Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-07-04/Arbitration report

Discuss this story

For clarity, this report (and its author) are observing that the email leaks issue has not been resolved when the resignation occurred; the resignation occurred at a time where/while the emails continue to be published. This is not a statement or suggestion regarding who is responsible for the leaks (and it would be unfair to interpret it as a suggestion or attempt at aspersion-casting). The Signpost is specifically limiting itself to the statements from the earlier coverage linked in the report. Should further information about the source of the leak be identified, we will let our readers know. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) Nobody reads comments 2) The Signpost is not sophisticated enough to do this, but it's not "bad faith" - in some cases, phrasing like the above often is used to convey a connection, an implicit nudge-and-wink. This is usually done in a situation where there is evidence, but it wouldn't hold up in court and stating the connection outright would be cause for a libel lawsuit. Again, this isn't at the level, it's just poor phrasing. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  I'd prefer the title to be “Arb resigns; mailing list leaks continue; Motion re: admin” so that it doesn't appear to imply what it's not actually saying. ― A. di M._plé^dréachtaí 17:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  The leaks are mentioned under the heading of "Arbitrator resigns" and the two are linked, if only temporally, within one sentence. Regardless of the writer's intent, this gives the very strong appearance of innuendo. It is at best extremely poor phrasing. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  ACK. --Tim Landscheidt (talk) 02:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Shell Kinney has now confirmed that her resignation was connected with the leaks - not in the sense of any wrongdoing on her part, but I can't see that assertion in the report either. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not assertion, rather, poor phrasing, which in different circumstances could be an implication. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting that the subtitle was changed here from a previous wording similar to that suggested above. My issue with the wording 'while mailing list leaks continue' is that is it just plain inaccurate. It appears (though it is not certain) that this was a one-time leak and that the drip-drip of postings on Wikipedia Review is from a copy of the archives that was downloaded and is now being selectively released. This looks like it will happen for the foreseeable future until those posting the extracts at Wikipedia Review get bored. Are you going to say every week that the leaks are 'continuing'? You might also want to note that the person claiming to be the original leaker ('Wikileaker') is now posting what they have, so you have the bizarre situation of rival leakers 'competing' for attention. Carcharoth (talk) 03:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Carcharoth that the phrasing "leaks continue" is misleading (and that's generous). I also think the timing of the resignation and the leaks is not coincidental, but I disagree that the Signpost should imply this absent evidence. I do not see the admission of the connection that HaeB sees, but I'm not good at penumbras, so perhaps I just don't know how to parse the tea leaves.--SPhilbrick T 17:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Information about the leaker has appeared on Wikipedia Review. Count Iblis (talk) 01:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're referring to a different leaker - there are two different people (I assume) leaking documents now -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]