will that bends me. Is that ethical? NO is not.

Still don't get it? Take some ethic course's for journalist then.

Here's the old chestnut: the "Wikipedia doesn't matter" argument. Who was it who first pointed out the contradiction of the "it's only Wikipedia" argument? I think it was Jason Scott. Yes, here it is.

As I understand it her code of ethics forbids her from doing what she was doing. It's interesting that you want to play the ethics game. I didn't reveal her information, but I've seen little or no evidence of any ethics or principles being applied by any Wikipedian, except Jimbo Wales perhaps, who's taken some ethical stands: perhaps because he's one of the few people in a position to.

In my case I was subject to unethical harassment and blocks. Oh, that's right, "it's only Wikipedia", pull that one out again. In which case, if it's only Wikipedia, and Wikipedia doesn't matter, desysop all the current sysops and hand control over to me. After all, it's only a website. It doesn't matter who's in control. Oh, what? Don't want to do it? So it seems that Wikipedia *does* matter, when it's convenient for your purposes. Some contradiction, Shirley?

Skyring need's to take some ethic classes or at the very least find a ethic's professor and ask them what they think about this. I am damn sure they will be shocked that she edited under anonymous and as a admin on wikipedia.

If skyring is a admin on Wikipedia you are now making my judgement of your qualifications as one in serious question here. If your a editor on wikipedia I suggest you take some ethic classes like I have had to and learn what a real journalist is expected to do and there responsibility.

Errr. I have been a political journalist here in Canberra. Political journos usually have information that favours one side over another. Politicians go out of their way to present information that shows them in a good light and their opponents in a bad light, and they hope that journos will publish the info.

Identifying yourself as a journalist to an interview subject is ethical. But do you have to identify yourself as a journalist when you write a political article? Of course not. Editorials are often political in nature and they are never signed. Likewise news articles of a political nature. Often they are anonymous, especially when syndicated.

Let me pose another ethical question.

I work on the NY Stock Exchange floor as a trader.... I take some information I learned about and I go to a online stock trading company who doesn't know who I am and I go make a stock trade based on information I got from the stock exchange floor and make a killing from it.... Ethical or not ethical?

Same rules applies to Kathy here..... No matter how you try to dice and mince it she was ethically wrong in what she did there.





Your a political journalist? Oh this is to good to be true and explains exactly why Carr has the misconception that he is always right.

But your arguement still does not mean anything here. Wikipedia is used as a source by many places now. Your implying that its perfrectly acceptable as a political journalist to edit political canidates profiles to reflect either a bad or good agenda under an anoymous name. Nice.......

You scare me a lot now and only confirms my thoughts on contacting each Member of Congress to alert them about "Katefan0" and her edits.

One thing real journalists can do is spell. But that's a cheap shot. If you want to see my status on WP, just check out [[User:Skyring]] and you'll see exactly why I think WP is sadly flawed in the administration and ethics departments.

So I can say that Wikipedia is just a website, because I don't have anything to defend. It's not real life. As for Katefan0, if it comes to a choice between being an admin on WP and having a well-paid job, just which way would you jump?

This isn't relevant to the case in question. If a newspaper prints libel, the newspaper itself rather than the journalist becomes responsible, and frequently is held responsible, as happened recently to the Daily Telegraph and the Christian Science Monitor regarding George Galloway, who got 2 million pounds from them for libel. In the case of Wikipedia, which is far more widely available and popular than most newspapers, the situation is not clear. As far as I understand, this is the whole point of Daniel Brandt's campaign against anonymous editing on Wikipedia. If Kathy writes a biased or libellous article, who is responsible, Kathy, whose anonymity is protected, or Wikipedia itself? This is the nature of the issue. I strongly support Daniel Brandt's campaign for accountability in Wikipedia.

So what? The New York Times or The Washington Post are well-respected sources of information and if you pick up any edition you will find political articles deliberately slanted one way or another. It's what political journalists do for a living. Write political stories. If you read a particular columnist for a while you will get a feel for which way they lean.

Newspapers present a variety of views from a variety of sources to give balance. WP has NPOV to do the same thing. I really cannot see any ethical problem here.

*sigh* I give up.... Your way to dense and close minded about this and fail to see the issue at hand.... Good luck in your political journalist carreer.

A journalist is suppose to be a non-bias person that presents both sides of the issues or story so that the public is well INFORMED enough to make a decision on there own. Not a editor on wikipedia as an anonymous admin.

The key word is non-bias.

One thing's for sure - this has made Daniel Brandt even more notable. Will this be added to his Wikipedia article?

Heh I past you in number of posts now

This post makes the exact number of days in a year....... 365