The Signpost is committed to publishing a diversity of perspectives, and this article reflects the opinions of its author. Beeblebrox is a long-time Wikipedia editor, administrator (since 2009) and former Arbitration Committee member, who was elected and served for three terms (2013, 2019, and 2021).

Wikipedia has policies for a reason. We are trying to do something here, this is explicitly not just a place to hang out chatting and gossiping. A certain amount of decorum and respect is generally appropriate and this is a policy that has strong support from the community, even though enforcement is uneven at best. Policies like WP:CIVIL are intended to remind users that although nobody here is paid, this is basically a workplace. Maybe it's more like a Montessori school in that all work is self-directed and there is no deadline for completing it, but we still don't expect users to randomly attack one another or to post animated emojis in article space because they think it's funny.

Off-wiki criticism forums do not have these rules, that is their entire point. I'm mainly speaking of Wikipediocracy (WPO) here, as it is the only one of those forums I participate in. Some of the other forums truly are hate or attack sites, as opposed to being mostly focused on genuine criticism. So, a person might say something on WPO that they would never say here, because it would be outside policy to do so. This is not a crime, although in some extreme cases it could and should lead to on-wiki sanctions.

Some folks on these external sites like to come up with nicknames based on a user's on-wiki name. Obviously, this is not allowed here. There is also arguably little to no value in it, especially if endlessly repeated every time the user in question comes up. Sometimes they say things like "<username> is a total idiot who should have their head examined" which, even if true, is unlikely to be seen by the user in question as useful feedback. Part of this trend may be due to the fact that, by and large, the person so targeted is not present in the discussion, but as has become very, very apparent; sometimes they might be lurking, reading the discussion without participating in it. In my opinion, it just isn't helpful, but it equally is not an excuse for the user so targeted to start doing things on Wikipedia that violate Wikipedia policies.

I would say that some of these folks need to grow up, but, in many cases, so do the targets of their comments. If you want to engage someone who is criticizing you, step up and do it in the place where they are doing so. If you don't want to do that, your remaining option is to let it go, not to start attacking them on-wiki.

Nobody can deny that there is material posted on WPO that, were it posted on Wikipedia, would violate the outing policy. Wikipedia's outing policy is substantially stricter than pretty much the entire rest of the internet. It is forbidden to speculate on the identity of other users in any way, including other online identities on other websites that may clearly be the same person, unless that person has disclosed that connection on Wikipedia itself. Whether one agrees with it or not, this is policy and should be adhered to.

WPO does not have any such rule. Most websites don't. It isn't generally considered a horribly invasive act to notice that User:Steve D edits content about the band Billy and the Boingers, and that some guy on Twitter or whatever named Steve Dallas is, in fact, the band's manager. Saying as much on a completely different website manifestly cannot be considered a violation of any Wikipedia policy. Although it might be preferable that, instead of posting it on a forum, the information was sent to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org, we cannot obligate users of other websites to do so.

Note that this is not the same thing as doxing, which involves posting non-public personal information about someone without their permission.

The rest of this is about my specific situation; if you don't care about that, you can stop right here.

This is a bit more personal. In November 2023, the Arbitration Committee, of which I was a duly elected member at that time, informed me that they were considering removing me from office due to disclosures I had made on WPO. Plenty has been written about that elsewhere; look it up if you want to know more. The short version is that I did what they said I did: I disclosed certain material from ArbCom's mailing list publicly on WPO. In a surprisingly-quick decision for the committee, I was not removed per se; the committee went with the odd decision to suspend me for six months, despite the fact that my term was ending in a month anyway, and I wasn't running for reelection. I could accept that, even if I didn't quite understand the reasoning behind a suspension when I was done anyway. What I did (and still do) have trouble accepting is that they also revoked my Oversight and Volunteer Response Team access when there was no hint of any sort of wrongdoing there.

Every arbitrator is granted these by default — along with CheckUser access — but I'd already had the Oversight permission for twelve years on my own merit, and there had never been any serious issues with my use of it, or with keeping material I saw in the course of using it confidential.

I don't think so.

Functionaries are appointed by the Committee, and they all know it is their responsibility to keep their mouths shut about what they see when using these powerful tools (which can certainly include personal data). It was, and is, important that such material be held in the strictest confidence.

Arbitrators are elected by the community to represent them at the highest level of dispute resolution. The community knew who I was, and what to expect, and I ran on a promise of trying to be more transparent when possible. I did what I did when I thought there was good reason to do it, even if it technically violated the level of privacy one normally expects from an email discussion. I wasn't there to toe the line and do what the other arbs wanted, I was there to do what I was elected to do — not once, but three times. There absolutely was not any personal information of any kind in any of the material I disclosed. It's an important distinction, and I would never release the kind of extremely sensitive material one routinely sees when using these tools.

What is important here is not that anyone agrees with my view — they only need to ask if they believe that I genuinely feel the way I say I feel about it.

I've apparently failed repeatedly at making that point to the Committee, possibly because I don't think I've ever put it quite like that. Maybe next year I'll try again. It is important work, and I did it for a very long time.