On Thu, 22 May 2008 15:12:12 EDT, WJhonson(a){gag,vomit,retch}aol.com
wrote:
> "Durova, in an interview, posted on YouTube, states her own real full name.
> The identification of Durova, is now strewn widely across the internet.
> Can we not repeat her own real full name in-Wiki ?"
>
> Now the one mistake I made was that she doesn't actually self-identify as
> both parts. It is the person who loaded the video who marked it, in it's
> headline, with the two names jointly.
Actually, from what I saw, the interviewer who talked with Durova and
created the video of it introduced her with both her real name and
her username, with her present and cooperating, not looking like she
was "ambush-interviewed" and objected to the whole thing. I suppose
it could have been cut and dubbed in a misleading manner, but I see
no evidence of it.
Calling somebody by a different name from the one they wish to be
called by can be considered an act of incivility, and might be part
of a larger pattern of such behavior that could be legitimate cause
for sanctions, but if the subject has willingly cooperated in outside
interviews in which this information is disclosed, mentioning it
onwiki is hardly an act of great evil justifying a moral panic
("Outing! Stalking! Harassing! Indef-ban them and call the cops!").
--
== 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/
>>Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 14:01:29 -0400
>>From: Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com>
>>
>>It seems like there is a pretty strong consensus on this list, WJohnson -
>>its custom and reasonable to expect editors not to use the real names of
>>other editors who request otherwise, and reasonable to demand that editors
>>who refuse to follow that custom agree to do so before they edit further.
>>...
>>Nathan
Is there a similar policy that might expect editors not to wish ill
will on outcast editors, or to label their work and their clients'
payments as not ethical? I've asked the WMF to have these posts
removed, but only received a haughty reply from Mike Godwin, telling
me that because this mailing list is not prescreened by the WMF,
Wikimedia has no need or courtesy to delete the posts:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/htdig/wikien-l/2007-November/085890.htmlhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/htdig/wikien-l/2007-November/085892.html
I contend that the list *is* prescreened by the WMF, since I've had
messages blocked before by the Press Officer of Wikimedia UK. I'm not
surprised, though. It's the typical "revenge platform" mentality for
the WMF and its cronies.
Revenge begets more revenge.
GJK
In a message dated 5/21/2008 4:25:30 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
george.herbert(a)gmail.com writes:
Trying to get support for a policy exception for not identifying
people who don't want to be identified, just because somewhere out
there in the world is info (that they put out there or not) that
connects the dots, *just* for this one case to avoid an indef on a
problematic if positive contributor, is a mistake.>>
-------------------------
And no one has *advocated* for such a position.
I questioned the situation, that is all.
"Durova, in an interview, posted on YouTube, states her own real full name.
The identification of Durova, is now strewn widely across the internet.
Can we not repeat her own real full name in-Wiki ?"
Now the one mistake I made was that she doesn't actually self-identify as
both parts. It is the person who loaded the video who marked it, in it's
headline, with the two names jointly.
Couldn't she simply complain to YouTube to take it down?
(This is a QUESTION, not advocacy ;)))
Will Johnson
**************Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with
Tyler Florence" on AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4&?NCID=aolfod00030000000002)
(cc'd to Foundation-l because of para 3)
School shootings are extraordinarily high profile events, nearly always
followed by investigations of warnings and foreshadowing events - where
blame is cast in a wide net on anyone who failed to notice what, in
hindsight, was a "clear sign." Often these "clear signs" are only clear at
all in hindsight, because as human beings we interpret what we see based on
what we have seen in the past and few of us have encountered threats from
children that turned out to be very serious.
Wikipedia is in a unique position to suffer from the recriminations
associated with school shootings, and our role is only going to become more
widespread and high profile as time goes on. Threats made on Wikipedia have
the characteristics of being written, indelible, and traceable to a specific
computer (given the right resources). Additionally, threats on Wikipedia are
*seen* - this is key, because few threats of violence on Wikipedia get past
recent change patrollers and watchlists of attentive editors. So, when a
school shooting threat is posting on Wikipedia it is time stamped,
indelible, traceable and seen more or less immediately.
The question, then, is what if any moral imperative does this impose on us?
And if some of us feel compelled to report such instances to the police, and
others do not, what if any should the extent of policy be on this issue?
Personally I can't agree to any Wikipedia policy that mandates or punishes
behavior off-wiki. On the other hand, I do think a policy that encourages
all editors to report specific school threats to AN and (when willing and
possible) to the police is workable and a good idea. Frankly, I'm surprised
and I'm sure many others would be as well to learn that there isn't already
such a Wikipedia policy. At a minimum, we should have a policy of forwarding
all such threats to the Wikimedia Foundation for "official" action if
necessary.
This issue is distinct from the issue of threats of self-harm, suicide or
harm to public figures. While vague threats to celebrities and "I'ma kill
Joe, he's a dickwad" are often reverted and ignored as simple and unserious
vandalism, school threats have a unique nature in public sentiment and
require a unique position in policy. I'm writing this to the two lists
because its an issue that deserves a higher profile discussion than on a
proposed policy page (already nominated for deletion) with a couple editors
who think the policy is trying to force people in calling the cops when they
don't want to.
Nathan
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 5:03 PM, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm familiar with the three failed attempts, and actually helped to fail
> WP:TOV myself. What sets a policy specifically related to school threats
> apart is that it, well, specifically addresses a significant element of
> threats that has a much higher public profile than any other sort of threat
> we might encounter. If I remember, WP:SUICIDE does not mention school
> threats at all - even in passing along with other sorts of threats. It seems
> mostly, as its shortcut suggests, related to threats of suicide. The most
> recently proposed policy (at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:School_threats) does not attempt to
> require action, only encourage it.
>
> If an essay is the most that will ever be achievable, so be it. I for one
> would not like to be the one being interviewed when someone from the Times
> or USA Today says "Can you explain why Wikipedia editors don't think
> reporting threats against schools to the police is a good idea?"
> At the least WP:SUICIDE should also be shortcutted by WP:THREATS and it
> should deal more specifically with the various types of threats, including
> threats of violence at schools.
I think WP:THREAT goes to the No Legal Threats policy now. It's
conceivable that it's more important to point it to the physical
threats essay - you might float that on AN.
If you were to go add school violence threats explicitly to the essay,
right now, I'd encourage it. I'm headed off now for several hours of
meetings and so forth, or I'd just go do it right now. If I have
bandwidth later tonight, after the meetings and interview I have to
do, then I'll try to. But this is a fine case where bold would be
good.
We should think about this a bit- It's possible to go overboard and
enumerate all the possible threat types (school violence, workplace
violence, spousal abuse, etc) we might want to list, in a too big too
clunky list.
I think that we see enough incidents of kids making school threats,
and it's particularly sensitive, where it is clearly useful to add it.
But we should probably think about overdoing it and adding others
(not saying we shouldn't, but let's stop after this and think about it
a bit).
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com
In a message dated 5/21/2008 1:13:09 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
morven(a)gmail.com writes:
I suspect, though, even if not specifically stated, the history of
behavior was part of the reasoning behind the decision on that block
length.>>
------
Indef does not mean "forever" and it does not mean "one second". It merely
means "unspecified".
The specified condition being that the user forbear from mentioning Durova's
real name in-wiki again.
The long history probably has more to do with Eleemosynary's intransigence
in the face of a long bitter conflict, then it does with FT2's action to block
indef. But all of that aside, the forward goal should be to diffuse the
situation and bring Elee back into the project, imho.
Eleemosynary, while in this particular conflict being perhaps prinkly, is,
in general, a very useful part of the project.
Will Johnson
**************Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with
Tyler Florence" on AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4&?NCID=aolfod00030000000002)
In a message dated 5/21/2008 12:57:52 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
morven(a)gmail.com writes:
The specifics of this instance seem to indicate that Eleemosynary was
being deliberately uncivil and disruptive by doing so and it was part
of a general pattern of such behavior.>>>
-------------------
I don't think I disagreed with that assessment, but in general we do not
handle that by an indef.
The specific reason for the indef was mentioning Durova's real name, and
thus that is the sole issue I brought, so we could discuss it. The entire
year-long history muddies the waters and we cannot focus on the one issue in which
I was interested.
Will Johnson
**************Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with
Tyler Florence" on AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4&?NCID=aolfod00030000000002)
In a message dated 5/21/2008 11:50:16 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
morven(a)gmail.com writes:
As I suspected, the normal rule to follow when someone won't give
specifics about a situation applies here too - the specifics hurt the
writer's case and by leaving them out they hope to be more persuasive.
WJhonson, you don't do your argument any favors by doing this. All it
does is make people suspect that there's more to the story - which in
fact turned out to be the case.>>
----------
I never said there wasn't more to the story. I did not, and do not, know
the entire backstory of Eleemosynary's actions. I was reacting solely and
simply to the one issue raised by FT2, not to anything else, which is not
relevant as FT2 has stated clearly what his issue was with Eleemosynary.
The story has a very long pedigree in-wiki. I wasn't trying to address the
entire story, but one microscopic point in the long story.
Will Johnson
**************Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with
Tyler Florence" on AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4&?NCID=aolfod00030000000002)
In a message dated 5/21/2008 11:02:08 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
nawrich(a)gmail.com writes:
FT2 has repeated that the block on Eleemosynary will be lifted if he/she
agrees not to repeat the real names of pseudonymous editors.
What further object do you hope to achieve?>>
-----------------------
To be an instrument in bringing a valued editor back into the project.
Will Johnson
**************Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with
Tyler Florence" on AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4&?NCID=aolfod00030000000002)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Durova
Date: Mon, May 19, 2008 at 2:12 AM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Durova's real name
To: Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>
Thank you for the heads up. Please post this to Wiki-en-I where I no
longer subscribe:
This is the second time it's been brought to my attention that
Wjhonson has approached third parties regarding this matter. He has
never asked me, and if he had I'd have given him a straightforward
answer. Now that he's brought the matter to a public forum I'll reply
in the same manner.
The reason my name is known elsewhere on the Internet is because
people who had an axe to grind outed my identity. I stood up to it.
The coercion clause of Wikipedia's banning policy is a direct result.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BAN#Coercionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy/Archive_2#Coerci…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archiv…
Now Wjhonson complains that an editor named Eleemosynary was indeffed
for posting my name. Well, Eleemosynary wasn't exactly a model
Wiki-citizen. Here's the block log:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User:Eleemosynary
Significant parts of the talk page history itself have been deleted
and/or oversighted. The basic chain of events is this:
*Eleemosynary was involved in a bitter onsite dispute about a BLP
article. One editor was community banned over the dispute and later
another editor was banned at arbitration.
*The editor who was banned during arbitration remained in good
standing at another Wikimedia project and I was mentoring him there.
*I noticed that this banned editor had trolled Eleemosynary's user
space, so I confronted the banned editor about it and then made
Eleemosynary aware that I took the problem seriously.
*Eleemosynary insulted me and posted my real name.
*FT2 oversighted the real name and indeffed Eleemosynary.
*If Eleemosynary had promised not to repeat the mistake, then he or
she would have been unblocked quite swiftly. Instead this editor
followed up with more insults. Two more administrators stepped in to
try to quell the issue (it isn't often that JzG and Swatjester agree
on anything, but they did here). Eleemosynary continued to escalate
until Swatjester protected the talk page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Us…
Not surprisingly, Wjhonson has also been active in the underlying
dispute. I'm impartial in that dispute: I endorsed the Wikipedia
siteban of the same editor I'm mentoring on Commons, for instance.
But I did object to the obvious BLP violations that were occurring on
that page. Namely, editors had been attempting to cite non-notable
blogs, open edit forums, and copyvio YouTube videos as sources for
highly damaging information about the subject. In every instance
where I brought these issues to noticeboards for independent review,
the responses were solidly in my favor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Sanchez
Per Foundation privacy policy and arbitration precedent, I have never
disclosed my real name onsite. The fact that my name is known offsite
is irrelevant: plenty of people have been indeffed for revealing names
that were known elsewhere on the Internet.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Privacy_policy
Whjonson's recent actions have the appearance forum shopping in
attempt to rally political support and to damage my reputation. If he
wishes to dispel this appearance he may follow up with a post to that
effect and communicate directly with me in the future. Otherwise, if
a third instance occurs, his actions will compel me to seek formal
remedy. I bear no grudges; just raise your concerns directly.
-Durova