Despite the recent interest in secret lists this message from Blissyu2/Zordrac appears to have gone unnoticed.
Blissyu2 describes the existence of a secret forum on Wikipedia Review, which he belongs to, that has been used to coordinate attacks on Wikipedia and its editors. On his blog he described an even more secret mailing list. (The entry has since been deleted). While he appears contrite, the actual players in the coordinated attack have not expressed any regret that I'm aware of.
Are we more concerned about a list intended to improve Wikipedia than we are about a list and forum used to harm Wikipedia? Certainly good intentions with bad execution can mess up a project, but bad intentions with good execution are much worse. Wikipedia needs and benefits from the criticism of those who want to see it improved. It isn't improved by the plots of those who want to see it destroyed.
Will Beback
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [WikiEN-l] Private Musings scam Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:28:32 +0900 From: u/n - adrianm adrianm@octa4.net.au Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Dear good people of Wikipedia,
I am writing here as the owner of Wikipedia Review, and also as someone who would like to apologise to you, the Wikipedia community, in addition to the Wikipedia Review community, for some actions that a member of our forum, Kato, performed recently, which relate to various other topics discussed on Wikipedia, surrounding the user name Private Musings, the administrator JzG, and the article and person Robert Black.
First and foremost let me say that I do not approve of what Kato did. I was so angry about what he did that I stood up to it, and Somey, who is managing the forum, decided to give me a "mandatory holiday" over it, and right now as we speak we are negotiating as to whether I will just take my forum back and clean up this whole mess, or whether he will do it and I won't have to. Needless to say this entire incident created more problems on Wikipedia Review than it did on Wikipedia. However, I would like to state that this was done by one person and one person alone - Kato - and should not be seen to reflect the opinions and views of people who use Wikipedia Review as a whole.
I wrote on my blog about this incident here: http://therealadrian.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!5D338A8729E83EAB!892.entry
Put simply, Kato was trying to hurt SlimVirgin and Wikipedia as a whole through some well-placed lies. The entire thing was a set up. Kato abused Wikipedia Review's trusted members forum, and his newly appointed position as moderator in doing this. And I believe that it was actually done with an aim for him to try to take over Wikipedia Review. Certainly, his actions prior to doing this were consistent with this aim, when he attacked a number of high profile members in relation to the "child grooming" issue. He has succeeded wonderfully, too, as Wikipedia Review is absolutely shattered thanks to this issue, with nobody really being able to make heads or tails of it, and to this day they still refuse to openly discuss what Kato did (instead they are discussing my complaining about Kato and various conspiracy theories about what my secret agenda was, since they refuse to accept that Kato actually did something wrong here).
Quite frankly I am disgusted at this. We at Wikipedia Review have always prided ourselves on being "the good guys", who expose lies and always tell the truth. In this incident, we became "the bad guys", who lied to you (and to ourselves) and who then had to have our lies exposed by you guys over there at Wikipedia. What is the point of having a forum to expose lies if we are the ones making up the lies?
And while I haven't been fond of SlimVirgin for a long time, and perhaps we could suggest that a few people who probably deserve to be hurt did get hurt in this, the amount of innocent bystanders who got hurt is far too many, and attacking a group, hurting innocent people along the way to hopefully perhaps hurting someone who in your opinion deserves it is the wrong way to go about things.
A number of people on Wikipedia who had nothing to do with any of this were banned, and they are completely innocent of all wrongdoings. I don't know if anyone on Wikipedia can take the time to wade through this to figure out who was innocent and who was not. Because of the sheer level and complexity of Kato's lies, realistically its probably not even possible to do this, and I understand the idea of banning people "just in case".
I can offer no reassurances that Wikipedia Review are going to clean everything up, because right now I am standing here as someone who got banned from my own forum, and if I do take it back, then the whole place may well fall apart (that is the threat I have been given to try to suggest to me that I shouldn't go in and take my forum back). Right now most people on there are refusing to accept the truth of the situation, and are instead insisting that this whole thing was my set up. That Kato didn't actually bully anyone, didn't actually set anyone up, and that the whole thing was my fault for making "unfounded accusations" against Kato.
I just want to reassure everyone here that that is not what Wikipedia Review is meant to be about. We are meant to be there to make Wikipedia accountable, to discuss the various issues with the site, to make sure that people are aware of the various problems and to educate people. This whole incident goes further against what Wikipedia Review stands for than anything else in its 2 year history. This is not who we are. And if I have anything to do with it, this is not who we will become.
I know that a number of admins have offered to let me back on Wikipedia over this, for showing integrity, and have wanted me to betray people over at Wikipedia Review. But I am not going to do that. If my Wikipedia ban is to be reviewed, it should be on its merits. No, of course my ban wasn't fair and no of course it doesn't have any legitimacy. But that doesn't mean that I am going to betray all that I have worked for just to get back in. I have more integrity than that. I would rather be somewhere for the right reasons, and to do things in the right way.
Again, I would like to apologise to everyone who got hurt over this, and all of the Kato-inspired drama that this created, in the mailing list, on AN/I, and everywhere else.
And for the record, I do think that Private Musings is an abusive account. But they should be exposed legitimately, not in this way.
Thank you.
Adrian, owner of Wikipedia Review
Wikipedia Review username: Blissyu2 Wikipedia username: Zordrac
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Of course we should be concerned about bad behavior about WR, but I don't see the issues as being connected in any relevant form. Indeed, I would be inclined to argue that the fact that Wikipedians demand so much transparency that they get into a huff at issues like this is a credit to them (again, I don't think the list issue was a big deal but this should be kept in mind). Furthermore, Wikipedia acting in a fashion at all similar to Wikipedia Review is almost by itself a cause for concern.
Quoting Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com:
Despite the recent interest in secret lists this message from Blissyu2/Zordrac appears to have gone unnoticed.
Blissyu2 describes the existence of a secret forum on Wikipedia Review, which he belongs to, that has been used to coordinate attacks on Wikipedia and its editors. On his blog he described an even more secret mailing list. (The entry has since been deleted). While he appears contrite, the actual players in the coordinated attack have not expressed any regret that I'm aware of.
Are we more concerned about a list intended to improve Wikipedia than we are about a list and forum used to harm Wikipedia? Certainly good intentions with bad execution can mess up a project, but bad intentions with good execution are much worse. Wikipedia needs and benefits from the criticism of those who want to see it improved. It isn't improved by the plots of those who want to see it destroyed.
Will Beback
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [WikiEN-l] Private Musings scam Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:28:32 +0900 From: u/n - adrianm adrianm@octa4.net.au Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Dear good people of Wikipedia,
I am writing here as the owner of Wikipedia Review, and also as someone who would like to apologise to you, the Wikipedia community, in addition to the Wikipedia Review community, for some actions that a member of our forum, Kato, performed recently, which relate to various other topics discussed on Wikipedia, surrounding the user name Private Musings, the administrator JzG, and the article and person Robert Black.
First and foremost let me say that I do not approve of what Kato did. I was so angry about what he did that I stood up to it, and Somey, who is managing the forum, decided to give me a "mandatory holiday" over it, and right now as we speak we are negotiating as to whether I will just take my forum back and clean up this whole mess, or whether he will do it and I won't have to. Needless to say this entire incident created more problems on Wikipedia Review than it did on Wikipedia. However, I would like to state that this was done by one person and one person alone - Kato - and should not be seen to reflect the opinions and views of people who use Wikipedia Review as a whole.
I wrote on my blog about this incident here: http://therealadrian.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!5D338A8729E83EAB!892.entry
Put simply, Kato was trying to hurt SlimVirgin and Wikipedia as a whole through some well-placed lies. The entire thing was a set up. Kato abused Wikipedia Review's trusted members forum, and his newly appointed position as moderator in doing this. And I believe that it was actually done with an aim for him to try to take over Wikipedia Review. Certainly, his actions prior to doing this were consistent with this aim, when he attacked a number of high profile members in relation to the "child grooming" issue. He has succeeded wonderfully, too, as Wikipedia Review is absolutely shattered thanks to this issue, with nobody really being able to make heads or tails of it, and to this day they still refuse to openly discuss what Kato did (instead they are discussing my complaining about Kato and various conspiracy theories about what my secret agenda was, since they refuse to accept that Kato actually did something wrong here).
Quite frankly I am disgusted at this. We at Wikipedia Review have always prided ourselves on being "the good guys", who expose lies and always tell the truth. In this incident, we became "the bad guys", who lied to you (and to ourselves) and who then had to have our lies exposed by you guys over there at Wikipedia. What is the point of having a forum to expose lies if we are the ones making up the lies?
And while I haven't been fond of SlimVirgin for a long time, and perhaps we could suggest that a few people who probably deserve to be hurt did get hurt in this, the amount of innocent bystanders who got hurt is far too many, and attacking a group, hurting innocent people along the way to hopefully perhaps hurting someone who in your opinion deserves it is the wrong way to go about things.
A number of people on Wikipedia who had nothing to do with any of this were banned, and they are completely innocent of all wrongdoings. I don't know if anyone on Wikipedia can take the time to wade through this to figure out who was innocent and who was not. Because of the sheer level and complexity of Kato's lies, realistically its probably not even possible to do this, and I understand the idea of banning people "just in case".
I can offer no reassurances that Wikipedia Review are going to clean everything up, because right now I am standing here as someone who got banned from my own forum, and if I do take it back, then the whole place may well fall apart (that is the threat I have been given to try to suggest to me that I shouldn't go in and take my forum back). Right now most people on there are refusing to accept the truth of the situation, and are instead insisting that this whole thing was my set up. That Kato didn't actually bully anyone, didn't actually set anyone up, and that the whole thing was my fault for making "unfounded accusations" against Kato.
I just want to reassure everyone here that that is not what Wikipedia Review is meant to be about. We are meant to be there to make Wikipedia accountable, to discuss the various issues with the site, to make sure that people are aware of the various problems and to educate people. This whole incident goes further against what Wikipedia Review stands for than anything else in its 2 year history. This is not who we are. And if I have anything to do with it, this is not who we will become.
I know that a number of admins have offered to let me back on Wikipedia over this, for showing integrity, and have wanted me to betray people over at Wikipedia Review. But I am not going to do that. If my Wikipedia ban is to be reviewed, it should be on its merits. No, of course my ban wasn't fair and no of course it doesn't have any legitimacy. But that doesn't mean that I am going to betray all that I have worked for just to get back in. I have more integrity than that. I would rather be somewhere for the right reasons, and to do things in the right way.
Again, I would like to apologise to everyone who got hurt over this, and all of the Kato-inspired drama that this created, in the mailing list, on AN/I, and everywhere else.
And for the record, I do think that Private Musings is an abusive account. But they should be exposed legitimately, not in this way.
Thank you.
Adrian, owner of Wikipedia Review
Wikipedia Review username: Blissyu2 Wikipedia username: Zordrac
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 Dec 9, 2007 5:12 PM, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
Despite the recent interest in secret lists this message from Blissyu2/Zordrac appears to have gone unnoticed.
I wouldn't say it went unnoticed, and there are plenty of reasons for not
commenting on it. I have made it my practice not to respond to posts from people who are not editing Wikipedia.
What WR does as a privately operated website requiring membership to participate in conversations is completely irrelevant to what Wikipedia, The Encyclopedia Everybody Can Edit, does. They operate under two entirely different philosophies, have different communities, and different expectations. Having said that, I understand that it's not that hard to gain membership there, so please feel free to join up Will, and then you can see what they have in their members-only section. I have never felt the urge to do so, but if you're that concerned perhaps you might want to take the leap. Of course, you will never be able post anything you find out there onto Wikipedia, at least not if Tony Sidaway has his wishes. I suggest you review [[WP:PRIVATE]] before you join.
Risker
Are we more concerned about a list intended to improve Wikipedia than we are about a list and forum used to harm Wikipedia?
There are things we can do about Wikipedia mailing lists and Wikipedians. There is nothing (or, at least, very little) we can do about Wikipedia Review. They are completely independent and can and will do whatever they like. The only way we can do anything to stop them is by legal action (I haven't investigated the matter closely enough to know if they've done anything worthy of such action).
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Are we more concerned about a list intended to improve Wikipedia than we are about a list and forum used to harm Wikipedia?
There are things we can do about Wikipedia mailing lists and Wikipedians. There is nothing (or, at least, very little) we can do about Wikipedia Review. They are completely independent and can and will do whatever they like. The only way we can do anything to stop them is by legal action (I haven't investigated the matter closely enough to know if they've done anything worthy of such action).
There is secret mailing list being used to coordinate intentional harm to the project. You are right that we can't do anything about the existence of the list. But we can deal with the Wikipedia users who are involved by publicizing their intent and by addressing their on-Wiki efforts. We shouldn't turn a blind eye to intentional disruption.
There have been other, more public attempts to coordinate activity against Wikipedia or its content. An example from a couple of years ago was the effort by users of the StormFront website to "correct" WP articles on topics of interest to them. Wikipedia editors found out about it and blocked the effort. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-02-07/Advocac...
If folks are planning to harm or disrupt Wikipedia then obviously that effort should be resisted rather than ignored. From Blissyu2's comments it appears that WR's secret mailing list has many subscribers, and apparently every member can read the members-only forum. If Wikipedia users see disruption being planned then it would be helpful if they'd report it either to the community at large or at least to folks who can do something about it.
Will Beback
On Dec 9, 2007 8:38 PM, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Are we more concerned about a list intended to improve Wikipedia than
we
are about a list and forum used to harm Wikipedia?
There are things we can do about Wikipedia mailing lists and Wikipedians. There is nothing (or, at least, very little) we can do about Wikipedia Review. They are completely independent and can and will do whatever they like. The only way we can do anything to stop them is by legal action (I haven't investigated the matter closely enough to know if they've done anything worthy of such action).
<snip>
If folks are planning to harm or disrupt Wikipedia then obviously that effort should be resisted rather than ignored. From Blissyu2's comments it appears that WR's secret mailing list has many subscribers, and apparently every member can read the members-only forum. If Wikipedia users see disruption being planned then it would be helpful if they'd report it either to the community at large or at least to folks who can do something about it.
Will Beback
Will, without being offensive here, I am hesitant to consider Blissyu2 as a very reliable source. Though I have no doubt "stuff" is always going on at WR, the mere fact that they "indefinitely blocked" him some time ago casts a shadow of a doubt on everything he says (just as a similar Wikipedia action casts a shadow).
And I am serious about the issues of "privacy," there are several prominent Wikipedians even as I speak editing on a proposed policy that would essentially forbid any type of copy posting of messages from "private" emails, websites, mailing lists and other documents - and thus would make such information unshareable with the community as a whole. In fact, I believe you were one of them, Will. Perhaps you should reconsider your position and add that to the discussion.
I'll also point out that there are several prominent Wikipedians who have membership there, including at least three current Arbcom members and several administrators. None of them have reported concerns to the community as a whole.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Risker wrote:
Will, without being offensive here, I am hesitant to consider Blissyu2 as a very reliable source. Though I have no doubt "stuff" is always going on at WR, the mere fact that they "indefinitely blocked" him some time ago casts a shadow of a doubt on everything he says (just as a similar Wikipedia action casts a shadow).
And I am serious about the issues of "privacy," there are several prominent Wikipedians even as I speak editing on a proposed policy that would essentially forbid any type of copy posting of messages from "private" emails, websites, mailing lists and other documents - and thus would make such information unshareable with the community as a whole. In fact, I believe you were one of them, Will. Perhaps you should reconsider your position and add that to the discussion.
I'll also point out that there are several prominent Wikipedians who have membership there, including at least three current Arbcom members and several administrators. None of them have reported concerns to the community as a whole.
It's certainly possible that Blissyu2 is lying.
I do object to posting private correspondence. I don't object to folks reporting the general gist of the comments.
It's not clear if the "prominent Wikipedians" are subscribed to the mailing list that Blissyu2 mentioned, which was apparently reserved for only the most trusted individuals.
On Dec 9, 2007 5:12 PM, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
Despite the recent interest in secret lists this message from Blissyu2/Zordrac appears to have gone unnoticed.
Blissyu2 describes the existence of a secret forum on Wikipedia Review, which he belongs to, that has been used to coordinate attacks on Wikipedia and its editors. On his blog he described an even more secret mailing list. (The entry has since been deleted). While he appears contrite, the actual players in the coordinated attack have not expressed any regret that I'm aware of.
More details would be nice. As you said, the blog is deleted. What you've written below doesn't say much of anything. Do you know the details, or are you just as in the dark as the rest of us?
It would be wonderful if it were a simple case of secret mailing lists used to attack Wikipedia are evil, secret mailing lists to improve Wikipedia aren't evil, but it's not. I'm more concerned with secret mailing lists intended to improve Wikipedia allowing vast errors of judgment to go unchecked, especially when those lists are populated by respected editors with the ability to seriously damage the project. We know Wikipedia Review have a tendency to be hypocritical but there's nothing we can really do about them.
Nick wrote:
I'm more concerned with secret mailing lists intended to improve Wikipedia allowing vast errors of judgment to go unchecked, especially when those lists are populated by respected editors with the ability to seriously damage the project.
I would be concerned about such lists myself, if any of them existed. I am unaware of any.
--Jimbo
Perhaps the secret vs. private discussions have run their course - folk seem to be talking past each other.
Here's a specific instance from my case which I find a little concerning;
"the only significant off-wiki discussion in relation to the blocks (of which I am aware anyway) was me asking a small number of trusted admins, including arbitrators and specifically Jimbo, whether your use of alternate accounts was acceptable. Nobody said anything but "no". *Guyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG * (Help! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG/help)"
I think it's a fair conclusion from that statement that you (Jimbo) and arb.s and other unnamed admins have discussed my case privately prior to my receiving any warnings or blocks.
When the matter reached arbitration, I would think that that should be disclosed. Wouldn't you?
best,
PM.
I would be concerned about such lists myself, if any of them existed. I am unaware of any.
--Jimbo
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 Dec 10, 2007 10:36 AM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Nick wrote:
I'm more concerned with secret mailing lists intended to improve Wikipedia allowing vast errors of judgment to go unchecked, especially when those lists are populated by respected editors with the ability to seriously damage the project.
I would be concerned about such lists myself, if any of them existed. I am unaware of any.
--Jimbo
The cyberstalking list saw the !! email, which contained a vast error of judgment, namely the implication that an obvious returning account was a disruptive returning account; that error of judgment was unchecked, in that nobody appeared to correct it prior to an (undiscussed on-list) block; the list appears to contain several respected editors.
RR
On Dec 9, 2007 11:08 PM, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
The cyberstalking list saw the !! email, which contained a vast error of judgment, namely the implication that an obvious returning account was a disruptive returning account; that error of judgment was unchecked, in that nobody appeared to correct it prior to an (undiscussed on-list) block; the list appears to contain several respected editors.
The audience of a mailing list is substantially smaller than Wikipedia's noticeboards, so mistakes are less likely to get noticed - I think that's the #1 problem. And everyone I know is swamped by email.
-Matt
Matthew Brown wrote:
On Dec 9, 2007 11:08 PM, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
The cyberstalking list saw the !! email, which contained a vast error of judgment, namely the implication that an obvious returning account was a disruptive returning account; that error of judgment was unchecked, in that nobody appeared to correct it prior to an (undiscussed on-list) block; the list appears to contain several respected editors.
The audience of a mailing list is substantially smaller than Wikipedia's noticeboards, so mistakes are less likely to get noticed - I think that's the #1 problem. And everyone I know is swamped by email.
Those may well be the reasons why it happened, but that still doesn't change the fact that it _happened_. The fact that it happened is the problem, and events subsequent to the actual block IMO caused more damage to Wikipedia's credibility and reputation than the actual block itself did.
If something like this were to happen again in six months, what should we do differently? Or better, how can we reduce the possibility of it happening again in six months?
The big problem was that those respected editors mentioned - found out and they were seriously unamused. They are the ones who are determined this will not happen again, many others would prefer it swept under the carpet and that is the only way to stop a repeat performance.
Giano
On Dec 10, 2007 5:41 PM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Matthew Brown wrote:
On Dec 9, 2007 11:08 PM, Relata Refero < refero.relata@gmail.com> wrote:
The cyberstalking list saw the !! email, which contained a vast error of judgment, namely the implication that an obvious returning account was a disruptive returning account; that error of judgment was unchecked, in that nobody appeared to correct it prior to an (undiscussed on-list) block; the list appears to contain several respected editors.
The audience of a mailing list is substantially smaller than Wikipedia's noticeboards, so mistakes are less likely to get noticed - I think that's the #1 problem. And everyone I know is swamped by email.
Those may well be the reasons why it happened, but that still doesn't change the fact that it _happened_. The fact that it happened is the problem, and events subsequent to the actual block IMO caused more damage to Wikipedia's credibility and reputation than the actual block itself did.
If something like this were to happen again in six months, what should we do differently? Or better, how can we reduce the possibility of it happening again in six months?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Bryan Derksen wrote:
If something like this were to happen again in six months, what should we do differently? Or better, how can we reduce the possibility of it happening again in six months?
Well I think we are very fortunate in one respect: due to the incredible noise this generated, I am pretty sure that no one is going to make any blocks with a reason of "secret evidence" for a very long time.
And we are unfortunate in another respect: due to a misunderstanding of what has happened here, we may see a decline in admins having private conversations with friends to "sanity check" things, and we may see a decline in thoughtfully coordinated on-wiki actions. And that's a shame.
--Jimbo
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007, Jimmy Wales wrote:
And we are unfortunate in another respect: due to a misunderstanding of what has happened here, we may see a decline in admins having private conversations with friends to "sanity check" things, and we may see a decline in thoughtfully coordinated on-wiki actions. And that's a shame.
On-wiki actions thoughtfully coordinated off-wiki are one of those things which are likely to be helpful against real abusers, yet harmful to innocent people caught in the crossfire.
Having this kind of coordination can end up being Kafkaesque for an innocent person; the admins already decided what to do with you with you having no opportunity to defend yourself. Human nature being what it is, it's *much* harder to argue against a conclusion after a group of people have extensively discussed it and agreed, rather than during the discussion.
Having this kind of coordination can end up being Kafkaesque
hear hear.
I'm fully supportive of private discussions to help build informed opinions, I'm very concerned that editors seem now to wear many hats at once, as friend, confidant, admin and arbitrator, with no sense of differing propriety in each role.
Jimbo, we communicated directly with each other, and you mentioned that you would take a look at my situation - can you see how that might appear disingenuous when it becomes apparent that you were already quite well informed?
PM.
On Dec 10, 2007 2:00 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007, Jimmy Wales wrote:
And we are unfortunate in another respect: due to a misunderstanding of what has happened here, we may see a decline in admins having private conversations with friends to "sanity check" things, and we may see a decline in thoughtfully coordinated on-wiki actions. And that's a shame.
On-wiki actions thoughtfully coordinated off-wiki are one of those things which are likely to be helpful against real abusers, yet harmful to innocent people caught in the crossfire.
Having this kind of coordination can end up being Kafkaesque for an innocent person; the admins already decided what to do with you with you having no opportunity to defend yourself. Human nature being what it is, it's *much* harder to argue against a conclusion after a group of people have extensively discussed it and agreed, rather than during the discussion.
The ideal balance is where sufficient context is always put on-wiki to explain what was done.
An acceptable balance is if admins keep paying attention and responding to private or public queries about blocks and so forth so that if it's not self-evident on-wiki, someone can get an acceptably prompt off-wiki answer quickly.
Often we fail in both of those; most of the time, it's a good block anyways, but I try to keep in mind that every time we fall down on that with a mistaken block, we potentially lose a valuable future or current contributor.
This isn't structurally solvable. It requires people to slow down and talk and think a bit more carefully.
And we are unfortunate in another respect: due to a misunderstanding of what has happened here, we may see a decline in admins having private conversations with friends to "sanity check" things, and we may see a decline in thoughtfully coordinated on-wiki actions. And that's a shame.
Indeed. A lot of people seem to thing the options are "discuss in private" and "discuss in public", and given those options, public discussion is preferred. However, the issue arises in cases where public discussion isn't an option at all for whatever reason, so the actual options are "discuss in private" and "don't discuss at all and act unilaterally". Given those options, private discussions are obviously a good thing.
On 10/12/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
And we are unfortunate in another respect: due to a misunderstanding of what has happened here, we may see a decline in admins having private conversations with friends to "sanity check" things, and we may see a decline in thoughtfully coordinated on-wiki actions. And that's a shame.
However, the issue arises in cases where public discussion isn't an option at all for whatever reason, so the actual options are "discuss in private" and "don't discuss at all and act unilaterally". Given those options, private discussions are obviously a good thing.
If the person acts unilaterally they know that that it is their reputation on the line and theirs alone. In addition there is no real way they can mentally partition themselves from their actions. We know that people are prepared to go further when they think there is some kind of authority that will support them. There is a risk that people people will view the group as such an authority. through in the problem of such groups tending to be selectable and things are only going to get worse.
If you are going to consult privately it is probably best done with a group you have little control over the membership of (say select 10 admins at random from the admin list).
On 12/11/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/12/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
And we are unfortunate in another respect: due to a misunderstanding of what has happened here, we may see a decline in admins having private conversations with friends to "sanity check" things, and we may see a decline in thoughtfully coordinated on-wiki actions. And that's a
shame.
However, the issue arises in cases where public discussion isn't an option at all for whatever reason, so the actual options are "discuss in private" and "don't discuss at all and act unilaterally". Given those options, private discussions are obviously a good thing.
If the person acts unilaterally they know that that it is their reputation on the line and theirs alone. In addition there is no real way they can mentally partition themselves from their actions. We know that people are prepared to go further when they think there is some kind of authority that will support them. There is a risk that people people will view the group as such an authority. through in the problem of such groups tending to be selectable and things are only going to get worse.
If you are going to consult privately it is probably best done with a group you have little control over the membership of (say select 10 admins at random from the admin list).
This to my mind is very close to the heart of the matter. Here is where we could begin to seek for constructive ways to improve our best practises.
Clearly if the argument in favour of private lists hangs in any significant degree on the possibility that people on such private lists would say to someone who posted evidentially insufficient cause for a blocking action: "Hey, are you smoking crack, or what? There is nothing but circumstantial evidence there!" (In a much kinder phrasing of course.); we have to ask, why did this not happen in the case which caused the outcry. It might be nice to know if there frequently *did* happen this kind of friendly intervention where somebody was in danger of overstepping the mark.
But indeed these questions are insufficient. The constructive way forward is indeed to think of ways where a "sanity check" would be more likely to catch such human failings, *before* the mistaken action.
One can think a useful mechanism would be, if somebody who was on the brink of a blocking action, could post their cause (evidence, and their interpretation of it) anonymously to a random group of admins with proven experience of such matters, and they would give their reactions back also anonymously. In my view the double anonymity would to a large part remove the silly tendency of people to evaluate things ad hominem, and *force* people to confront the facts as they are.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
Relata Refero wrote:
The cyberstalking list saw the !! email, which contained a vast error of judgment, namely the implication that an obvious returning account was a disruptive returning account; that error of judgment was unchecked, in that nobody appeared to correct it prior to an (undiscussed on-list) block; the list appears to contain several respected editors.
The cyberstalking list was not a secret list, but a private list.
Private lists, whether informal and ad hoc, or formalized, are generally a good thing. They allow admins to discuss things openly without fear of the press or random trolls getting involved. They can allow for thoughtfully coordinated action to deal with a problem. They allow for the possibility of peer oversight.
It is also true that in some cases this may not be enough. In the case we are all examining here, the problem was that the admin in question made a bad error by not waiting for someone else (or multiple someone elses) to confirm what was quite clearly going to be an edgy block *at best* (and a complete injustice, as worst, which is of course what it turned out to be).
It would be a shame if the response to this, culturally, would be a feeling that "you should not consult privately with your peers if you are not sure, out of fear of being labelled an evil secret cabal". The correct response is: don't make controversial blocks based on secret evidence... the riskier the block the more need for broad feedback first... don't block in cases of this sort without asking the party in question first what is going on... don't block in cases of this sort when there is no immediate emergency... etc.
Consulting privately with your friends is a *good thing*.
--Jimbo
On 10/12/2007, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
The cyberstalking list was not a secret list, but a private list.
Semi private perhaps. Doesn't appear to have been encrypted.
Private lists, whether informal and ad hoc, or formalized, are generally a good thing.
Experience suggests otherwise. So far they have been proven to have utility under a very limited set of conditions and actively damage the project in other cases.
They allow admins to discuss things openly without fear of the press or random trolls getting involved. They can allow for thoughtfully coordinated action to deal with a problem. They allow for the possibility of peer oversight.
If you can select the peers oversight is meaningless.
It would be a shame if the response to this, culturally, would be a feeling that "you should not consult privately with your peers if you are not sure, out of fear of being labelled an evil secret cabal".
If you post to WP:AN/I asking for someone to review something you are unlikely to be accused of cabalism.
Consulting privately with your friends is a *good thing*.
Try editing an article where all the other editors are in semi private communication. Makes collaboration tricky doesn't it?
On Dec 11, 2007 1:06 AM, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Relata Refero wrote:
The cyberstalking list saw the !! email, which contained a vast error of judgment, namely the implication that an obvious returning account was a disruptive returning account; that error of judgment was unchecked, in that nobody appeared to correct it prior to an (undiscussed on-list) block; the list appears to contain several respected editors.
The cyberstalking list was not a secret list, but a private list.
Private lists, whether informal and ad hoc, or formalized, are generally a good thing. They allow admins to discuss things openly without fear of the press or random trolls getting involved. They can allow for thoughtfully coordinated action to deal with a problem. They allow for the possibility of peer oversight.
I think most of us agree that on occasion, private discussion is very helpful. I don't want to get into the semantics of the secret -vs- private thing, merely pointing out that a list that is not generally known to exist, and that people had gone to some (perhaps not very great) effort to avoid mentioning, is probably, in addition, slightly secret in the strict dictionary definition of the term. Neither of them are pejorative as far as I'm concerned, so I'm a little puzzled by the back-and-forth about the precise words. I'm glad that other than that single, somewhat irrelevant word, you do realise that Nick's concern is valid.
What I am concerned about is that if decisions are made off-wiki by a particular group of administrators, which administrators then separately agree with each other on-wiki without revealing that the matter has already been discussed by them, to the casual reader on-wiki it creates the appearance of greater consensus than in fact exists. This is perhaps a problem when private lists are not generally known to be discussing a particular matter, or are secret.
The correct response is: don't make controversial blocks based on secret evidence... the riskier the block the more need for broad feedback first... don't block in cases of this sort without asking the party in question first what is going on... don't block in cases of this sort when there is no immediate emergency... etc.
Quite so, with an additional emphasis on 'broad'.
RR
On 10/12/2007, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
Quite so, with an additional emphasis on 'broad'.
If in any doubt, noting a block for comment on WP:ANI is always in order.
- d.
On 12/10/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Relata Refero wrote:
The cyberstalking list saw the !! email, which contained a vast error of judgment, namely the implication that an obvious returning account was a disruptive returning account; that error of judgment was unchecked, in that nobody appeared to correct it prior to an (undiscussed on-list) block; the list appears to contain several respected editors.
The cyberstalking list was not a secret list, but a private list.
<snip>
Consulting privately with your friends is a *good thing*.
--Jimbo
Well, Jimbo...the fact that this particular block was discussed on the cyberstalking and harassment list is indeed significant to the person who was being blocked. The blockee is now forever besmirched by the fact that having his name mentioned on that list has inappropriately associated him with such vile activities. Check your user talk page history for Alex Barakhov's post, if you don't believe me.
There's a big difference between an impromptu sanity check and a regularized mailing list. You still haven't gotten around to explaining why people felt the need to go off-wiki to create solutions to big-picture on-wiki issues such as harassment and cyberstalking. Now, nobody can stop anyone from associating with anyone they wish to, but this harassment and cyberstalking list had your name and a foundation employee's name on its roster, and I would have thought either or both of you would have known better.
Risker
_______________________________________________
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 Dec 10, 2007 3:49 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/10/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Relata Refero wrote:
The cyberstalking list saw the !! email, which contained a vast error of judgment, namely the implication that an obvious returning account was a disruptive returning account; that error of judgment was unchecked, in that nobody appeared to correct it prior to an (undiscussed on-list) block; the list appears to contain several respected editors.
The cyberstalking list was not a secret list, but a private list.
<snip>
Consulting privately with your friends is a *good thing*.
--Jimbo
Well, Jimbo...the fact that this particular block was discussed on the cyberstalking and harassment list is indeed significant to the person who was being blocked.
As has been said repeatedly, "discussed" on the list is an inaccurate description of the actual events.
"Was mentioned in passing and generated no followup emails" is what people are describing.
The blockee is now forever besmirched by the fact that having his name mentioned on that list has inappropriately associated him with such vile activities.
I think it's been rather conclusively demonstrated that !! was not who Durova thought they were, and that no suspicion should remain attached to the account.
This horse is fossilized. Stop kicking it.
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007, George Herbert wrote:
The blockee is now forever besmirched by the fact that having his name mentioned on that list has inappropriately associated him with such vile activities.
I think it's been rather conclusively demonstrated that !! was not who Durova thought they were, and that no suspicion should remain attached to the account.
That works only for !!, not for future recurrences of the same situation involving other users. !!'s innocence was conclusively demonstrated through the posting of an email that embarassed Durova, and which Durova did her best to keep third parties from seeing.
We simply can't expect future users to be exonerated this way.
On Dec 10, 2007 10:15 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
That works only for !!, not for future recurrences of the same situation involving other users. !!'s innocence was conclusively demonstrated through the posting of an email that embarassed Durova, and which Durova did her best to keep third parties from seeing.
I recall !! was unblocked significantly before that email was posted - because some users knew that user's previous identity and because people examined !!'s contribution history and found nothing problematic.
Durova's email showed fairly convincingly that there was no secret damning evidence, however.
-Matt
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007, Matthew Brown wrote:
That works only for !!, not for future recurrences of the same situation involving other users. !!'s innocence was conclusively demonstrated through the posting of an email that embarassed Durova, and which Durova did her best to keep third parties from seeing.
I recall !! was unblocked significantly before that email was posted -
That's "not convicted", it isn't "conclusively demonstrated the innocence of".
On Dec 11, 2007 2:05 AM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007, jayjg wrote:
I have an idea; why not create an environment where people who have suffered from this cyberstalking or wish to help could discuss their issues in a safe and private way, and try to formulate coping strategies. Perhaps Wikia would be kind enough to host it, and someone who has suffered from this more than most could act as a moderator. We could call the list, oh, I don't know, something like "WpCyberstalking".
The answer is "this has exactly the same problems as the one you have now".e
And what, in your view, would those "problems" be?
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007, Matthew Brown wrote:
That works only for !!, not for future recurrences of the same situation involving other users. !!'s innocence was conclusively demonstrated through the posting of an email that embarassed Durova, and which Durova did her best to keep third parties from seeing.
I recall !! was unblocked significantly before that email was posted -
That's "not convicted", it isn't "conclusively demonstrated the innocence of".
When someone unblocks a person after 75 minutes, saying "new information has come to light, I was wrong", that's demonstrating innocence. The publication of the Durova's e-mail didn't "demonstrate innocence"; all it demonstrated was that Durova had jumped to conclusions not warranted by the evidence provided, not that !! was innocent. In fact, it was the still unpublished evidence of !!'s actual identity, which was the reason for the unblock, which actually established !!'s innocence.
On Dec 11, 2007 1:53 AM, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007 10:15 PM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
That works only for !!, not for future recurrences of the same situation involving other users. !!'s innocence was conclusively demonstrated through the posting of an email that embarassed Durova, and which Durova did her best to keep third parties from seeing.
I recall !! was unblocked significantly before that email was posted - because some users knew that user's previous identity and because people examined !!'s contribution history and found nothing problematic.
Exactly. !! was exonerated 75 minutes after the blocking. The publication of Durova's e-mail, many days later, was political drama and ritual humiliation.
On Dec 10, 2007 3:49 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
The blockee is now forever besmirched by the fact that having his name mentioned on that list has inappropriately associated him with such vile activities.
AFAIK, his name was never mentioned on the list.
The idea that being mistakenly blocked is a kind of Black Spot curse upon your account forevermore should be combated; mistakes happen, and I think turning into a culture where admin mistakes are wholly unacceptable is going to be very damaging to everyone.
What's important is to remedy mistakes as quickly as possible and to try not to make them again. Of course, there'll be honest disagreement at times about how to do that.
-Matt
Matthew Brown wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007 3:49 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
The blockee is now forever besmirched by the fact that having his name mentioned on that list has inappropriately associated him with such vile activities.
AFAIK, his name was never mentioned on the list.
I thought Durova's post was quite explicit about his user name. What list are we talking about?
What's important is to remedy mistakes as quickly as possible and to try not to make them again. Of course, there'll be honest disagreement at times about how to do that.
Indeed. My main concern at this point is that there seems to be a philosophy prevailing that 'the general public just misunderstood what happened, therefore we don't need to actually change anything and it's the public's responsibility to get it straight.' Even if the system really _did_ work wonderfully behind the scenes and this was all just one monumentally dumb or bizarre screwup by one lone admin the fact that the general public refuses to believe that is something we need to find ways to fix.
On Dec 10, 2007 6:01 PM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Matthew Brown wrote:
AFAIK, his name was never mentioned on the list.
I thought Durova's post was quite explicit about his user name. What list are we talking about?
Username does not equal name in most cases. If all you meant is that someone's username being mentioned in such a context is permanently damaging, well - is it more damaging than mentioning suspicions on the site itself?
A situation where nobody can ever even suggest that someone is behaving badly or suspiciously will not be good for Wikipedia, because some users DO behave badly or suspiciously and discussing that is necessary to reduce the damage that can be caused.
Nobody published the user's former identity on the list; I personally still do not know it, because I have not sought it out.
-Matt
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007, Matthew Brown wrote:
A situation where nobody can ever even suggest that someone is behaving badly or suspiciously will not be good for Wikipedia, because some users DO behave badly or suspiciously and discussing that is necessary to reduce the damage that can be caused.
You can reduce the damage caused by guilty users. But if the user turns out to be innocent after all, how do you reduce the damage caused *to* the user *by* the accusation?
On Dec 10, 2007 6:01 PM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Indeed. My main concern at this point is that there seems to be a philosophy prevailing that 'the general public just misunderstood what happened, therefore we don't need to actually change anything and it's the public's responsibility to get it straight.'
It's easy on Wikipedia for a small number of vocal individuals to create the impression of widespread support - especially if, as commonly occurs, enough fuss being caused about something creates the impression that something must be behind it.
That said, there clearly were some gross mistakes made.
One lesson is that the practise of abandoning an old account and starting afresh under a new identity has become widespread. Thus, behavior that indicates this is not necessarily all that significant or suspicious. If the former identity was an admin, behavior designed to pass RFA is to be expected. Note that the arbcom has previously held that an individual may not hold two admin accounts; thus, asking for desysopping of the old account is necessary at some point before RFA. It would generally be a good idea to inform the arbcom if you are an admin who wants to abandon one account and gain adminship on another.
Secondly, blocking while being unwilling to explain why is not acceptable. In rare cases this explanation should not be made public; in those cases, the blocking admin should be sure to find other admins who will support the decision on-Wiki, and preferably should be willing to explain in private to uninvolved, trusted parties. It would be preferable to obtain the active agreement of the arbcom before doing such a block. In this case, Durova claimed that she had support but nobody came forward to state that they supported her decision.
Thirdly, getting too involved in hunting down suspicious users can lead to unintended confirmation bias; things that support the hypothesis get noticed, things that suggest against it get ignored unless they are really damn obvious. This is why it's good to run things past someone not as close to the problem. That's what one's fellow admins are for, and it should never be possible that there are no uninvolved admins one trusts.
(there are probably many more lessons, but that's a few)
-Matt
On 11/12/2007, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
In this case, Durova claimed that she had support but nobody came forward to state that they supported her decision.
This is true, and probably the biggest reason why the discussion has continued for so long.
On Dec 10, 2007 9:45 PM, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/12/2007, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
In this case, Durova claimed that she had support but nobody came forward to state that they supported her decision.
This is true, and probably the biggest reason why the discussion has continued for so long.
I think this is true too; it is easy to come to the impression that Durova is shouldering more blame than is her fair share, partly because she is in many respects a good person, and on the whole people do not want to pound her into the ground. The alternative, however, is that others are deliberately refusing to come forward and support her, which is also unsettling. At this point, I doubt it makes a difference anymore; it does seem that everyone involved in this sorry situation has taken a hit to their personal reputations in some way.
Perhaps one additional lesson might be added, too - harassment and cyberstalking are real and it is probably time that we as a community look at ways to provide some form of structured support and assistance in reporting this behaviour internallly and to appropriate authorities.
Risker
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 Dec 10, 2007 9:55 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps one additional lesson might be added, too - harassment and cyberstalking are real and it is probably time that we as a community look at ways to provide some form of structured support and assistance in reporting this behaviour internallly and to appropriate authorities.
Risker
I have an idea; why not create an environment where people who have suffered from this cyberstalking or wish to help could discuss their issues in a safe and private way, and try to formulate coping strategies. Perhaps Wikia would be kind enough to host it, and someone who has suffered from this more than most could act as a moderator. We could call the list, oh, I don't know, something like "WpCyberstalking".
On Dec 10, 2007 10:17 PM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007 9:55 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps one additional lesson might be added, too - harassment and cyberstalking are real and it is probably time that we as a community
look
at ways to provide some form of structured support and assistance in reporting this behaviour internallly and to appropriate authorities.
Risker
I have an idea; why not create an environment where people who have suffered from this cyberstalking or wish to help could discuss their issues in a safe and private way, and try to formulate coping strategies. Perhaps Wikia would be kind enough to host it, and someone who has suffered from this more than most could act as a moderator. We could call the list, oh, I don't know, something like "WpCyberstalking".
Actually, what is needed is some vision and willingness to recognise this is a community problem, not a problem affecting just a few people. What I mean is to establish a list of supportive administrators (at least a few of whom have checkuser) who are willing to give their real names to police to support victims' allegations, and for the Foundation's Privacy Policy to permit release of information specific to these types of allegations to law authorities in whatever country. Instead of online group therapy led by untrained individuals (which has been proven to be as dangerous as it is sometimes comforting), develop lists of resources within communities. Reach out to major law enforcement agencies and develop relationships with their cyberstalking units.
One of the harms of online groups like this does more to closet the victims and withdraw them from the support of the entire community. It really does need some professional guidance. And given that it has, to now, been invitation-only, victims have never known that there was someplace to turn to.
Wikipedia isn't an island, we are in the real world and should make use of real world systems to solve what is, at the end of the day, a real world problem.
Risker
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 Dec 10, 2007 10:43 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007 10:17 PM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007 9:55 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps one additional lesson might be added, too - harassment and cyberstalking are real and it is probably time that we as a community
look
at ways to provide some form of structured support and assistance in reporting this behaviour internallly and to appropriate authorities.
Risker
I have an idea; why not create an environment where people who have suffered from this cyberstalking or wish to help could discuss their issues in a safe and private way, and try to formulate coping strategies. Perhaps Wikia would be kind enough to host it, and someone who has suffered from this more than most could act as a moderator. We could call the list, oh, I don't know, something like "WpCyberstalking".
One of the harms of online groups like this does more to closet the victims and withdraw them from the support of the entire community. It really does need some professional guidance. And given that it has, to now, been invitation-only, victims have never known that there was someplace to turn to.
Much of Wikipedia's (particularly wikien-l's) public response to this kind of cyberstalking has consisted of a) disbelief and mockery (the word "rutabaga" comes to mind) b) suggestions that the victims are to blame for being cyberstalked c) suggestions that the victims should leave Wikipedia for the good of Wikipedia.
Given that kind of environment, it's rather unsurprising the victims have looked for something more private and supportive.
On Dec 10, 2007 10:55 PM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007 10:43 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007 10:17 PM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007 9:55 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps one additional lesson might be added, too - harassment and cyberstalking are real and it is probably time that we as a
community
look
at ways to provide some form of structured support and assistance in reporting this behaviour internallly and to appropriate authorities.
Risker
I have an idea; why not create an environment where people who have suffered from this cyberstalking or wish to help could discuss their issues in a safe and private way, and try to formulate coping strategies. Perhaps Wikia would be kind enough to host it, and someone who has suffered from this more than most could act as a moderator. We could call the list, oh, I don't know, something like "WpCyberstalking".
One of the harms of online groups like this does more to closet the
victims
and withdraw them from the support of the entire community. It really
does
need some professional guidance. And given that it has, to now, been invitation-only, victims have never known that there was someplace to
turn
to.
Much of Wikipedia's (particularly wikien-l's) public response to this kind of cyberstalking has consisted of a) disbelief and mockery (the word "rutabaga" comes to mind) b) suggestions that the victims are to blame for being cyberstalked c) suggestions that the victims should leave Wikipedia for the good of Wikipedia.
Given that kind of environment, it's rather unsurprising the victims have looked for something more private and supportive.
You make some valid points, Jayjg. To some extent, it can be likened to how Western society treated spouse abuse for a long time - the victim "deserved" it. Having experienced cyberstalking myself as a result of my involvement with Wikipedia (and given that I am not exactly editing a lot of highly contentious articles, it came as a surprise), I relied on my years of internet and life experience to involve police immediately. We signed off releases for them to access my email account data to track the IP, and also one for WMF (I don't know if it was ever executed, as I was able to provide them with the RL name of the person I suspected, and it turns out I was right).
I do believe that we can change the support provided to victims without adversely affecting the project to which we all came. Some of that support may be difficult to swallow - yes, people do need to be aware that there are "real world" trip wires associated with certain subjects or behaviours - but some of it can be very practical and relatively simple.
Risker
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Quoting jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com:
a) disbelief and mockery (the word "rutabaga" comes to mind)
I don't think that the rutabaga example was intended to be mockery but rather a point about what was happening to encyclopedic content in a method with minimal community input. People can use humorous phrases without mocking. Indeed, sometimes when a topic is sufficiently serious, a bit of levity can be very helpful.
On Dec 11, 2007 1:44 PM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com:
a) disbelief and mockery (the word "rutabaga" comes to mind)
I don't think that the rutabaga example was intended to be mockery but rather a point about what was happening to encyclopedic content in a method with minimal community input. People can use humorous phrases without mocking. Indeed, sometimes when a topic is sufficiently serious, a bit of levity can be very helpful.
A bit of levity is great in the right time and place, and from the right people. It also has to be funny.
On Dec 10, 2007 10:43 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, what is needed is some vision and willingness to recognise this is a community problem, not a problem affecting just a few people. What I mean is to establish a list of supportive administrators (at least a few of whom have checkuser) who are willing to give their real names to police to support victims' allegations, and for the Foundation's Privacy Policy to permit release of information specific to these types of allegations to law authorities in whatever country. Instead of online group therapy led by untrained individuals (which has been proven to be as dangerous as it is sometimes comforting), develop lists of resources within communities. Reach out to major law enforcement agencies and develop relationships with their cyberstalking units.
One of the harms of online groups like this does more to closet the victims and withdraw them from the support of the entire community. It really does need some professional guidance. And given that it has, to now, been invitation-only, victims have never known that there was someplace to turn to.
Wikipedia isn't an island, we are in the real world and should make use of real world systems to solve what is, at the end of the day, a real world problem.
Risker
Agree with Risker. I have been analyzing the block log data for the past weeks, and have a database dump to look at for longer term patterns. [results forthcoming] Not surprisingly, I find that a tiny fraction of admins handle "difficult" blocks (that includes sockpuppets, trolling, and otherwise disruptive users). Some of these admins are target of quite a lot of harassment, and abuse on sites like ED. And, there are other admins like me, who stay away from those blocks and controversy, out of real concern of being tracked down in real life.
At the same time, I believe it's a small number of I guess we call them "kooks" (groups or individuals) who are responsible for the harassment. With support from the Foundation, I suggest we have people who can accept reports of harassment, look into them, and reach out to law enforcement who have the power to locate individuals. Vice versa, as well; I do have law enforcement contacts and they do reach out to other sites, such as MySpace and Facebook, when working on cases. We cannot tolerate harassment.
-Aude
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007, jayjg wrote:
I have an idea; why not create an environment where people who have suffered from this cyberstalking or wish to help could discuss their issues in a safe and private way, and try to formulate coping strategies. Perhaps Wikia would be kind enough to host it, and someone who has suffered from this more than most could act as a moderator. We could call the list, oh, I don't know, something like "WpCyberstalking".
The answer is "this has exactly the same problems as the one you have now".e
On Dec 10, 2007 9:45 PM, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/12/2007, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
In this case, Durova claimed that she had support but nobody came forward to state that they supported her decision.
This is true, and probably the biggest reason why the discussion has continued for so long.
That and the fact that a number of individuals found it extremely convenient to make political hay out of the situation.
On Dec 10, 2007 9:28 PM, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007 6:01 PM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Indeed. My main concern at this point is that there seems to be a philosophy prevailing that 'the general public just misunderstood what happened, therefore we don't need to actually change anything and it's the public's responsibility to get it straight.'
[snip]
Secondly, blocking while being unwilling to explain why is not acceptable. In rare cases this explanation should not be made public; in those cases, the blocking admin should be sure to find other admins who will support the decision on-Wiki, and preferably should be willing to explain in private to uninvolved, trusted parties. It would be preferable to obtain the active agreement of the arbcom before doing such a block. In this case, Durova claimed that she had support but nobody came forward to state that they supported her decision.
[snip]
-Matt
This is probably the point that needs emphasis. I don't think anyone is bothered by the simple fact that a bad block was made (now this happens a lot). Nor is anyone really bothered that private discussions take place (now this also happens a lot). What we're bothered by (what I'm bothered by) is that we seem to be moving more and more towards a culture where admins make blocks they refuse to explain to anyone and this is considered appropriate (and at least one editor supported not giving any explanation of it). This is what gets people goat - the impression has been created (true or not) that these lists were contributing to this shift.
People are uppity for a reason - and so far as I can see, this is the reason - it's certainly the reason why I'm uppity.
Cheers WilyD
on 12/10/07 9:01 PM, Bryan Derksen at bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Matthew Brown wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007 3:49 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
The blockee is now forever besmirched by the fact that having his name mentioned on that list has inappropriately associated him with such vile activities.
AFAIK, his name was never mentioned on the list.
I thought Durova's post was quite explicit about his user name. What list are we talking about?
What's important is to remedy mistakes as quickly as possible and to try not to make them again. Of course, there'll be honest disagreement at times about how to do that.
Indeed. My main concern at this point is that there seems to be a philosophy prevailing that 'the general public just misunderstood what happened, therefore we don't need to actually change anything and it's the public's responsibility to get it straight.' Even if the system really _did_ work wonderfully behind the scenes and this was all just one monumentally dumb or bizarre screwup by one lone admin the fact that the general public refuses to believe that is something we need to find ways to fix.
Bryan,
If what was said is the truth, and is still not believed, where to do go from there as far as an explanation is concerned? And, if we don't find "ways to fix" it, what do you believe will happen?
Marc
Marc Riddell wrote:
If what was said is the truth, and is still not believed, where to do go from there as far as an explanation is concerned? And, if we don't find "ways to fix" it, what do you believe will happen?
I've made some suggestions in previous emails on this topic. The ones I liked the most, in bullet point form:
* List the existence of these various special-interest mailing lists at [[Wikipedia:Mailing lists]] or some equivalently prominent public space, to remove the air of secrecy that caused so much of the visceral reaction in this case. I see that this has already been done for the two mailing lists that caused this kerfuffle in the first place, that's good.
* Create some kind of page where we can describe "our side" of these scandals when they erupt and make its existence widely known, so that users who are participating in discussions on slashdot or talking with journalists and such will have someplace to refer people to and someplace where they themselves can find out details they'll need to know in order to defuse misunderstandings. I originally suggested WikiNews or Signpost, but any sort of prominent public noticeboard would be fine. I still don't know anything significant about the Bagley thing other than what I read on the Register, for example.
I'm sure there are other good suggestions floating around in these enormous threads, those are just the ones that I can recall proposing myself.
If we don't find "ways to fix" this, I believe that Wikipedia's internal culture will be perceived as increasingly insular, cliqueish, and paranoid by the general public. Indeed, I think it's actually in danger of _becoming_ increasingly insular, cliqueish and paranoid. Our own reactions to perceived threats to the project has been causing us more damage than the threats themselves would have.
This isn't a doomsday prediction, I think the project would be able to endure a heck of a lot of internal problems without disintegrating. But it certainly won't be as vibrant or as fun to work on as it would be otherwise.
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007, Bryan Derksen wrote:
If what was said is the truth, and is still not believed, where to do go from there as far as an explanation is concerned? And, if we don't find "ways to fix" it, what do you believe will happen?
I've made some suggestions in previous emails on this topic. The ones I liked the most, in bullet point form:
How about this: Change the list so that it's almost, but not quite, private: if any person is exonerated, messages dealing with them are fair game for anyone to post anywhere. Users should be aware of this policy when they join the list, and if they don't agree that what they say about innocent people may be publicized, don't let them on the list in the first place.
We should not force people to be under a permanent cloud of suspicion by making it more difficult than necessary to dispel that suspicion.
On Dec 10, 2007 6:49 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/10/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Relata Refero wrote:
The cyberstalking list saw the !! email, which contained a vast error of judgment, namely the implication that an obvious returning account was a disruptive returning account; that error of judgment was unchecked, in that nobody appeared to correct it prior to an (undiscussed on-list) block; the list appears to contain several respected editors.
The cyberstalking list was not a secret list, but a private list.
<snip>
Consulting privately with your friends is a *good thing*.
--Jimbo
Well, Jimbo...the fact that this particular block was discussed on the cyberstalking and harassment list is indeed significant to the person who
Hello, Relata Refero! I thought people had stopped making this claim weeks ago. Care to step in and educate Risker as to the current party line?
On Dec 10, 2007 8:25 PM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007 6:49 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/10/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Relata Refero wrote:
The cyberstalking list saw the !! email, which contained a vast
error
of judgment, namely the implication that an obvious returning
account
was a disruptive returning account; that error of judgment was unchecked, in that nobody appeared to correct it prior to an (undiscussed on-list) block; the list appears to contain several respected editors.
The cyberstalking list was not a secret list, but a private list.
<snip>
Consulting privately with your friends is a *good thing*.
--Jimbo
Well, Jimbo...the fact that this particular block was discussed on the cyberstalking and harassment list is indeed significant to the person
who
Hello, Relata Refero! I thought people had stopped making this claim weeks ago. Care to step in and educate Risker as to the current party line?
OK - POSTED on the list. That everyone seems to be in agreement with. (Where I come from, we call that "discussed" because others make a decision whether or not to say anything.) And Jayjg if your name was posted on a list oriented to cyberstalking, I bet you'd be pretty humiliated too, especially when people who only get half the story keep asking about it, all the way up to posting on Jimbo's talk page to inquire.
Risker
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 Dec 10, 2007 8:34 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007 8:25 PM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007 6:49 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/10/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Relata Refero wrote:
The cyberstalking list saw the !! email, which contained a vast
error
of judgment, namely the implication that an obvious returning
account
was a disruptive returning account; that error of judgment was unchecked, in that nobody appeared to correct it prior to an (undiscussed on-list) block; the list appears to contain several respected editors.
The cyberstalking list was not a secret list, but a private list.
<snip>
Consulting privately with your friends is a *good thing*.
--Jimbo
Well, Jimbo...the fact that this particular block was discussed on the cyberstalking and harassment list is indeed significant to the person
who
Hello, Relata Refero! I thought people had stopped making this claim weeks ago. Care to step in and educate Risker as to the current party line?
OK - POSTED on the list. That everyone seems to be in agreement with. (Where I come from, we call that "discussed" because others make a decision whether or not to say anything.) And Jayjg if your name was posted on a list oriented to cyberstalking, I bet you'd be pretty humiliated too,
They posted !!'s name on the cyberstalking list? I didn't think anyone knew what it was.
On Dec 11, 2007 12:39 PM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
They posted !!'s name on the cyberstalking list? I didn't think anyone knew what it was.
No, this was not posted on the list. I'm guessing the block wouldn't have happened if that had been posted, but it seems there was the lack of overlap between people Durova sent her email to and the people who knew !!'s former admin account name.
Angela
jayjg wrote:
Hello, Relata Refero! I thought people had stopped making this claim weeks ago. Care to step in and educate Risker as to the current party line?
If people stopped making the claim weeks ago, why do you have to keep repeating that fact over and over again now?
Go ahead and correct misunderstandings if you must, but please stop claiming that they're not actually _happening_. It's silly.
On Dec 10, 2007 8:48 PM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
jayjg wrote:
Hello, Relata Refero! I thought people had stopped making this claim weeks ago. Care to step in and educate Risker as to the current party line?
If people stopped making the claim weeks ago, why do you have to keep repeating that fact over and over again now?
Because, contrary to today's lengthy statement to the contrary by Relata Refero, they are, in fact, still making that claim. In fact, Risker just made the claim again, a few posts up this thread. In the future please actually read the e-mails on the list before responding.
On Dec 11, 2007 8:25 AM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007 8:48 PM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
jayjg wrote:
Hello, Relata Refero! I thought people had stopped making this claim weeks ago. Care to step in and educate Risker as to the current party line?
If people stopped making the claim weeks ago, why do you have to keep repeating that fact over and over again now?
Because, contrary to today's lengthy statement to the contrary by Relata Refero, they are, in fact, still making that claim. In fact, Risker just made the claim again, a few posts up this thread. In the future please actually read the e-mails on the list before responding.
Yes, Jay, given that you attacked Alec at length and incoherently for making the claim, had it pointed out that he hadn't made that claim, and are now seizing on a statement, subsequently clarified, by someone completely different, completely justifies your hijacking this and several other threads.
Oh, and if you were genuinely interested in 'raising the level' of this list, as you claim in another thread, we would see above both genuine argument, and less phrases like 'party line' which imply suspicious, hypocritical collusion and which, for those of us who are old enough to remember what Party the party line in question refers to, is a deeply distressing choice of phrase.
I've re-read the last twenty emails you've sent, and I'm afraid none of them seeks compromise, responds directly rather than obliquely to a raised point, or manages to sound anything but snappy and snide. If you can't shape up or pause posting to recover your balance, I'm going to have to suggest that you're put on moderation.
Can we return to the actual subject under discussion now, please?
On 11/12/2007, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
Can we return to the actual subject under discussion now, please?
Experience says "no", I am afraid. We will discuss this topic, repeated ad nauseum and ad hominem by The Side Of Justice And Truth And Light, and God help you if you dare suggest we've heard enough.
On Dec 11, 2007 3:34 AM, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/12/2007, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
Can we return to the actual subject under discussion now, please?
Experience says "no", I am afraid. We will discuss this topic, repeated ad nauseum and ad hominem by The Side Of Justice And Truth And Light, and God help you if you dare suggest we've heard enough.
Actually, Andrew, I don't think the discussion is over until you've told the victims of harassment to leave Wikipedia for the good of Wikipedia. At that point the thread sinks so low that nothing can redeem it.
On 11/12/2007, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Experience says "no", I am afraid. We will discuss this topic, repeated ad nauseum and ad hominem by The Side Of Justice And Truth And Light, and God help you if you dare suggest we've heard enough.
Actually, Andrew, I don't think the discussion is over until you've told the victims of harassment to leave Wikipedia for the good of Wikipedia. At that point the thread sinks so low that nothing can redeem it.
"God help you if you dare suggest we've heard enough", I said, and by golly here it comes.
But I suppose it's too much to ask you don't put words in my mouth.
On Dec 11, 2007 11:58 AM, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
On 11/12/2007, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Experience says "no", I am afraid. We will discuss this topic, repeated ad nauseum and ad hominem by The Side Of Justice And Truth And Light, and God help you if you dare suggest we've heard enough.
Actually, Andrew, I don't think the discussion is over until you've told the victims of harassment to leave Wikipedia for the good of Wikipedia. At that point the thread sinks so low that nothing can redeem it.
"God help you if you dare suggest we've heard enough", I said, and by golly here it comes.
But I suppose it's too much to ask you don't put words in my mouth.
"Please leave. All of you. The project is more important than your pride, and you are dragging it down; this situation is never going to improve unless someone walks away." Andrew Gray, Wed Aug 1 14:41:22 UTC 2007 http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-August/078379.html
"Please. For the good of the project, turn around and walk away." Andrew Gray, Thu Aug 2 02:35:38 UTC 2007 http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-August/078422.html
On 11/12/2007, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 11, 2007 11:58 AM, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
On 11/12/2007, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Experience says "no", I am afraid. We will discuss this topic, repeated ad nauseum and ad hominem by The Side Of Justice And Truth And Light, and God help you if you dare suggest we've heard enough.
Actually, Andrew, I don't think the discussion is over until you've told the victims of harassment to leave Wikipedia for the good of Wikipedia. At that point the thread sinks so low that nothing can redeem it.
"God help you if you dare suggest we've heard enough", I said, and by golly here it comes.
But I suppose it's too much to ask you don't put words in my mouth.
"Please leave. All of you. The project is more important than your pride, and you are dragging it down; this situation is never going to improve unless someone walks away." Andrew Gray, Wed Aug 1 14:41:22 UTC 2007 http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-August/078379.html
"Please. For the good of the project, turn around and walk away." Andrew Gray, Thu Aug 2 02:35:38 UTC 2007 http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-August/078422.html
Ah, yes, that last one...
"Like I said originally, this is not personal; this is not because I dislike any of the participants ... I feel a heel saying it. I wish the situation wasn't where it's got to."
"This whole thing is ballooning bigger and bigger as time goes on; what you are doing is harming the project, and if it goes on much further the incremental damage will be that much worse."
It doesn't seem to have changed much.
On Dec 11, 2007 1:08 PM, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/12/2007, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 11, 2007 11:58 AM, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
On 11/12/2007, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Experience says "no", I am afraid. We will discuss this topic, repeated ad nauseum and ad hominem by The Side Of Justice And Truth And Light, and God help you if you dare suggest we've heard enough.
Actually, Andrew, I don't think the discussion is over until you've told the victims of harassment to leave Wikipedia for the good of Wikipedia. At that point the thread sinks so low that nothing can redeem it.
"God help you if you dare suggest we've heard enough", I said, and by golly here it comes.
But I suppose it's too much to ask you don't put words in my mouth.
"Please leave. All of you. The project is more important than your pride, and you are dragging it down; this situation is never going to improve unless someone walks away." Andrew Gray, Wed Aug 1 14:41:22 UTC 2007 http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-August/078379.html
"Please. For the good of the project, turn around and walk away." Andrew Gray, Thu Aug 2 02:35:38 UTC 2007 http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-August/078422.html
Ah, yes, that last one...
"Like I said originally, this is not personal; this is not because I dislike any of the participants ... I feel a heel saying it. I wish the situation wasn't where it's got to."
"This whole thing is ballooning bigger and bigger as time goes on; what you are doing is harming the project, and if it goes on much further the incremental damage will be that much worse."
It doesn't seem to have changed much.
Right, I didn't put words in your mouth after all, as you claimed, and you're still posting the same nonsense. Frankly, given your attitude, Wikipedia would be better off without you; nothing personal, and I wish it weren't so, but it's clear you should just leave.
On Dec 12, 2007 12:21 AM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 11, 2007 1:08 PM, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/12/2007, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 11, 2007 11:58 AM, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
On 11/12/2007, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Experience says "no", I am afraid. We will discuss this topic, repeated ad nauseum and ad hominem by The Side Of Justice And Truth And Light, and God help you if you dare suggest we've heard enough.
Actually, Andrew, I don't think the discussion is over until you've told the victims of harassment to leave Wikipedia for the good of Wikipedia. At that point the thread sinks so low that nothing can redeem it.
"God help you if you dare suggest we've heard enough", I said, and by golly here it comes.
But I suppose it's too much to ask you don't put words in my mouth.
"Please leave. All of you. The project is more important than your pride, and you are dragging it down; this situation is never going to improve unless someone walks away." Andrew Gray, Wed Aug 1 14:41:22 UTC 2007 http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-August/078379.html
"Please. For the good of the project, turn around and walk away." Andrew Gray, Thu Aug 2 02:35:38 UTC 2007 http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-August/078422.html
Ah, yes, that last one...
"Like I said originally, this is not personal; this is not because I dislike any of the participants ... I feel a heel saying it. I wish the situation wasn't where it's got to."
"This whole thing is ballooning bigger and bigger as time goes on; what you are doing is harming the project, and if it goes on much further the incremental damage will be that much worse."
It doesn't seem to have changed much.
Right, I didn't put words in your mouth after all, as you claimed, and you're still posting the same nonsense. Frankly, given your attitude, Wikipedia would be better off without you; nothing personal, and I wish it weren't so, but it's clear you should just leave.
Any progress on the pausing-to-see-if-your-next-email-is helpful front, Jay? Or the not-replying-unless-its-ontopic front? Or the raising-the-level-of-discourse-on-this-list front? No? Moderator! Your services are required.
Again, caricaturing opposing viewpoints is never helpful. I suspect that practically nobody is even reading this thread any more, which may not be what Jay intended.
RR
On Dec 11, 2007 2:18 PM, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 12, 2007 12:21 AM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 11, 2007 1:08 PM, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/12/2007, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 11, 2007 11:58 AM, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
On 11/12/2007, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
> Experience says "no", I am afraid. We will discuss this topic, > repeated ad nauseum and ad hominem by The Side Of Justice And Truth > And Light, and God help you if you dare suggest we've heard enough.
Actually, Andrew, I don't think the discussion is over until you've told the victims of harassment to leave Wikipedia for the good of Wikipedia. At that point the thread sinks so low that nothing can redeem it.
"God help you if you dare suggest we've heard enough", I said, and by golly here it comes.
But I suppose it's too much to ask you don't put words in my mouth.
"Please leave. All of you. The project is more important than your pride, and you are dragging it down; this situation is never going to improve unless someone walks away." Andrew Gray, Wed Aug 1 14:41:22 UTC 2007 http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-August/078379.html
"Please. For the good of the project, turn around and walk away." Andrew Gray, Thu Aug 2 02:35:38 UTC 2007 http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-August/078422.html
Ah, yes, that last one...
"Like I said originally, this is not personal; this is not because I dislike any of the participants ... I feel a heel saying it. I wish the situation wasn't where it's got to."
"This whole thing is ballooning bigger and bigger as time goes on; what you are doing is harming the project, and if it goes on much further the incremental damage will be that much worse."
It doesn't seem to have changed much.
Right, I didn't put words in your mouth after all, as you claimed, and you're still posting the same nonsense. Frankly, given your attitude, Wikipedia would be better off without you; nothing personal, and I wish it weren't so, but it's clear you should just leave.
Any progress on the pausing-to-see-if-your-next-email-is helpful front, Jay? Or the not-replying-unless-its-ontopic front? Or the raising-the-level-of-discourse-on-this-list front? No?
I've successfully managed all of those things; you, unfortunately, have failed on all those fronts. I believe this thread started going awry when somebody hijacked it a couple of days ago to make false claims about the cyberstalking list that have already been repeatedly refuted. Now, I wonder who that might be? Hmm: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-December/087150.html
Again, caricaturing opposing viewpoints is never helpful.
I haven't caricatured anyone, you've done a great job all on your own.
On Dec 12, 2007 1:14 AM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 11, 2007 2:18 PM, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 12, 2007 12:21 AM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 11, 2007 1:08 PM, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/12/2007, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 11, 2007 11:58 AM, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
On 11/12/2007, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
> > Experience says "no", I am afraid. We will discuss this topic, > > repeated ad nauseum and ad hominem by The Side Of Justice And Truth > > And Light, and God help you if you dare suggest we've heard enough. > > Actually, Andrew, I don't think the discussion is over until you've > told the victims of harassment to leave Wikipedia for the good of > Wikipedia. At that point the thread sinks so low that nothing can > redeem it.
"God help you if you dare suggest we've heard enough", I said, and by golly here it comes.
But I suppose it's too much to ask you don't put words in my mouth.
"Please leave. All of you. The project is more important than your pride, and you are dragging it down; this situation is never going to improve unless someone walks away." Andrew Gray, Wed Aug 1 14:41:22 UTC 2007 http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-August/078379.html
"Please. For the good of the project, turn around and walk away." Andrew Gray, Thu Aug 2 02:35:38 UTC 2007 http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-August/078422.html
Ah, yes, that last one...
"Like I said originally, this is not personal; this is not because I dislike any of the participants ... I feel a heel saying it. I wish the situation wasn't where it's got to."
"This whole thing is ballooning bigger and bigger as time goes on; what you are doing is harming the project, and if it goes on much further the incremental damage will be that much worse."
It doesn't seem to have changed much.
Right, I didn't put words in your mouth after all, as you claimed, and you're still posting the same nonsense. Frankly, given your attitude, Wikipedia would be better off without you; nothing personal, and I wish it weren't so, but it's clear you should just leave.
Any progress on the pausing-to-see-if-your-next-email-is helpful front, Jay? Or the not-replying-unless-its-ontopic front? Or the raising-the-level-of-discourse-on-this-list front? No?
I've successfully managed all of those things; you, unfortunately, have failed on all those fronts.
Where have you raised the level of discourse? How have your recent emails, all of which focus on the perceived misdeeds of individuals on this list rather than on the actual problems we are attempting to solve, stayed on-topic (see the subject line) or been helpful at all? Please shape up. I'll pass over the childish "Not me, but you!" stuff, shall I? You probably regret it. Pausing before replying helps.
I believe this thread started going awry when somebody hijacked it a couple of days ago to make false claims about the cyberstalking list that have already been repeatedly refuted. Now, I wonder who that might be? Hmm: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-December/087150.html
I quote that email from me in its entirety here, "The cyberstalking list saw the !! email, which contained a vast error of judgment, namely the implication that an obvious returning account was a disruptive returning account; that error of judgment was unchecked, in that nobody appeared to correct it prior to an (undiscussed on-list) block; the list appears to contain several respected editors."
What precisely has been 'refuted'? Or is pushing the "everyone who disagrees with me is doing so only because they just don't listen, and all things have been satisfactorily explained, it was only 75 minutes after all, theyre all such whingers" meme so important that barefaced misdirection of this sort (not just 'refuted', but 'repeatedly') is now permissible?
Again, caricaturing opposing viewpoints is never helpful.
I haven't caricatured anyone, you've done a great job all on your own.
Really? All I've said is that your misdirection is extremely unhelpful. For an example, see above. That's not a caricature, that's a very lifelike photograph.
RR
On Dec 11, 2007 1:10 AM, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 11, 2007 8:25 AM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007 8:48 PM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
jayjg wrote:
Hello, Relata Refero! I thought people had stopped making this claim weeks ago. Care to step in and educate Risker as to the current party line?
If people stopped making the claim weeks ago, why do you have to keep repeating that fact over and over again now?
Because, contrary to today's lengthy statement to the contrary by Relata Refero, they are, in fact, still making that claim. In fact, Risker just made the claim again, a few posts up this thread. In the future please actually read the e-mails on the list before responding.
Yes, Jay, given that you attacked Alec at length and incoherently for making the claim, had it pointed out that he hadn't made that claim, and are now seizing on a statement, subsequently clarified, by someone completely different, completely justifies your hijacking this and several other threads.
Relata Refero, I'm not the one who continually brings up the subject, and please try to remain civil.
On 10/12/2007, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
There's a big difference between an impromptu sanity check and a regularized mailing list. You still haven't gotten around to explaining why people felt the need to go off-wiki to create solutions to big-picture on-wiki issues such as harassment and cyberstalking.
Er, you're asking: why would victims of cyberstalking not conduct a discussion in the venue they're being stalked in?
- d.
On Dec 11, 2007 2:51 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/12/2007, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
There's a big difference between an impromptu sanity check and a
regularized
mailing list. You still haven't gotten around to explaining why people
felt
the need to go off-wiki to create solutions to big-picture on-wiki
issues
such as harassment and cyberstalking.
Er, you're asking: why would victims of cyberstalking not conduct a discussion in the venue they're being stalked in?
No, I was asking why people who were trying to develop the Wikipedia Anti-Harassment and Anti-Stalking program were doing so off-site. Hardly any of the victims were at the tea party; it was by invitation only, and if you didn't get the invite you didn't know the party was happening.
- d.
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 Dec 11, 2007 6:56 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 11, 2007 2:51 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/12/2007, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
There's a big difference between an impromptu sanity check and a
regularized
mailing list. You still haven't gotten around to explaining why people
felt
the need to go off-wiki to create solutions to big-picture on-wiki
issues
such as harassment and cyberstalking.
Er, you're asking: why would victims of cyberstalking not conduct a discussion in the venue they're being stalked in?
No, I was asking why people who were trying to develop the Wikipedia Anti-Harassment and Anti-Stalking program were doing so off-site. Hardly any of the victims were at the tea party;
How do you know that?
On Dec 11, 2007 3:56 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
No, I was asking why people who were trying to develop the Wikipedia Anti-Harassment and Anti-Stalking program were doing so off-site. Hardly any of the victims were at the tea party; it was by invitation only, and if you didn't get the invite you didn't know the party was happening.
Because the cowardly little creeps who stalk and harass take pride in the discomfort of their victims. That seems to be the whole point of their behavior. "Oh look, I made XXX so upset she told on me!" This is compounded by the adolescent mentality that says things like "If you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen", "Your skin is too thin", and "you're a lightning rod for troublemakers, you should leave". Such discussions are of necessity done in private; the privacy was intended to create a safer place to air such issues.
A natural part of the stalking discussion related to sockpuppets. One particularly pernicious stalker -- one who has been jailed in meatspace for his actions -- has used well over a hundred sockpuppets (and that's just counting the ones we bother tagging with {{sockpuppet}}; I'm of the opinion that we should [[WP:DENY]] even that, but it's something of a bookkeeping issue.) . It's a favored form of attack. So the discussion dealt with how to recognize sockpuppets from the start. That's the context in which Durova's "sleuthing" arose; but the infamous email was (at least in my eyes) just a "by the way, this is how I do it", and since many -- most? -- of the participants in the discussion were already pretty familiar with sockpuppet-identification techniques, nobody so much as responded to the email.
I was disappointed when Durova gave up her sysop bit; ArbCom certainly wasn't going to remove it for a single faulty (and quickly reversed) block.
The walls of this tiny teapot have been expanded far more than is reasonable by an essentially pointless tempest.
On Dec 11, 2007 6:56 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 11, 2007 2:51 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/12/2007, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
There's a big difference between an impromptu sanity check and a
regularized
mailing list. You still haven't gotten around to explaining why people
felt
the need to go off-wiki to create solutions to big-picture on-wiki
issues
such as harassment and cyberstalking.
Er, you're asking: why would victims of cyberstalking not conduct a discussion in the venue they're being stalked in?
No, I was asking why people who were trying to develop the Wikipedia Anti-Harassment and Anti-Stalking program were doing so off-site. Hardly any of the victims were at the tea party; it was by invitation only, and if you didn't get the invite you didn't know the party was happening.
Indeed. I haven't been directly involved in a harassment or stalking incident (yet; I figure that as long as I'm an active editor here my number's bound to come up eventually), but I'd like to be of use in the creation of a real Anti-Harassment and Anti-Stalking incident, because it's a Big Serious Deal. The seriousness of the issue, and my depth of caring about it, are also why I the current main advocates for victims of harassment annoy me so much; they handle their own cases poorly *and then turn around and encourage others to emulate their errors.* This is then compounded by displays of hostility towards anyone fool enough to question whatever the current approach is. Unlike the entire rest of the project, this is not an area we can give amateur opinions in and let our mistakes work themselves out; for the vast majority of victims, there <s>will</s> should be only one incident, and only one chance to get it right.
For the serious cases that are our real concern, we need involvement of professional law enforcement more than amateur sleuthing, restraining orders more than whack-a-mole blocks, and we need people to know when and how to invoke these things. Right now, our standard modus operandi is to blither around like drunken giants until things blow up out of control. We need to do better.
On Dec 11, 2007 2:30 PM, Michael Noda michael.noda@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 11, 2007 6:56 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 11, 2007 2:51 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/12/2007, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
There's a big difference between an impromptu sanity check and a
regularized
mailing list. You still haven't gotten around to explaining why people
felt
the need to go off-wiki to create solutions to big-picture on-wiki
issues
such as harassment and cyberstalking.
Er, you're asking: why would victims of cyberstalking not conduct a discussion in the venue they're being stalked in?
No, I was asking why people who were trying to develop the Wikipedia Anti-Harassment and Anti-Stalking program were doing so off-site. Hardly any of the victims were at the tea party; it was by invitation only, and if you didn't get the invite you didn't know the party was happening.
Indeed. I haven't been directly involved in a harassment or stalking incident (yet; I figure that as long as I'm an active editor here my number's bound to come up eventually), but I'd like to be of use in the creation of a real Anti-Harassment and Anti-Stalking incident, because it's a Big Serious Deal. The seriousness of the issue, and my depth of caring about it, are also why I the current main advocates for victims of harassment annoy me so much; they handle their own cases poorly *and then turn around and encourage others to emulate their errors.* This is then compounded by displays of hostility towards anyone fool enough to question whatever the current approach is. Unlike the entire rest of the project, this is not an area we can give amateur opinions in and let our mistakes work themselves out; for the vast majority of victims, there <s>will</s> should be only one incident, and only one chance to get it right.
For the serious cases that are our real concern, we need involvement of professional law enforcement more than amateur sleuthing, restraining orders more than whack-a-mole blocks, and we need people to know when and how to invoke these things. Right now, our standard modus operandi is to blither around like drunken giants until things blow up out of control. We need to do better.
I think the problem here is that unless the stalking is egregious, it's very hard to get the police involved. As far as I know there has been one successful instance of that, and in that case not only was the stalking beyond scary, but the stalker made the mistake of stalking several individuals, including one who happens to be quite well-known and wealthy. Even so, that stalker was out of jail within months, and continues to sockpuppet on Wikipedia.
So, what do you to in the cases where it's not serious enough to involved the police? Say, for example, people start investigating your edits, discover who you are, and call your elderly father, or an old girlfriend, or old work colleagues, or your boss. Perhaps they manage to get some scurrilous and damaging bit of invented nonsense published on slashdot or some sensationalist online rag. If the harasser doesn't do anything overtly threatening, then the police won't get involved. How can Wikipedia respond?
On Dec 12, 2007 1:29 AM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
So, what do you to in the cases where it's not serious enough to involved the police? Say, for example, people start investigating your edits, discover who you are, and call your elderly father, or an old girlfriend, or old work colleagues, or your boss. Perhaps they manage to get some scurrilous and damaging bit of invented nonsense published on slashdot or some sensationalist online rag. If the harasser doesn't do anything overtly threatening, then the police won't get involved. How can Wikipedia respond?
Is there a generally known occasion when someone has done this and not been banned from editing?
On 11/12/2007, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 12, 2007 1:29 AM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
So, what do you to in the cases where it's not serious enough to involved the police? Say, for example, people start investigating your edits, discover who you are, and call your elderly father, or an old girlfriend, or old work colleagues, or your boss. Perhaps they manage to get some scurrilous and damaging bit of invented nonsense published on slashdot or some sensationalist online rag. If the harasser doesn't do anything overtly threatening, then the police won't get involved. How can Wikipedia respond?
Is there a generally known occasion when someone has done this and not been banned from editing?
No. But saying "you're banned" does nothing to stop someone from editing if they really want to.
- d.
On Dec 11, 2007 2:59 PM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 11, 2007 2:30 PM, Michael Noda michael.noda@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed. I haven't been directly involved in a harassment or stalking incident (yet; I figure that as long as I'm an active editor here my number's bound to come up eventually), but I'd like to be of use in the creation of a real Anti-Harassment and Anti-Stalking incident, because it's a Big Serious Deal. The seriousness of the issue, and my depth of caring about it, are also why I the current main advocates for victims of harassment annoy me so much; they handle their own cases poorly *and then turn around and encourage others to emulate their errors.* This is then compounded by displays of hostility towards anyone fool enough to question whatever the current approach is. Unlike the entire rest of the project, this is not an area we can give amateur opinions in and let our mistakes work themselves out; for the vast majority of victims, there <s>will</s> should be only one incident, and only one chance to get it right.
For the serious cases that are our real concern, we need involvement of professional law enforcement more than amateur sleuthing, restraining orders more than whack-a-mole blocks, and we need people to know when and how to invoke these things. Right now, our standard modus operandi is to blither around like drunken giants until things blow up out of control. We need to do better.
I think the problem here is that unless the stalking is egregious, it's very hard to get the police involved. As far as I know there has been one successful instance of that, and in that case not only was the stalking beyond scary, but the stalker made the mistake of stalking several individuals, including one who happens to be quite well-known and wealthy. Even so, that stalker was out of jail within months, and continues to sockpuppet on Wikipedia.
So, what do you to in the cases where it's not serious enough to involved the police? Say, for example, people start investigating your edits, discover who you are, and call your elderly father, or an old girlfriend, or old work colleagues, or your boss. Perhaps they manage to get some scurrilous and damaging bit of invented nonsense published on slashdot or some sensationalist online rag. If the harasser doesn't do anything overtly threatening, then the police won't get involved. How can Wikipedia respond?
As it happens, Kelly Martin outlines exactly how one does this (and otherwise successfully create an anti-stalking policy environment) in a blog post that went up in the last couple hours.
Relevant excerpt:
"Had the Foundation formally notified a stalker that he or she was denied permission to access Wikipedia, the Foundation could then press charges for computer trespass against the stalker when he or she subsequently accessed the site. Such charges would give the authorities leverage to put the perp away; proving that case is far easier than proving the much harder stalking or harassment case -- especially when the victim refuses to personally identify himself or herself to authorities."
(The rest of the post is definitely worth reading. It can be found at http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/2007/12/wikipedia-al-qaeda.html It is, of course, in Ms. Martin's inimitable style; but she's not wrong on this.)
On Dec 11, 2007 3:08 PM, Michael Noda michael.noda@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 11, 2007 2:59 PM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 11, 2007 2:30 PM, Michael Noda michael.noda@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed. I haven't been directly involved in a harassment or stalking incident (yet; I figure that as long as I'm an active editor here my number's bound to come up eventually), but I'd like to be of use in the creation of a real Anti-Harassment and Anti-Stalking incident, because it's a Big Serious Deal. The seriousness of the issue, and my depth of caring about it, are also why I the current main advocates for victims of harassment annoy me so much; they handle their own cases poorly *and then turn around and encourage others to emulate their errors.* This is then compounded by displays of hostility towards anyone fool enough to question whatever the current approach is. Unlike the entire rest of the project, this is not an area we can give amateur opinions in and let our mistakes work themselves out; for the vast majority of victims, there <s>will</s> should be only one incident, and only one chance to get it right.
For the serious cases that are our real concern, we need involvement of professional law enforcement more than amateur sleuthing, restraining orders more than whack-a-mole blocks, and we need people to know when and how to invoke these things. Right now, our standard modus operandi is to blither around like drunken giants until things blow up out of control. We need to do better.
I think the problem here is that unless the stalking is egregious, it's very hard to get the police involved. As far as I know there has been one successful instance of that, and in that case not only was the stalking beyond scary, but the stalker made the mistake of stalking several individuals, including one who happens to be quite well-known and wealthy. Even so, that stalker was out of jail within months, and continues to sockpuppet on Wikipedia.
So, what do you to in the cases where it's not serious enough to involved the police? Say, for example, people start investigating your edits, discover who you are, and call your elderly father, or an old girlfriend, or old work colleagues, or your boss. Perhaps they manage to get some scurrilous and damaging bit of invented nonsense published on slashdot or some sensationalist online rag. If the harasser doesn't do anything overtly threatening, then the police won't get involved. How can Wikipedia respond?
As it happens, Kelly Martin outlines exactly how one does this (and otherwise successfully create an anti-stalking policy environment) in a blog post that went up in the last couple hours.
Relevant excerpt:
"Had the Foundation formally notified a stalker that he or she was denied permission to access Wikipedia, the Foundation could then press charges for computer trespass against the stalker when he or she subsequently accessed the site. Such charges would give the authorities leverage to put the perp away; proving that case is far easier than proving the much harder stalking or harassment case -- especially when the victim refuses to personally identify himself or herself to authorities."
(The rest of the post is definitely worth reading. It can be found at http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/2007/12/wikipedia-al-qaeda.html It is, of course, in Ms. Martin's inimitable style; but she's not wrong on this.)
Well, it's an opinion, anyway. This sentence "Wikipedia instead established its own investigative office, where they basically sanctioned the stalking of people they identified as stalkers" is at best an enormous misunderstanding, at worst a deliberate falsehood, and it's not the first such I've seen from that blog, so I'd take everything posted there with an equally enormous grain of salt.
Regarding Wikipedia's legal options, it would be good to get the opinion of a lawyer on this - for example, Mike Godwin, Wikipedia's legal counsel.
On Dec 11, 2007 3:21 PM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 11, 2007 3:08 PM, Michael Noda michael.noda@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 11, 2007 2:59 PM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 11, 2007 2:30 PM, Michael Noda michael.noda@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed. I haven't been directly involved in a harassment or stalking incident (yet; I figure that as long as I'm an active editor here my number's bound to come up eventually), but I'd like to be of use in the creation of a real Anti-Harassment and Anti-Stalking incident, because it's a Big Serious Deal. The seriousness of the issue, and my depth of caring about it, are also why I the current main advocates for victims of harassment annoy me so much; they handle their own cases poorly *and then turn around and encourage others to emulate their errors.* This is then compounded by displays of hostility towards anyone fool enough to question whatever the current approach is. Unlike the entire rest of the project, this is not an area we can give amateur opinions in and let our mistakes work themselves out; for the vast majority of victims, there <s>will</s> should be only one incident, and only one chance to get it right.
For the serious cases that are our real concern, we need involvement of professional law enforcement more than amateur sleuthing, restraining orders more than whack-a-mole blocks, and we need people to know when and how to invoke these things. Right now, our standard modus operandi is to blither around like drunken giants until things blow up out of control. We need to do better.
I think the problem here is that unless the stalking is egregious, it's very hard to get the police involved. As far as I know there has been one successful instance of that, and in that case not only was the stalking beyond scary, but the stalker made the mistake of stalking several individuals, including one who happens to be quite well-known and wealthy. Even so, that stalker was out of jail within months, and continues to sockpuppet on Wikipedia.
So, what do you to in the cases where it's not serious enough to involved the police? Say, for example, people start investigating your edits, discover who you are, and call your elderly father, or an old girlfriend, or old work colleagues, or your boss. Perhaps they manage to get some scurrilous and damaging bit of invented nonsense published on slashdot or some sensationalist online rag. If the harasser doesn't do anything overtly threatening, then the police won't get involved. How can Wikipedia respond?
As it happens, Kelly Martin outlines exactly how one does this (and otherwise successfully create an anti-stalking policy environment) in a blog post that went up in the last couple hours.
Relevant excerpt:
"Had the Foundation formally notified a stalker that he or she was denied permission to access Wikipedia, the Foundation could then press charges for computer trespass against the stalker when he or she subsequently accessed the site. Such charges would give the authorities leverage to put the perp away; proving that case is far easier than proving the much harder stalking or harassment case -- especially when the victim refuses to personally identify himself or herself to authorities."
(The rest of the post is definitely worth reading. It can be found at http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/2007/12/wikipedia-al-qaeda.html It is, of course, in Ms. Martin's inimitable style; but she's not wrong on this.)
Well, it's an opinion, anyway. This sentence "Wikipedia instead established its own investigative office, where they basically sanctioned the stalking of people they identified as stalkers" is at best an enormous misunderstanding, at worst a deliberate falsehood, and it's not the first such I've seen from that blog, so I'd take everything posted there with an equally enormous grain of salt.
If we discount the obviously true because it comes from a source that has an error elsewhere on a barely related subject, then we're in the wrong project and need to go do something else instead of building an encyclopedia, because that way lies madness.
Regarding Wikipedia's legal options, it would be good to get the opinion of a lawyer on this - for example, Mike Godwin, Wikipedia's legal counsel.
So it would. Does he read this list, or should this get kicked over to juriwiki?
Quoting Michael Noda michael.noda@gmail.com:
On Dec 11, 2007 2:59 PM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
So, what do you to in the cases where it's not serious enough to involved the police? Say, for example, people start investigating your edits, discover who you are, and call your elderly father, or an old girlfriend, or old work colleagues, or your boss. Perhaps they manage to get some scurrilous and damaging bit of invented nonsense published on slashdot or some sensationalist online rag. If the harasser doesn't do anything overtly threatening, then the police won't get involved. How can Wikipedia respond?
As it happens, Kelly Martin outlines exactly how one does this (and otherwise successfully create an anti-stalking policy environment) in a blog post that went up in the last couple hours.
Relevant excerpt:
"Had the Foundation formally notified a stalker that he or she was denied permission to access Wikipedia, the Foundation could then press charges for computer trespass against the stalker when he or she subsequently accessed the site. Such charges would give the authorities leverage to put the perp away; proving that case is far easier than proving the much harder stalking or harassment case -- especially when the victim refuses to personally identify himself or herself to authorities."
(The rest of the post is definitely worth reading. It can be found at http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/2007/12/wikipedia-al-qaeda.html It is, of course, in Ms. Martin's inimitable style; but she's not wrong on this.)
Well, I'm not generally a fan of Kelly but this makes an excellent point. My only concern is that having the Foundation get that involved could intertwine the Foundation with the individual projects more than we want. The Foundation is more important than any one editor and we must make sure that it is not liable. That said, this might work. Has anyone discussed it with Foundation higher ups.
On Dec 11, 2007 3:32 PM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Well, I'm not generally a fan of Kelly but this makes an excellent point. My only concern is that having the Foundation get that involved could intertwine the Foundation with the individual projects more than we want. The Foundation is more important than any one editor and we must make sure that it is not liable.
I say so what if it's potentially liable. If the Foundation doesn't step in and do something, it's worthless anyway.
That said, there are lots of ways to separate liability. A separate foundation which leases the domain name and servers from the WMF, for instance.
On Dec 11, 2007 3:08 PM, Michael Noda michael.noda@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 11, 2007 2:59 PM, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
How can Wikipedia respond?
As it happens, Kelly Martin outlines exactly how one does this (and otherwise successfully create an anti-stalking policy environment) in a blog post that went up in the last couple hours.
Relevant excerpt:
"Had the Foundation formally notified a stalker that he or she was denied permission to access Wikipedia, the Foundation could then press charges for computer trespass against the stalker when he or she subsequently accessed the site. Such charges would give the authorities leverage to put the perp away; proving that case is far easier than proving the much harder stalking or harassment case -- especially when the victim refuses to personally identify himself or herself to authorities."
Damn straight. Wikipedia's arb com circus courts are more harm than good. An enforcible ban needs to come from the board or an agent of the foundation, not Jimbo, and not the arb com (at least, not unless Jimbo and/or arb com are named in a resolution as an agent of the foundation). Until that is done, a ban isn't a real world event, it's just a play in the Wikipedia MMORPG.
We're talking about a website with about as many visitors as Myspace. Imagine if Myspace had a bunch of volunteers deciding how to handle stalkers and other criminals who use its website. Imagine the CEO of Myspace was talking about the problem with some of these volunteers on a "private" Wikia mailing list. Imagine if Myspace had volunteer sleuths ban people based on evidence that they refused to reveal. Imagine if Myspace had public trials published on their website whenever they wanted to ban someone. Wikipedia needs to grow up.
Quoting Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
We're talking about a website with about as many visitors as Myspace. Imagine if Myspace had a bunch of volunteers deciding how to handle stalkers and other criminals who use its website. Imagine the CEO of Myspace was talking about the problem with some of these volunteers on a "private" Wikia mailing list. Imagine if Myspace had volunteer sleuths ban people based on evidence that they refused to reveal. Imagine if Myspace had public trials published on their website whenever they wanted to ban someone. Wikipedia needs to grow up.
I don't see whats so bad about "public trials"- transparency is a good thing. The rest I'm somewhat inclined to agree with, but the liability concern for the Foundation if it does this sort of thing is serious. This would need to be very carefully thought out.
On Dec 12, 2007 11:08 AM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
We're talking about a website with about as many visitors as Myspace. Imagine if Myspace had a bunch of volunteers deciding how to handle stalkers and other criminals who use its website. Imagine the CEO of Myspace was talking about the problem with some of these volunteers on a "private" Wikia mailing list. Imagine if Myspace had volunteer sleuths ban people based on evidence that they refused to reveal. Imagine if Myspace had public trials published on their website whenever they wanted to ban someone. Wikipedia needs to grow up.
I don't see whats so bad about "public trials"- transparency is a good thing.
It's not just that it's public. It's that it's virtually uncontrolled as to what nonsense people can post about others on it. It's that the entire transcript (of virtually everything, from the evidence gathering through the questioning through the deliberations through the decision) is made public on the web, on a page which shows up very highly in the search engines, released under a free license which others are encouraged to mirror. It's that much of it is incorrect and/or misleading and/or libelous. I think it's pretty clearly bad. But my comment was to imagine if Myspace did it. There's a tendency to think of Wikipedia like an MMORPG, which I think blinds us to some extent from how obviously bad some of the policies are.
The rest I'm somewhat inclined to agree with, but the liability concern for the Foundation if it does this sort of thing is serious. This would need to be very carefully thought out.
What exactly is the liability concern? The idea that the WMF is somehow escaping liability by running its website in a way completely different from every other major website doesn't strike me as logical.
And it's even more clearly unethical. I'm reminded of the situation where a group of EMTs let someone drown because they were afraid of the liability they'd incur if they had tried to save him. A more extreme case? I guess. I don't think anyone has died as a direct result of Wikipedia yet. But that's what this line of reasoning reminds me of.
Quoting Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
I don't see whats so bad about "public trials"- transparency is a good thing.
It's not just that it's public. It's that it's virtually uncontrolled as to what nonsense people can post about others on it. It's that the entire transcript (of virtually everything, from the evidence gathering through the questioning through the deliberations through the decision) is made public on the web, on a page which shows up very highly in the search engines, released under a free license which others are encouraged to mirror.
Well, we have engaged in courtesy blanking of RfArs before. And if someone acts like a jerk enough such that the RfAr is damaging to them, I don't have much sympathy.
It's that much of it is incorrect and/or misleading and/or libelous.
Libelous is a concern but I don't recall seeing much in the way of libel, and unless you think a large fraction of the findings of fact are libelous then I fail to see any serious issue.
I think it's pretty clearly bad. But my comment was to imagine if Myspace did it. There's a tendency to think of Wikipedia like an MMORPG, which I think blinds us to some extent from how obviously bad some of the policies are.
Frankly, I've never understood this comparison to an MMOPRG and don't see how it is relevant here. Our greatest strength is transparency. There are occasions where we need to sacrifice but I don't see a compelling reason to do so for routine matters like ArbCom proceedings.
The rest I'm somewhat inclined to agree with, but the liability concern for the Foundation if it does this sort of thing is serious. This would need to be very carefully thought out.
What exactly is the liability concern? The idea that the WMF is somehow escaping liability by running its website in a way completely different from every other major website doesn't strike me as logical.
The Foundation isn't in general liable for content on Wikipedia and the allied projects because it is put their by volunteers. Hosts of content(that isn't the technical term and I don't remember the correct term off the top of my head) are generally protected if they take basic steps and respond quickly to requests to remove highly problematic content. If the Foundation got more involved in the projects it could easily become more liable for libel or copyright issues.
And it's even more clearly unethical. I'm reminded of the situation where a group of EMTs let someone drown because they were afraid of the liability they'd incur if they had tried to save him. A more extreme case? I guess. I don't think anyone has died as a direct result of Wikipedia yet. But that's what this line of reasoning reminds me of.
Excuse me? I fail to see the connection. The Foundation is more valuable than making a few people uncomfortable because of what happens when you google their name (especially when again it is in the case of RfArs generally their own fault). Let's not forget that the English Wikipedia is one of the most visited websites on the internet even before we start getting to the other projects. And the Foundation runs on a tiny budget. The Foundation must be protected for damage to the Foundation can easily become damage to humanity's ability to access free information.
On 11/12/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Imagine if Myspace had public trials published on their website whenever they wanted to ban someone.
Doing this would make the Internet about two or three orders of magnitude more amusing. Do they have a suggestions form?
On 12/12/2007, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/12/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Imagine if Myspace had public trials published on their website whenever they wanted to ban someone.
Doing this would make the Internet about two or three orders of magnitude more amusing. Do they have a suggestions form?
Given SixApart's recent idiocies (and, despite selling the site to SUP, sending their greatest public relations disasters along to work at the other company), you could probably actually get support for this idea on LiveJournal.
- d.
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 20:08 +0000, David Gerard wrote:
Given SixApart's recent idiocies (and, despite selling the site to SUP, sending their greatest public relations disasters along to work at the other company), you could probably actually get support for this idea on LiveJournal.
6A/LiveJournal prefers to act on decisions made in secret, then face the community backlash.
On 12/12/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/2007, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/12/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Imagine if Myspace had public trials published on their website whenever they wanted to ban someone.
Doing this would make the Internet about two or three orders of magnitude more amusing. Do they have a suggestions form?
Given SixApart's recent idiocies (and, despite selling the site to SUP, sending their greatest public relations disasters along to work at the other company), you could probably actually get support for this idea on LiveJournal.
Eh they are apparently including community memebers in an advisory board as inspired by us. I kinda hope any inspiration in that area doesn't go the other way.
(Cancelled and resent, due to mod bounce for quote length, sorry if this is a dupe.)
This may be a stupid question, and beside the main point, but what kind of website owner can be banned and locked out of his own website? Call me Machiavellian, but if someone banned me from my own private website, I would shut the thing off, or redirect the domain name to a placeholder (or any number of things that an "owner" can do to wrest control back), and clean house big time. It's a friggin' blog, ferchristssakes. The lunatics have taken over his asylum, and he needs to protect his investment and break out the straight jackets.
That is all, Crockspot
On 12/12/07, crock spot crockspot@gmail.com wrote:
(Cancelled and resent, due to mod bounce for quote length, sorry if this is a dupe.)
This may be a stupid question, and beside the main point, but what kind of website owner can be banned and locked out of his own website? Call me Machiavellian, but if someone banned me from my own private website, I would shut the thing off, or redirect the domain name to a placeholder (or any number of things that an "owner" can do to wrest control back), and clean house big time. It's a friggin' blog, ferchristssakes. The lunatics have taken over his asylum, and he needs to protect his investment and break out the straight jackets.
That is all, Crockspot
I can only assume you mean Jimbo here - and I will simply state that Jimbo very pointedly *does not* own Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation owns Wikipedia.
If you are referring to someone else, please be more specific.
Risker
_______________________________________________
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 Dec 12, 2007 8:21 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I can only assume you mean Jimbo here - and I will simply state that Jimbo very pointedly *does not* own Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation owns Wikipedia.
If you are referring to someone else, please be more specific.
It's generally a good idea to read a thread before responding to it; the
very first message in this discussion will answer your question and show how making assumptions without studying the underlying data can be rhetorically risky.
On Dec 12, 2007 11:30 AM, Josh Gordon user.jpgordon@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 12, 2007 8:21 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I can only assume you mean Jimbo here - and I will simply state that Jimbo very pointedly *does not* own Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation owns Wikipedia.
If you are referring to someone else, please be more specific.
It's generally a good idea to read a thread before responding to it; the
very first message in this discussion will answer your question and show how making assumptions without studying the underlying data can be rhetorically risky.
The very context should have made Risker think twice - Crockspot mentions the website in question as being a blog.
Johnleemk
I was referring to Wikipedia Review.
CS
On Dec 12, 2007 11:38 AM, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 12, 2007 11:30 AM, Josh Gordon user.jpgordon@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 12, 2007 8:21 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I can only assume you mean Jimbo here - and I will simply state that
Jimbo
very pointedly *does not* own Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation
owns
Wikipedia.
If you are referring to someone else, please be more specific.
It's generally a good idea to read a thread before responding to it;
the
very first message in this discussion will answer your question and show
how
making assumptions without studying the underlying data can be
rhetorically
risky.
The very context should have made Risker think twice - Crockspot mentions the website in question as being a blog.
Johnleemk
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 12/12/07, crock spot crockspot@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 12, 2007 11:38 AM, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
The very context should have made Risker think twice - Crockspot mentions the website in question as being a blog.
I was referring to Wikipedia Review.
"Forum" would have been a more obvious term.
—C.W.
On Dec 12, 2007 1:56 PM, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/07, crock spot crockspot@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 12, 2007 11:38 AM, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
The very context should have made Risker think twice - Crockspot mentions the website in question as being a blog.
I was referring to Wikipedia Review.
"Forum" would have been a more obvious term.
—C.W.
But "blog" is so much more demeaning. :)
cs
Ouch - I earned that trout. Sorry, was reading two threads at once and got mixed up. No more multitasking.
Risker
On 12/12/07, crock spot crockspot@gmail.com wrote:
I was referring to Wikipedia Review.
CS
On Dec 12, 2007 11:38 AM, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 12, 2007 11:30 AM, Josh Gordon user.jpgordon@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 12, 2007 8:21 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I can only assume you mean Jimbo here - and I will simply state that
Jimbo
very pointedly *does not* own Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation
owns
Wikipedia.
If you are referring to someone else, please be more specific.
It's generally a good idea to read a thread before responding to it;
the
very first message in this discussion will answer your question and
show
how
making assumptions without studying the underlying data can be
rhetorically
risky.
The very context should have made Risker think twice - Crockspot mentions the website in question as being a blog.
Johnleemk
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 12/12/2007, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Ouch - I earned that trout. Sorry, was reading two threads at once and got mixed up. No more multitasking.
I suggest everyone on this thread talk about our coverage in The Sun instead, to raise the tone of the list.
- d.
Terrible coverage. It didn't even mention the fact that the list the Sun discusses was nominated for deletion five times. What does it say about the amount of time that I spend worrying about WP that the *first* thing I wondered was whether it was better as a category?
And yes, I confess to some curiosity as to the 'company source' quoted.
RR
On Dec 13, 2007 1:29 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/2007, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Ouch - I earned that trout. Sorry, was reading two threads at once and got mixed up. No more multitasking.
I suggest everyone on this thread talk about our coverage in The Sun instead, to raise the tone of the list.
- d.
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 12/12/2007, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
Terrible coverage. It didn't even mention the fact that the list the Sun discusses was nominated for deletion five times. What does it say about the amount of time that I spend worrying about WP that the *first* thing I wondered was whether it was better as a category?
That that time wasn't enough. If it was you would have long since been aware of the article and already done any considering.
On 12/12/2007, Relata Refero refero.relata@gmail.com wrote:
Terrible coverage. It didn't even mention the fact that the list the Sun discusses was nominated for deletion five times. What does it say about the amount of time that I spend worrying about WP that the *first* thing I wondered was whether it was better as a category?
Bad journalism from The Sun? But it's Britain's most popular newspaper!
And yes, I confess to some curiosity as to the 'company source' quoted.
The journalist apparently did the Big Brother beat, watching as part of the 24-hour rotating shifts:
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=37866&am...
- d.