Mental illness and other cognitive handicaps are usually irrelevant for
administrative purposes. If an individual can operate within the realm of
site policies and standard practices, they're welcome onsite. If they
persistently violate site standards then eventually they have to go.
On one occasion I did mention an editor's self-disclosed psychiatric
diagnosis when I proposed a siteban. That was because the editor also
disclosed a related arrest history and the editor had developed a sexual
fixation on me. Other exceptions also exist, but they're rare, and out of
consideration I'd prefer to keep them confidential.
-Durova
This is an absolutely appalling and inappropriate analogy that is
incredibly insensitive to actual victims of rape. Armed Blowfish
should apologize for writing it and Jay should apologize for posting
it. What in the world were you guys thinking?
As a man I'm embarrassed and ashamed that someone would trivialize
rape in this manner.
Now stop it.
On 8/1/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Armed Blowfish apparently get e-mails through to the list, and has
> asked me to forward this.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Armed Blowfish <diodontida.armata(a)googlemail.com>
> Date: Aug 1, 2007 10:03 PM
> Subject: The Second Rape: Victim-Blaming (was Re: [WikiEN-l]
> Self-sensorship, how far should it go?)
> To: jayjg99(a)gmail.com
>
>
> I am truly depressed by the lack of support SlimVirgin is receiving
> from certain individuals on this list, but at the same time, not
> surprised. Victim-blaming has a long and horrific history. When it
> happens to rape victims, it is called 'the second rape'... to victims
> of assault, 'the second assault'... or, to cover all situations,
> victim-blaming or secondary victimisation.
>
> The far-too-frequent society response to victims of rape, violence and
> harassment - to abandon her, to blame her, to insult her - is severely
> psychologically damaging to the victim, and helps keep perpetrators
> safe to continue these abuses.
>
> The experience of Serena, who was ultimately banned from her
> classrooms and friends after being raped:
> http://www.justicewomen.com/cj_second_rape.html
>
> An introduction to the phenomena of 'The Second Rape', geared towards
> helping victims deal with it, and explaining why it happens, along
> with a few typical examples:
> http://www.justicewomen.com/help_special_rape.html#two
>
> Some survey results on the topic of secondary victimisation:
> http://www.musc.edu/vawprevention/research/victimrape.shtml
>
> On 01/08/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 01/08/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I don't see any good coming from giving into trolls and stalkers. The
> > > fact that a bunch of disgruntled, mostly banned ex-Wikipedians like to
> > > spin conspiracy theories, and occasionally disrupt Wikipedia, should
> > > simply be ignored. Not discussed on Wikipedia, not discussed here,
> > > just ignored.
> >
> > "Ignored" is one thing. "Silenced" just feeds the fire.
> >
> > I note this thread began because a debate about Slim's identity, and
> > the massive efforts gone to to conceal edits associated with her, *was
> > on the front page of slashdot*. (Slashdot. Not Wikipedia Review, or
> > Encyclopedia Dramatica, or anyone else; Slashdot, perhaps a classic
> > example of our "natural supporters".) This led to a large amount of
> > curiosity amongst our community. But a small group of people cracked
> > down heavily on anyone trying to say "what the fuck is going on here?"
> > on the wiki... which just further encouraged speculation about those
> > efforts to conceal something.
>
> An excerpt from the song 'The Second Rape' by Aus-Rotten:
> Defense attorney: Do you know the man who "allegedly" attacked you?
> Victim: Yes I know the man who raped me.
> Defense attorney: And isn't this man a friend of yours?
> Victim: Well I thought he was a friend of mine.
> Defense attorney: And were you drinking that night he 'allegedly" attacked you?
> Victim: I had a drink or two but is that a crime?
> Defense attorney: I'll ask the questions if you don't mind!
> -What were you wearing: How did you act?
> Victim: My wardrobe isn't an invitation for a man to attack.
> -I didn't act in any way to bring this on. Why am I on trail? What
> did I do wrong?
> Defense attorney: Could you tell the jury why you let this happen?
> Victim: I was in shock. I couldn't stop him.
> Defense attorney: You claim that you were raped but how do we know?
> Victim: I said no, I said no, no, no!
> Defense attorney: Isn't it true you're just a woman scorned?
> Victim: I'm a woman who's been raped and torn.
> Defense attorney: Your honor, I demand that this case be dismissed,
> -it all comes down to her word against his!
>
> In the above, the attorney's questions are fairly typical - the
> victim's strength, not so typical. If you don't mind a long read,
> this paper is enlightening:
> http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1981/3/81.03.06.x.html#c
>
> > If you honestly don't see that this sort of behaviour is wasteful,
> > counterproductive, inflammatory and - in the long run - just poisoning
> > our reputation, then I am afraid my complaints are hopeless. But, by
> > god, they were worth making.
> >
> > At some point in the past, people fucked up, made enemies or handled
> > something badly or just been unlucky in who they dealt with. Things
> > have moved on, and developed, and we're now in a situation where they
> > have no choice but to look foolish, or keep harming the project. The
> > only reasonable solution here is for them to stop and walk away.
> > Sooner or later, they have to realise this.
>
> Just as the officials at Serena's school drove her out - putting her
> in independent study, banning her from her classrooms and friends -
> after she was raped by a classmate.
>
> > I will say it again - the people we are looking bad to now aren't the
> > people who already thought the worst of us. We're now beginning to
> > look like incompetent spiteful twerps to neutral third parties, and I
> > see no indication it's ever going to improve. Essjay got us faintly
> > amused newspaper coverage - what will "Wikipedia Covers Up Unknown
> > Misdemeanours" look like?
> >
> > The project is bigger than them, it is more important than a username,
> > and I will not stand by to see it dragged down to protect their pride.
> >
> > --
> > - Andrew Gray
> > andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
>
> On the contrary, secondary victimisation is far more damaging not only
> to Wikipaedia, but to all of society. It teaches the perpetrators
> that they can get away with it, and the victims that they can't expect
> help. It helps abuse continue - both by participating in
> victimisation of current victims and by making it easier for future
> victimisation to occur to new victims.
>
> And yet, far too often, victims are abandoned and blamed in the name
> of society... it's her fault the football team is calling her a ho...
> it's her fault a crime occurred against her in her own apartment...
> it's her fault she got raped.
>
> Thanks for listening,
> Armed Blowfish
>
> P.S. While I don't believe Andrew means to hurt anyone, people often
> hurt others without meaning to. Hence my attempt to explain why it
> hurts, in the hopes that this will stop.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
On 11 Aug 2007 at 15:24:46 -0400, "Joshua Brady" <somitho(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> RFC 1149 is IP over Avian Carriers not Carrier Pigeons, and is uselss
> as RFC 2549 has QoS for IPoAC ;)
But are such avian-carrier users actually banned from Wikipedia
edits? If this protocol were actually to be implemented, then any
packets sent by this means would be tagged with an originating IP
address, like any other Internet packets, and it would then be up to
Wikipedia policy to decide whether such IPs should be blocked due to
the potential of avian-carrier-based vandalism. No such policy
exists now that I know of.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
On 11 Aug 2007 at 14:02:55 -0500, "Armed Blowfish"
<diodontida.armata(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
> I asked to be given ipblock-exempt... the community said no... I am
> still not seeing how that is not a ban.
More precisely, you asked for adminship, which grants a whole range
of privileges which happens to include ipblock-exempt.
And, as I recall, I was one of those who voted in favor of it for
you; and SlimVirgin was one of those voting against. So there's some
amount of irony in the fact that on this list, you've been supporting
and defending Slim and arguing against me.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
I've been watching old episodes of "Columbo" on DVD lately, and I got
to one that involved the Japanese delicacy "Fugu", a type of blowfish
that is deadly poison if prepared incorrectly. Is that what's known
as an "armed blowfish"?
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
http://cgi.ebay.com/Wikipedia-Homepage-12-Permanent-Text-Links-SEO_W0QQitem…http://cgi.ebay.com/Wikipedia-Homepage-12-Permanent-Text-Links-SEO_W0QQitem…
Text:
Wikipedia Homepage + 12 Permanent Text Links SEO
First of all these text links and content will be "permanent." We
can list your site in the US or across the global Wikipedia pages.
Want more traffic? Who doesn't.
Regular text links on random sites and in directories, no one
looks at, may help a little with link popularity but don't you want
some traffic? More traffic = more conversions.
Last month over 40 million people looked at Wikipedia.org. #10
most trafficked website according to Alexa. And Wikipedia.org shows up
in Google and Yahoo! results. A traffic gold mine.
But how do you take advantage of this? How do I list my website on
Wikipedia without it getting deleted?
That is where we come in. We have an extensive SEO background, we
have knowledge of Internet User behavior, we know how they search and
what they search for. We will get more people to see you on Wikipedia
and work with the Wikipedia guidelines to increase the amount of text
links to your website. More people will see your website, they will
click your text links, hence more traffic.
We will build one homepage for your website on Wikipedia.org and
10 text links from other Wikipedia.org pages to your Wikipedia.org
page and 2 external links to your Website.
Let us show you the Wikipedia traffic gold mine.
I'm sure everyone here with an eBay account has some *fascinating*
buyer questions for Mr Diremine ... and not a few complaints to eBay.
- d.
>From Joshua Brady:
> Can we try to move on and stop harping on this, and discuss a real
> solution for a change? What do we want to do/what are we going to do
> about this? What can/will we do to stop this in the future?
Excellent questions. : )
But which problem? SlimVirgin's in particular? Victims and potential
victims of abuse and harassment in general? Or identity deception,
which probably isn't a problem in this case but which some people seem
to be worried about for some reason?
To help SlimVirgin:
* Stalkers and other abusers tend to go after the vulnerable, and part
of vulnerability is social isolation. By being supportive, we reduce
the chance that this particular case of stalking will become a violent
one. And no, I'm not saying that Daniel Brandt et. al. are the
violent type, in fact I do not believe they are, but the information
which may or may not be true has been released to many. If it's true,
all it takes is one nut to read that and hunt SlimVirgin down, and
this could become much worse. By the time you know the danger you are
in, it is often too late. You hear the sound of someone entering
downstairs... door opening and closing... footsteps... and then the
voice of the man you fear. You don't believe you could run out past
him. There are no ladders to escape out the window. You could
scream, but there's no one around to hear you... and even if there
was, he's a friend of the neighbours. All of your friends are busy at
this time of day, and you know the police won't be sympathetic... and
even if they did come, they wouldn't come in time. Instead, you check
to make sure the door is locked. It is, but you are afraid that won't
be enough. There's no bolt. All the time you hear footsteps. He
arrives, demands entry, starts proclaiming how hurt he feels. You
tell him to go away. He starts picking the lock, all the time
screaming about how hurtful your refusal to see him is... how he has a
right to see you, touch you... how much he loves you. You try to
barricade the door, but you aren't strong enough to move any of the
heavy furniture. Eventually, he successfully picks the lock and
knocks down the barricade. He blocks the doorway with his body,
perhaps around 300lbs heavier than you. He continues his insane
banter, even as you yell at him to go away. Adrenaline has been
surging through you bloodstream for some time, making you more
energetic, stronger. Perhaps you can fight your way past. You have
no self defence training, but you manage to jam you knee into his
groin. He bends over a bit, but remains firmly blocking the
doorway... and in a moment he pushes you hard onto the floor, onto the
toppled remains of your barricade, calling you a 'sick puppy'. Before
you can get to your feet, he drags you onto the bed and pins you down
there, only a bit of thin cloth between his groin and your chest. He
keeps up his banter... how hurt he his... how cruel and evil you
are... how much he loves you... and even starts to cry, all while
keeping you pinned, all while you keep telling him to go away. Do not
make me go on.
* Providing SlimVirgin with what emotional support we can - letting
her know she has friends - will hopefully make her feel better.
Raising awareness of the damaging effects of abuse will hopefully help
people to do this.
* Cover up what we can, hoping that less people will see this... you
never know which one of them might be the type to track her down in
person. Discuss privately by e-mail to help people understand why
their comments are removed.
To help others victims... and especially potential victims. ('And
ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.'):
* If we help SlimVirgin, we teach others that they can and will get
help, making others less vulnerable. In addition, tolerace of
stalkers will only make it safe for them to stalk - the line needs to
be drawn on this.
* I already know SlimVirgin and Jayjg will disagree with this, but
allow editing through Tor. IP addresses are not the only way to track
someone down, but don't leave the window unlocked just because it's
easier for someone to come in through the door. I trust the
Checkusers, but there are ways to get someone's IP address without the
cooperation of Checkusers... eavesdropping on the connection between
you and Wikipaedia, watching for accidental non-logged-in edits. Some
have complained that SlimVirgin left a trace - using Tor is one way to
help avoid leaving a trace.
* Be more liberal about oversighting things to protect people. The
sooner something goes poof!, the less chance the wrong eyes will see
it. And hey, even oversight isn't permanent - it can be undone.
* Establish better relations with the operators of websites we might
want to get things removed from. (This need not be inconsistent with
not linking to their sites.) On that note, I'd like to give a public
thank you to the moderators of the Wikipaedia Review for removing what
information they have removed, and also for hiding parts of their
forum from the Googlebot.
As for the identity deception thing, although I am not sure why some
people think it is relevant in this particular case:
* The biologists are way ahead of you - try cross-referencing
'conventional signal' and 'assessment signal' on Google if you want
more information... alternatively, you could skip what the biologists
wrote and read 'Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community' by
Judith S. Donath.
http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html
Armed Blowfish
On 02/08/07, Joshua Brady <somitho(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Guys/Gals/Others,
>
> This has turned into a free-for-all attack fest on SlimVirgin's
> handling of things, and Jayjg's just being on the project. Let's try
> to remember not to launch into personal attacks and remain calm, if
> you seem like you are going to explode and can't take it anymore;
> please back away from the computer, and do not post in the heat of
> things.
>
> We have all established:
> - SlimVirgin's handling could have been better/worse/should be
> oversighted/should not have been oversighted/we need to hire ninjas to
> settle this/her MI6 handler is ready to wage a nuclear war James Bond
> style.
> - Jayjg's time here has come to a close and he should give it up or go
> into hiding. Let's all remember we can not by consensus or forcing it
> down someones throat, make them leave the project. If and only if
> Jayjg himself decides to leave, he will leave. Removal of bits or
> asking him to give them up, only gets old. If you want to involuntarly
> take tools away from someone, first get a consensus to even make that
> possible, then put the specific user up for removal of tools. English
> wikipedia does not have a method of doing this currently.
> -Other people saying 'we' really mean to say 'I'.
> - That online harassment can evolve into a real life danger, something
> one person has already confirmed, and something I can attest to as
> well.
> - Trying to run between terminals at tokyo, with only 30 minutes to do
> so, will undoubtly result in a missed flight and forced delay as you
> are put on another flight.
>
> Can we try to move on and stop harping on this, and discuss a real
> solution for a change? What do we want to do/what are we going to do
> about this? What can/will we do to stop this in the future?
>
> -Josh
>
> On 8/2/07, Joshua Brady <somitho(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 8/2/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 8/2/07, Steve Summit <scs(a)eskimo.com> wrote:
> > > > Jayjg wrote:
> > > > > O.K. Explain exactly how *I* was involved in the "response to
> > > > > discussion attempts on-wiki". As far as I can tell, my total
> > > > > involvement consisted of overwriting one comment on SV's talk page.
> > > >
> > > > Which I (perhaps inappropriately) pointed out. But if you're not
> > > > involved, then why have you posted 34 messages to this thread?
> > >
> > > I don't understand the question. If I post to the thread, then I
> > > suddenly become "involved". Does that mean everyone who posted to this
> > > thread is now "involved", and should leave Wikipedia?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Apparently that one action was enough to generate both huge amounts
> > > > > of "drama"...
> > > >
> > > > The drama that's present in this thread is indeed symptomatic of
> > > > the problem this thread purports to be about.
> > >
> > > Which is why, of course, I suggested that we stop talking about it. If
> > > the drama is actually all in this thread, then people shouldn't have
> > > started it, and shouldn't be continuing it.
> > >
> > > > It's obvious to everyone but you
> > >
> > > Please don't presume to speak for "everyone"; I've had off-wiki
> > > communications from others who say they have no idea what this is all
> > > about.
> > >
> > > > but: nobody's talking about you
> > > > just because of that one action. Your involvement is not due to
> > > > having removed (rather sneakily, I might add) one user's question
> > > > from SlimVirgin's talk page recently, but rather, your consistent
> > > > advocacy of the practice of doing so. (Among other things.)
> > >
> > > Huh? I've consistently "advocated" the "practice" of removing stuff
> > > from SV's talk page? Where have I done this? And you think I should
> > > leave Wikipedia because you disagree with opinions that you apparently
> > > have invented for me?
> > >
> > > I simply am not understanding any of this, as it doesn't appear to
> > > accord with any reality I am familiar with.
> > >
On 8/8/07, Casey Brown <cbrown1023.ml(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> No, only developers with root access can see and restore the oversighted
> edit. Furthermore, this is managed directly by the local wikis ArbCom, see
> the hiding revisions page. They delegate who gets the oversight right and
> can view the log if need be (most of the current and past members have the
> right). In addition, the developers know to listen to them if they need
> access to the revision, although in most cases the revisions do not need to
> be restored.
>
> I am not sure if there is a bugzilla report for it. But keep in mind that
> you must have Foundation-wide community discussion before such a change
> takes place. Either way, Brion knows about it and I am sure VoiceOfAll will
> bother him with it.
>
>
> On 8/8/07, Armed Blowfish <diodontida.armata(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > So one needs read access to the Linux filesystem of the Wikimedia
> > servers to look at an oversighted edit?
> >
> > That would seem to make Oversight a bigger deal than it ought to be.
> > There are a number of things one might not want every admin to be able
> > to see, but which one might want to keep accessible to ArbCom, etc. :
> > (
> >
> > Is there a Bugzilla report filed somewhere to get the bitfields
> > extension committed?
> >
> > Armed Blowfish
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Casey Brown
> Cbrown1023
>
> ---
> Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails
> sent to
> this address will probably get lost.
>
--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023
---
Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent
to
this address will probably get lost.
I'd like some views on an issue that's come to puzzle me very recently,
namely the basis for closing and deciding the outcome of an AFD. Here's my
understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong:
* Articles are generally subject to deletion if they violate any of the
criteria for inclusion, outlined here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion
* If it is clear-cut, there are ways to accelerate the deletion policy
* If there is controversy, especially with notability, the matter is put to
a community of editors who are interested in the discussion
* Unless a clear consensus emerges, the discussion goes for a prescribed
period of time
* No consensus defaults to keeping the article; only when there is a clear
sense to delete is it deleted
* As a matter of community trust, the closing admin is obliged to not have
an interest in any content dispute, but is rather charged with interpreting
the sense of the discussion to discern whether there is a consensus.
Did I get anything wrong here?