What they say:



I can tell you all with firm authority that this policy is not followed in block logs of suspected sockpuppets that have not voluntarily provided information or links to such information about his or her legal name. The blocking admin simply appends the legal name to the block summary, even on suspicion that it may only be someone "impersonating" the outted person.

It's a disgrace.

E-mail to OTRS produces a reply that OTRS does not have the technical capability of overwriting the block log, but that "If you are happy for your mail to be public, please subscribe to the wikitech mailing list and post there."

So, if you're trying to quietly get your legal name off of a Wikipedia user block summary, just publish your concern on the public mailing list!

I can tell you all with firm authority that this policy is ignored with regard to regular contributors, by administrators and even the arbitrators.

No one should ever feel bad about outing someone because Wikipedia says its wrong. Wikipedia doesn't mean it. Feel bad because you like the person, or don't believe he/she personally deserves it, or don't feel bad at all.

This policy is poorly written to the point of being humorous. My personal favorite:


"The real world" has been reduced to an alternate form of media. Got to love it.

Which is of course the classic passive-agressive legalistic way of any organization which is simply saying "no," without wanting to actually be caught saying "no."

Of course the power exists to overwrite anything at WMF. Whether or not anybody delegates it to anybody at OTRS, is something else. They could if they wanted, but actually, they don't want to.

If WMF actually wants to change something on WP, they come in all 10 feet tall and covered with hair and thunder "THOU SHALT!!" "It's private and WE OWN THE SERVERS!!" Down comes Thor's hammer, and it is done.

But if you want them to do something they don't want to do, and they think the law might be peeking over their shoulders, suddenly they're about 18 months-old and 2 feet tall. They take two steps and sit down WHUMP on a full diaper, then start to blubber. "Owwwie."

The ability to clear block logs would go a long way towards solving many persistent problems. Besides the problem of administrators such as Guy Chapman libeling people in block logs, knowing that thought his bad blocks will be swiftly overturned, his false and inflammatory accusations will remain, there is the more general problem of people being angry long after their bad blocks expire because their account has been marred for life. This is the true purpose, I suspect, of most bad blocks vs. established users - depriving someone of the supposed "privilege" of contributing to the project for 24 hours isn't very compelling.

Among other situations, if a block is overturned, it should be erased as a matter of routine. Perhaps the blocking admin can get an item on his/her log that says, "placed boneheaded/vindictive/abusive/Guy Chapman-style block on DATE"? WIth a pull-down menu, of course.

So true. One admin outed another's email, which included his registered domain, on the admins talk page, during an argument over block summaries, no less.

And, as recently as in the last week or so, an arbitrator used an inaccurate block summary falsely stating that the blocked user was such due to "harassment and off-wiki threats", which is misleading and most certainly harassment. The block was overturned, but most of you probably know this story already.

Yeah. They wrote my home phone online, and name, and when I returned from having resigned to remove it, they claimed I was violating my right to disappear. I wonder if they are having this discussions now because I'm filing a case? Am I *really* that important?