This is an absolutely appalling and inappropriate analogy that is incredibly insensitive to actual victims of rape. Armed Blowfish should apologize for writing it and Jay should apologize for posting it. What in the world were you guys thinking?
As a man I'm embarrassed and ashamed that someone would trivialize rape in this manner.
Now stop it.
On 8/1/07, 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.
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.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
ArmedBlowfish's response: ------ You apparently didn't understand it. I'm the last person who would trivialise rape. I've known quite a number of victims of rape... I know the pain they go through not only when it happens, not only in the shame society has caused them to feel about sex, but also in the reactions of others - the disbelief, the abandonment, the blame, the insults. 'The second rape'.
I also know victims of other forms of abuse. Beneath the details of exactly how the abuse occurred, the psychology is the same. Of course each person handles it in their own unique way... but there are common threads.
Armed Blowfish
On 8/2/07, Stephen Park stephenpark15@gmail.com wrote:
This is an absolutely appalling and inappropriate analogy that is incredibly insensitive to actual victims of rape. Armed Blowfish should apologize for writing it and Jay should apologize for posting it. What in the world were you guys thinking?
As a man I'm embarrassed and ashamed that someone would trivialize rape in this manner.
Now stop it.
On 8/1/07, 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.
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.
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
You're seriously being an asshole with your offensive comparison.
ArmedBlowfish's "rape" analogy is trolling, pure and simple and Jay should stop posting this troll's comments immediately.
On 8/2/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
ArmedBlowfish's response:
You apparently didn't understand it. I'm the last person who would trivialise rape. I've known quite a number of victims of rape... I know the pain they go through not only when it happens, not only in the shame society has caused them to feel about sex, but also in the reactions of others - the disbelief, the abandonment, the blame, the insults. 'The second rape'.
I also know victims of other forms of abuse. Beneath the details of exactly how the abuse occurred, the psychology is the same. Of course each person handles it in their own unique way... but there are common threads.
Armed Blowfish
On 8/2/07, Stephen Park stephenpark15@gmail.com wrote:
This is an absolutely appalling and inappropriate analogy that is incredibly insensitive to actual victims of rape. Armed Blowfish should apologize for writing it and Jay should apologize for posting it. What in the world were you guys thinking?
As a man I'm embarrassed and ashamed that someone would trivialize rape in this manner.
Now stop it.
On 8/1/07, 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.
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.
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
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/1/07, Stephen Park stephenpark15@gmail.com wrote:
You're seriously being an asshole with your offensive comparison.
ArmedBlowfish's "rape" analogy is trolling, pure and simple and Jay should stop posting this troll's comments immediately.
"Trolling" is thrown around way too much on this list and on Wikipedia. Do you really think that ArmedBlowfish does not mean his/her comments in good faith and is only saying these things to cause an argument? Because that's what trolling is. It's not simply saying argumentative things; it's doing so deliberately to cause an argument for your own amusement.
I may disagree with AB's input and even find it rather less than helpful, but I don't think it's being said in bad faith.
-Matt
Continuing his behavior after he's been told that how and why his actions are offensive is trollsome. The analogy is deeply offensive and for Jay and AB to continue after this has been made clear is unfathomable.
On 8/2/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/1/07, Stephen Park stephenpark15@gmail.com wrote:
You're seriously being an asshole with your offensive comparison.
ArmedBlowfish's "rape" analogy is trolling, pure and simple and Jay should stop posting this troll's comments immediately.
"Trolling" is thrown around way too much on this list and on Wikipedia. Do you really think that ArmedBlowfish does not mean his/her comments in good faith and is only saying these things to cause an argument? Because that's what trolling is. It's not simply saying argumentative things; it's doing so deliberately to cause an argument for your own amusement.
I may disagree with AB's input and even find it rather less than helpful, but I don't think it's being said in bad faith.
-Matt
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/2/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
"Trolling" is thrown around way too much on this list and on Wikipedia. Do you really think that ArmedBlowfish does not mean his/her comments in good faith and is only saying these things to cause an argument? Because that's what trolling is. It's not simply saying argumentative things; it's doing so deliberately to cause an argument for your own amusement.
That's what trolling originally meant, but as words tend to do, its meaning has changed. It is perfectly acceptable to use "trolling" as "needlessly inflammatory". I agree completely with Stephen, it is incredibly insensitive to compare this to rape. The rhetoric needs to be dialed down.
--Oskar
On 8/2/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
That's what trolling originally meant, but as words tend to do, its meaning has changed. It is perfectly acceptable to use "trolling" as "needlessly inflammatory". I agree completely with Stephen, it is incredibly insensitive to compare this to rape. The rhetoric needs to be dialed down.
--Oskar
Also, another thing: we are now at like four levels of recursion on the message subject; it is perfectly acceptable to trim them a little :)
--Oskar
On 8/1/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
That's what trolling originally meant, but as words tend to do, its meaning has changed. It is perfectly acceptable to use "trolling" as "needlessly inflammatory". I agree completely with Stephen, it is incredibly insensitive to compare this to rape. The rhetoric needs to be dialed down.
If the word is being used in this way, it conveys less meaning. The problem is that 'troll' has become such a loaded word on Wikipedia that it is now best avoided.
-Matt
On 8/2/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
If the word is being used in this way, it conveys less meaning.
That's what it means, irrelevant of how much meaning it conveys.
The problem is that 'troll' has become such a loaded word on Wikipedia that it is now best avoided.
"A loaded word"? As opposed to... I don't know... say... rape?
--Oskar
On 8/1/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
If the word is being used in this way, it conveys less meaning.
That's what it means, irrelevant of how much meaning it conveys.
I disagree that's what it means. It may be what it means to SOME PEOPLE, myself not among them. It's also the case that if you use a word with ambiguous meaning, either meaning may be assumed by some. Thus, perhaps, it's a bad choice of word; it will be interpreted by some as being an accusation of bad faith and deliberate provocation for the purposes of amusement.
The problem is that 'troll' has become such a loaded word on Wikipedia that it is now best avoided.
"A loaded word"? As opposed to... I don't know... say... rape?
Oskar, I'm trying to understand this comment of yours. I neither used the word 'rape' nor compared or opposed the use of 'troll' to the use of 'rape'.
You seem to be suggesting that I can't take issue with describing someone as a troll because that same person is making rape comparisons. Others had already called that out; I saw no need to add to it.
-Matt
On 8/2/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/1/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote: You seem to be suggesting that I can't take issue with describing someone as a troll because that same person is making rape comparisons. Others had already called that out; I saw no need to add to it.
As I read Armedblowfish's post (from memory), he compared this situation to rape, violence, OR harassment, and his point was one about people being attacked for being attacked. It would make more sense to take that point, rather than focusing on a provocative word. (This isn't directed at Matthew, by the way, but at the other editors who complained, though I've lost track of who they were.)
Comparing rape or violence to having your real life identity on wikipedia outed is a loathsome analogy that trivializes rape and violence, manipulates emotions and tries to exploit what victims of rape and violence have gone through in order to make a point.
While you may be the beneficiary of this insensitive and boorish attempt to score a debating point I hope that you have enough perspective to rise above the fray and condemn ArmedBlowFish's writing for what it is.
SV, quite frankly, you were sloppy and made mistakes. You used a pseudonym that could be linked to you in real life. You edited articles that you were connected to in real life in an obvious way. You left a trail. Yes, it's too bad you were outed but it's not rape and it's not violence. People shouldn't be saying that it is and you shouldn't be encouraging them.
SP
On 8/2/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/1/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote: You seem to be suggesting that I can't take issue with describing someone as a troll because that same person is making rape comparisons. Others had already called that out; I saw no need to add to it.
As I read Armedblowfish's post (from memory), he compared this situation to rape, violence, OR harassment, and his point was one about people being attacked for being attacked. It would make more sense to take that point, rather than focusing on a provocative word. (This isn't directed at Matthew, by the way, but at the other editors who complained, though I've lost track of who they were.)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
To those who say I have trivialised rape / violence - I'll not quote, it's been more than one person by now - I am afraid you are mistaken. Let's see... I am a victim of long term sexual abuse... I have friends who have been raped... I have friends who have been stabbed with knives and thrown down staircases. And I am quite sure that, were those friends to read this, they would not be offended. Some of them would probably be proud of me.
I'm doing this to help victims and potential victims of abuse. I cannot honestly expect people to provide helpful responses to a sort of pain they do not understand - hence, I've been trying to explain it.
Also see this article by Deborah Orr entitled 'Deborah Orr: How can juries understand rape unless the full horror is explained to them?': http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_m_z/deborah_orr/article2201075.e...
SlimVirgin may not, to our knowledge, be the victim of violent stalking... yet! But one thing leads to another - once they can find you, it is quite possible that they will, and then the violence can start. We can reduce the likelihood of that happening by providing social support, making her less vulnerable. But even if it doesn't happen, there is still such a thing as 'emotional abuse'.
Consider this USENET posting as quoted by Judith Donath of MIT Media Labs in the article 'Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community' which was published in 'Communities in Cyberspace', '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 02/08/07, Stephen Park stephenpark15@gmail.com wrote:
Comparing rape or violence to having your real life identity on wikipedia outed is a loathsome analogy that trivializes rape and violence, manipulates emotions and tries to exploit what victims of rape and violence have gone through in order to make a point.
While you may be the beneficiary of this insensitive and boorish attempt to score a debating point I hope that you have enough perspective to rise above the fray and condemn ArmedBlowFish's writing for what it is.
SV, quite frankly, you were sloppy and made mistakes. You used a pseudonym that could be linked to you in real life. You edited articles that you were connected to in real life in an obvious way. You left a trail. Yes, it's too bad you were outed but it's not rape and it's not violence. People shouldn't be saying that it is and you shouldn't be encouraging them.
SP
On 8/2/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/1/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote: You seem to be suggesting that I can't take issue with describing someone as a troll because that same person is making rape comparisons. Others had already called that out; I saw no need to add to it.
As I read Armedblowfish's post (from memory), he compared this situation to rape, violence, OR harassment, and his point was one about people being attacked for being attacked. It would make more sense to take that point, rather than focusing on a provocative word. (This isn't directed at Matthew, by the way, but at the other editors who complained, though I've lost track of who they were.)
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 8/2/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
To those who say I have trivialised rape / violence - I'll not quote, it's been more than one person by now - I am afraid you are mistaken. Let's see... I am a victim of long term sexual abuse... I have friends who have been raped... I have friends who have been stabbed with knives and thrown down staircases. And I am quite sure that, were those friends to read this, they would not be offended. Some of them would probably be proud of me.
I'm doing this to help victims and potential victims of abuse. I cannot honestly expect people to provide helpful responses to a sort of pain they do not understand - hence, I've been trying to explain it.
Also see this article by Deborah Orr entitled 'Deborah Orr: How can juries understand rape unless the full horror is explained to them?':
http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_m_z/deborah_orr/article2201075.e...
SlimVirgin may not, to our knowledge, be the victim of violent stalking... yet! But one thing leads to another - once they can find you, it is quite possible that they will, and then the violence can start. We can reduce the likelihood of that happening by providing social support, making her less vulnerable. But even if it doesn't happen, there is still such a thing as 'emotional abuse'.
Consider this USENET posting as quoted by Judith Donath of MIT Media Labs in the article 'Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community' which was published in 'Communities in Cyberspace', '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 02/08/07, Stephen Park stephenpark15@gmail.com wrote:
Comparing rape or violence to having your real life identity on wikipedia outed is a loathsome analogy that trivializes rape and violence, manipulates emotions and tries to exploit what victims of rape and violence have gone through in order to make a point.
While you may be the beneficiary of this insensitive and boorish attempt to score a debating point I hope that you have enough perspective to rise above the fray and condemn ArmedBlowFish's writing for what it is.
SV, quite frankly, you were sloppy and made mistakes. You used a pseudonym that could be linked to you in real life. You edited articles that you were connected to in real life in an obvious way. You left a trail. Yes, it's too bad you were outed but it's not rape and it's not violence. People shouldn't be saying that it is and you shouldn't be encouraging them.
SP
On 8/2/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/1/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote: You seem to be suggesting that I can't take issue with describing someone as a troll because that same person is making rape comparisons. Others had already called that out; I saw no need to
add
to it.
As I read Armedblowfish's post (from memory), he compared this situation to rape, violence, OR harassment, and his point was one about people being attacked for being attacked. It would make more sense to take that point, rather than focusing on a provocative word. (This isn't directed at Matthew, by the way, but at the other editors who complained, though I've lost track of who they were.)
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
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
That's funny, because I know people who have been raped and they would be incredibly pissed off to see their ordeal compared to the "horror" of having your real name released on the internet. Fuck off and quit trolling. It's a bit obvious that you're doing this because SV rained on your RFA and you're looking for some kind of approval or validation. Please come back when you have something relevant and not ridiculously offensive to say.
I can't believe a supposedly 'respected' Wikipedian like Jayjg is supporting and encouraging this idiocy.
On 02/08/07, Kamryn Matika kamrynmatika@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
To those who say I have trivialised rape / violence - I'll not quote, it's been more than one person by now - I am afraid you are mistaken. Let's see... I am a victim of long term sexual abuse... I have friends who have been raped... I have friends who have been stabbed with knives and thrown down staircases. And I am quite sure that, were those friends to read this, they would not be offended. Some of them would probably be proud of me.
I'm doing this to help victims and potential victims of abuse. I cannot honestly expect people to provide helpful responses to a sort of pain they do not understand - hence, I've been trying to explain it.
Also see this article by Deborah Orr entitled 'Deborah Orr: How can juries understand rape unless the full horror is explained to them?':
http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_m_z/deborah_orr/article2201075.e...
SlimVirgin may not, to our knowledge, be the victim of violent stalking... yet! But one thing leads to another - once they can find you, it is quite possible that they will, and then the violence can start. We can reduce the likelihood of that happening by providing social support, making her less vulnerable. But even if it doesn't happen, there is still such a thing as 'emotional abuse'.
Consider this USENET posting as quoted by Judith Donath of MIT Media Labs in the article 'Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community' which was published in 'Communities in Cyberspace', '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 02/08/07, Stephen Park stephenpark15@gmail.com wrote:
Comparing rape or violence to having your real life identity on wikipedia outed is a loathsome analogy that trivializes rape and violence, manipulates emotions and tries to exploit what victims of rape and violence have gone through in order to make a point.
While you may be the beneficiary of this insensitive and boorish attempt to score a debating point I hope that you have enough perspective to rise above the fray and condemn ArmedBlowFish's writing for what it is.
SV, quite frankly, you were sloppy and made mistakes. You used a pseudonym that could be linked to you in real life. You edited articles that you were connected to in real life in an obvious way. You left a trail. Yes, it's too bad you were outed but it's not rape and it's not violence. People shouldn't be saying that it is and you shouldn't be encouraging them.
SP
On 8/2/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/1/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote: You seem to be suggesting that I can't take issue with describing someone as a troll because that same person is making rape comparisons. Others had already called that out; I saw no need to
add
to it.
As I read Armedblowfish's post (from memory), he compared this situation to rape, violence, OR harassment, and his point was one about people being attacked for being attacked. It would make more sense to take that point, rather than focusing on a provocative word. (This isn't directed at Matthew, by the way, but at the other editors who complained, though I've lost track of who they were.)
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
That's funny, because I know people who have been raped and they would be incredibly pissed off to see their ordeal compared to the "horror" of having your real name released on the internet.
Life is pain. Empathy will get you through it better than whose-pain-is-worse competition... and my friends know that.
Fuck off and quit trolling.
That would imply I know what I'm doing. I'm too insane to troll.
It's a bit obvious that you're doing this because SV rained on your RFA and you're looking for some kind of approval or validation.
I've never been concerned about disagreeing with SlimVirgin before, and I'm not concerned about it now.
What did you expect me to do, take revenge? (As if I haven't been through worse?) What would that accomplish? I've tried anger and hatred - I didn't hurt anyone with those more than I hurt myself.
SlimVirgin is a human being, and there are some things no human being should have to go through.
Armed Blowfish
On 8/2/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
To those who say I have trivialised rape / violence - I'll not quote, it's been more than one person by now - I am afraid you are mistaken. Let's see... I am a victim of long term sexual abuse... I have friends who have been raped... I have friends who have been stabbed with knives and thrown down staircases. And I am quite sure that, were those friends to read this, they would not be offended. Some of them would probably be proud of me.
I'm doing this to help victims and potential victims of abuse. I cannot honestly expect people to provide helpful responses to a sort of pain they do not understand - hence, I've been trying to explain it.
Appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy
Also see this article by Deborah Orr entitled 'Deborah Orr: How can juries understand rape unless the full horror is explained to them?': http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_m_z/deborah_orr/article2201075.e...
They don't need to. Sentanceing is the job of the judge.
SlimVirgin may not, to our knowledge, be the victim of violent stalking... yet!
That is a matter for the police.
Matthew Brown wrote:
On 8/1/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
If the word is being used in this way, it conveys less meaning.
That's what it means, irrelevant of how much meaning it conveys.
I disagree that's what it means. It may be what it means to SOME PEOPLE, myself not among them. It's also the case that if you use a word with ambiguous meaning, either meaning may be assumed by some. Thus, perhaps, it's a bad choice of word; it will be interpreted by some as being an accusation of bad faith and deliberate provocation for the purposes of amusement.
The problem is that 'troll' has become such a loaded word on Wikipedia that it is now best avoided.
"A loaded word"? As opposed to... I don't know... say... rape?
Oskar, I'm trying to understand this comment of yours. I neither used the word 'rape' nor compared or opposed the use of 'troll' to the use of 'rape'.
You seem to be suggesting that I can't take issue with describing someone as a troll because that same person is making rape comparisons. Others had already called that out; I saw no need to add to it.
-Matt
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
And while this is all going along, the -real- trolls (those who throw these idiotic outing theories out there, whether they're true or not) are eating very well. Can we all please just say that nothing very good is going to come of this discussion at this point, and it's best just to drop it?
On 8/2/07, Stephen Park stephenpark15@gmail.com wrote:
You're seriously being an asshole with your offensive comparison.
ArmedBlowfish's "rape" analogy is trolling, pure and simple and Jay should stop posting this troll's comments immediately.
Wow. I thought the mindless thug who perpetrated the original attack was doing damage enough, but what is worrying is that instead of focussing on limiting the damage there are people willing to spread it. This is quite unacceptable.
On 8/2/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, Stephen Park stephenpark15@gmail.com wrote:
You're seriously being an asshole with your offensive comparison.
ArmedBlowfish's "rape" analogy is trolling, pure and simple and Jay should stop posting this troll's comments immediately.
Wow. I thought the mindless thug who perpetrated the original attack was doing damage enough, but what is worrying is that instead of focussing on limiting the damage there are people willing to spread it. This is quite unacceptable.
Oh, come now. Your devotion to the cause is commendable, but that's no reason to engage in needless invective against unnamed third parties.
As for limiting the damage: what people have been trying to tell you -- and what some people just don't seem to get -- is that the measures being taken *aren't* limiting the damage. For one, the outing itself is already done; the worms can't be stuffed back into the can. Beyond that, though, the people whose questions are being silenced are *not* the ones you need to be defending against. The people who would harass SlimVirgin over this are not watching her talk page for news about this; they have rather more effective methods of finding such things out. The people who *are* asking, on the other hand, aren't doing so out of malice, and lashing out against them accomplishes nothing useful.
Kirill
On 8/2/07, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
As for limiting the damage: what people have been trying to tell you -- and what some people just don't seem to get -- is that the measures being taken *aren't* limiting the damage.
I have seen this claim a few times. Except in the sense that this thread exist where a number of editors are engaging in victim-blaming, I don't see any grounds to believe that it's true. For instance I edit very broadly and participate in many discussions on Wikipedia, and until I received an email from Armedblowfish (who really doesn't deserve to be called a troll) I had no idea that this silly thing on Slashdot existed or that anybody cared about it.
I'm no friend of zionism, to put it mildly, which is one reason I tend to stay away from Israel/Palestine articles. However this doesn't mean that it's okay for people to engage in, and propagate, personal attacks on people who are suspected of, or openly support, zionism. And that applies especially to established, valued editors who have long been subjected to personal attacks.
If there were anything to this matter, the arbitration committee would (and should) act. If not, we should not let Wikipedia editors use it as an excuse to settle scores.
On 8/2/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
I have seen this claim a few times. Except in the sense that this thread exist where a number of editors are engaging in victim-blaming, I don't see any grounds to believe that it's true. For instance I edit very broadly and participate in many discussions on Wikipedia, and until I received an email from Armedblowfish (who really doesn't deserve to be called a troll) I had no idea that this silly thing on Slashdot existed or that anybody cared about it.
And now you *do* have an idea, despite all the efforts to the contrary.
I'm no friend of zionism, to put it mildly, which is one reason I tend to stay away from Israel/Palestine articles. However this doesn't mean that it's okay for people to engage in, and propagate, personal attacks on people who are suspected of, or openly support, zionism. And that applies especially to established, valued editors who have long been subjected to personal attacks.
Maybe I'm missing something, but what exactly does Zionism have to do with SV getting outed?
(I'm not talking about the sillier politicking with Jayjg et al. after the fact, but the original outing effort itself. That's the core "problem" that we're trying to resolve here, not our own reaction to it.)
If there were anything to this matter, the arbitration committee would (and should) act. If not, we should not let Wikipedia editors use it as an excuse to settle scores.
Which matter are you expecting us to act on?
Kirill
Kirill Lokshin wrote:
On 8/2/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
I had no idea that this silly thing on Slashdot existed or that anybody cared about it.
And now you *do* have an idea, despite all the efforts to the contrary.
One of the few amusing things about all this is that even though I've explicitly disclaimed interest in SlimVirgin's actual identity and the various ridiculous allegations that came out along with it, I've had no less that two respected editors send me unsolicited private emails in the course of this debate that provided all the gory details. Both of them are on the "keep it quiet" side to varying degrees.
On 8/2/07, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe I'm missing something, but what exactly does Zionism have to do with SV getting outed?
I wasn't aware that she had been outed. Should I phone MI5 headquarters on Millbank to tell them her cover has been blown?
Let's get serious. Slim Virgin has not been outed. A loony has tried pushing some kind of conspiracy theory and for some bizarre reason he's got a lot of otherwise sensible people trying their best to outdo the loony.
On 8/2/07, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
As for limiting the damage: what people have been trying to tell you -- and what some people just don't seem to get -- is that the measures being taken *aren't* limiting the damage. For one, the outing itself is already done; the worms can't be stuffed back into the can. Beyond that, though, the people whose questions are being silenced are *not* the ones you need to be defending against. The people who would harass SlimVirgin over this are not watching her talk page for news about this; they have rather more effective methods of finding such things out. The people who *are* asking, on the other hand, aren't doing so out of malice, and lashing out against them accomplishes nothing useful.
Kirill
Kirill, some of the people who asked were not doing so out of malice; some were. Here's one (message redacted by me) who was.
Quick Questions
Hello. Is your name now or has it ever been ________? Are you living in ________ under the name of ________? Have ypu even been employed by a government intelligence agency?
Just wondering.
Kisses! :) ~~~~ That user replaced the message on Sarah's page after it had been removed by an administrator, sent an obscene email to the admin who blocked him, posted about it on another website showing no regret, and has a record of vandalism and BLP violations on Wikipedia. Do you seriously think that it was an honest and innocent question, and that it didn't even occur to the user that the question might be unwelcome? Do you seriously think that ending it with "kisses" was not taunting? And that wasn't the only trolling question on Sarah's page.
As for those who did post in good faith (this is addressed to John Lee as well, since he has made similar statements), the only credible reaction from someone whose good faith question was removed from Sarah's page would be, "Oops, sorry. I should have used private email." And yes, these people should use private email if their only motive is to inform Sarah of something they think she might not know about, but which may breach her privacy. That's what I did recently when I came across something which I thought she should know, but which I thought she might not like me to post about on her talk page.
Elinor
On 8/3/07, ElinorD elinordf@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
As for limiting the damage: what people have been trying to tell you -- and what some people just don't seem to get -- is that the measures being taken *aren't* limiting the damage. For one, the outing itself is already done; the worms can't be stuffed back into the can. Beyond that, though, the people whose questions are being silenced are *not* the ones you need to be defending against. The people who would harass SlimVirgin over this are not watching her talk page for news about this; they have rather more effective methods of finding such things out. The people who *are* asking, on the other hand, aren't doing so out of malice, and lashing out against them accomplishes nothing useful.
Kirill
Kirill, some of the people who asked were not doing so out of malice; some were. Here's one (message redacted by me) who was.
Quick Questions
Hello. Is your name now or has it ever been ________? Are you living in ________ under the name of ________? Have ypu even been employed by a government intelligence agency?
Just wondering.
Kisses! :) ~~~~ That user replaced the message on Sarah's page after it had been removed by an administrator, sent an obscene email to the admin who blocked him, posted about it on another website showing no regret, and has a record of vandalism and BLP violations on Wikipedia. Do you seriously think that it was an honest and innocent question, and that it didn't even occur to the user that the question might be unwelcome? Do you seriously think that ending it with "kisses" was not taunting? And that wasn't the only trolling question on Sarah's page.
As for those who did post in good faith (this is addressed to John Lee as well, since he has made similar statements), the only credible reaction from someone whose good faith question was removed from Sarah's page would be, "Oops, sorry. I should have used private email." And yes, these people should use private email if their only motive is to inform Sarah of something they think she might not know about, but which may breach her privacy. That's what I did recently when I came across something which I thought she should know, but which I thought she might not like me to post about on her talk page.
I've stopped responding to the thread because we're not going to go anywhere productive with it, but the fact is, we don't punish stupidity done in good faith. I am also wondering why it's fine to discuss potential outings on the list, but not on SV's talk page. Since both are public fora, if we delete good faith discussions from SV's page, should the list mods now be placing whoever originally brought up this topic on moderation?
Johnleemk
"Wikipedia users, especially administrators, will not permit a user under attack to be isolated, but will support them. This may include reverting harassing edits, protecting or deleting pages, blocking users, or taking other appropriate action."
That's it. That's the whole of it. That's why we will not permit Slim Virgin or anybody else to be attacked, inadvertently defamed or made to feel uncomfortable because of external allegations, by conspiracy theorist or otherwise, about her identity, through the medium of a wiki whose avowed intent is not this kind of nonsense, but the creation of a high quality free encyclopedia.
This is not Usenet, nor will it become the fifty-first state of Usenet. This is an encyclopedia.
On 8/11/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
"Wikipedia users, especially administrators, will not permit a user under attack to be isolated, but will support them. This may include reverting harassing edits, protecting or deleting pages, blocking users, or taking other appropriate action."
That's it. That's the whole of it. That's why we will not permit Slim Virgin or anybody else to be attacked, inadvertently defamed or made to feel uncomfortable because of external allegations, by conspiracy theorist or otherwise, about her identity, through the medium of a wiki whose avowed intent is not this kind of nonsense, but the creation of a high quality free encyclopedia.
This is not Usenet, nor will it become the fifty-first state of Usenet. This is an encyclopedia.
In other words this cabal was just a bunch of people who independently decided they weren't going to let shit happen to another human being?
That's kinda disappointing. And boring. As boring as this whole thing has been.
I would like the next set of accusations, besmirchments, and flaming failures to connect two dots to make a line to have some substance.
KP
Tony Sidaway wrote:
"Wikipedia users, especially administrators, will not permit a user under attack to be isolated, but will support them. This may include reverting harassing edits, protecting or deleting pages, blocking users, or taking other appropriate action."
"Appropriate". There's the rub.
On 8/2/07, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
As for limiting the damage: what people have been trying to tell you -- and what some people just don't seem to get -- is that the measures being taken *aren't* limiting the damage. For one, the outing itself is already done; the worms can't be stuffed back into the can.
Kirill, you're quite right that the damage can't be undone. Whether or not Sarah is the person that Brandt believes her to be, removing a message from her talk page at this stage won't prevent people from finding out that Brandt believes her to be this person. (Or if it does, in a few cases, it also causes other people to find out, as removing posts can draw more attention to them. So we lose and gain at the same time.)
But something very important has been overlooked: preventing people from seeing who Brandt thinks Sarah is is not the only possible motive for removing those posts. Another reason is the strong likelihood that she doesn't want those posts. How do we know that? Well, common sense, to start off with, and then the fact that before the recent increase in attacks on her privacy she had frequently argued in favour of removing links to sites that out people, and finally, the fact that some of the people removing the posts are known to be friendly with her, and might have a better understanding of her feelings than those who have criticised the removal of the posts.
It's not possible to hush up this rumour, but it should be possible to create an environment where contributors who have given a lot to Wikipedia and have been harassed as a result can feel that they have the support of the community. Creating such an environment is good for Wikipedia, but I sometimes feel that's overlooked. As one of the MONGO rulings said, "Wikipedia users, especially administrators, will not permit a user under attack to be isolated, but will support them. This may include reverting harassing edits, protecting or deleting pages, blocking users, or taking other appropriate action."
Allowing people to indulge in a long discussion on Wikipedia as to whether or not Sarah really is a spy and whether or not she really is the person Brandt believes her to be creates an environment where stalking victims who have contributed a lot feel vulnerable and betrayed. That's not good for the project. As you yourself endorsed in the Abu badali arbcom case, "the feelings of other users matter". Sarah's feelings matter.
Some people have suggested that it's not possible to make things worse by posting about it. I scalded my hand once, and for some time afterwards, it hurt more when I sat near the fire or when I washed in warm water. Touching a wound can make it worse. We don't say, "Oh, this person is wounded anyway, so there's no reason to take any special care. Let's poke to our hearts' content." At least, if we're kind, we don't.
Does all this "suppression" make Wikipedia look bad or ridiculous? If handled properly, it shouldn't. It should be possible to remove threads calmly, stating that Wikipedia has a policy of not engaging in, encouraging, or promoting speculation about the identities of anonymous contributors, and another policy of removing any poorly sourced material that might affect a person in real life. And that article, frankly, is a not a credit to journalism. The fact is, we remove material all the time, because of OTRS complaints, or because we see that it could affect people. Think of Jimbo's courtesy blanking of the Badlydrawnjeff ArbCom page. Think of the deletion of the Daniel Brandt discussion page.
I've been very impressed with some of the things written by arbitrators, and especially by you, Kirill, when it comes to the respect we should have for the feelings of people who might be affected by material on Wikipedia. There were some amazingly sensitive and wise rulings in the Badlydrawnjeff case, particularly "Basic human dignity" and "Do no harm", and I think they were drafted by you. But you never said, "Unless, of course, the person affected happens to be a Wikipedia editor."
As Jimbo said, "Wikipedia is not here to make people sad."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OFFICE#Intent
Elinor
On 8/2/07, Stephen Park stephenpark15@gmail.com wrote:
This is an absolutely appalling and inappropriate analogy that is incredibly insensitive to actual victims of rape. Armed Blowfish should apologize for writing it and Jay should apologize for posting it. What in the world were you guys thinking?
That's not an appropriate way to respond to a very, very serious attack. The analogy is apposite, for the attack on a person's integrity and privacym and the way in which the victim is then blamed.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 8/2/07, Stephen Park stephenpark15@gmail.com wrote:
This is an absolutely appalling and inappropriate analogy that is incredibly insensitive to actual victims of rape. Armed Blowfish should apologize for writing it and Jay should apologize for posting it. What in the world were you guys thinking?
That's not an appropriate way to respond to a very, very serious attack. The analogy is apposite, for the attack on a person's integrity and privacym and the way in which the victim is then blamed.
Let's tone down the rhetoric, please. Yes, the attempts to "out" Slim and other editors have been vicious. But no, no one (that I have seen) has blamed Slim or the others for those outings.