Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-30 Hillman posting personal information

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Status	closed
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	DrL
Parties involved	Hillman
Mediator(s)	Mr. Lefty Talk to me!
Comment	User:Hillman seems to have left the project.

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|]]

Request made by: DrL 14:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the issue taking place?

• User:Hillman/Dig/Langan (edit | [[Talk:User:Hillman/Dig/Langan|talk]] | history | links | watch | logs) (see hardlinked version)

Who's involved?

• Hillman (talk • contribs)
• DrL (talk • contribs)

What's going on?

Hillman is posting speculation regarding my identity, including links and speculation about where I live, work, etc. He is also posting irrelevant information speculating about my past (teen) drug use and other personal information. This is in direct violation of

WP:BLOCK

, among other policies.

Hillman has publicly accused me of "shilling", but I am not at all. He will not AGF. When he tried to do a checkuser/DrL, he was turned down because I did not violate WP. Now this. I am an academic and do not appreciate being portrayed as an enemy of Wikipedia. I try hard to follow WP guidelines and maintain NPOV. If he has a complaint, he should try to resolve it via

WP:DR

instead of putting up pages to harass good faith users. Granted, there are some people on WP that abuse the system, but Hillman alone should not be the one to decide who needs special attention.

What would you like to change about that?

If the community wants to let people track the edits of other users, it would be best if those users did not speculate about identities IRL. If Hillman wants to keep the page while the community decides, it would be best if he kept it as sterile as possible and limit it to info on Wikipedia. References to personal details IRL should be removed.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

You can reach me via email or my talk page. Thank you for any help you can give me with this. DrL 14:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator response

Posting personal information is grounds for an immediate block. In the future, you should go to somewhere like

Never mind, I see you already did. However, I think we should let administrators handle this situation. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 19:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was told to try here and, in fact, that is being used as a reason not to address this on the incident board. I would appreaciate some meaningful intervention here. My complaints are quite apart from the MfD. Thanks. DrL 19:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe you've tried this, but I would leave a polite note on Hillman's talk page asking that he remove you from that page. If the information he posted is true, then that is a violation of Wikipedia policy that could lead to a block. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 20:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response, Mr. Lefty. I have left some notes for "Hillman" on the talk page of the article itself. I also left a note in his talk page. I asked him/her/it to clean up the page before I did. Don't think I was terribly polite, but this whole thing came out of the blue (and "Hillman" doesn't seem to be a real person, anyway). Is there another type of message or an official warning that I should post to its user page? TIA. DrL 20:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be absolutely clear, per WP:STALK, it is a violation of policy whether or not it's true. --David Mestel^(Talk) 13:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your official warning, David. Just so we're clear, are my services (such as they are) needed here anymore, or can I close this case? --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 16:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean my remark to come across as an "official warning", and I am sorry if it did - I just intended to clarify. With regard to your second point, it seems that it may be possible to work out an amicable solution between the parties without assistance. However, in the unlikely event that negotiations break down, the assistance of a mediator may become useful. --David Mestel^(Talk) 18:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise offers

As an experienced (more or less former) contributor whose

good faith is established by my extensive edit history and my recent selfnom of the subpages listed at User:Hillman/Dig for MfD, I am perfectly willing to discuss compromises (in fact, I have some possibilities in mind), but I would prefer that this action be put on hold until after the current MfD is closed, if that would be acceptable to the mediators. Please see User:Hillman/Digging for more information about the context of the subpages currently up for MfD. TIA ---CH 22:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I am going on a short wikibreak as per my user talk page. I plan to return in the middle of next week. I understand that David Mestel will try to convince his "client" DrL to do likewise. I hope to decide the permanent fate of User:Hillman/Dig/Langan in discussion with David starting in the middle of next week (assuming the MfD result is not delete, of course), at which time the current MfD will have been closed and a relevant ArbCom ruling will probably have been made. ---CH 17:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no intention of "taking a break", Hillman, but by all means take one if you feel that you need to. Before you go, you might clean up the stalking edits referred to in my complaint to the incident board. Please let me know if you do that and I will remove my complaint. DrL 17:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Hillman continues to add conjecture to the page in question (his last piece of unsupported speculation was added just minutes ago). The MfD lasts 8 days. I would like this harassment to stop before then. DrL 00:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just dropped by again to state that the MfD concluded about two weeks ago with a result of keep. Furthermore, as of the the middle of last week, as per

WP:DR which suggests pursuing negotiation prior to seeking more confrontational remedies, I have begun negotiating with User:David.Mestel of the Association of Member Advocates, who is "representing" both DrL (talk · contribs · block log) and Asmodeus (talk · contribs · block log

). I have already made some rather significant gestures of good faith (see my user talk page) while this negotiation is proceeding.

As far as I know, this MediationCabal proceeding is now moot, or at least on hold while I negotiate with Mestel. I trust someone will drop by my user talk page if I am wrong or if that situation changes. And if I didn't put my response in the right place on this page, I trust that someone who knows better will move it. If this proceeding is indeed moot, I trust someone will close it.---CH 06:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank, since I have been asked not to post at the Hillman talk page and leave negotiations to David Mestel, I have done just that. Therefore, I have also not been bothering to read material related to this matter unless it is found on this page or my own talk page (other than an occasional skim). I hope that all parties keep in touch here on this page and make a sincere effort to communicate with David Mestel, when he returns from vacation, in order to put this matter at rest. --DrL 14:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Offer of identity escrow

While I doubt either party will consider this offer acceptable for settling the accusations of multi-user account use, I'll put it forwards anyways:

User:Hillman, if you are willing to provide the requisite information to me privately, I'll take steps to thoroughly verify your identity to the greatest degree possible without a wiretap (among other things, checking university staff lists, phoning the university switchboard and asking for you, phoning your office number, and getting a verbal statement from someone confirmed to be you that you are the only person using the User:Hillman account).

I can then make a statement here that either verifies that User:Hillman's identity and sole use of the account was confirmed to my satisfaction, or states that I wasn't able to verify this to my satisfaction (with a brief indication as to why).

Reasons why this is an imperfect solution:

• I strongly suspect that User:Hillman considers identity information too sensitive to give to someone he/she barely knows. I have about three conjectures as to why, but that's immaterial for this discussion.
• I strongly suspect that User:DrL considers me too sympathetic towards User:Hillman to be a reliable escrow witness for User:Hillman's identity.
• The validity of my statements as evidence hinges on whether or not administrators and fellow editors consider me a reliable witness, which is next to impossible for me to demonstrate.

That having been said, it's worth a shot. Please indicate acceptance or rejection of this offer below. --Christopher Thomas 02:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I strongly doubt that "Hillman" would reveal him/her/itself to you. I would expect that, if there were one single entity manning the Hillman account, it would be professionally and personally embarassed if its identity were to become known. See how cagey he is here. DrL 15:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please indicate either acceptance or rejection of this offer. User:Hillman can do the same on his/her own behalf. --Christopher Thomas 16:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Offer of (allegedly) neutral rewrite

As long as I'm volunteering time I don't have, I'll make the following offer as well:

With the consent of both parties, I'm willing to produce a rewritten version of

• I strongly suspect that User:DrL considers me too sympathetic towards User:Hillman to produce a sufficiently neutral draft.
• I'm going on vacation from Thursday August 3rd through Tuesday August 8th, during which my internet access is intermittent, which will affect the rewrite schedule.
• I guarantee that both User:Hillman and User:DrL will hate the rewrite. In fact, that's one of the litmus tests of whether or not I've done a good job. The goal is to produce a version that satisfies Wikipedia policy, not to produce a version that people like.

That having been said, it's worth a shot. Please indicate acceptance or rejection of this offer below. --Christopher Thomas 02:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm certainly willing to look at a rewrite, provided that it does not contain personal and irrelevant information. In the meantime, since you will be out of town, I will revert to a more neutral edit. DrL 04:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not what I'm offering. I'm offering to produce a rewrite that's vetted by administrators, not by you or User:Hillman. I'm asking you both to agree that if such a rewrite is accepted by administrators, you accept it whether you like the rewrite or not (and I guarantee that neither of you will like it, as stated above). --Christopher Thomas 15:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, as long as the rewrite does not violate
  WP:BLOCK or WP:STALK, I suppose that I would have no objection. As far as "accepted by administrators" goes, well certainly not if you chose the administrators. DrL 15:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• As stated above, the administrator pool would be whoever of the AN/I crew respond, and acceptance threshold is, say, a 2/3 majority among those administrators (per supermajority) (though I reserve the right to continue editing in order to get something closer to universal administrator acceptance). --Christopher Thomas 16:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I am really rather hoping the page will just be deleted (preferably speedily). I'd hate to waste your time (especially if you're on vacation). Maybe wait. It would be nice if Hillman could redact it in the meantime or nominate it for speedy deletion as he has been requested to do. DrL 21:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I have certainly not agreed to volunteer to have Christopher Thomas rewrite any of my user pages in a manner which he insists I will "hate" (an odd turn of phrase if he was trying to "sell" this proposal to me). As of 15 August 2006, I am cautiously optimistic that my negotiation with Mestel will quietly resolve the issue without requiring any further outside intervention. ---CH 06:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reasonable confidence that both of you would hate any rewrite I'd make, on the grounds that if a mutually acceptable solution existed, you probably would have found it by now, and making a version that's only unacceptable to one person would probably be an indicator of bias. If one or both of you ended up not hating it, and the result was vetted as acceptable under Wikipedia's policies, I'd count that as an unexpected bonus, but I don't have high hopes for that being the case.--Christopher Thomas 20:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Christopher. David Mestel did make a reasonable suggestion to Hillman here. I'm not sure why Hillman is ignoring it. It seems like a good solution - track the edits without the conjecture regarding RL identities. If the purpose of Hillman's behavior is to track rather than to harass, one would think that he would have moved on it by now. --DrL 21:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I strongly object to DrL's use of the term "wikistalking" (see my user talk page if you need to know why). However, to repeat: I hope to resolve my differences with her and Asmodeus via my negotiation with their representative David.Mestel. Since this negotiation is rather complicated, it would be difficult for me to keep up with more than one proceeding at a time, obviously. AFAIK, DrL and Asmodeus have agreed to drop this proceeding, at least subject to a successful outcome of my negotiation with Mestel.---CH 06:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Statement by DrL (talk • contribs)

Background - I created only two pages on Wikipedia. One was for the Mega Foundation, a tax-exempt nonprofit foundation registered with the State of Missouri; the other was for The Ultranet, a nonstandard "high IQ society" with members in more than 30 countries (and a project of the Mega Foundation). Both articles were succinct and NPOV, and each topic was and is notable. Both of these organizations had appeared repeatedly in the press, sometimes with extensive coverage. There was a half-hour documentary on the Mega Foundation and the Ultranet that was produced by Globo TV and aired to 64 million viewers in Brazil and around the world via satellite TV. A radio interview with three members of the Mega Foundation/Ultranet aired on BBC. The Mega Foundation was featured on an episode of the Ananda Lewis Show with the special theme of gifted and talented kids. There were also numerous less extensive mentions in print. (I understand that this is not a DR; I'm merely pointing out these facts to establish that these articles were indeed notable entries and not spam.)

Edit History - An examination of my edit history would reveal reasonable edits. I did get unexpectedly blocked for the 3RR during the CTMU AfD, but please note that I'd merely restored large passages that were removed by another editor without comment (I interpreted their summary excision as vandalism). In another article, I linked to a (nonprofit) bookseller to provide a citation and later learned that this was a minor gaffe. My edits have actually been quite moderate, and anyone of neutral disposition who takes the time to look would be hard-pressed to find anything objectionable. Accordingly, I strongly object to being labeled a "shill" and a "spammer".

CTMU fracas - Just prior to the CTMU AfD, an editor inserted pejorative, inappropriate, and unverified "crank" and "pseudoscience" links into the CTMU article. I interpreted this as a minor act of vandalism. I weighed in during the ensuing all-out edit war, admittedly somewhat heavily, but always trying to preserve NPOV and often encouraging discussion and collaboration. I had never edited the CTMU article prior to that time.

The CTMU article was deleted after a very contentious AfD and a long, hard-fought DR. Because I was a supporter of the article who had been trying to preserve it, my edits were scrutinized. In addition, the two pages I created, although briefly and neutrally written on notable topics, were nominated for deletion. Now branded as a "pseudoscience sympathizer" - and nothing could be further than the truth, given that I teach research design at both the undergrad and graduate levels - a "watch page" was created on me by "Hillman". Although "Hillman" had submitted a checkuser request for my account, his request was denied because I had not violated WP, and the page was created immediately after that. I've read up on the applicable WP, and WP says that I don't have to tell Hillman anything about me. As long as I follow the rules here, I can edit, and as long as my edits are reasonable, I should be able to edit without harassment.

Main Concerns - The MfD is apparently intended to decide the suitability of endorsing user-created "watch pages" to track edits, and I did

I would like the watch page that Hillman created about me to be deleted pending its justification. If it remains, I would ask that Hillman track my edits in a sterile, factual way and remove all conjecture and personal information. I don't think this needs to wait until the MfD closes, as these are separate issues (the MfD is general; this is more specific and involves abusive posting of personal information). I've always edited Wikipedia in good faith and would appreciate it if this could be assumed per WP in the future. DrL 00:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Christopher Thomas (talk • contribs)

Several places where extensive discussion of this dispute has occurred:

• AN/I thread
• MfD on the pages in question
• checkuser request summarizing User:Hillman's concerns about User:DrL's actions.

Capsule summary of the dispute, from my AN/I statement:

The upshot is that

WP:DR

with respect to these concerns (editing with an agenda and compiling of user information), with much drama occurring instead.

I've mostly been keeping at arms length from this dispute (arguing on Wikipedia is not my preferred form of recreation). After much pressure, parties involved are finally starting to go through

Capsule summary of the "who is Hillman" thread alluded to by User:DrL above:

• The pseudonym "Hillman" was used collaboratively on Usenet by a group of people at U. of Washington.
• User:DrL and Asmodeus (talk • contribs) have accused User:Hillman of being a similarly shared pseudonym, in violation of Wikipedia policies.
• User:Hillman stated that the Wikipedia account is used by one person.

--Christopher Thomas 20:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links to the deletion page and deletion review page for pages created by User:DrL User:DrL and others that touched off this whole affair:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe
• Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_July_20#Cognitive-Theoretic_Model_of_the_Universe
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mega Foundation
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mega Society
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ultranet

The consensus on CTMU was that it was non-notable pseudoscience. The consensus on the remaining pages was that they were advertising/promotion of non-notable entities. --Christopher Thomas 20:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: User:Hillman was not notified about this mediation case. I have posted on his/her talk page to rectify this. As of this writing, this mediation request is all of 6 hours old, so I find User:DrL's statements wondering why User:Hillman hasn't shown up puzzling. --Christopher Thomas 21:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Christopher Thomas Statement

This statement is nonsense. I created an article about a nonprofit foundation for the gifted and a high IQ society. Why don't you read the articles that I created? No "fringe theories" were ever mentioned in the articles. This is positively Orwellian. Christopher, I would encourage you to please check your facts. A lot of "Hillman's" information on the DrL page is just plain wrong. Stop perpetuating misinformation and baseless accusations against good faith users. Btw, I am happy to work with dispute resolution here if "Hillman" ever shows up. The poor thing probably fried its motherboard after its lastest flurry of edits ... DrL 20:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't recall "accusing" Hillman of anything. I did, however, note this was a distinct possibility in the MfD as I felt it was relevant to that proceeding. DrL

• Please note that I created only two of the above pages: Mega Foundation, a nonprofit foundation for the gifted, and The Ultranet, a "high IQ" society. I do not know who created the other pages. DrL 21:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• At no time did I wonder why "Hillman" wasn't showing up. Please do not put words into my mouth. DrL 21:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by

talk • contribs

)

• Comment as an uninvolved person.
  rootology 20:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Response to Rootology Thank you for this link. It does help. "Hillman's" edits go wll beyond factual documentation. They also include misinformation and irrelevant and invasive personal information. Note that the link states that: "Care should be taken to keep a factual record which avoids personal attacks on your own part." Fact does not include conjecture. "Hillman" can compile and list a user's edits, but should not include speculation. DrL 21:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Violations of WP:BLOCK and WP:STALK - Request for IMMEDIATE BLOCK

Please note that user "Hillman" continues to violate these policies on a number of talk pages, including my own, and users Bygenwulf and Christopher Thomas, among others. His last edit of this type is here.

Can someone please block this user ("Hillman") and edit these entries? DrL 17:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have voluntarily removed the identifying information from the comments left on my talk page. However, I disagree about this being a clear-cut blocking case, as that hinges on you editing in good faith and not self-promoting. The MfC and AfD pages showed that editors and administrators have mixed views on both User:Hillman's behavior and your own. I expect that this will eventually get sorted out in one direction or the other, either on AN/I or through arbitration. --Christopher Thomas 20:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. I do appreciate your taking the time to edit that (and help with the header). I assure you that I am not self-promoting and do hope that anyone taking a close look at my edits will see that. I hope that you have read my statement here and do encourage you to view the pages on the Mega Foundation and The Ultranet (via an admin) if you doubt their neutral presentation.

Regarding Hillman and the question of whether or not he should be blocked, the answer is crystal clear. Hillman, with very little effort, could have placed the redacted text on your page in exactly the way you did. He chose not to do so in violation of WP:BLOCK and WP:STALK and, frankly, I am not sure why. It certainly would not have compromised communication. All parties would have understood exactly what he was saying. IMO, it's purely an attempt at intimidation. DrL 21:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More Stalking by Hillman

Hillman continues his stalking behavior here. Please note that Hillman could very easily take care not to violate WP:STALK and WP:BLOCK, but he elects not to do so. I'm not sure why. It seems to me to be an effort at harassment and intimidation. DrL 23:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hillman seems to have left the project. on October 10th. It's been a month now, so I'm closing the case. If it occurs again, please contact us to reopen the case. ~Kylu (u|t) 22:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]