Armed Blowfish apparently get e-mails through to the list, and has asked me to forward this.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com Date: Aug 1, 2007 10:03 PM Subject: The Second Rape: Victim-Blaming (was Re: [WikiEN-l] Self-sensorship, how far should it go?) To: jayjg99@gmail.com
I am truly depressed by the lack of support SlimVirgin is receiving from certain individuals on this list, but at the same time, not surprised. Victim-blaming has a long and horrific history. When it happens to rape victims, it is called 'the second rape'... to victims of assault, 'the second assault'... or, to cover all situations, victim-blaming or secondary victimisation.
The far-too-frequent society response to victims of rape, violence and harassment - to abandon her, to blame her, to insult her - is severely psychologically damaging to the victim, and helps keep perpetrators safe to continue these abuses.
The experience of Serena, who was ultimately banned from her classrooms and friends after being raped: http://www.justicewomen.com/cj_second_rape.html
An introduction to the phenomena of 'The Second Rape', geared towards helping victims deal with it, and explaining why it happens, along with a few typical examples: http://www.justicewomen.com/help_special_rape.html#two
Some survey results on the topic of secondary victimisation: http://www.musc.edu/vawprevention/research/victimrape.shtml
On 01/08/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/08/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see any good coming from giving into trolls and stalkers. The fact that a bunch of disgruntled, mostly banned ex-Wikipedians like to spin conspiracy theories, and occasionally disrupt Wikipedia, should simply be ignored. Not discussed on Wikipedia, not discussed here, just ignored.
"Ignored" is one thing. "Silenced" just feeds the fire.
I note this thread began because a debate about Slim's identity, and the massive efforts gone to to conceal edits associated with her, *was on the front page of slashdot*. (Slashdot. Not Wikipedia Review, or Encyclopedia Dramatica, or anyone else; Slashdot, perhaps a classic example of our "natural supporters".) This led to a large amount of curiosity amongst our community. But a small group of people cracked down heavily on anyone trying to say "what the fuck is going on here?" on the wiki... which just further encouraged speculation about those efforts to conceal something.
An excerpt from the song 'The Second Rape' by Aus-Rotten: Defense attorney: Do you know the man who "allegedly" attacked you? Victim: Yes I know the man who raped me. Defense attorney: And isn't this man a friend of yours? Victim: Well I thought he was a friend of mine. Defense attorney: And were you drinking that night he 'allegedly" attacked you? Victim: I had a drink or two but is that a crime? Defense attorney: I'll ask the questions if you don't mind! -What were you wearing: How did you act? Victim: My wardrobe isn't an invitation for a man to attack. -I didn't act in any way to bring this on. Why am I on trail? What did I do wrong? Defense attorney: Could you tell the jury why you let this happen? Victim: I was in shock. I couldn't stop him. Defense attorney: You claim that you were raped but how do we know? Victim: I said no, I said no, no, no! Defense attorney: Isn't it true you're just a woman scorned? Victim: I'm a woman who's been raped and torn. Defense attorney: Your honor, I demand that this case be dismissed, -it all comes down to her word against his!
In the above, the attorney's questions are fairly typical - the victim's strength, not so typical. If you don't mind a long read, this paper is enlightening: http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1981/3/81.03.06.x.html#c
If you honestly don't see that this sort of behaviour is wasteful, counterproductive, inflammatory and - in the long run - just poisoning our reputation, then I am afraid my complaints are hopeless. But, by god, they were worth making.
At some point in the past, people fucked up, made enemies or handled something badly or just been unlucky in who they dealt with. Things have moved on, and developed, and we're now in a situation where they have no choice but to look foolish, or keep harming the project. The only reasonable solution here is for them to stop and walk away. Sooner or later, they have to realise this.
Just as the officials at Serena's school drove her out - putting her in independent study, banning her from her classrooms and friends - after she was raped by a classmate.
I will say it again - the people we are looking bad to now aren't the people who already thought the worst of us. We're now beginning to look like incompetent spiteful twerps to neutral third parties, and I see no indication it's ever going to improve. Essjay got us faintly amused newspaper coverage - what will "Wikipedia Covers Up Unknown Misdemeanours" look like?
The project is bigger than them, it is more important than a username, and I will not stand by to see it dragged down to protect their pride.
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
On the contrary, secondary victimisation is far more damaging not only to Wikipaedia, but to all of society. It teaches the perpetrators that they can get away with it, and the victims that they can't expect help. It helps abuse continue - both by participating in victimisation of current victims and by making it easier for future victimisation to occur to new victims.
And yet, far too often, victims are abandoned and blamed in the name of society... it's her fault the football team is calling her a ho... it's her fault a crime occurred against her in her own apartment... it's her fault she got raped.
Thanks for listening, Armed Blowfish
P.S. While I don't believe Andrew means to hurt anyone, people often hurt others without meaning to. Hence my attempt to explain why it hurts, in the hopes that this will stop.
On 8/2/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Armed Blowfish apparently get e-mails through to the list, and has asked me to forward this.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com Date: Aug 1, 2007 10:03 PM Subject: The Second Rape: Victim-Blaming (was Re: [WikiEN-l] Self-sensorship, how far should it go?) To: jayjg99@gmail.com
I am truly depressed by the lack of support SlimVirgin is receiving from certain individuals on this list, but at the same time, not surprised. Victim-blaming has a long and horrific history. When it happens to rape victims, it is called 'the second rape'... to victims of assault, 'the second assault'... or, to cover all situations, victim-blaming or secondary victimisation.
I think that sums up my feelings on this matter, too. I just cannot understand why Slim Virgin is being described as "a net detriment to the project" on account of attacks that are made by *her* by people we all recognise as either severely unbalanced or having an axe to grind. It quite disturbing.
On 8/1/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Armed Blowfish apparently get e-mails through to the list, and has asked me to forward this.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com Date: Aug 1, 2007 10:03 PM Subject: The Second Rape: Victim-Blaming (was Re: [WikiEN-l] Self-sensorship, how far should it go?) To: jayjg99@gmail.com
I am truly depressed by the lack of support SlimVirgin is receiving from certain individuals on this list, but at the same time, not surprised. Victim-blaming has a long and horrific history. When it happens to rape victims, it is called 'the second rape'... to victims of assault, 'the second assault'... or, to cover all situations, victim-blaming or secondary victimisation.
I think that sums up my feelings on this matter, too. I just cannot understand why Slim Virgin is being described as "a net detriment to the project" on account of attacks that are made by *her* by people we all recognise as either severely unbalanced or having an axe to grind. It quite disturbing.
The response you've described is so astoundingly lacking in empathy, and, frankly, wrong-headed and immoral on so many levels, that I find it frightening.
On 02/08/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
I think that sums up my feelings on this matter, too. I just cannot understand why Slim Virgin is being described as "a net detriment to the project" on account of attacks that are made by *her* by people we all recognise as either severely unbalanced or having an axe to grind. It quite disturbing.
The response you've described is so astoundingly lacking in empathy, and, frankly, wrong-headed and immoral on so many levels, that I find it frightening.
...and this is talking about an email which directly compared my comments to being a wilful apologist for rape.
It is six o'clock in the morning. I first recieved a copy of that charming email at two. I have been unable to sleep because of it. It is monstrously insulting, it is at best tangential, and it is completely inappropriate.
It is an smear and an allegation I cannot reply to, because of its scale, its implications, its emotive power, and the ability to glibly say "well, yes, but you would say that" to any response. It is an escalation of this discussion by several orders of magnitude, from a reasoned attempt to say "please stop" straight to "fuck off, you scumbag". I can't reply; I can't leave it hanging there.
I got it by email, sent both to me and to the list; it didn't get through, and I assumed it was moderated for one of the many possible reasons someone might object to its content. But you also, it seems, were sent a copy; you chose to send it here. And then you have the temerity to refer to a glib rewriting of my argument as "lacking in empathy ... wrong-headed and immoral".
I would have thought that would be better used to refer to the person who chose to equate me with a rape-apologist on some spurious analogy.
I had, seriously, hoped for better from this discussion. I don't *like* the fact that I had to stand up and complain; it's not the kind of man I am, and not the sort of thing I ever want to do again. But I felt it needed said, and there does not seem to be a shortage of others who feel just as frustrated by it.
I have tried to keep the discussion on a sensible level; I have tried patiently to explain my position and do so in what is as nonconfrontational a manner as possible, considering the rather uncomfortable nature of what I felt needed said. I am finding it hard to describe some of the responses as anything other than deliberately inflammatory.
On 8/2/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/08/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
I think that sums up my feelings on this matter, too. I just cannot understand why Slim Virgin is being described as "a net detriment to the project" on account of attacks that are made by *her* by people we all recognise as either severely unbalanced or having an axe to grind. It quite disturbing.
The response you've described is so astoundingly lacking in empathy, and, frankly, wrong-headed and immoral on so many levels, that I find it frightening.
...and this is talking about an email which directly compared my comments to being a wilful apologist for rape.
It is six o'clock in the morning. I first recieved a copy of that charming email at two. I have been unable to sleep because of it. It is monstrously insulting, it is at best tangential, and it is completely inappropriate.
It is an smear and an allegation I cannot reply to, because of its scale, its implications, its emotive power, and the ability to glibly say "well, yes, but you would say that" to any response. It is an escalation of this discussion by several orders of magnitude, from a reasoned attempt to say "please stop" straight to "fuck off, you scumbag". I can't reply; I can't leave it hanging there.
I got it by email, sent both to me and to the list; it didn't get through, and I assumed it was moderated for one of the many possible reasons someone might object to its content. But you also, it seems, were sent a copy; you chose to send it here. And then you have the temerity to refer to a glib rewriting of my argument as "lacking in empathy ... wrong-headed and immoral".
I would have thought that would be better used to refer to the person who chose to equate me with a rape-apologist on some spurious analogy.
I had, seriously, hoped for better from this discussion. I don't *like* the fact that I had to stand up and complain; it's not the kind of man I am, and not the sort of thing I ever want to do again. But I felt it needed said, and there does not seem to be a shortage of others who feel just as frustrated by it.
I have tried to keep the discussion on a sensible level; I have tried patiently to explain my position and do so in what is as nonconfrontational a manner as possible, considering the rather uncomfortable nature of what I felt needed said. I am finding it hard to describe some of the responses as anything other than deliberately inflammatory.
Repeatedly telling people they should leave Wikipedia because stalkers and crazies are saying nasty things about them cannot help but be confrontational, no matter how many times you put the word "Please" before "leave".
On 02/08/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Repeatedly telling people they should leave Wikipedia because stalkers and crazies are saying nasty things about them cannot help but be confrontational, no matter how many times you put the word "Please" before "leave".
I asked people to leave because they were bringing the project into disrepute.
What causes that problem - whether it be bad luck in picking their enemies in her case, or simply an unwillingness to leave an unsatisfactory situation alone in the case of others, is pretty much irrelevant, because as things stand now there is no solution. There is no way we can make this problem get better by fighting it.
Yes, that sucks. No, I don't like it either.
On 8/2/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/08/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Repeatedly telling people they should leave Wikipedia because stalkers and crazies are saying nasty things about them cannot help but be confrontational, no matter how many times you put the word "Please" before "leave".
I asked people to leave because they were bringing the project into disrepute.
If these nonsensical conspiracy theories were given any credence by Wikipedians, and especially if the people being stalked left as a result (giving the impression that the accusations were true), then *that* would bring Wikipedia into disrepute.
Jayjg wrote:
If these nonsensical conspiracy theories were given any credence by Wikipedians, and especially if the people being stalked left as a result (giving the impression that the accusations were true), then *that* would bring Wikipedia into disrepute.
As has been amply demonstrated by now, strenuously deleting mention of them gives them ample credence, or at least legs.
Jayjg wrote:
Repeatedly telling people they should leave Wikipedia because stalkers and crazies are saying nasty things about them cannot help but be confrontational, no matter how many times you put the word "Please" before "leave".
He did not say they should leave because stalkers and crazies are saying nasty things about them. He said they should leave because they're unable to deal with stalkers and crazies saying nasty things about them, *and* because they insist on involving the rest of the project in their inability to deal.
(Me, I'm not saying they should leave. But let's be clear on why Andrew said what he said, because the issue is a seriously important one. If not ask certain people to leave, we *do* need to find ways of helping them better deal with the -- apparently inevitable -- stalkers and crazies. We *do* need to find ways of keeping the rest of the project from getting sucked into these interminable dramas.)
On 8/2/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Jayjg wrote:
Repeatedly telling people they should leave Wikipedia because stalkers and crazies are saying nasty things about them cannot help but be confrontational, no matter how many times you put the word "Please" before "leave".
He did not say they should leave because stalkers and crazies are saying nasty things about them. He said they should leave because they're unable to deal with stalkers and crazies saying nasty things about them, *and* because they insist on involving the rest of the project in their inability to deal.
Who is unable to deal with it, and what is your indication of that? Who is involving the rest of the project, and how? I'm finding these vague statements extremely tiring and confusing; and, frankly, Andrew has already given a different explanation of his words.
on 8/2/07 1:12 AM, Steve Summit at scs@eskimo.com wrote:
If not ask certain people to leave, we *do* need to find ways of helping them better deal with the -- apparently inevitable -- stalkers and crazies. We *do* need to find ways of keeping the rest of the project from getting sucked into these interminable dramas.)
Yes we do, Steve. We do need to find ways to protect BOTH our people and the project. However, this is going to take serious interest, and action, at the highest levels of leadership in Wikipedia.
This thread is stunning! It presents to a number of profound problems at the very core of the Project - all involving it's people. Is it going to be taken seriously by the leadership? Or, as one person stated, he was waiting for the thread to burn itself out, so he could focus on other threads!
A bridge collapsed last evening in Minneapolis, Minnesota. As was reported later, this very bridge had been inspected and found to be "structurally deficient" only last year. I wonder if the powers that be simply waited for that discussion to burn itself out?
The project's in trouble, folks. It has relegated to second-class status the very element that has been at its core: its people.
Marc Riddell
On 8/2/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/08/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
I think that sums up my feelings on this matter, too. I just cannot understand why Slim Virgin is being described as "a net detriment to the project" on account of attacks that are made by *her* by people we all recognise as either severely unbalanced or having an axe to grind. It quite disturbing.
The response you've described is so astoundingly lacking in empathy, and, frankly, wrong-headed and immoral on so many levels, that I find it frightening.
...and this is talking about an email which directly compared my comments to being a wilful apologist for rape.
It is six o'clock in the morning. I first recieved a copy of that charming email at two. I have been unable to sleep because of it. It is monstrously insulting, it is at best tangential, and it is completely inappropriate.
It is an smear and an allegation I cannot reply to, because of its scale, its implications, its emotive power, and the ability to glibly say "well, yes, but you would say that" to any response. It is an escalation of this discussion by several orders of magnitude, from a reasoned attempt to say "please stop" straight to "fuck off, you scumbag". I can't reply; I can't leave it hanging there.
I got it by email, sent both to me and to the list; it didn't get through, and I assumed it was moderated for one of the many possible reasons someone might object to its content. But you also, it seems, were sent a copy; you chose to send it here. And then you have the temerity to refer to a glib rewriting of my argument as "lacking in empathy ... wrong-headed and immoral".
I would have thought that would be better used to refer to the person who chose to equate me with a rape-apologist on some spurious analogy.
I had, seriously, hoped for better from this discussion. I don't *like* the fact that I had to stand up and complain; it's not the kind of man I am, and not the sort of thing I ever want to do again. But I felt it needed said, and there does not seem to be a shortage of others who feel just as frustrated by it.
I have tried to keep the discussion on a sensible level; I have tried patiently to explain my position and do so in what is as nonconfrontational a manner as possible, considering the rather uncomfortable nature of what I felt needed said. I am finding it hard to describe some of the responses as anything other than deliberately inflammatory.
Repeatedly telling people they should leave Wikipedia because stalkers and crazies are saying nasty things about them cannot help but be confrontational, no matter how many times you put the word "Please" before "leave".
The stalkers and crazies are saying mean things about person A. Person or Persons B makes the situation, likely without meaning to, many times worse. It is reasonable, in this case, to ask Person or Persons B to leave. Therefore, I, and others, are asking you, Jay, to leave.
SlimVirgin herself seems to be bearing up quite well; I see no reason to call for her departure, although she may wish to do so anyway for her own reasons.
I hope that was clear enough.
Although it's still only 1:20 AM here on the East Coast, suffice to say my feelings of anger and outrage are no less than Andrew's. That's all I'll say on the subject until I've calmed down some more.
-Michael Noda
On 8/2/07, Michael Noda michael.noda@gmail.com wrote:
The stalkers and crazies are saying mean things about person A. Person or Persons B makes the situation, likely without meaning to, many times worse. It is reasonable, in this case, to ask Person or Persons B to leave. Therefore, I, and others, are asking you, Jay, to leave.
Michael, that is so crazy and so unfair, I have to protest. Jay apparently removed one link or one discussion from my talk page, or so he said tonight on this list. I wasn't even aware that he had done that. But in so doing, he has brought the project into disrepute and ought to leave?
SlimVirgin herself seems to be bearing up quite well; I see no reason to call for her departure, although she may wish to do so anyway for her own reasons.
I was doing okay-ish before this discussion took place, yes. Not so sure now.
All I can do is make a request to you, which of course you're free to ignore, and it's that you refrain from saying anything else that might hurt somebody, whether it's me or any of the other editors you're accusing. All have acted in good faith; all were trying to help (and succeeded in helping, no matter what you say); and there were a great many more of them than the ones you've chosen to name.
If you want to discuss the issue on Wikipedia, which you're claiming is forbidden, go join the thread about it that's still open.
Lets stick to this llst for a moment. Armed Blowfish sent an inflammatory message to the list, and jayjg helped him post it. AB's message was apparently blocked, as well it should have been, but why did it get through when jayjg sent it for him? is he above the rules?
where are the moderators? I think the two of them are way way outside the guidelines for discourse on this or any other list.
On 8/2/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Lets stick to this llst for a moment. Armed Blowfish sent an inflammatory message to the list, and jayjg helped him post it. AB's message was apparently blocked, as well it should have been, but why did it get through when jayjg sent it for him? is he above the rules?
ArmedBlowfish was having trouble posting to the list, and asked me to help. I thought it was a technical issue. I didn't read the posts, I just forwarded them along.
I am astonished at the lack of good faith here.
On 8/2/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
ArmedBlowfish was having trouble posting to the list, and asked me to help. I thought it was a technical issue. I didn't read the posts, I just forwarded them along.
Why didn't you read them?
jayjg wrote:
ArmedBlowfish was having trouble posting to the list, and asked me to help. I thought it was a technical issue. I didn't read the posts, I just forwarded them along.
I am astonished at the lack of good faith here.
You responded to at least one post in which I explicitly complained about the rape analogy: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-August/078454.html. So you had to have been aware of its inflammatory nature at that point.
Then just 28 minutes later you forwarded another email from ArmedBlowfish in response to the same posting, with more extreme rape references: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-August/078464.html.
Good faith can only be assumed so far. It would require unbelievable levels of obliviousness to not notice what was in that.
On 8/2/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
jayjg wrote:
ArmedBlowfish was having trouble posting to the list, and asked me to help. I thought it was a technical issue. I didn't read the posts, I just forwarded them along.
I am astonished at the lack of good faith here.
You responded to at least one post in which I explicitly complained about the rape analogy: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-August/078454.html. So you had to have been aware of its inflammatory nature at that point.
Then just 28 minutes later you forwarded another email from ArmedBlowfish in response to the same posting, with more extreme rape references: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-August/078464.html.
Good faith can only be assumed so far. It would require unbelievable levels of obliviousness to not notice what was in that.
Actually, I responded to your claim that there had been a lot of over the top rhetoric on the thread; I just took you at your word, no more, no less. The exact details of the over the top rhetoric weren't particularly relevant to me.
Regarding the "rape" posts, some people think they were inappropriate, some people think they were not (as evidenced by various comments on this thread). I'm not taking a stand, as, frankly, I still haven't read them. Regardless, when I realized that people were taking umbrage at AB's posts, I stopped forwarding them. And there were, indeed, several other posts by AB that I did not forward. I haven't read those either.
As I said before, the lack of good faith here is astonishing, and, frankly depressing, as are many of the other comments here.
jayjg wrote:
Regarding the "rape" posts, some people think they were inappropriate, some people think they were not (as evidenced by various comments on this thread). I'm not taking a stand, as, frankly, I still haven't read them.
You should read them now, as they have been posted from your account and you recognize that controversy has arisen over them. "I haven't read them" isn't a valid excuse at this point.
And in future please consider that by posting something to this list on someone else's behalf you do take at least some amount of responsibility for it, so you should probably read it _before_ hitting the "forward" button in the future.
On 8/2/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
jayjg wrote:
Regarding the "rape" posts, some people think they were inappropriate, some people think they were not (as evidenced by various comments on this thread). I'm not taking a stand, as, frankly, I still haven't read them.
You should read them now, as they have been posted from your account and you recognize that controversy has arisen over them. "I haven't read them" isn't a valid excuse at this point.
Bryan, stop attacking people, please. Your plea that we need to avoid drama would be more convincing if you yourself would stop creating it, and if you hadn't simultaneously gone and restored the Daniel Brandt talk page, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daniel_Brandt&action=hist... which had previously been deleted for good reason by two admins.
Sarah
Slim Virgin wrote:
On 8/2/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
jayjg wrote:
Regarding the "rape" posts, some people think they were inappropriate, some people think they were not (as evidenced by various comments on this thread). I'm not taking a stand, as, frankly, I still haven't read them.
You should read them now, as they have been posted from your account and you recognize that controversy has arisen over them. "I haven't read them" isn't a valid excuse at this point.
Bryan, stop attacking people, please.
Heh. This in a thread specifically about how it's wrong to blame the victim, no less.
This was in response to an email where I was analogized quite graphically with an apologist for rapists. I think I've been quite restrained.
Your plea that we need to avoid drama would be more convincing if you yourself would stop creating it, and if you hadn't simultaneously gone and restored the Daniel Brandt talk page, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daniel_Brandt&action=hist... which had previously been deleted for good reason by two admins.
Take a look at the history and/or undeletion log. I didn't restore the talk page's history in any way, I just put a list of the deletion debates there. It's the only revision. This is standard practice on any page that's had past deletion debates, and I did it at this particular time because this kerfuffle had reminded me of something only very tangentally related that I wanted to look up in one of them.
Can you point out any way that this caused drama, or was intended to cause drama? I do have a life and Wikipedia activities outside of this thread, you know. I've also been converting a bunch of navboxes over to the {{navbox generic}} template and arguing an annoying fair use rationale case as well, in case you're concerned about what else I've been doing in the background.
On 8/2/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
Your plea that we need to avoid drama would be more convincing if you yourself would stop creating it, and if you hadn't simultaneously gone and restored the Daniel Brandt talk page, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daniel_Brandt&action=hist... which had previously been deleted for good reason by two admins.
Take a look at the history and/or undeletion log. I didn't restore the talk page's history in any way, I just put a list of the deletion debates there. It's the only revision.
That exact revision was deleted on June 29 by Chaser, which you know very well, because you copied the deleted revision word for word.
Can you point out any way that this caused drama, or was intended to cause drama? I do have a life and Wikipedia activities outside of this thread, you know.
Then go live it, please, and stop trying to damage other people's.
On 8/2/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Can you point out any way that this caused drama, or was intended to cause drama? I do have a life and Wikipedia activities outside of this thread, you know.
Then go live it, please, and stop trying to damage other people's.
Bryan, I apologize for the above. It went way too far. I am just feeling rattled today. I'm sorry.
Sarah
Slim Virgin wrote:
On 8/2/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Can you point out any way that this caused drama, or was intended to cause drama? I do have a life and Wikipedia activities outside of this thread, you know.
Then go live it, please, and stop trying to damage other people's.
Bryan, I apologize for the above. It went way too far. I am just feeling rattled today. I'm sorry.
Thank you. I really am sympathetic to your situation and have no intention to attack you in any way over it. It's been difficult dealing with repeatedly being interpreted as being a "bad guy" without actually becoming one in the process, I hope this means I'm succeeding to some degree.
Slim Virgin wrote:
On 8/2/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
Your plea that we need to avoid drama would be more convincing if you yourself would stop creating it, and if you hadn't simultaneously gone and restored the Daniel Brandt talk page, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daniel_Brandt&action=hist... which had previously been deleted for good reason by two admins.
Take a look at the history and/or undeletion log. I didn't restore the talk page's history in any way, I just put a list of the deletion debates there. It's the only revision.
That exact revision was deleted on June 29 by Chaser, which you know very well, because you copied the deleted revision word for word.
Yes, I grabbed it from the most recent deleted revision. The whole point of doing it was so that I wouldn't have to go manually searching up the previous debates. But what's the "good reason" that it was deleted, and who was the other admin?
Not that any of this is really relevant here, as I said before it was a tangential matter I just happened to be reminded of. I don't understand why you're bringing it up.
Can you point out any way that this caused drama, or was intended to cause drama? I do have a life and Wikipedia activities outside of this thread, you know.
Then go live it, please, and stop trying to damage other people's.
Please explain how adding a list of links to previous deletion debates to the article's talk page is an attempt to damage someone's life? I honestly don't see it.
On 02/08/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
This was in response to an email where I was analogized quite graphically with an apologist for rapists. I think I've been quite restrained.
*shakes head* Not an apologist... that would seem to imply ill intent. Rapists, perpetrators, etc, are generally quite good at blending into society... lying, making up the weirdest yet somehow most appealing arguments, manipulating well-meaning people into siding with them. I don't want you to feel bad, but I feel that if you understand, you can do better.
Armed Blowfish
Personally, I interpret this an acceptable apology for forwarding the postings.
On 8/2/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote: oint.
Actually, I responded to your claim that there had been a lot of over the top rhetoric on the thread; I just took you at your word, no more, no less. The exact details of the over the top rhetoric weren't particularly relevant to me.
Regarding the "rape" posts, some people think they were inappropriate, some people think they were not (as evidenced by various comments on this thread). I'm not taking a stand, as, frankly, I still haven't read them. Regardless, when I realized that people were taking umbrage at AB's posts, I stopped forwarding them. And there were, indeed, several other posts by AB that I did not forward. I haven't read those either.
As I said before, the lack of good faith here is astonishing, and, frankly depressing, as are many of the other comments here.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
David Goodman wrote:
Personally, I interpret this an acceptable apology for forwarding the postings.
Then I'll do likewise, in the spirit of compromise and the desire to get on with more important things.
Why should Jayjg be blamed just because he forwarded them in the first place? They were my posts. I take responsibility for them... and if I choose to empathise by comparing this situation to my own life, that's my choice.
Armed Blowfish
On 02/08/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Personally, I interpret this an acceptable apology for forwarding the postings.
On 8/2/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote: oint.
Actually, I responded to your claim that there had been a lot of over the top rhetoric on the thread; I just took you at your word, no more, no less. The exact details of the over the top rhetoric weren't particularly relevant to me.
Regarding the "rape" posts, some people think they were inappropriate, some people think they were not (as evidenced by various comments on this thread). I'm not taking a stand, as, frankly, I still haven't read them. Regardless, when I realized that people were taking umbrage at AB's posts, I stopped forwarding them. And there were, indeed, several other posts by AB that I did not forward. I haven't read those either.
As I said before, the lack of good faith here is astonishing, and, frankly depressing, as are many of the other comments here.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Michael Noda wrote:
The stalkers and crazies are saying mean things about person A. Person or Persons B makes the situation, likely without meaning to, many times worse. It is reasonable, in this case, to ask Person or Persons B to leave. Therefore, I, and others, are asking you, Jay, to leave.
Can you specify what you think Jay has done to make the situation worse?
I have not checked up on everything that has gone on, and I am at Wikimania (and a bit ill this afternoon plus my net access is down, so I can't get on the wiki at the moment), so I am genuinely asking for information, not questioning.
If Jay has done something wrong, then I am sure he will make it right.
--Jimbo
On 8/2/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
...and this is talking about an email which directly compared my comments to being a wilful apologist for rape.
It is six o'clock in the morning. I first recieved a copy of that charming email at two. I have been unable to sleep because of it. It is monstrously insulting, it is at best tangential, and it is completely inappropriate.
Agreed. That message was completely out of line. Shockingly so.
No doubt there is a reason the users messages didn't make it through to the list, and Jay's forward did us no service.
This subject has been making enough noise without such disgraceful trolling.
On Aug 2, 2007, at 10:15 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 8/2/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
...and this is talking about an email which directly compared my comments to being a wilful apologist for rape.
It is six o'clock in the morning. I first recieved a copy of that charming email at two. I have been unable to sleep because of it. It is monstrously insulting, it is at best tangential, and it is completely inappropriate.
Agreed. That message was completely out of line. Shockingly so.
No doubt there is a reason the users messages didn't make it through to the list, and Jay's forward did us no service.
This subject has been making enough noise without such disgraceful trolling.
Actually, the only reason it didn't make it through was that Armed Blowfish is subscribed under diodontida.armata@gmail.com, and his e- mails come through as @googlemail instead. (You should get that fixed, btw)
Speaking for myself, but as a mod, I thought the post was strongly worded, and perhaps disrupted the mailing list to illustrate a point, but mostly on target. I've twice been the victim of attempts at stalking that have moved between online and real life. It's terrifying.
A year ago, when I was the one on the receiving end of this treatment, I advocated the creation of a fund to help Wikipedians who find themselves under this kind of attack. Various practical problems were raised, and I accept that this is an implausible solution.
But the fact of the matter remains - SlimVirgin has been an extraordinarily valuable contributor to the project. She has been active in smacking down pernicious POV pushers, she has been an ardent defender of encyclopedic standards, she has been a productive writer of articles. I have butted heads with her as many times as I've agreed with her, but I have the utmost respect for her. She is one of the best we have. And she has been the victim of an ugly, insidious attack by somebody who has done this before and will do this again.
I am no proponent of BADSITES, and I know that, like our favorite hexidecimal string (09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0, for nostalgia's sake) this information cannot be shoved back into the bottle. On the other hand, I know (perhaps better than most of the people on this thread) what it's like to be attacked this way. The "second rape" comparison does not miss the mark. That is not to equate what happened to me, or to SlimVirgin with rape. It's just to note that both are traumatic events that involve one's privacy and life being violated. Theories that explain one have a place in explaining the other.
-Phil
On 8/2/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
The "second rape" comparison does not miss the mark. That is not to equate what happened to me, or to SlimVirgin with rape. It's just to note that both are traumatic events that involve one's privacy and life being violated. Theories that explain one have a place in explaining the other.
What journals have the studdies backing that claim up been published in?
on 8/2/07 11:36 AM, geni at geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
The "second rape" comparison does not miss the mark. That is not to equate what happened to me, or to SlimVirgin with rape. It's just to note that both are traumatic events that involve one's privacy and life being violated. Theories that explain one have a place in explaining the other.
What journals have the studdies backing that claim up been published in?
For one: The International Journal of Common Sense.
Marc
On 8/2/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
What journals have the studdies backing that claim up been published in?
For one: The International Journal of Common Sense.
Pop psychology is annoying. Pop psychology without even a pretense of scientific backing is more so.
One of the key features of the Age of Enlightenment is we moved beyond argument by assertion and "it feels right".
If you want to claim that the model from one area can be used in another you have better be able to provide solid evidence and or a firm line of reasoning why this is the case.
But hey lets forget a century of scientific progress. We don't need the painstaking scientific method when common sense will get us an answer that feels far more emotionally satisfying far faster.
On 02/08/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
The "second rape" comparison does not miss the mark. That is not to equate what happened to me, or to SlimVirgin with rape. It's just to note that both are traumatic events that involve one's privacy and life being violated. Theories that explain one have a place in explaining the other.
What journals have the studdies backing that claim up been published in?
-- geni
You could try the Journal of Interpersonal Violence, although unfortunately, only abstracts are available for free online. Here's a link anyway: http://jiv.sagepub.com/archive/
A few searches that make good starting points: http://online.sagepub.com/cgi/searchresults?src=selected&journal_set=spj... (Better if you do an 'and' search rather than an 'or' search, but I can't figure out how to get a link for the former.) http://online.sagepub.com/cgi/searchresults?src=selected&journal_set=spj... http://online.sagepub.com/cgi/searchresults?fulltext=%22second+rape%22&s... http://online.sagepub.com/cgi/searchresults?fulltext=%22second+assault%22&am... http://online.sagepub.com/cgi/searchresults?fulltext=%22secondary+victimizat...
The main problem with internet stalking is that once they can find you in person, physical abuse from stalkers - whether the original or new ones - can follow. Although it can certainly be hurtful enough without that, it has the potential to get much worse. Having friends will help make SlimVirgin less vulnerable to further abuse.
'Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community' by Judith Donath of MIT Media Labs, published in 'Communities in Cyberspace', is available online. http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html
This quote Donath found on USENET is of particular interest, 'As far as letting you know my name or giving you my fingerprints or whatever else you demand, no I don't think so. There is more going on in this net than just misc.fitness.weights. I'm involved in the net war in alt.religion.scientology. Those cultists have so far raided 4 of their net critics on bogus copyright violation charges, and in one case they placed a large amount of LSD on the toothbrush of a person who was raided, a couple of days before he was to undergo a video deposition. In my city they have been convicted of several crimes, including infiltrating the municipal, provincial, and federal police forces. No, I will not give out my name just to satify your curiousity. Deal with it.'
Armed Blowfish
On 8/2/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 2, 2007, at 10:15 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 8/2/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
...and this is talking about an email which directly compared my comments to being a wilful apologist for rape.
It is six o'clock in the morning. I first recieved a copy of that charming email at two. I have been unable to sleep because of it. It is monstrously insulting, it is at best tangential, and it is completely inappropriate.
Agreed. That message was completely out of line. Shockingly so.
No doubt there is a reason the users messages didn't make it through to the list, and Jay's forward did us no service.
This subject has been making enough noise without such disgraceful trolling.
Actually, the only reason it didn't make it through was that Armed Blowfish is subscribed under diodontida.armata@gmail.com, and his e- mails come through as @googlemail instead. (You should get that fixed, btw)
As I believed, then, just a technical problem.
Phil Sandifer wrote:
Speaking for myself, but as a mod, I thought the post was strongly worded, and perhaps disrupted the mailing list to illustrate a point, but mostly on target. I've twice been the victim of attempts at stalking that have moved between online and real life. It's terrifying.
I expressed sympathy for SlimVirgin herself and condemned the nutballs behind the "outing." I focused my displeasure on the response to discussion attempts on-wiki and explicitly pointed out in several posts that SlimVirgin didn't appear to be involved in that.
In response, I was cast in the role of one who excuses rapists. This was _not_ on target, not remotely.
On 8/2/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Phil Sandifer wrote:
Speaking for myself, but as a mod, I thought the post was strongly worded, and perhaps disrupted the mailing list to illustrate a point, but mostly on target. I've twice been the victim of attempts at stalking that have moved between online and real life. It's terrifying.
I expressed sympathy for SlimVirgin herself and condemned the nutballs behind the "outing." I focused my displeasure on the response to discussion attempts on-wiki and explicitly pointed out in several posts that SlimVirgin didn't appear to be involved in that.
O.K. Explain exactly how *I* was involved in the "response to discussion attempts on-wiki". As far as I can tell, my total involvement consisted of overwriting one comment on SV's talk page. Apparently that one action was enough to generate both huge amounts of "drama", and to warrant my leaving Wikipedia permanently.
Jayjg wrote:
O.K. Explain exactly how *I* was involved in the "response to discussion attempts on-wiki". As far as I can tell, my total involvement consisted of overwriting one comment on SV's talk page.
Which I (perhaps inappropriately) pointed out. But if you're not involved, then why have you posted 34 messages to this thread?
Apparently that one action was enough to generate both huge amounts of "drama"...
The drama that's present in this thread is indeed symptomatic of the problem this thread purports to be about.
It's obvious to everyone but you, but: nobody's talking about you just because of that one action. Your involvement is not due to having removed (rather sneakily, I might add) one user's question from SlimVirgin's talk page recently, but rather, your consistent advocacy of the practice of doing so. (Among other things.)
On 8/2/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Jayjg wrote:
O.K. Explain exactly how *I* was involved in the "response to discussion attempts on-wiki". As far as I can tell, my total involvement consisted of overwriting one comment on SV's talk page.
Which I (perhaps inappropriately) pointed out. But if you're not involved, then why have you posted 34 messages to this thread?
I don't understand the question. If I post to the thread, then I suddenly become "involved". Does that mean everyone who posted to this thread is now "involved", and should leave Wikipedia?
Apparently that one action was enough to generate both huge amounts of "drama"...
The drama that's present in this thread is indeed symptomatic of the problem this thread purports to be about.
Which is why, of course, I suggested that we stop talking about it. If the drama is actually all in this thread, then people shouldn't have started it, and shouldn't be continuing it.
It's obvious to everyone but you
Please don't presume to speak for "everyone"; I've had off-wiki communications from others who say they have no idea what this is all about.
but: nobody's talking about you just because of that one action. Your involvement is not due to having removed (rather sneakily, I might add) one user's question from SlimVirgin's talk page recently, but rather, your consistent advocacy of the practice of doing so. (Among other things.)
Huh? I've consistently "advocated" the "practice" of removing stuff from SV's talk page? Where have I done this? And you think I should leave Wikipedia because you disagree with opinions that you apparently have invented for me?
I simply am not understanding any of this, as it doesn't appear to accord with any reality I am familiar with.
On 8/2/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
It's obvious to everyone but you
Please don't presume to speak for "everyone"; I've had off-wiki communications from others who say they have no idea what this is all about.
I'm just wondering... how many people confirming that, yes, they too find your behaviour disruptive and immature would it take for you to accept there may be at least a kernel of truth in what Steve (and many, many others) are saying?
I simply am not understanding any of this, as it doesn't appear to accord with any reality I am familiar with.
I don't know how to read this. Are you really totally deaf and blind to any of this? Or are you just childishly riling people and egging them on?
Michel Vuijlsteke
Jayjg wrote:
On 8/2/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Which I (perhaps inappropriately) pointed out. But if you're not involved, then why have you posted 34 messages to this thread?
I don't understand the question. If I post to the thread, then I suddenly become "involved".
Yes -- and if you post 34 times, you're obviously pretty interested and invested in the issues. If (as you seem to be trying to suggest) you weren't involved, would you have been so motivated?
Does that mean everyone who posted to this thread is now "involved",
Well, I certainly am.
and should leave Wikipedia?
That was Andrew who suggested that, that wasn't me.
The drama that's present in this thread is indeed symptomatic of the problem this thread purports to be about.
Which is why, of course, I suggested that we stop talking about it. If the drama is actually all in this thread, then people shouldn't have started it, and shouldn't be continuing it.
"Symptomatic of" does not mean "all in".
(But yes, we shouldn't continue this thread. Except that many of us -- myself absolutely included -- are incapable of dropping it.)
Your involvement is not due to having removed (rather sneakily, I might add) one user's question from SlimVirgin's talk page recently, but rather, your consistent advocacy of the practice of doing so. (Among other things.)
Huh? I've consistently "advocated" the "practice" of removing stuff from SV's talk page?
You can be spectacularly stubborn and tendentious, can't you?
What you've consistently advocated is that links to or mention of anything that can be construed as an "attack site" can and should be removed wherever they may appear in Wikipedia (even if only in talk or project space), in the name of, as Fred Bauder famously put it, "respecting our users and doing what we can to protect them from harassment".
I'm sure you'll say that this wasn't an accurate description of what you've advocated, either. But, whatever that description should be, I note that you have (a) advocated strenuously for the "attack sites" clause at WP:NPA, and (b) yourself removed one recent question from Slim's talk page, by which I assume that removal of such comments for that sort of reason is something you agree with. Those are the sorts of things you seem to be condoning and advocating for, and they're what those of us who are arguing with you believe can be carried quite too far.
And you think I should leave Wikipedia because you disagree with opinions that you apparently have invented for me?
I don't think you should leave Wikipedia. It was Andrew who suggested that, not me. (Why did you think I did?)
I simply am not understanding any of this, as it doesn't appear to accord with any reality I am familiar with.
That may be because you appear to be very good at confining your thoughts to those things you believe and are believed by the people you agree with, while making little or no attempt to understand where anybody else might be coming from.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
I think that sums up my feelings on this matter, too. I just cannot understand why Slim Virgin is being described as "a net detriment to the project" on account of attacks that are made by *her* by people we all recognise as either severely unbalanced or having an axe to grind. It quite disturbing.
It's not SlimVirgin herself that I consider a net detriment, it's all this effort to suppress discussion of her. If she herself is not involved in that (and I'm led to believe that she's not) then I've got no beef at all with her on this matter.
BTW, first there was a comparison to appeasing the Nazis, now we've got a comparison to rape. This is a bit over the top, IMO.
On 8/2/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
I think that sums up my feelings on this matter, too. I just cannot understand why Slim Virgin is being described as "a net detriment to the project" on account of attacks that are made by *her* by people we all recognise as either severely unbalanced or having an axe to grind. It quite disturbing.
It's not SlimVirgin herself that I consider a net detriment, it's all this effort to suppress discussion of her.
All what "effort"? And when did this become the wikislimvirgin-l discussion list anyway?
If she herself is not involved in that (and I'm led to believe that she's not) then I've got no beef at all with her on this matter.
So when Andrew was asking her (and apparently others) to leave, and using the word "we", he was just speaking for himself?
BTW, first there was a comparison to appeasing the Nazis, now we've got a comparison to rape. This is a bit over the top, IMO.
This whole discussion is a bit over the top, including the bit about "censorship".
On 02/08/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
If she herself is not involved in that (and I'm led to believe that she's not) then I've got no beef at all with her on this matter.
So when Andrew was asking her (and apparently others) to leave, and using the word "we", he was just speaking for himself?
I believe you will find I did not say "we" when asking the involved parties to leave, and I spoke for myself there, as can be seen by the fact that - remarkable though it seems in this day and age - I signed my name at the bottom. The pronoun "I" may have cropped up in that section, too.
I said "we" earlier in the email, to describe the group of uninvolved editors who have no stake in this debate, no understanding of its history, but are exasperated by the vast amount of drama that always seems to follow along when these names are mentioned, and by the fact that this vast amount of smoke-and-mirrors about - at best - half-a-dozen prolific editors is now threatening to define the way we appear to the outside world. I guessed that there were others who felt the same way - and the response demonstrated pretty clearly that there were.
On 8/2/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
BTW, first there was a comparison to appeasing the Nazis, now we've got a comparison to rape. This is a bit over the top, IMO.
Possibly. But I don't understand what the big deal is about removing tripe from the pages of Wikipedia. We're here to edit an encyclopedia, not pander to conspiracy theorists of those who take their rubbish seriously.
On 8/2/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
BTW, first there was a comparison to appeasing the Nazis, now we've got a comparison to rape. This is a bit over the top, IMO.
Possibly. But I don't understand what the big deal is about removing tripe from the pages of Wikipedia. We're here to edit an encyclopedia, not pander to conspiracy theorists of those who take their rubbish seriously.
I don't consider "conspiracy theorists" to be good faith editors who have never heard of the abuse against SV asking questions about what seems to them to be an interesting tidbit of news which is probably false (but nevertheless interesting).
Johnleemk
On 8/2/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
BTW, first there was a comparison to appeasing the Nazis, now we've got a comparison to rape. This is a bit over the top, IMO.
Possibly. But I don't understand what the big deal is about removing tripe from the pages of Wikipedia. We're here to edit an encyclopedia, not pander to conspiracy theorists of those who take their rubbish seriously.
I don't consider "conspiracy theorists" to be good faith editors who have never heard of the abuse against SV asking questions about what seems to them to be an interesting tidbit of news which is probably false (but nevertheless interesting).
Johnleemk
Another from ArmedBlowfish: --------
Erm, conspiracy theorism has nothing to do with 'good faith' or 'bad faith', it is simply a way of looking at things, which may very well be insane, but that has nothing to do with intent. Also see Humanism.
This doesn't have anything to do with good faith or bad faith either. We aren't talking about blocking or banning people - we are talking about protecting SlimVirgin from severely psychologically damaging comments.
And no, that doesn't mean the comments were meant to be psychologically damaging, but there is a huge difference between intent and effect... and the effect is psychological damage.
They can ask by e-mail.
Armed Blowfish
On 8/2/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
BTW, first there was a comparison to appeasing the Nazis, now we've got a comparison to rape. This is a bit over the top, IMO.
Possibly. But I don't understand what the big deal is about removing tripe from the pages of Wikipedia. We're here to edit an encyclopedia, not pander to conspiracy theorists of those who take their rubbish seriously.
I don't consider "conspiracy theorists" to be good faith editors who have never heard of the abuse against SV asking questions about what seems to them to be an interesting tidbit of news which is probably false (but nevertheless interesting).
No of course they're not, they're people who take them seriously and in doing so compound the original offence.
On 8/2/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
I think that sums up my feelings on this matter, too. I just cannot understand why Slim Virgin is being described as "a net detriment to the project" on account of attacks that are made by *her* by people we all recognise as either severely unbalanced or having an axe to grind. It quite disturbing.
It's not SlimVirgin herself that I consider a net detriment, it's all this effort to suppress discussion of her. If she herself is not involved in that (and I'm led to believe that she's not) then I've got no beef at all with her on this matter.
Another response from ArmedBlowfish: ----------
That effort is an act of compassion... and given the pain SlimVirgin is no doubt suffering right now, a much-needed one. It's not about blaming people who trip over something they don't understand and end up hurting others by accident... it's about protecting those other people from what harm we can. And protecting her is indeed the right thing to do.
You can certainly find plenty of excuses to blame her and her supporters if you want to. 'She was out too late, acting too sexy, too innocent, too assertive, not assertive enough, drank too much, too bitchy, too stupid, or too aloof.'
In any case, here I am, talking about it. Hi!
BTW, first there was a comparison to appeasing the Nazis, now we've got a comparison to rape. This is a bit over the top, IMO.
Not at all.
1) If she has indeed been outed - I will not discuss whether the personal information about her as publicised was accurate to some extent or not - but if it is accurate, then SlimVirgin very well could face physical assault, even rape, now that people can find her. 2) The psychology of rape is the psychology of abuse in general, and SlimVirgin has been stalked, and I don't mean mere wikistalking around articles. The feelings of vulnerability, the pain, the helplessness ... these things rape and stalking have in common. The reaction are also similar - it is easier to side with the abusers without even knowing it what you do. Read the first two links in my original post again, surely you can see how parallel this situation is?
Armed Blowfish
jayjg wrote:
Another response from ArmedBlowfish:
You can certainly find plenty of excuses to blame her and her supporters if you want to. 'She was out too late, acting too sexy, too innocent, too assertive, not assertive enough, drank too much, too bitchy, too stupid, or too aloof.'
Could you please lay off the rape analogy? This is beyond ridiculous, it's kind of sick now. Nobody here is making any such "excuses."
On Aug 2, 2007, at 12:10 AM, Bryan Derksen wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
I think that sums up my feelings on this matter, too. I just cannot understand why Slim Virgin is being described as "a net detriment to the project" on account of attacks that are made by *her* by people we all recognise as either severely unbalanced or having an axe to grind. It quite disturbing.
It's not SlimVirgin herself that I consider a net detriment, it's all this effort to suppress discussion of her. If she herself is not involved in that (and I'm led to believe that she's not) then I've got no beef at all with her on this matter.
BTW, first there was a comparison to appeasing the Nazis, now we've got a comparison to rape. This is a bit over the top, IMO.
It's a magical ritual to invoke the deity Godwin.
It's not working. :(
-Phil
On 02/08/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
It's a magical ritual to invoke the deity Godwin. It's not working. :(
That's not what we're paying him for ;-)
- d.
Dang. I knew the "blaming the victim" card was going to be played soon enough, but I didn't imagine we'd be getting rape analogies already. It won't do a particle of good, but I'd like to encourage people *not* to march inexorably down his road. The analogy is fundamentally flawed, and to have brought it up at all is to distort the discussion just about as badly as mention of Nazis famously does.
We are not putting Slim on trial. We are not denying her all reasonable support. What we are doing is questioning the propriety of *inappropriate* forms of support, forms which seem to be continuously requested/demanded/imposed by Slim's too-fervent supporters. We are wondering whether those forms of alleged support are (a) effective at all, and (b) perhaps more damaging to the project than the damages they seek to address.
To pursue the analogy I just suggested was a bad idea: it's one thing if a rape victim is herself put on trial, or blamed (explicitly or implicitly) for having "asked for it". That's reprehensible and wrong.
But suppose the rape victim insists that the name of her rapist never be mentioned by anyone in any context. Suppose she insists that the name of the clubs of which her rapist is a member also never be mentioned. Suppose she insists that no one else be allowed to join those clubs. Suppose that when someone questions the necessity or practicality or effectiveness of these increasingly extreme "remedies", that the victim and her sycophants accuse the questioner of failing to properly support the victim. Suppose that when someone asks, "Was she raped?", the question is stricken from the public record as if it had never been asked.
If every demand (no matter what) of the victim must be acceded to, if to question any of them is grounds for being branded as callous or unsupportive, where does it end?
I'm sure I'll be accused of being viciously unsympathetic for having asked these questions at all. I will assert (not that it will do any good) that I am not trying to blame the victim here, and that I would like to give the victim all due sympathy for the grievous wrongs she has indeed suffered. But my sympathy is not irrational. Being sympathetic does not mean that the victim gets to place arbitrary demands on the entire rest of the world and expect them to be accepted as reasonable and appropriate recompense for her injuries. Being sympathetic does not mean knee-jerk agreement that in any dispute over the appropriateness of a remedy, the victim is always right and anyone who disagrees is automatically an unsympathetic victim-blaming jerk. Being sympathetic does not mean encouraging the victim to continue to play the victim forever. Healthy victims put their tragedies behind them, and truly sympathetic people encourage and help them to do this.
Steve Summit wrote:
But suppose the rape victim insists that the name of her rapist never be mentioned by anyone in any context. Suppose she insists that the name of the clubs of which her rapist is a member also never be mentioned. Suppose she insists that no one else be allowed to join those clubs. Suppose that when someone questions the necessity or practicality or effectiveness of these increasingly extreme "remedies", that the victim and her sycophants accuse the questioner of failing to properly support the victim. Suppose that when someone asks, "Was she raped?", the question is stricken from the public record as if it had never been asked.
I should point out, for accuracy, that it appears that SlimVirgin didn't actually request any of this. It appears it was spontaneously decided on by others.
The rest I otherwise agree with in broad outline. One can swing too far in either direction on something like this.
On 8/2/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Armed Blowfish apparently get e-mails through to the list, and has asked me to forward this. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com Date: Aug 1, 2007 10:03 PM Subject: The Second Rape: Victim-Blaming (was Re: [WikiEN-l] Self-sensorship, how far should it go?) To: jayjg99@gmail.com
Oh. What is the point of having a moderated list at all?
Michel Vuijlsteke
On 02/08/07, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipedia@zog.org wrote:
Oh. What is the point of having a moderated list at all?
It's moderated incredibly lightly. I would have no idea where to sensibly moderate the present discussion, for instance, and don't think blocking discussion entirely would be sensible. I'm waiting for it to burn itself out and going to the next thread a lot.
- d.
On 8/2/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/08/07, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipedia@zog.org wrote:
Oh. What is the point of having a moderated list at all?
It's moderated incredibly lightly. I would have no idea where to sensibly moderate the present discussion, for instance, and don't think blocking discussion entirely would be sensible. I'm waiting for it to burn itself out and going to the next thread a lot.
Sorry, I wasn't being clear. I didn't mean to imply you are in any way to blame. Obviously at this point the list is in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario.
It's just that I found it weird, starting a mail with what read to me as "apparently AB's mail was moderated, but seeing as I have a free pass..."
Never mind me, never mind me.
Michel Vuijlsteke