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@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, Steve Summit scs@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.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/2/07, Joshua Brady somitho@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.
LOL! We have all "established" this, have we?
On 8/2/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, Joshua Brady somitho@gmail.com wrote:
Guys/Gals/Others,
<snip>
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.
LOL! We have all "established" this, have we?
Yup. The only question now is, how do we pay for the ninjas?
-- Jonel
The thing is, whether we like it or not, SV is outed and there's nothing that can be done about it. We can only control (to some extent) the content of wikipedia, we have no ability to put the genie back in the bottle everywhere else.
If she's concerned about her identity and avoiding stalkers but wants to continue on wikipedia the best thing for her to do is to terminate her SlimVirgin account and start a new one. I wouldn't be opposed to automatically giving that new account admin status though doing that would look suspicious so it would probably be more prudent for her to just edit with a fresh beginners account and then get admin status through the normal channels after 2 or 3 months. I'm sure any new account she has would pass a RFA with flying colours.
But what we're in right now is a long war of attrition which we can't win if winning means protecting SV from harassment and outing and we can't win it because we don't run the internet.
Sarah, I honestly think it's in your own best interests to close the SV account and start again. Choose a new name that isn't connected with your real life identity in anyway. Stay away from a few tell-tale topics. You might even want to have an alternate account so you can "segregate" eg use one account of animal rights type work, another for your other interests, in order to lessen the chances that your enemies will detect you.
There's no shame in doing this. It would help put an end to the current drama, protect you from stalking etc, and let you get on with your wikipedia editing without being hassled by trolls.
It's not "appeasement", it's the only practical solution if you are serious about both protecting yoru anonymity (or regaining it, to be more accurate) and saving Wikipedia from endless drama.
SP
On 8/2/07, Nick Wilkins nlwilkins@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, Joshua Brady somitho@gmail.com wrote:
Guys/Gals/Others,
<snip>
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.
LOL! We have all "established" this, have we?
Yup. The only question now is, how do we pay for the ninjas?
-- Jonel _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/2/07, Stephen Park stephenpark15@gmail.com wrote:
The thing is, whether we like it or not, SV is outed and there's
[snip]
Perhaps not. Doesn't matter for the point you were making:
It's not "appeasement", it's the only practical solution if you are serious about both protecting yoru anonymity (or regaining it, to be more accurate) and saving Wikipedia from endless drama.
Right.
Either
A. continued speculation/discussion/etc on wiki (or elsewhere) about Sarah's 'real identity' is harmful to her. In which case the best course of action for *HER* (and, incidentally everyone else) is to leave, take a break, and start anew with a fresh identity (providing she doesn't realize how crazy coming back is.. muhaha).
B. continued speculation/discussion/etc is not harmful to her, in which case the suppression of that discussion on wiki is totally unjustified and unnecessarily drama inducing. If this is the case we should just shrug the drama off and go on with life. Like all other drama it will just blow over in time.
You're giving a false option there Gregory. It's not a choice between SV starting fresh or letting the drama "blow over in time", it's actually a choice between starting fresh and letting the drama continue indefinitely. The pattern over the past year has been towards things intensifying, not things "blowing over". I don't think it's realistic to think this will "blow over", there are too many trolls out there putting too much energy into this for them to all just forget about SV and go onto something else.
I also think your premise in B is incorrect. If continued speculation, discussion etc were not harmful then why all the effort in oversighting her earlier edits in various articles etc?
I guess really if the goal is to end the drama and disruption then the choice is really either 1) if she doesn't care about protecting her anonymity that she "outs" herself as whoever it is she is thus deflating the whole campaign to find out and prove that she's X or Y or, 2) if she does care, abandon her SV userid and get a new one (or two if it's necessary to segregate edits in order to protect her from trolls).
On 8/2/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Right.
Either
A. continued speculation/discussion/etc on wiki (or elsewhere) about Sarah's 'real identity' is harmful to her. In which case the best course of action for *HER* (and, incidentally everyone else) is to leave, take a break, and start anew with a fresh identity (providing she doesn't realize how crazy coming back is.. muhaha).
B. continued speculation/discussion/etc is not harmful to her, in which case the suppression of that discussion on wiki is totally unjustified and unnecessarily drama inducing. If this is the case we should just shrug the drama off and go on with life. Like all other drama it will just blow over in time.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/2/07, Stephen Park stephenpark15@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
I also think your premise in B is incorrect. If continued speculation, discussion etc were not harmful then why all the effort in oversighting her earlier edits in various articles etc?
O_o
Let me be clear: I don't see how edits deleted/oversighted a year ago have anything baring on "continued speculation". If you're talking about those then I don't know what to say to you.
If you're talking about the recent suppression of discussion, then that was half the point of my comment:
By the continued use heavy handed actions it is being implied that there is a privacy problem with this discussion. If thats the case the only solution is an identity change.
I was trying to imply that there was any choice here, rather I was saying that there needs to be identity change exclusive-OR the tools are currently being misused. I don't have the information to know which of these two possibilities are true, but I just can't see any way that aggressive deletion/oversight based discussion suppression is acceptable which doesn't also demand an identity wipe in the interests of the wellfair of the involved parties.
It seems to me that we need to stop thinking in terms of "win" and "lose". There seems to be so much energy going in to prevent the trolls from "winning" (or, on the other side, people trying to make the evil Jay and Slim "lose") that we can't step back and behave sanely.
I'm sorry Gregory, I misunderstood your "Right" as sarcasm when you were actually saying it because we were in agreement:)
SP
On 02/08/07, Stephen Park stephenpark15@gmail.com wrote:
You're giving a false option there Gregory. It's not a choice between SV starting fresh or letting the drama "blow over in time", it's actually a choice between starting fresh and letting the drama continue indefinitely. The pattern over the past year has been towards things intensifying, not things "blowing over". I don't think it's realistic to think this will "blow over", there are too many trolls out there putting too much energy into this for them to all just forget about SV and go onto something else.
Certainly, things have a tendency to get worse before they get better. But these things don't tend to get better when you stay silent... I learnt that the hard way and lost a job because of it. What works, then? Nothing works all the time... but you have a better chance trying to fight these things, with all the help you can get, than trying to run away from something faster and more powerful than you.
Armed Blowfish
Stephen Park wrote:
Sarah, I honestly think it's in your own best interests to close the SV account and start again. Choose a new name that isn't connected with your real life identity in anyway. Stay away from a few tell-tale topics. You might even want to have an alternate account so you can "segregate" eg use one account of animal rights type work, another for your other interests, in order to lessen the chances that your enemies will detect you.
I would be ashamed to be associated with a project for which the only option is that members run and hide.
Stan
On 8/2/07, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
Stephen Park wrote:
Sarah, I honestly think it's in your own best interests to close the SV account and start again. Choose a new name that isn't connected with your real life identity in anyway. Stay away from a few tell-tale topics. You might even want to have an alternate account so you can "segregate" eg use one account of animal rights type work, another for your other interests, in order to lessen the chances that your enemies will detect you.
I would be ashamed to be associated with a project for which the only option is that members run and hide.
As opposed to what exactly? If your identity becomes known, and you don't want it to be known, then your only option *is* to hide; the rest of us can try to make this easier for you, but sticking our heads in the sand and chanting "You're still anonymous" isn't going to do you a bit of good. Once you're outed, there simply isn't any way to un-out yourself without assuming a new identity.
(This is separate, of course, from the issue of harassment; but the question here is not that of mounting a defense against some identifiable harassment, but of defending against the outing itself.)
Kirill
on 8/2/07 3:56 PM, Stan Shebs at stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
Stephen Park wrote:
Sarah, I honestly think it's in your own best interests to close the SV account and start again. Choose a new name that isn't connected with your real life identity in anyway. Stay away from a few tell-tale topics. You might even want to have an alternate account so you can "segregate" eg use one account of animal rights type work, another for your other interests, in order to lessen the chances that your enemies will detect you.
I would be ashamed to be associated with a project for which the only option is that members run and hide.
Stan,
Me too! I stand right beside you on this!
Marc
Stan Shebs wrote:
I would be ashamed to be associated with a project for which the only option is that members run and hide.
Your shame is misplaced, I think.
It's like saying you'd be ashamed to dock your boat in a marina in which the only option for coping with rising and falling tides was floating docks. Or that you'd be ashamed to live in a world in which the only option for coping with rain was umbrellas. Or that you'd be ashamed to live in a La Mancha in which the only option for coping with distracting windmills was dark sunglasses.
King Canute didn't manage to beat back the tide with his sword. Don Quixote didn't manage to slay too many windmills with his.
I am no less sorry than anyone else to say this, but: the trolls are out there. They are not going to go away. Most importantly, they are *not our fault*. To imagine that they somehow are "our fault", to pretend that we can do anything to make them go away, is a futile, perhaps even delusional folly.
In any case, running and hiding is not the only option. You can ignore them. You can stand up to them. If they threaten you in real life, you can sue them in real life for assault. (Yes, I know, these are not always easy options. But whatever option it is we're pursuing now isn't easy, either, and it's not even clear that it's working.)
In my book, what's not an option is to react to the trolls and the harassers and the abusers and the Daniel Brandts with anger, histrionics, or all this damn drama. They *love*, they devour, they thrive on anger, histrionics, and drama. If you decide that your appropriate response to them involves any of these elements, you hand them enormous power: they can make you jump, make you cry, make you do a little histrionic drama-dance, any time they want to, just by pushing one of your well-advertised buttons.
I refuse to give my enemies that kind of power over me. People I love and respect, maybe. But trolls and harassers don't get any buttons they can push -- if they're not worth my respect, they're certainly not worth my anger.
Steve Summit wrote:
Stan Shebs wrote:
I would be ashamed to be associated with a project for which the only option is that members run and hide.
Your shame is misplaced, I think.
It's like saying you'd be ashamed to dock your boat in a marina in which the only option for coping with rising and falling tides was floating docks. Or that you'd be ashamed to live in a world in which the only option for coping with rain was umbrellas.
I took Stephen Park's suggestion as more akin to "move to the desert, or stay indoors and only go out when the sun is shining - we are unable to invent umbrellas".
As a practical matter, and to abuse the analogy further :-), if we give in, WP enemies will have their formula for getting rid of all the editors who stand up to them - if there's no rain, continuously dump buckets of water out of upper-story windows, knowing that eventually the passersby will blame the editors for "causing" the downpour. Brandt and his type are skillful players of the noise game; keep at it long enough, and eventually you will con newcomers into believing there must be some legitimate reason for all the racket.
Stan
Stan Shebs wrote:
I took Stephen Park's suggestion as more akin to "move to the desert, or stay indoors and only go out when the sun is shining - we are unable to invent umbrellas".
There are a few things I can think of off the top of my head that we could "invent" to make it harder to out people in the first place. Some sort of enhanced anonymity account, perhaps, where both username and IP number were hidden from non-admins. Whether these things would be wise to implement or not is an open question that's beyond the scope of this thread.
What we _can't_ invent, however, is some mechanism for reversing an outing once it's been done. There is no umbrella on Earth that can put the rain back up in the sky once it's fallen. That's the situation we're in here.
On 02/08/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote: <cut>
I am no less sorry than anyone else to say this, but: the trolls are out there. They are not going to go away. Most importantly, they are *not our fault*. To imagine that they somehow are "our fault", to pretend that we can do anything to make them go away, is a futile, perhaps even delusional folly.
</cut>
Stalking to the point of revealing someone's personal information to the world, making them vulnerable to further stalking goes beyond mere trolling. But that's semantics.
In any case, you are right - it is not your fault. The wrongs stalkers do are on their heads.
No, you can't stop every stalker / abuser / harasser in the world. Nonetheless, some environments are more friendly to stalkers than others. There are things that can be done to influence the statistics. Can you be blamed for not helping when you don't know how to help? No. But that doesn't mean there aren't things you can do to help... e.g. supporting people who have been hurt and helping to create an environment that is not friendly to stalkers/abusers/harassers.
Armed Blowfish
On 02/08/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
<cut> > I am no less sorry than anyone else to say this, but: the trolls > are out there. They are not going to go away. Most importantly, > they are *not our fault*. To imagine that they somehow are "our > fault", to pretend that we can do anything to make them go away, > is a futile, perhaps even delusional folly. </cut>
on 8/2/07 7:19 PM, Armed Blowfish at diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Stalking to the point of revealing someone's personal information to the world, making them vulnerable to further stalking goes beyond mere trolling. But that's semantics.
In any case, you are right - it is not your fault. The wrongs stalkers do are on their heads.
No, you can't stop every stalker / abuser / harasser in the world. Nonetheless, some environments are more friendly to stalkers than others. There are things that can be done to influence the statistics. Can you be blamed for not helping when you don't know how to help? No. But that doesn't mean there aren't things you can do to help... e.g. supporting people who have been hurt and helping to create an environment that is not friendly to stalkers/abusers/harassers.
Armed Blowfish
Yes, AB. And stalkers, abusers, and harassers don't survive very long in an environment where the noise they are making doesn't get the reaction they need to thrive.
Marc
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 07:42:20PM -0400, Marc Riddell wrote:
On 02/08/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
<cut> > I am no less sorry than anyone else to say this, but: the trolls > are out there. They are not going to go away. Most importantly, > they are *not our fault*. To imagine that they somehow are "our > fault", to pretend that we can do anything to make them go away, > is a futile, perhaps even delusional folly. </cut>
on 8/2/07 7:19 PM, Armed Blowfish at diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Stalking to the point of revealing someone's personal information to the world, making them vulnerable to further stalking goes beyond mere trolling. But that's semantics.
In any case, you are right - it is not your fault. The wrongs stalkers do are on their heads.
No, you can't stop every stalker / abuser / harasser in the world. Nonetheless, some environments are more friendly to stalkers than others. There are things that can be done to influence the statistics. Can you be blamed for not helping when you don't know how to help? No. But that doesn't mean there aren't things you can do to help... e.g. supporting people who have been hurt and helping to create an environment that is not friendly to stalkers/abusers/harassers.
Armed Blowfish
Yes, AB. And stalkers, abusers, and harassers don't survive very long in an environment where the noise they are making doesn't get the reaction they need to thrive.
Marc
I have been reading all this with a degree of interest and a lot of dismay. I really think everybody should shut up and stop posting for a few days. The whole debate is doing nobody and nothing any good. After a few days maybe some people can come back and address some of the issues in a general non-specific way.
Brian.
On 02/08/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
On 02/08/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
<cut> > I am no less sorry than anyone else to say this, but: the trolls > are out there. They are not going to go away. Most importantly, > they are *not our fault*. To imagine that they somehow are "our > fault", to pretend that we can do anything to make them go away, > is a futile, perhaps even delusional folly. </cut>
on 8/2/07 7:19 PM, Armed Blowfish at diodontida.armata@googlemail.com
wrote:
Stalking to the point of revealing someone's personal information to the world, making them vulnerable to further stalking goes beyond mere trolling. But that's semantics.
In any case, you are right - it is not your fault. The wrongs stalkers do are on their heads.
No, you can't stop every stalker / abuser / harasser in the world. Nonetheless, some environments are more friendly to stalkers than others. There are things that can be done to influence the statistics. Can you be blamed for not helping when you don't know how to help? No. But that doesn't mean there aren't things you can do to help... e.g. supporting people who have been hurt and helping to create an environment that is not friendly to stalkers/abusers/harassers.
Armed Blowfish
Yes, AB.
Glad we agree on that much. : )
And stalkers, abusers, and harassers don't survive very long in an environment where the noise they are making doesn't get the reaction they need to thrive.
Marc
'the reaction they need to thrive' And therein most likely lies our disagreement... What is 'the reaction they need to thrive'? Not any reaction. They want to do something... maybe cause pain, maybe get something for themselves... and they want to get away with it.
And how can they do that? Well, as for causing pain, that's simple. There are a million different ways to suffer, and they only have to find one way to cause the victim to suffer. If there is something more specific they want, it might be more difficult.
But getting away with it... how do they do that? Try isolating the victim from his or her social support. (This will also cause the victim to suffer.) Just like a lion luring a goat away from the herd... for even a lion may be trampled by a herd, but can easily overpower a single goat. How? Any way they can. And how can we stop it? Try to see it for what it is, and stand by the victim.
Armed Blowfish
On 02/08/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
<cut> > I am no less sorry than anyone else to say this, but: the trolls > are out there. They are not going to go away. Most importantly, > they are *not our fault*. To imagine that they somehow are "our > fault", to pretend that we can do anything to make them go away, > is a futile, perhaps even delusional folly. </cut>
on 8/2/07 7:19 PM, Armed Blowfish at diodontida.armata@googlemail.com
wrote:
Stalking to the point of revealing someone's personal information to the world, making them vulnerable to further stalking goes beyond mere trolling. But that's semantics.
In any case, you are right - it is not your fault. The wrongs stalkers do are on their heads.
No, you can't stop every stalker / abuser / harasser in the world. Nonetheless, some environments are more friendly to stalkers than others. There are things that can be done to influence the statistics. Can you be blamed for not helping when you don't know how to help? No. But that doesn't mean there aren't things you can do to help... e.g. supporting people who have been hurt and helping to create an environment that is not friendly to stalkers/abusers/harassers.
Armed Blowfish
On 02/08/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Yes, AB.
on 8/2/07 10:23 PM, Armed Blowfish at diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
Glad we agree on that much. : )
On 02/08/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
And stalkers, abusers, and harassers don't survive very long in an environment where the noise they are making doesn't get the reaction they need to thrive.
Marc
on 8/2/07 10:23 PM, Armed Blowfish at diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
'the reaction they need to thrive' And therein most likely lies our disagreement... What is 'the reaction they need to thrive'? Not any reaction. They want to do something... maybe cause pain, maybe get something for themselves... and they want to get away with it.
And how can they do that? Well, as for causing pain, that's simple. There are a million different ways to suffer, and they only have to find one way to cause the victim to suffer. If there is something more specific they want, it might be more difficult.
But getting away with it... how do they do that? Try isolating the victim from his or her social support. (This will also cause the victim to suffer.) Just like a lion luring a goat away from the herd... for even a lion may be trampled by a herd, but can easily overpower a single goat. How? Any way they can. And how can we stop it? Try to see it for what it is, and stand by the victim.
First, AB, I've never communicated with a blowfish before (at least not that I would admit publicly ;-) - and, certainly, not one that was armed!. :-)
I have read both of our posts here several times, and am having a hard time seeing where we disagree.
The only reaction the people we are talking about do not thrive on is silence. Beyond that, the type of reaction they need to thrive can be different with each individual.
Creating an environment that does not feed these people is not something you can mandate - it must be built into the very culture, and requires a self-discipline on all of our parts. If it becomes standard practice on Wikipedia not to respond to bullshit, the message will be loud and clear: if you're here just to provoke, and to pick a fight, you've come to the wrong place; and you're wasting our time and space.
And, I am a strong advocate of not only supporting the victim, but, in my work, helping them to heal.
Marc
On 03/08/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
On 02/08/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
<cut> > I am no less sorry than anyone else to say this, but: the trolls > are out there. They are not going to go away. Most importantly, > they are *not our fault*. To imagine that they somehow are "our > fault", to pretend that we can do anything to make them go away, > is a futile, perhaps even delusional folly. </cut>
on 8/2/07 7:19 PM, Armed Blowfish at diodontida.armata@googlemail.com
wrote:
Stalking to the point of revealing someone's personal information to the world, making them vulnerable to further stalking goes beyond mere trolling. But that's semantics.
In any case, you are right - it is not your fault. The wrongs stalkers do are on their heads.
No, you can't stop every stalker / abuser / harasser in the world. Nonetheless, some environments are more friendly to stalkers than others. There are things that can be done to influence the statistics. Can you be blamed for not helping when you don't know how to help? No. But that doesn't mean there aren't things you can do to help... e.g. supporting people who have been hurt and helping to create an environment that is not friendly to stalkers/abusers/harassers.
Armed Blowfish
On 02/08/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Yes, AB.
on 8/2/07 10:23 PM, Armed Blowfish at diodontida.armata@googlemail.com
wrote:
Glad we agree on that much. : )
On 02/08/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
And stalkers, abusers, and harassers don't survive very long in an environment where the noise they are making doesn't get the reaction they need to thrive.
Marc
on 8/2/07 10:23 PM, Armed Blowfish at diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
'the reaction they need to thrive' And therein most likely lies our disagreement... What is 'the reaction they need to thrive'? Not any reaction. They want to do something... maybe cause pain, maybe get something for themselves... and they want to get away with it.
And how can they do that? Well, as for causing pain, that's simple. There are a million different ways to suffer, and they only have to find one way to cause the victim to suffer. If there is something more specific they want, it might be more difficult.
But getting away with it... how do they do that? Try isolating the victim from his or her social support. (This will also cause the victim to suffer.) Just like a lion luring a goat away from the herd... for even a lion may be trampled by a herd, but can easily overpower a single goat. How? Any way they can. And how can we stop it? Try to see it for what it is, and stand by the victim.
First, AB, I've never communicated with a blowfish before (at least not that I would admit publicly ;-) - and, certainly, not one that was armed!. :-)
: )
I have read both of our posts here several times, and am having a hard time seeing where we disagree.
The only reaction the people we are talking about do not thrive on is silence. Beyond that, the type of reaction they need to thrive can be different with each individual.
I disagree... silence can allow very dangerous people to go about hurting people without interference. If someone is in danger, we can help protect that person by making sure that they are not alone.
A quote from the Night Stalker episode 'The Sea', just because I think it's worded well: 'Life travels a crooked path, a course whose shape we cannot recognise except by looking back on it. How happiness leads to heartbreak, how a dark turn leads to peace and joy. Our purpose, like our destination, is hidden, but goodness is a refuge – a soft, warm light into which evil cannot see.'
Armed Blowfish
Creating an environment that does not feed these people is not something you can mandate - it must be built into the very culture, and requires a self-discipline on all of our parts. If it becomes standard practice on Wikipedia not to respond to bullshit, the message will be loud and clear: if you're here just to provoke, and to pick a fight, you've come to the wrong place; and you're wasting our time and space.
And, I am a strong advocate of not only supporting the victim, but, in my work, helping them to heal.
Marc
on 8/2/07 7:19 PM, Armed Blowfish at diodontida.armata@googlemail.com
wrote:
Stalking to the point of revealing someone's personal information to the world, making them vulnerable to further stalking goes beyond mere trolling. But that's semantics.
In any case, you are right - it is not your fault. The wrongs stalkers do are on their heads.
No, you can't stop every stalker / abuser / harasser in the world. Nonetheless, some environments are more friendly to stalkers than others. There are things that can be done to influence the statistics. Can you be blamed for not helping when you don't know how to help? No. But that doesn't mean there aren't things you can do to help... e.g. supporting people who have been hurt and helping to create an environment that is not friendly to stalkers/abusers/harassers.
On 02/08/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
And stalkers, abusers, and harassers don't survive very long in an environment where the noise they are making doesn't get the reaction they need to thrive.
on 8/2/07 10:23 PM, Armed Blowfish at diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
'the reaction they need to thrive' And therein most likely lies our disagreement... What is 'the reaction they need to thrive'? Not any reaction. They want to do something... maybe cause pain, maybe get something for themselves... and they want to get away with it.
And how can they do that? Well, as for causing pain, that's simple. There are a million different ways to suffer, and they only have to find one way to cause the victim to suffer. If there is something more specific they want, it might be more difficult.
But getting away with it... how do they do that? Try isolating the victim from his or her social support. (This will also cause the victim to suffer.) Just like a lion luring a goat away from the herd... for even a lion may be trampled by a herd, but can easily overpower a single goat. How? Any way they can. And how can we stop it? Try to see it for what it is, and stand by the victim.
On 03/08/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
First, AB, I've never communicated with a blowfish before (at least not that I would admit publicly ;-) - and, certainly, not one that was armed!. :-)
I have read both of our posts here several times, and am having a hard time seeing where we disagree.
The only reaction the people we are talking about do not thrive on is silence. Beyond that, the type of reaction they need to thrive can be different with each individual.
on 8/4/07 7:49 PM, Armed Blowfish at diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
I disagree... silence can allow very dangerous people to go about hurting people without interference. If someone is in danger, we can help protect that person by making sure that they are not alone.
Excellent point, AB. I was thinking in terms of 1-1 dialogue. But, you are right, in the larger scale of a public forum, the hatemongers must be met head on, and with a group voice that is loud and clear. Victims do feel very much alone; we, by our voice and our embrace, can assure them they are not.
A quote from the Night Stalker episode 'The Sea', just because I think it's worded well: 'Life travels a crooked path, a course whose shape we cannot recognise except by looking back on it. How happiness leads to heartbreak, how a dark turn leads to peace and joy. Our purpose, like our destination, is hidden, but goodness is a refuge  a soft, warm light into which evil cannot see.'
Thank you for this.
Marc
On 05/08/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 8/2/07 7:19 PM, Armed Blowfish at diodontida.armata@googlemail.com
wrote:
Stalking to the point of revealing someone's personal information to the world, making them vulnerable to further stalking goes beyond mere trolling. But that's semantics.
In any case, you are right - it is not your fault. The wrongs stalkers do are on their heads.
No, you can't stop every stalker / abuser / harasser in the world. Nonetheless, some environments are more friendly to stalkers than others. There are things that can be done to influence the statistics. Can you be blamed for not helping when you don't know how to help? No. But that doesn't mean there aren't things you can do to help... e.g. supporting people who have been hurt and helping to create an environment that is not friendly to stalkers/abusers/harassers.
On 02/08/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
And stalkers, abusers, and harassers don't survive very long in an environment where the noise they are making doesn't get the reaction
they
need to thrive.
on 8/2/07 10:23 PM, Armed Blowfish at diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
'the reaction they need to thrive' And therein most likely lies our disagreement... What is 'the reaction they need to thrive'? Not any reaction. They want to do something... maybe cause pain, maybe get something for themselves... and they want to get away with it.
And how can they do that? Well, as for causing pain, that's simple. There are a million different ways to suffer, and they only have to find one way to cause the victim to suffer. If there is something more specific they want, it might be more difficult.
But getting away with it... how do they do that? Try isolating the victim from his or her social support. (This will also cause the victim to suffer.) Just like a lion luring a goat away from the herd... for even a lion may be trampled by a herd, but can easily overpower a single goat. How? Any way they can. And how can we stop it? Try to see it for what it is, and stand by the victim.
On 03/08/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
First, AB, I've never communicated with a blowfish before (at least not
that
I would admit publicly ;-) - and, certainly, not one that was armed!. :-)
I have read both of our posts here several times, and am having a hard
time
seeing where we disagree.
The only reaction the people we are talking about do not thrive on is silence. Beyond that, the type of reaction they need to thrive can be different with each individual.
on 8/4/07 7:49 PM, Armed Blowfish at diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
I disagree... silence can allow very dangerous people to go about hurting people without interference. If someone is in danger, we can help protect that person by making sure that they are not alone.
Excellent point, AB. I was thinking in terms of 1-1 dialogue. But, you are right, in the larger scale of a public forum, the hatemongers must be met head on, and with a group voice that is loud and clear. Victims do feel very much alone; we, by our voice and our embrace, can assure them they are not.
I'm glad we agree. : )
One thing though... it doesn't really matter so much if they are 'hatemongers' or if something else is going through their head. (Well, it matters some, but no matter what is going through their head, they are still hurting people.) The point is we need to protect the people who are getting seriously hurt, by protecting them the best we know how.
A quote from the Night Stalker episode 'The Sea', just because I think it's worded well: 'Life travels a crooked path, a course whose shape we cannot recognise except by looking back on it. How happiness leads to heartbreak, how a dark turn leads to peace and joy. Our purpose, like our destination, is hidden, but goodness is a refuge  a soft, warm light into which evil cannot see.'
Thank you for this.
Marc
I've found Kolchak: The Night Stalker to be a very therapeutic series. : )
Anyway, I am glad we've come to agreement on this.
Armed Blowfish
on 8/5/07 12:58 PM, Armed Blowfish at diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
The point is we need to protect the people who are getting seriously hurt, by protecting them the best we know how.
Absolutely!
And, one good quote deserves another:
"The world is too terrible a place to live in, not because of the bad things that happen, but because of the good people who stand by and do nothing."
Albert Einstein
Be healthy,
Marc
On 05/08/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 8/5/07 12:58 PM, Armed Blowfish at diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
The point is we need to protect the people who are getting seriously hurt, by protecting them the best we know how.
Absolutely!
: )
And, one good quote deserves another:
"The world is too terrible a place to live in, not because of the bad things that happen, but because of the good people who stand by and do nothing."
Albert EinsteinBe healthy,
Marc
There is some truth in that... although it's really quite complex... one thing leads to another. Although I don't want the 'good people' to feel bad about standing by and doing nothing, I just want them to be enlightened, and subsequently try to help.
Armed Blowfish
on 8/5/07 4:33 PM, Armed Blowfish at diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
On 05/08/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 8/5/07 12:58 PM, Armed Blowfish at diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
The point is we need to protect the people who are getting seriously hurt, by protecting them the best we know how.
Absolutely!
: )
And, one good quote deserves another:
"The world is too terrible a place to live in, not because of the bad things that happen, but because of the good people who stand by and do nothing."
Albert Einstein
Be healthy,
Marc
There is some truth in that... although it's really quite complex... one thing leads to another. Although I don't want the 'good people' to feel bad about standing by and doing nothing, I just want them to be enlightened,
and subsequently try to help.
AB, I hope they will - and are - and have.
Marc
On 8/5/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
"The world is too terrible a place to live in, not because of the bad things that happen, but because of the good people who stand by and do nothing."
Albert Einstein
Not really. No amount of action by previously uninvolved third parties is going to overturn the Second law of thermodynamics.
On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 11:32:07 -0400 Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 8/2/07 7:19 PM, Armed Blowfish at diodontida.armata@googlemail.com
wrote:
Excellent point, AB. I was thinking in terms of 1-1 dialogue. But, you are right, in the larger scale of a public forum, the hatemongers must be met head on, and with a group voice that is loud and clear. Victims do feel very much alone; we, by our voice and our embrace, can assure them they are not.
Thank you for this.
Marc
The analogy is fine, and one which I agree with. If someone has been stalked many times over, it does have a lot of symptoms that are similar to being raped many times over. The feeling of helplessness, of nobody understanding, of feeling like you are responsible, of not even feeling the power to be able to make a complaint. Indeed, many kinds of crime engender many of the same kinds of symptoms - people who are bullied and beaten up many times by a school bully, people who are robbed multiple times, gays who kept getting beaten up and harassed for being gay, asians or people from a minority racial group who just accept that they are going to be racially abused, the list goes on. It is different to rape as well, because obviously they don't have the same physical symptoms (there are physical symptoms of course, but they differ significantly). There are also many psychological symptoms that differ greatly. But you are right that the most painful and hence most important part of being raped on multiple occasions, which is shared by repeat victims of many types of crime, is that it is repeated. Many rape victims, after they have been raped x amounts of times by different people (or in some cases all by the same person) don't even bother to complain about it anymore. They don't try to tell anyone, and hide it, lie to themselves that it didn't happen, and so forth. This is the ultimate tragedy of this kind of problem, and this happens with all of them. Ultimately, it can lead to suicidal feelings, and this is the same for all of them.
Ultimately, to get out of this vicious circle the best possible way is to get justice for what has happened. You don't necessarily need for every single person who abused you to go to jail, but you do need to have something serious that you can refer to that proves that you won, that sends a message out to every other one that comes after you that you aren't an easy victim, that you can win, that you can succeed.
For me personally, this happened thanks to a person called Bonnie, who amongst other things wrote a web site about it at http://www.toxicpink.net/ You can see my name on there, and this e-mail address. This made a big difference to my coping with cyber stalking.
Now, the problem with what you are saying isn't your analogy. If we were dealing with actual cyber stalking, the kind that I dealt with, and that many others have dealt with, then I am sure that not many people would have an issue with it. The problem is that we are not dealing with real cyber stalking.
The person who produced the information was an investigative journalist who specialised in the Lockerbie bombing and was covering the recent major news that the Lockerbie bombing case was being re-opened because of an MI5 agent that had deliberately changed the course of events, something that Colonel Qaddafi himself was on record recently admitting. The question that is being asked in the mass media now is who was that MI5 agent?
The over-riding issue has nothing to do with Wikipedia. This was not a critic of Wikipedia, this was an investigative journalist who was interested in the Lockerbie bombing, who had never previously (or since) written anything about Wikipedia. He looked through the research provided by Wikipedia Review and concluded that the MI5 agent responsible may have been *****, the person who was a former assistant of ABC journalist Pierre Salinger, who at the time was suspected of being an MI5 agent. Furthermore, he was able to conclude from looking through Wikipedia Review evidence that she had used Wikipedia to further this perversion of truth.
The issue was that MI5 was changing truth. This is the issue that was being discussed.
Now, I am sure that nobody likes it when they are being researched by the major media, and they find it rather bothering, especially as it may eventually lead to criminal charges. They probably feel harassed and upset about it.
But suggesting that this is akin to cyber stalking, when no personal details were released, and when Wikipedia Review redacted all of the names (at least prior to the names being revealed by the major media). Is that akin to cyber stalking?
To compare the two is ridiculous, and it is very irresponsible and insulting to anyone who has ever been through something like that. To suggest that Wikipedia Review are stalkers in general, when a number of them have been victims of serious stalking, myself included, is very hurtful. Wikipedia Review has never engaged in stalking, and indeed never will.
If SlimVirgin alleges that Wikipedia Review has ever said a single thing about her that is true, then it has always been said that all that she needs to do is to prove that it is false and they will remove the untrue information. As far as Wikipedia Review are aware, everything that they've ever said about her is true. If not, it was most certainly not deliberately false. It was an attempt to reveal true information about it.
This is a topic of utmost importance to Wikipedia, because there is evidence that facts have been altered on Wikipedia.
The fact that this evidence was oversighted from Wikipedia is disgusting in itself. The fact that Jimbo Wales has lied that it was oversighted for privacy reasons is disgusting quite frankly. None of the edits that were oversighted contain any private information whatsoever. They merely indicate that SlimVirgin had never, at any stage, edited with a genuine purpose to help Wikipedia. From the very beginning, she edited with an obvious agenda, both in terms of changing things from truth to untruth, and in terms of her manipulating people to her ends. SlimVirgin did not inadvertedly reveal her true name - she inadvertedly revealed her agenda.
Why did Jayjg bother to oversight it when it had already been quoted on Wikipedia Review, if the concern was her privacy? People can simply go to Wikipedia Review and read it. The only reason to oversight it was so that when we get to this inevitable news story (which will undoubtedly get much bigger from this point on) then they have plausible deniability, because we can't prove that those edits were SlimVirgin's first edits. We can prove that she made the changes, but Wikipedia can argue that she didn't do it from the very beginning. If she'd done it from the very beginning, then it'd be evidence that she was a secret agent, someone with an agenda from the very start.
So Jayjg, restore those edits. Show to people that there was private information. Did SlimVirgin inadvertedly reveal her full name, address and phone number? No, she didn't. All that she revealed was an agenda.
Using this as "evidence" of stalking is disgusting. To go further and to refer to Wikipedia Review as being the same as rapists, and to refer to ME as effectively a rapist is disgusting. I am extremely offended at that.
If you want to know what really happened, go and have a look at our blog:
http://blog.wikipediareview.com/
I would like please for people to cease referring to Wikipedia Review as stalkers. You can feel free to refer to us as mad, crazy, loonie, conspiracy theorists, nutjobs, banned users or anything like that, but not stalkers. It's not on.
Adrian
Stan Shebs wrote:
I would be ashamed to be associated with a project for which the only option is that members run and hide.
on 8/2/07 5:44 PM, Steve Summit at scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Your shame is misplaced, I think.
It's like saying you'd be ashamed to dock your boat in a marina in which the only option for coping with rising and falling tides was floating docks. Or that you'd be ashamed to live in a world in which the only option for coping with rain was umbrellas. Or that you'd be ashamed to live in a La Mancha in which the only option for coping with distracting windmills was dark sunglasses.
King Canute didn't manage to beat back the tide with his sword. Don Quixote didn't manage to slay too many windmills with his.
I am no less sorry than anyone else to say this, but: the trolls are out there. They are not going to go away. Most importantly, they are *not our fault*. To imagine that they somehow are "our fault", to pretend that we can do anything to make them go away, is a futile, perhaps even delusional folly.
In any case, running and hiding is not the only option. You can ignore them. You can stand up to them. If they threaten you in real life, you can sue them in real life for assault. (Yes, I know, these are not always easy options. But whatever option it is we're pursuing now isn't easy, either, and it's not even clear that it's working.)
In my book, what's not an option is to react to the trolls and the harassers and the abusers and the Daniel Brandts with anger, histrionics, or all this damn drama. They *love*, they devour, they thrive on anger, histrionics, and drama. If you decide that your appropriate response to them involves any of these elements, you hand them enormous power: they can make you jump, make you cry, make you do a little histrionic drama-dance, any time they want to, just by pushing one of your well-advertised buttons.
I refuse to give my enemies that kind of power over me. People I love and respect, maybe. But trolls and harassers don't get any buttons they can push -- if they're not worth my respect, they're certainly not worth my anger.
Steve,
As I have said before, when shouting is met with silence - all that's left is the echo, repeating itself over and over again until it eventually fades.
Certainly, running and hiding is quite an appropriate choice under the appropriate circumstances; but I want to be able to make that choice situationally. And shame on anyone who tries to rob me of that choice.
Running and hiding is a reaction. Ignoring someone is neither running nor hiding; it is simply not reacting - not feeding them. It takes real self-control, honest, true self-assurance, to accomplish this. But, when you have accomplished it, you have stripped them of their power, and your life it truly yours.
Marc
If we've come to the conclusion that Jayjg's time here has come to a close and that his continued presence harms wikipedia's reputation perhaps a community ban would be in order?
SP
On 8/2/07, Joshua Brady somitho@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@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, Steve Summit scs@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.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Just to clarify I meant this question sarcastically since there's no way there'd be a consensus for a community ban against Jay. I'm not advocating it and I wouldn't support it. The fact is we haven't reached this "conclusion" since if we did then a community ban would be a no-brainer.
SP
On 8/2/07, Stephen Park stephenpark15@gmail.com wrote:
If we've come to the conclusion that Jayjg's time here has come to a close and that his continued presence harms wikipedia's reputation perhaps a community ban would be in order?
SP
On 8/2/07, Joshua Brady somitho@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@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, Steve Summit scs@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.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 02/08/07, Joshua Brady somitho@gmail.com wrote:
We have all established:
- Jayjg's time here has come to a close and he should give it up or go
into hiding.
I have spent the last five hours drinking tea and talking frivolities with academics in an attempt to get a nice quiet non-email-reading break, since my eyes were starting to hurt.
(It worked. I can commend it to anyone as a decompression technique. Careful selection of tea is more important than selection of academic frivolities, of course)
So I'm a little behind on quite what has been "established"... but my cursory skimming of the mails since lunchtime really doesn't seem to support this one as established in anything but optimistic exasperation!
on 8/2/07 2:06 PM, Joshua Brady at somitho@gmail.com wrote:
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
These are some of the most constructive, productive questions asked yet.
Here's another one: Do we really believe that ANY positive discussion we have at this time, and at this level, will make any difference?
Marc
On 8/2/07, Joshua Brady somitho@gmail.com wrote:
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, we already have a policy in place for dealing with this type of situation, and what we can do to stop this in future is to stick to that policy. It's [[Wikipedia:Biography of living persons]], which extends to material about living persons published anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages.
It says that we must use the best sources for anything contentious, and that unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material must be removed immediately from any page it's found on (not may be, must be). It also says that discussion about these issues must not be protracted, and that we should act sensitively, with due regard for the effect any discussion might have on a person's life.
In my situation, certain editors seem to be feel that OhmyNews (which is effectively or entirely composed of self-published material, in this case written by someone with no relevant qualifications or experience, and who made no effort to contact me, which is something no journalist would have done) is a reliable source, as is Slashdot, which simply repeated the OhmyNews story, and which also made no effort to contact me, which -- again-- is something a reliable source would not have done. Our loose definition of "reliable source" hinges on the issue of fact-checking: sources with a poor reputation for it are not regarded as reliable for contentious BLP material. In this case, there was no fact-checking whatsoever, and both websites went ahead and published false and highly damaging material.
Therefore, it seems to me that the editors who referred to the allegations on my talk page, and those who now say those posts shouldn't have been removed, haven't read the BLP policy, which is worrying, or else they think I'm not a living person. Perhaps I'm a member of the Wikipedia undead, good enough to squeeze tens of thousands of edits out of, but not good enough for any of the editorial protection we extend to every other (non-Wikipedian!) human being on the planet.
Sarah
Slim Virgin wrote:
[...] Perhaps I'm a member of the Wikipedia undead, good enough to squeeze tens of thousands of edits out of, [...]
I think one of the WR losers found a 27-hour sequence of edits and held it up as "proof" that you're actually a bot or a group of editors - he overlooked the zombie possibility! Getting the urge to edit any *brain*-related articles, hmmm?
Stan