"Mark Ryan" wrote
Finally, if the ArbCom member whose name is redacted in the Wikipedia Review emails really did receive those threatening emails, is he or she prepared to publicly acknowledge that they were indeed sent to him/her?
That was me.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
Just to comment briefly -
AB contacted me via private email a little while after they and Somey and Charles received the emails. I and WMF persons are taking this seriously. Somey forwarded emails (same ones posted) and I talked to Charles briefly.
AB does not wish to file a police report, which would necessarily require identifying themselves. I respect their wishes, though I would like to pursue this to identify and have the threatening party prosecuted. This sort of behavior is unacceptable.
If anyone else associated with the project receives threats of this nature, or believe that you know who sent these, please contact me, senior administrators, Arbcom, or the Foundation.
I emailed AB after this thread started and before commenting here and they were comfortable with a brief public comment about this, but would like me and others to respect their privacy.
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 1:48 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
AB does not wish to file a police report, which would necessarily
require
identifying themselves.
Only to the police, not publicly...
If it were to be brought to trial, the victim's identity becomes part of the trial record. You can't have an anonymous victim.
If it were to be brought to trial, the victim's identity becomes part of the trial record. You can't have an anonymous victim.
Sure, you can. They are referred to as "Witness A", or whatever. I'm not sure what the requirements are to be allowed to remain anonymous, but it certainly happens.
If it were to be brought to trial, the victim's identity becomes part of the trial record. You can't have an anonymous victim. ----------
There is a reason for that. A person accused has the right to face their accuser.
On 26/02/2008, wjhonson@aol.com wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
If it were to be brought to trial, the victim's identity becomes part of the trial record. You can't have an anonymous victim.
There is a reason for that. A person accused has the right to face their accuser.
The accused does, sure. The public doesn't, necessarily.
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 26/02/2008, wjhonson@aol.com wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
If it were to be brought to trial, the victim's identity becomes part of the trial record. You can't have an anonymous victim.
There is a reason for that. A person accused has the right to face their accuser.
The accused does, sure. The public doesn't, necessarily.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
In any jurisdiction which guarantees the right to non-secret trials, they actually sure do. I happen to like the idea that I cannot be tried in secret if I'm accused of a crime, and that an accuser must be confident enough of his/her accusation to actually come forward by name. It would be a poor society indeed that allowed people to be imprisoned on the basis of secret accusations by anonymous people at closed trials.
<<<The accused does, sure. The public doesn't, necessarily.>>>
-------- Agreed. The reason secret courts went out for this sort of *crime* is to allow both for a fair trial and for the cessation of accusations designed to intimidate or harass.
Wikipedia would do itself no service by reintroducing secret trials. That is one price you must pay for anonymity. Will Johnson
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 3:42 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
If anyone else associated with the project receives threats of this nature, or believe that you know who sent these, please contact me, senior administrators, Arbcom, or the Foundation.
I don't think it's wise to invite people to come forward to any "senior administrator." Best keep the list of people entrusted with this sort of sensitive information very, very small.
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 2:36 PM, Mike R tacodeposit@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 3:42 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
If anyone else associated with the project receives threats of this
nature,
or believe that you know who sent these, please contact me, senior administrators, Arbcom, or the Foundation.
I don't think it's wise to invite people to come forward to any "senior administrator." Best keep the list of people entrusted with this sort of sensitive information very, very small.
Someone might not trust anyone on Arbcom, or not know who's on OTRS who could deal with it.
That's not exactly how I got involved, but it could apply to another future incident.
I think / guess that the preferred mechanism would be contact the foundation office or OTRS (info-en@lists.wikimedia.org). In a pinch, find someone you trust who knows who to talk to or can find out who to talk to in escalating it ...
On 26/02/2008, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"Mark Ryan" wrote
Finally, if the ArbCom member whose name is redacted in the Wikipedia Review emails really did receive those threatening emails, is he or she prepared to publicly acknowledge that they were indeed sent to him/her?
That was me.
So it is true, then.
So why did David Gerard imply it was a confirmed case of trolling?
On 28/02/2008, Common Peasant common.peasant@gmail.com wrote:
So it is true, then. So why did David Gerard imply it was a confirmed case of trolling?
I implied a confirmation? o_0
No, I assumed it was the usual from AB - where posting an email to this list would get posters a flood of email (from morphing addresses) from AB accusing them of supporting rape and harassment of dissenters. I assumed AB was crying wolf yet again.
- d.