From Joshua Brady: Can we try to move on and stop harping on this, and discuss a real solution for a change? What do we want to do/what are we going to do about this? What can/will we do to stop this in the future?
Excellent questions. : )
But which problem? SlimVirgin's in particular? Victims and potential victims of abuse and harassment in general? Or identity deception, which probably isn't a problem in this case but which some people seem to be worried about for some reason?
To help SlimVirgin: * Stalkers and other abusers tend to go after the vulnerable, and part of vulnerability is social isolation. By being supportive, we reduce the chance that this particular case of stalking will become a violent one. And no, I'm not saying that Daniel Brandt et. al. are the violent type, in fact I do not believe they are, but the information which may or may not be true has been released to many. If it's true, all it takes is one nut to read that and hunt SlimVirgin down, and this could become much worse. By the time you know the danger you are in, it is often too late. You hear the sound of someone entering downstairs... door opening and closing... footsteps... and then the voice of the man you fear. You don't believe you could run out past him. There are no ladders to escape out the window. You could scream, but there's no one around to hear you... and even if there was, he's a friend of the neighbours. All of your friends are busy at this time of day, and you know the police won't be sympathetic... and even if they did come, they wouldn't come in time. Instead, you check to make sure the door is locked. It is, but you are afraid that won't be enough. There's no bolt. All the time you hear footsteps. He arrives, demands entry, starts proclaiming how hurt he feels. You tell him to go away. He starts picking the lock, all the time screaming about how hurtful your refusal to see him is... how he has a right to see you, touch you... how much he loves you. You try to barricade the door, but you aren't strong enough to move any of the heavy furniture. Eventually, he successfully picks the lock and knocks down the barricade. He blocks the doorway with his body, perhaps around 300lbs heavier than you. He continues his insane banter, even as you yell at him to go away. Adrenaline has been surging through you bloodstream for some time, making you more energetic, stronger. Perhaps you can fight your way past. You have no self defence training, but you manage to jam you knee into his groin. He bends over a bit, but remains firmly blocking the doorway... and in a moment he pushes you hard onto the floor, onto the toppled remains of your barricade, calling you a 'sick puppy'. Before you can get to your feet, he drags you onto the bed and pins you down there, only a bit of thin cloth between his groin and your chest. He keeps up his banter... how hurt he his... how cruel and evil you are... how much he loves you... and even starts to cry, all while keeping you pinned, all while you keep telling him to go away. Do not make me go on. * Providing SlimVirgin with what emotional support we can - letting her know she has friends - will hopefully make her feel better. Raising awareness of the damaging effects of abuse will hopefully help people to do this. * Cover up what we can, hoping that less people will see this... you never know which one of them might be the type to track her down in person. Discuss privately by e-mail to help people understand why their comments are removed.
To help others victims... and especially potential victims. ('And ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.'): * If we help SlimVirgin, we teach others that they can and will get help, making others less vulnerable. In addition, tolerace of stalkers will only make it safe for them to stalk - the line needs to be drawn on this. * I already know SlimVirgin and Jayjg will disagree with this, but allow editing through Tor. IP addresses are not the only way to track someone down, but don't leave the window unlocked just because it's easier for someone to come in through the door. I trust the Checkusers, but there are ways to get someone's IP address without the cooperation of Checkusers... eavesdropping on the connection between you and Wikipaedia, watching for accidental non-logged-in edits. Some have complained that SlimVirgin left a trace - using Tor is one way to help avoid leaving a trace. * Be more liberal about oversighting things to protect people. The sooner something goes poof!, the less chance the wrong eyes will see it. And hey, even oversight isn't permanent - it can be undone. * Establish better relations with the operators of websites we might want to get things removed from. (This need not be inconsistent with not linking to their sites.) On that note, I'd like to give a public thank you to the moderators of the Wikipaedia Review for removing what information they have removed, and also for hiding parts of their forum from the Googlebot.
As for the identity deception thing, although I am not sure why some people think it is relevant in this particular case: * The biologists are way ahead of you - try cross-referencing 'conventional signal' and 'assessment signal' on Google if you want more information... alternatively, you could skip what the biologists wrote and read 'Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community' by Judith S. Donath. http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html
Armed Blowfish
On 02/08/07, Joshua Brady somitho@gmail.com wrote:
Guys/Gals/Others,
This has turned into a free-for-all attack fest on SlimVirgin's handling of things, and Jayjg's just being on the project. Let's try to remember not to launch into personal attacks and remain calm, if you seem like you are going to explode and can't take it anymore; please back away from the computer, and do not post in the heat of things.
We have all established:
- SlimVirgin's handling could have been better/worse/should be
oversighted/should not have been oversighted/we need to hire ninjas to settle this/her MI6 handler is ready to wage a nuclear war James Bond style.
- Jayjg's time here has come to a close and he should give it up or go
into hiding. Let's all remember we can not by consensus or forcing it down someones throat, make them leave the project. If and only if Jayjg himself decides to leave, he will leave. Removal of bits or asking him to give them up, only gets old. If you want to involuntarly take tools away from someone, first get a consensus to even make that possible, then put the specific user up for removal of tools. English wikipedia does not have a method of doing this currently. -Other people saying 'we' really mean to say 'I'.
- That online harassment can evolve into a real life danger, something
one person has already confirmed, and something I can attest to as well.
- Trying to run between terminals at tokyo, with only 30 minutes to do
so, will undoubtly result in a missed flight and forced delay as you are put on another flight.
Can we try to move on and stop harping on this, and discuss a real solution for a change? What do we want to do/what are we going to do about this? What can/will we do to stop this in the future?
-Josh
On 8/2/07, Joshua Brady somitho@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Jayjg wrote:
O.K. Explain exactly how *I* was involved in the "response to discussion attempts on-wiki". As far as I can tell, my total involvement consisted of overwriting one comment on SV's talk page.
Which I (perhaps inappropriately) pointed out. But if you're not involved, then why have you posted 34 messages to this thread?
I don't understand the question. If I post to the thread, then I suddenly become "involved". Does that mean everyone who posted to this thread is now "involved", and should leave Wikipedia?
Apparently that one action was enough to generate both huge amounts of "drama"...
The drama that's present in this thread is indeed symptomatic of the problem this thread purports to be about.
Which is why, of course, I suggested that we stop talking about it. If the drama is actually all in this thread, then people shouldn't have started it, and shouldn't be continuing it.
It's obvious to everyone but you
Please don't presume to speak for "everyone"; I've had off-wiki communications from others who say they have no idea what this is all about.
but: nobody's talking about you just because of that one action. Your involvement is not due to having removed (rather sneakily, I might add) one user's question from SlimVirgin's talk page recently, but rather, your consistent advocacy of the practice of doing so. (Among other things.)
Huh? I've consistently "advocated" the "practice" of removing stuff from SV's talk page? Where have I done this? And you think I should leave Wikipedia because you disagree with opinions that you apparently have invented for me?
I simply am not understanding any of this, as it doesn't appear to accord with any reality I am familiar with.
On 8/2/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
From Joshua Brady:
Can we try to move on and stop harping on this, and discuss a real solution for a change? What do we want to do/what are we going to do about this? What can/will we do to stop this in the future?
Excellent questions. : )
But which problem? SlimVirgin's in particular? Victims and potential victims of abuse and harassment in general? Or identity deception, which probably isn't a problem in this case but which some people seem to be worried about for some reason?
To help SlimVirgin:
- Stalkers and other abusers tend to go after the vulnerable, and part
of vulnerability is social isolation. By being supportive, we reduce the chance that this particular case of stalking will become a violent one. And no, I'm not saying that Daniel Brandt et. al. are the violent type, in fact I do not believe they are, but the information which may or may not be true has been released to many. If it's true, all it takes is one nut to read that and hunt SlimVirgin down, and this could become much worse. By the time you know the danger you are in, it is often too late. You hear the sound of someone entering downstairs... door opening and closing... footsteps... and then the voice of the man you fear. You don't believe you could run out past him. There are no ladders to escape out the window. You could scream, but there's no one around to hear you... and even if there was, he's a friend of the neighbours. All of your friends are busy at this time of day, and you know the police won't be sympathetic... and even if they did come, they wouldn't come in time. Instead, you check to make sure the door is locked. It is, but you are afraid that won't be enough. There's no bolt. All the time you hear footsteps. He arrives, demands entry, starts proclaiming how hurt he feels. You tell him to go away. He starts picking the lock, all the time screaming about how hurtful your refusal to see him is... how he has a right to see you, touch you... how much he loves you. You try to barricade the door, but you aren't strong enough to move any of the heavy furniture. Eventually, he successfully picks the lock and knocks down the barricade. He blocks the doorway with his body, perhaps around 300lbs heavier than you. He continues his insane banter, even as you yell at him to go away. Adrenaline has been surging through you bloodstream for some time, making you more energetic, stronger. Perhaps you can fight your way past. You have no self defence training, but you manage to jam you knee into his groin. He bends over a bit, but remains firmly blocking the doorway... and in a moment he pushes you hard onto the floor, onto the toppled remains of your barricade, calling you a 'sick puppy'. Before you can get to your feet, he drags you onto the bed and pins you down there, only a bit of thin cloth between his groin and your chest. He keeps up his banter... how hurt he his... how cruel and evil you are... how much he loves you... and even starts to cry, all while keeping you pinned, all while you keep telling him to go away. Do not make me go on.
- Providing SlimVirgin with what emotional support we can - letting
her know she has friends - will hopefully make her feel better. Raising awareness of the damaging effects of abuse will hopefully help people to do this.
- Cover up what we can, hoping that less people will see this... you
never know which one of them might be the type to track her down in person. Discuss privately by e-mail to help people understand why their comments are removed.
To help others victims... and especially potential victims. ('And ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.'):
- If we help SlimVirgin, we teach others that they can and will get
help, making others less vulnerable. In addition, tolerace of stalkers will only make it safe for them to stalk - the line needs to be drawn on this.
- I already know SlimVirgin and Jayjg will disagree with this, but
allow editing through Tor. IP addresses are not the only way to track someone down, but don't leave the window unlocked just because it's easier for someone to come in through the door. I trust the Checkusers, but there are ways to get someone's IP address without the cooperation of Checkusers... eavesdropping on the connection between you and Wikipaedia, watching for accidental non-logged-in edits. Some have complained that SlimVirgin left a trace - using Tor is one way to help avoid leaving a trace.
- Be more liberal about oversighting things to protect people. The
sooner something goes poof!, the less chance the wrong eyes will see it. And hey, even oversight isn't permanent - it can be undone.
- Establish better relations with the operators of websites we might
want to get things removed from. (This need not be inconsistent with not linking to their sites.) On that note, I'd like to give a public thank you to the moderators of the Wikipaedia Review for removing what information they have removed, and also for hiding parts of their forum from the Googlebot.
As for the identity deception thing, although I am not sure why some people think it is relevant in this particular case:
- The biologists are way ahead of you - try cross-referencing
'conventional signal' and 'assessment signal' on Google if you want more information... alternatively, you could skip what the biologists wrote and read 'Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community' by Judith S. Donath. http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html
Armed Blowfish
On 02/08/07, Joshua Brady somitho@gmail.com wrote:
Guys/Gals/Others,
This has turned into a free-for-all attack fest on SlimVirgin's handling of things, and Jayjg's just being on the project. Let's try to remember not to launch into personal attacks and remain calm, if you seem like you are going to explode and can't take it anymore; please back away from the computer, and do not post in the heat of things.
We have all established:
- SlimVirgin's handling could have been better/worse/should be
oversighted/should not have been oversighted/we need to hire ninjas to settle this/her MI6 handler is ready to wage a nuclear war James Bond style.
- Jayjg's time here has come to a close and he should give it up or go
into hiding. Let's all remember we can not by consensus or forcing it down someones throat, make them leave the project. If and only if Jayjg himself decides to leave, he will leave. Removal of bits or asking him to give them up, only gets old. If you want to involuntarly take tools away from someone, first get a consensus to even make that possible, then put the specific user up for removal of tools. English wikipedia does not have a method of doing this currently. -Other people saying 'we' really mean to say 'I'.
- That online harassment can evolve into a real life danger, something
one person has already confirmed, and something I can attest to as well.
- Trying to run between terminals at tokyo, with only 30 minutes to do
so, will undoubtly result in a missed flight and forced delay as you are put on another flight.
Can we try to move on and stop harping on this, and discuss a real solution for a change? What do we want to do/what are we going to do about this? What can/will we do to stop this in the future?
-Josh
On 8/2/07, Joshua Brady somitho@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Jayjg wrote:
O.K. Explain exactly how *I* was involved in the "response to discussion attempts on-wiki". As far as I can tell, my total involvement consisted of overwriting one comment on SV's talk
page.
Which I (perhaps inappropriately) pointed out. But if you're not involved, then why have you posted 34 messages to this thread?
I don't understand the question. If I post to the thread, then I suddenly become "involved". Does that mean everyone who posted to
this
thread is now "involved", and should leave Wikipedia?
Apparently that one action was enough to generate both huge
amounts
of "drama"...
The drama that's present in this thread is indeed symptomatic of the problem this thread purports to be about.
Which is why, of course, I suggested that we stop talking about it.
If
the drama is actually all in this thread, then people shouldn't have started it, and shouldn't be continuing it.
It's obvious to everyone but you
Please don't presume to speak for "everyone"; I've had off-wiki communications from others who say they have no idea what this is
all
about.
but: nobody's talking about you just because of that one action. Your involvement is not due to having removed (rather sneakily, I might add) one user's question from SlimVirgin's talk page recently, but rather, your consistent advocacy of the practice of doing so. (Among other things.)
Huh? I've consistently "advocated" the "practice" of removing stuff from SV's talk page? Where have I done this? And you think I should leave Wikipedia because you disagree with opinions that you
apparently
have invented for me?
I simply am not understanding any of this, as it doesn't appear to accord with any reality I am familiar with.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
what the fuck? why isnt this guy on moderation?
On 8/2/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
From Joshua Brady:
Can we try to move on and stop harping on this, and discuss a real solution for a change? What do we want to do/what are we going to do about this? What can/will we do to stop this in the future?
Excellent questions. : )
But which problem? SlimVirgin's in particular? Victims and potential victims of abuse and harassment in general? Or identity deception, which probably isn't a problem in this case but which some people seem to be worried about for some reason?
To help SlimVirgin:
- Stalkers and other abusers tend to go after the vulnerable, and part
of vulnerability is social isolation. By being supportive, we reduce the chance that this particular case of stalking will become a violent one. And no, I'm not saying that Daniel Brandt et. al. are the violent type, in fact I do not believe they are, but the information which may or may not be true has been released to many. If it's true, all it takes is one nut to read that and hunt SlimVirgin down, and this could become much worse. By the time you know the danger you are in, it is often too late. You hear the sound of someone entering downstairs... door opening and closing... footsteps... and then the voice of the man you fear. You don't believe you could run out past him. There are no ladders to escape out the window. You could scream, but there's no one around to hear you... and even if there was, he's a friend of the neighbours. All of your friends are busy at this time of day, and you know the police won't be sympathetic... and even if they did come, they wouldn't come in time. Instead, you check to make sure the door is locked. It is, but you are afraid that won't be enough. There's no bolt. All the time you hear footsteps. He arrives, demands entry, starts proclaiming how hurt he feels. You tell him to go away. He starts picking the lock, all the time screaming about how hurtful your refusal to see him is... how he has a right to see you, touch you... how much he loves you. You try to barricade the door, but you aren't strong enough to move any of the heavy furniture. Eventually, he successfully picks the lock and knocks down the barricade. He blocks the doorway with his body, perhaps around 300lbs heavier than you. He continues his insane banter, even as you yell at him to go away. Adrenaline has been surging through you bloodstream for some time, making you more energetic, stronger. Perhaps you can fight your way past. You have no self defence training, but you manage to jam you knee into his groin. He bends over a bit, but remains firmly blocking the doorway... and in a moment he pushes you hard onto the floor, onto the toppled remains of your barricade, calling you a 'sick puppy'. Before you can get to your feet, he drags you onto the bed and pins you down there, only a bit of thin cloth between his groin and your chest. He keeps up his banter... how hurt he his... how cruel and evil you are... how much he loves you... and even starts to cry, all while keeping you pinned, all while you keep telling him to go away. Do not make me go on.
- Providing SlimVirgin with what emotional support we can - letting
her know she has friends - will hopefully make her feel better. Raising awareness of the damaging effects of abuse will hopefully help people to do this.
- Cover up what we can, hoping that less people will see this... you
never know which one of them might be the type to track her down in person. Discuss privately by e-mail to help people understand why their comments are removed.
To help others victims... and especially potential victims. ('And ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.'):
- If we help SlimVirgin, we teach others that they can and will get
help, making others less vulnerable. In addition, tolerace of stalkers will only make it safe for them to stalk - the line needs to be drawn on this.
- I already know SlimVirgin and Jayjg will disagree with this, but
allow editing through Tor. IP addresses are not the only way to track someone down, but don't leave the window unlocked just because it's easier for someone to come in through the door. I trust the Checkusers, but there are ways to get someone's IP address without the cooperation of Checkusers... eavesdropping on the connection between you and Wikipaedia, watching for accidental non-logged-in edits. Some have complained that SlimVirgin left a trace - using Tor is one way to help avoid leaving a trace.
- Be more liberal about oversighting things to protect people. The
sooner something goes poof!, the less chance the wrong eyes will see it. And hey, even oversight isn't permanent - it can be undone.
- Establish better relations with the operators of websites we might
want to get things removed from. (This need not be inconsistent with not linking to their sites.) On that note, I'd like to give a public thank you to the moderators of the Wikipaedia Review for removing what information they have removed, and also for hiding parts of their forum from the Googlebot.
As for the identity deception thing, although I am not sure why some people think it is relevant in this particular case:
- The biologists are way ahead of you - try cross-referencing
'conventional signal' and 'assessment signal' on Google if you want more information... alternatively, you could skip what the biologists wrote and read 'Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community' by Judith S. Donath. http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html
Armed Blowfish
On 02/08/07, Joshua Brady somitho@gmail.com wrote:
Guys/Gals/Others,
This has turned into a free-for-all attack fest on SlimVirgin's handling of things, and Jayjg's just being on the project. Let's try to remember not to launch into personal attacks and remain calm, if you seem like you are going to explode and can't take it anymore; please back away from the computer, and do not post in the heat of things.
We have all established:
- SlimVirgin's handling could have been better/worse/should be
oversighted/should not have been oversighted/we need to hire ninjas to settle this/her MI6 handler is ready to wage a nuclear war James Bond style.
- Jayjg's time here has come to a close and he should give it up or go
into hiding. Let's all remember we can not by consensus or forcing it down someones throat, make them leave the project. If and only if Jayjg himself decides to leave, he will leave. Removal of bits or asking him to give them up, only gets old. If you want to involuntarly take tools away from someone, first get a consensus to even make that possible, then put the specific user up for removal of tools. English wikipedia does not have a method of doing this currently. -Other people saying 'we' really mean to say 'I'.
- That online harassment can evolve into a real life danger, something
one person has already confirmed, and something I can attest to as well.
- Trying to run between terminals at tokyo, with only 30 minutes to do
so, will undoubtly result in a missed flight and forced delay as you are put on another flight.
Can we try to move on and stop harping on this, and discuss a real solution for a change? What do we want to do/what are we going to do about this? What can/will we do to stop this in the future?
-Josh
On 8/2/07, Joshua Brady somitho@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Jayjg wrote:
O.K. Explain exactly how *I* was involved in the "response to discussion attempts on-wiki". As far as I can tell, my total involvement consisted of overwriting one comment on SV's talk
page.
Which I (perhaps inappropriately) pointed out. But if you're not involved, then why have you posted 34 messages to this thread?
I don't understand the question. If I post to the thread, then I suddenly become "involved". Does that mean everyone who posted to
this
thread is now "involved", and should leave Wikipedia?
Apparently that one action was enough to generate both huge
amounts
of "drama"...
The drama that's present in this thread is indeed symptomatic of the problem this thread purports to be about.
Which is why, of course, I suggested that we stop talking about it.
If
the drama is actually all in this thread, then people shouldn't have started it, and shouldn't be continuing it.
It's obvious to everyone but you
Please don't presume to speak for "everyone"; I've had off-wiki communications from others who say they have no idea what this is
all
about.
but: nobody's talking about you just because of that one action. Your involvement is not due to having removed (rather sneakily, I might add) one user's question from SlimVirgin's talk page recently, but rather, your consistent advocacy of the practice of doing so. (Among other things.)
Huh? I've consistently "advocated" the "practice" of removing stuff from SV's talk page? Where have I done this? And you think I should leave Wikipedia because you disagree with opinions that you
apparently
have invented for me?
I simply am not understanding any of this, as it doesn't appear to accord with any reality I am familiar with.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
by this logic, everyone is at risk of being hunted down, violently attack and raped simply for revealing their name. what rubbish.
Everyone is already at risk... with the possible exception of hermits on mountains, etc. It is still advisable to take precautions, e.g. lock the doors and windows, to reduce the risk.
http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html
'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.' -- a USENET posting Judith Donath of MIT Media Labs found, see above link
A quote from the Night Stalker episode 'Burning Man', just because I believe it is well-worded: 'They're in the news every day -- warnings about what you should eat, drink, breathe, think. In the modern world, fear of death isn't a distant anxiety reserved for old age; it's daily life. The ordinary no longer offers comfort -- not when death can come any time, from any thing.'
Armed Blowfish
Armed Blowfish wrote:
Everyone is already at risk... with the possible exception of hermits on mountains, etc. It is still advisable to take precautions, e.g. lock the doors and windows, to reduce the risk.
http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html
Note that this document is dated 1996. The world has changed a bit or two since then.
However, in the more-than-a-decade since that publication, the Apocalypse has not yet occurred -- film at 11.
-- Sean Barrett | Portions of this message were sean@epoptic.com | composed using a computer.
I noticed the date. Changed... 'I think weather changes, and we just keep making the same mistakes.'
The world does not seem any safer now than it did ten years ago.
Armed Blowfish
On 09/08/07, Sean sean@epoptic.com wrote:
Armed Blowfish wrote:
Everyone is already at risk... with the possible exception of hermits on mountains, etc. It is still advisable to take precautions, e.g. lock the doors and windows, to reduce the risk.
http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html
Note that this document is dated 1996. The world has changed a bit or two since then.
However, in the more-than-a-decade since that publication, the Apocalypse has not yet occurred -- film at 11.
-- Sean Barrett | Portions of this message were sean@epoptic.com | composed using a computer.
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 8/9/07, Sean sean@epoptic.com wrote:
Note that this document is dated 1996. The world has changed a bit or two since then.
What hasn't changed is that if you have enemies, you need to be cautious. How much is reasonable is a personal decision, really.
-Matt
On 09/08/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/9/07, Sean sean@epoptic.com wrote:
Note that this document is dated 1996. The world has changed a bit or two since then.
What hasn't changed is that if you have enemies, you need to be cautious. How much is reasonable is a personal decision, really.
-Matt
Thanks. : ) I wish I hadn't learnt that the hard way. ;_;
Armed Blowfish
On 8/2/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
- If we help SlimVirgin, we teach others that they can and will get
help, making others less vulnerable. In addition, tolerace of stalkers will only make it safe for them to stalk - the line needs to be drawn on this.
Precisely. Why is this mailing list filling up with people sticking the boot in at this time when a respected fellow editor needs our support?
On 8/2/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
- If we help SlimVirgin, we teach others that they can and will get
help, making others less vulnerable. In addition, tolerace of stalkers will only make it safe for them to stalk - the line needs to be drawn on this.
Precisely. Why is this mailing list filling up with people sticking the boot in at this time when a respected fellow editor needs our support?
It's perfectly compatible to hold the opinions "I support SV" and "Why the **** did you all blow the list up this morning with atrociously inappropriate rape comparisons".
An indication of how wrong the comparison was is that we DID effectively stop talking about the legitimate serious issues for a whole day and argue about the commentary instead. The whole line of discussion has done nothing but distract from the actual underlying incident. I don't ascribe malice, but AB dropped an unrelated drama-bomb into a very real and quite serious and legitimate harrassment issue. And everyone pretty much took the bait.
On 02/08/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
It's perfectly compatible to hold the opinions "I support SV" and "Why the **** did you all blow the list up this morning with atrociously inappropriate rape comparisons".
Comparing this to my life is a form of empathy... in any case, I believe I answered your question here: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-August/078543.html
In any case, the psychology of rape is the psychology of abuse, for the most part.
Armed Blowfish
<cut>
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
On 8/2/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
On 02/08/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
It's perfectly compatible to hold the opinions "I support SV" and "Why the **** did you all blow the list up this morning with atrociously inappropriate rape comparisons".
Comparing this to my life is a form of empathy... in any case, I believe I answered your question here: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-August/078543.html
In any case, the psychology of rape is the psychology of abuse, for the most part.
Not exactly. You're making an argument for symmetry, in which comparisons of generalized abuse with rape are reasonable. In fact, though there are similar attitudes and pathologies involved, the vast majority of more generalized abusive people are not rapists and do not operate in a like manner. It's not just a matter of further generalized extreme; there are also sexual power aspects to most rapes which are simply not present in generalized abuse situations.
And psychology studies of internet human interaction indicate that most online abusers are NOT abusive in real life, and never will be. Many of them are reveling in the ability to stir up trouble online with no retaliation, and are in real life relatively meek and powerless. They find the depersonalizing aspects of internet communications offer them an outlet to let loose anger and repression that they haven't got the psyche to reveal in person.
I understand the stalking thing. I've had someone arrested for bothering me and my wife in real life and online.
I also understand the rape thing; two of my ex-girlfriends and several of my other female friends are rape survivors. One hid a highly abusive relationship from me and other friends for over a year out of shame and guilt, staying in it because she was too afraid to leave or ask for help.
Internet-only harrassment and "outing" are different.
They aren't minor things. They certainly can be life-changing events, and traumatic to the victims. Wikipedia should take them seriously and take actions to prevent people from doing it to our participants.
But they're not the same.
I believe in good faith that you believe that there's a legitimate analogy. But you're deeply and disturbingly wrong about that. I respect that you believe that you say, but it's an opinion which is arguably incorrect, and clearly and overwhelmingly divisive. The harm brought to this community by strenuously arguing the analogy is not minor.
I do not see allowing the situation to settle down with things as they stand now to be a good end result to today's discussions. We cannot be having divisive issues lying around like that like unexploded bombs, waiting to blow up the community again. This was a terrible terrible day for the mailing list, and it can't happen again. Until you understand your role in that and self-moderate your participation here, we have a problem.
On 8/2/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
On 02/08/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
It's perfectly compatible to hold the opinions "I support SV" and "Why the **** did you all blow the list up this morning with atrociously inappropriate rape comparisons".
Comparing this to my life is a form of empathy... in any case, I believe I answered your question here: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-August/078543.html
In any case, the psychology of rape is the psychology of abuse, for the most part.
on 8/2/07 10:27 PM, George Herbert at george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Not exactly. You're making an argument for symmetry, in which comparisons of generalized abuse with rape are reasonable. In fact, though there are similar attitudes and pathologies involved, the vast majority of more generalized abusive people are not rapists and do not operate in a like manner. It's not just a matter of further generalized extreme; there are also sexual power aspects to most rapes which are simply not present in generalized abuse situations.
And psychology studies of internet human interaction indicate that most online abusers are NOT abusive in real life, and never will be. Many of them are reveling in the ability to stir up trouble online with no retaliation, and are in real life relatively meek and powerless. They find the depersonalizing aspects of internet communications offer them an outlet to let loose anger and repression that they haven't got the psyche to reveal in person.
I understand the stalking thing. I've had someone arrested for bothering me and my wife in real life and online.
I also understand the rape thing; two of my ex-girlfriends and several of my other female friends are rape survivors. One hid a highly abusive relationship from me and other friends for over a year out of shame and guilt, staying in it because she was too afraid to leave or ask for help.
Internet-only harrassment and "outing" are different.
They aren't minor things. They certainly can be life-changing events, and traumatic to the victims. Wikipedia should take them seriously and take actions to prevent people from doing it to our participants.
But they're not the same.
I believe in good faith that you believe that there's a legitimate analogy. But you're deeply and disturbingly wrong about that. I respect that you believe that you say, but it's an opinion which is arguably incorrect, and clearly and overwhelmingly divisive. The harm brought to this community by strenuously arguing the analogy is not minor.
I do not see allowing the situation to settle down with things as they stand now to be a good end result to today's discussions. We cannot be having divisive issues lying around like that like unexploded bombs, waiting to blow up the community again. This was a terrible terrible day for the mailing list, and it can't happen again. Until you understand your role in that and self-moderate your participation here, we have a problem.
Some excellent insights here, George. And, yes, this thread (and others like it recently) is symptomatic of some real problems at the heart of this Project. We ignore them at our own peril!
And, it is time for those who eagerly identify themselves in the media as being prominent figures in Wikipedia to begin taking an active role in its health.
Marc Riddell
On 03/08/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
And, it is time for those who eagerly identify themselves in the media as being prominent figures in Wikipedia to begin taking an active role in its health.
Heh. Me? I do talk about living biographies a lot to the media (how they're by far our biggest problem and how we're working on it). I'm not sure that talking about trolls harassing editors would help matters ...
BTW, I assume some checkusers have looked over the harassing edits (the less than innocent variety of query). If any of them would like to but feel they shouldn't be the one to, email me or checkuser-l.
- d.
On 8/3/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/08/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
And, it is time for those who eagerly identify themselves in the media as being prominent figures in Wikipedia to begin taking an active role in its health.
Heh. Me? I do talk about living biographies a lot to the media (how they're by far our biggest problem and how we're working on it). I'm not sure that talking about trolls harassing editors would help matters ...
BTW, I assume some checkusers have looked over the harassing edits (the less than innocent variety of query). If any of them would like to but feel they shouldn't be the one to, email me or checkuser-l.
- d.
Ah, yes, speaking of cabals, that center of diversity that truely reflects the make-up of Wikipedia editors, those with check-user privileges are invited to take a peek just out of curiosity....
KP
On 03/08/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
And, it is time for those who eagerly identify themselves in the media as being prominent figures in Wikipedia to begin taking an active role in its health.
on 8/3/07 11:47 AM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Heh. Me? I do talk about living biographies a lot to the media (how they're by far our biggest problem and how we're working on it). I'm not sure that talking about trolls harassing editors would help matters ...
David, I was not referring to any single person here. But, since you volunteered, take a close look at our two posts: I'm talking about the very health of the Wikipedia Community itself; while you talk about focusing on living biographies and trolls.
I'm certainly not suggesting discussing these Community problems in the media; but, rather, spending more productive time focusing on problem-solving them here at home.
Take a really close look at the majority of posts on this List for the past couple of days, and then tell me where the focus needs to be.
Marc
On 02/08/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
On 02/08/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
It's perfectly compatible to hold the opinions "I support SV" and "Why the **** did you all blow the list up this morning with atrociously inappropriate rape comparisons".
Comparing this to my life is a form of empathy... in any case, I believe I answered your question here: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-August/078543.html
In any case, the psychology of rape is the psychology of abuse, for the most part.
Not exactly. You're making an argument for symmetry, in which comparisons of generalized abuse with rape are reasonable. In fact, though there are similar attitudes and pathologies involved, the vast majority of more generalized abusive people are not rapists and do not operate in a like manner. It's not just a matter of further generalized extreme; there are also sexual power aspects to most rapes which are simply not present in generalized abuse situations.
I believe I've said more about 'the second rape' phenomena, which is different from rape (see original links), than about rape itself. In any case, in my experience, the psychological parallels are similar. Psychological effects... pain, fear, vulnerability... later on isolation and more fear. And I do believe I've been discussing effect far more than intention. While I cannot comprehend rape itself being well-intentioned... the best that might be said is that the rapist was totally insane at the time... many (most? almost all?) of the people who ultimately support the rapist don't know what they are doing - actually believe the rapist is not a rapist, but a good person.
In response to 'sexual power': there are some who say that rape isn't sex, it's violence.
And yes... I am saying the psychological effects are remarkably parallel.
And psychology studies of internet human interaction indicate that most online abusers are NOT abusive in real life, and never will be. Many of them are reveling in the ability to stir up trouble online with no retaliation, and are in real life relatively meek and powerless. They find the depersonalizing aspects of internet communications offer them an outlet to let loose anger and repression that they haven't got the psyche to reveal in person.
But if enough information to track someone down is made public, it doesn't have to be the same person.
I understand the stalking thing. I've had someone arrested for bothering me and my wife in real life and online.
I'm sorry to hear that, but glad that it sounds like it turned out okay in the end.
I also understand the rape thing; two of my ex-girlfriends and several of my other female friends are rape survivors. One hid a highly abusive relationship from me and other friends for over a year out of shame and guilt, staying in it because she was too afraid to leave or ask for help.
I'm sorry. ;_;
Internet-only harrassment and "outing" are different.
They aren't minor things. They certainly can be life-changing events, and traumatic to the victims. Wikipedia should take them seriously and take actions to prevent people from doing it to our participants.
But they're not the same.
: )
I believe in good faith that you believe that there's a legitimate analogy. But you're deeply and disturbingly wrong about that. I respect that you believe that you say, but it's an opinion which is arguably incorrect, and clearly and overwhelmingly divisive. The harm brought to this community by strenuously arguing the analogy is not minor.
I do not see allowing the situation to settle down with things as they stand now to be a good end result to today's discussions. We cannot be having divisive issues lying around like that like unexploded bombs, waiting to blow up the community again. This was a terrible terrible day for the mailing list, and it can't happen again. Until you understand your role in that and self-moderate your participation here, we have a problem.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
Look, if there's anything I regret, it's that many people have apparently not understood, for some reason, the distinctions I have made between effect and intent, which I spelt out in my first posting here, and explained in more detail in several later posts. Perhaps they didn't read what I wrote on that topic. I don't know. But in case someone is reading now who didn't read any of that before - I don't believe the majority of people who end up defending rapists even know the person is a rapist, much less mean any harm - nor do I believe there is anyone on this list who actually means to cause any harm. Still, the psychological effects on victims is very damaging.
Armed Blowfish
George Herbert wrote:
It's perfectly compatible to hold the opinions "I support SV" and "Why the **** did you all blow the list up this morning with atrociously inappropriate rape comparisons".
For me, this captures an important point that has often gotten lost in this.
I think it's very important to support editors in the face of abusive behavior. When I was small, I saw and lived through things that I was powerless to stop, and that gave me life-long motivation to fight bullying, abuse, and cruelty. And after 20+ years of on-line communities, I know well how important defending against abuse is to the health of any community, on-line or off.
However, I have frequently gotten the feeling that if I don't agree with pretty much anything that is intended to help with that -- no matter how effective I think it practice -- then I will be treated as some sort of soulless monster who not only supports abuse wholeheartedly, but is probably breakfasting on the still-beating hearts of babies and puppies.
I don't think this is intentional or malicious. I think people see a wrong and are upset. And I think that's great. I want them to defend the community. I want *everybody* to defend the community.
But as much as I love it when people are passionate about Wikipedia, I'd like us to remember the downsides of passion. To guard against the way it can cloud our judgments and magnify disagreement into division. To remember that in protecting the community, the goal is to make it stronger. For everyone.
William
George Herbert wrote:
It's perfectly compatible to hold the opinions "I support SV" and "Why the **** did you all blow the list up this morning with atrociously inappropriate rape comparisons".
on 8/3/07 12:57 PM, William Pietri at william@scissor.com wrote:
For me, this captures an important point that has often gotten lost in this.
I think it's very important to support editors in the face of abusive behavior. When I was small, I saw and lived through things that I was powerless to stop, and that gave me life-long motivation to fight bullying, abuse, and cruelty. And after 20+ years of on-line communities, I know well how important defending against abuse is to the health of any community, on-line or off.
However, I have frequently gotten the feeling that if I don't agree with pretty much anything that is intended to help with that -- no matter how effective I think it practice -- then I will be treated as some sort of soulless monster who not only supports abuse wholeheartedly, but is probably breakfasting on the still-beating hearts of babies and puppies.
I don't think this is intentional or malicious. I think people see a wrong and are upset. And I think that's great. I want them to defend the community. I want *everybody* to defend the community.
But as much as I love it when people are passionate about Wikipedia, I'd like us to remember the downsides of passion. To guard against the way it can cloud our judgments and magnify disagreement into division. To remember that in protecting the community, the goal is to make it stronger. For everyone.
Some good insights, William.
Two thoughts:
Passion is the temperature of emotion. And, in the past several days, this List has experienced a heat wave. This is good, this is needed: because it is telling. This fever is just a symptom of an underlying problem, and decisions should never be made while that temperature is high. Once the temperature drops, the underlying cause is what you must deal with. But, too often, that's where the process had ended. We wait for the noise to die down, the number of posts to diminish, so we can get on with business as usual. This is deadly.
And, if we are to produce a truly creative, cutting-edge, one-of-a kind work here, we must all be encouraged to take risks, be bold, discard what is for what can be. BUT, we must also be assured a safe environment to work within.
Marc Riddell