Well, you can see for yourselves:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3APhaedriel http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3APhaedriel&diff=56024251&ol did=55557465 &diff=56024251&oldid=55557465
Titoxd.
Titoxd@Wikimedia wrote:
Well, you can see for yourselves:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3APhaedriel http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3APhaedriel&diff=56024251&ol did=55557465 &diff=56024251&oldid=55557465
Titoxd.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Although I know nothing for certain, it seems highly plausible that [[User:Amorrow]] was involved in this. One of the forum members on Wikipedia Review claims to have recieved correspondence from Mr. Morrow that could possibly be related to this. I really can't say more at this time, but it is a regrettable situation.
He's gloating about it but claims it is not him.
Fred
On May 31, 2006, at 12:11 AM, Jeffrey Latham wrote:
Titoxd@Wikimedia wrote:
Well, you can see for yourselves:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3APhaedriel <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User% 3APhaedriel&diff=56024251&ol did=55557465> &diff=56024251&oldid=55557465
Titoxd.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Although I know nothing for certain, it seems highly plausible that [[User:Amorrow]] was involved in this. One of the forum members on Wikipedia Review claims to have recieved correspondence from Mr. Morrow that could possibly be related to this. I really can't say more at this time, but it is a regrettable situation. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/31/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
He's gloating about it but claims it is not him.
Fred
It would be interesting if one of our admins works for a place that is edgy about these sorts of things. Someone calling to inquire about this admin would be in for a rude surprise. Something like, say, calling a police station asking for information about a police officer ss not a good idea.
Death Phoenix wrote:
On 5/31/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
He's gloating about it but claims it is not him.
Fred
It would be interesting if one of our admins works for a place that is edgy about these sorts of things. Someone calling to inquire about this admin would be in for a rude surprise. Something like, say, calling a police station asking for information about a police officer ss not a good idea.
One thing that I think editors should do is to make employers and such aware of their WP activities as much as possible. WP's visibility and reputation is now such that it's generally a positive thing to be seen as an important person in WP, and should a nasty person call, it helps the callee to recognize it as stalking rather than anything legitimate. Be proud of your work for Wikipedia, and let everybody know about it.
Stan
On 5/31/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
Death Phoenix wrote:
It would be interesting if one of our admins works for a place that is
edgy
about these sorts of things. Someone calling to inquire about this admin would be in for a rude surprise. Something like, say, calling a police station asking for information about a police officer ss not a good idea.
One thing that I think editors should do is to make employers and such aware of their WP activities as much as possible. WP's visibility and reputation is now such that it's generally a positive thing to be seen as an important person in WP, and should a nasty person call, it helps the callee to recognize it as stalking rather than anything legitimate. Be proud of your work for Wikipedia, and let everybody know about it.
Oh, yes it is. In fact, my Wikipedia activities have actually been a positive thing because we've got a couple of interdepartmental Wikis, and I'm a bureaucrat on one of them.
On 5/31/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
One thing that I think editors should do is to make employers and such aware of their WP activities as much as possible.
It's probably also true that there is a fair number of people who are editing Wikipedia under circumstances their boss or supervisor would disapprove of, including *gasp* some members of the nefarious ruling class known as "administrators". For those who intend to continue doing so, using a separate account may be advisable. (Accountability activism strikes again! Let's stalk people so they tell us more about themselves!)
Do we have a guideline for dealing with off-wiki harassment? We probably should, and link it from RfA.
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 5/31/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
One thing that I think editors should do is to make employers and such aware of their WP activities as much as possible.
It's probably also true that there is a fair number of people who are editing Wikipedia under circumstances their boss or supervisor would disapprove of, including *gasp* some members of the nefarious ruling class known as "administrators". For those who intend to continue doing so, using a separate account may be advisable. (Accountability activism strikes again! Let's stalk people so they tell us more about themselves!)
It's probably also true that there are a fair number of people who edit Wikipedia in secret, because being associated with such "looney left-wing crap" would be a Bad Thing.
Do we have a guideline for dealing with off-wiki harassment?
[[WP:BLOODY]].
We probably should, and link it from RfA.
Possibly.
On May 31, 2006, at 3:18 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
Do we have a guideline for dealing with off-wiki harassment? We probably should, and link it from RfA.
See the recent addition to [[WP:NPA]], as a compromise wording after no consensus was achieved on a stronger worded version:
[[Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Off-wiki_personal_attacks]]
I would suggest people in this thread comment on the talk page and extend this further to encompass not only personal attacks, but harassment as well.
-- Jossi
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 5/31/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
One thing that I think editors should do is to make employers and such aware of their WP activities as much as possible.
It's probably also true that there is a fair number of people who are editing Wikipedia under circumstances their boss or supervisor would disapprove of, including *gasp* some members of the nefarious ruling class known as "administrators". For those who intend to continue doing so, using a separate account may be advisable. (Accountability activism strikes again! Let's stalk people so they tell us more about themselves!)
Do we have a guideline for dealing with off-wiki harassment? We probably should, and link it from RfA.
The relationship between any Wikipedian and his real life employer are not our concern. Unless editing Wikipedia is a part of his job description he should not be doing so during his work time. If he gets fired because of his addictive behaviour it's not our concern.
Ec
On 6/8/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
The relationship between any Wikipedian and his real life employer are not our concern. Unless editing Wikipedia is a part of his job description he should not be doing so during his work time. If he gets fired because of his addictive behaviour it's not our concern.
We are not necessarily even talking about people who edit Wikipedia from work. The attempt to get Snowspinner in trouble was using his fictional writings. The attack on Katefan0 was not based on her editing Wikipedia from work either.
-Matt
G'day Ray,
Erik Moeller wrote:
It's probably also true that there is a fair number of people who are editing Wikipedia under circumstances their boss or supervisor would disapprove of, including *gasp* some members of the nefarious ruling class known as "administrators". For those who intend to continue doing so, using a separate account may be advisable. (Accountability activism strikes again! Let's stalk people so they tell us more about themselves!)
Do we have a guideline for dealing with off-wiki harassment? We probably should, and link it from RfA.
The relationship between any Wikipedian and his real life employer are not our concern. Unless editing Wikipedia is a part of his job description he should not be doing so during his work time. If he gets fired because of his addictive behaviour it's not our concern.
I agree with you 180%.
That is to say, *yes*: - Wikipedians should not be editing from work - The relationship between a Wikipedian and his boss is none of our business (*nor* is it the business of Wikipedia Review).
But we aren't the morality police. It's not our job to get rid of good editors (or even administrators) who happen to be editing from work. We have few enough really good contributors (you think a few thousand is a lot? Not in this context, it isn't) without tracking down those we have and subjecting them to an employment loyalty test by proxy. And the very *last* thing we want to do is stand by and applaud while certain others do the same thing.
Harrassment is an unvarnished Bad Thing. Those who tracked down Katefan0 --- who, as has been pointed out repeatedly, was a *bloody good* administrator --- out of sheer malice towards people like you and I (I assume Wiktionary admins are no holier than your counterparts here), who telephoned her boss --- again, out of undirected malice against admins in general, --- who forced her to leave Wikipedia, and who invented fictional ethics complaints after the fact in a vain attempt to justify their behaviour, do not need our encouragement. The reverse, it would seem to me, is in order.
Wikipedia has long held that editors' anonymity is sacred. I choose not to take advantage of that anonymity, but I respect the right of others to do so. When someone's anonymity is removed, and their real lives exposed to the harrassment of Internet lowlifes, it is not appropriate for Wikipedia to shrug its shoulders and say "well, if this causes problems for them, they must have been doing something bad like editing from work, and it serves them right."
I don't *care* if Katefan0 --- or anyone else --- edited from work. All I care about is whether or not they were a good Wikipedian. I submit that this is an attitude that others heavily involved in Wikimedia projects would do well to adopt.
On 6/9/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
I agree with you 180%.
That is to say, *yes*:
- Wikipedians should not be editing from work
- The relationship between a Wikipedian and his boss is none of our business (*nor* is it the business of Wikipedia Review).
Those statements are in conflict. We shouldn't care at all where or how Wikipedians edit.
FWIW, I do most of my editing from work.
Steve
On 6/9/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/9/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
I agree with you 180%.
That is to say, *yes*:
- Wikipedians should not be editing from work
- The relationship between a Wikipedian and his boss is none of our business (*nor* is it the business of Wikipedia Review).
Those statements are in conflict. We shouldn't care at all where or how Wikipedians edit.
FWIW, I do most of my editing from work.
Exactly: whether or not a Wikipedian should be editing from work is a matter for them and their employers. We should neither approve nor disapprove; we know nothing of the circumstances.
-Matt
On 6/9/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
Harrassment is an unvarnished Bad Thing. Those who tracked down Katefan0 --- who, as has been pointed out repeatedly, was a *bloody good* administrator --- out of sheer malice towards people like you and I (I assume Wiktionary admins are no holier than your counterparts here), who telephoned her boss --- again, out of undirected malice against admins in general, --- who forced her to leave Wikipedia, and who invented fictional ethics complaints after the fact in a vain attempt to justify their behaviour, do not need our encouragement. The reverse, it would seem to me, is in order.
It's worth pointing out that at no point has anyone said that Katefan0 was editing from work.
One is not safe from malicious complaints to one's employer simply because one has never used work equipment or work time to edit Wikipedia.
Unfortunately, too many employers are hyper-sensitive to bad publicity to the degree that any complaint about an employee, regardless of merit and regardless of whether it is to do with their activities wholly outside of work, is a black mark.
An interesting aside: in some US states, including California, employees cannot be fired or disciplined for political participation. Thus, if your edits are to politics-related articles, you have a degree of safety not found if you edit wholly unremarkable and uncontroversial stuff ...
-Matt
On 6/9/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
An interesting aside: in some US states, including California, employees cannot be fired or disciplined for political participation. Thus, if your edits are to politics-related articles, you have a degree of safety not found if you edit wholly unremarkable and uncontroversial stuff ...
Fwiw, in France it's pretty much impossible to get fired for anything. This helps.
Steve
Stan Shebs wrote:
One thing that I think editors should do is to make employers and such aware of their WP activities as much as possible. WP's visibility and reputation is now such that it's generally a positive thing to be seen as an important person in WP, and should a nasty person call, it helps the callee to recognize it as stalking rather than anything legitimate. Be proud of your work for Wikipedia, and let everybody know about it.
I don't think we should let our role as an "important person" go to our heads. When I mention my role to people that I meet the results are either benignly positive, or I still have to explain what Wikipedia is. In the latter case people are not impressed by an important role in something that they have never heard of.
Perhaps my biggest drawback in these circumstances is my own lack of MediaWiki expertise. I can easily see where MediaWiki software would be useful benefit in areas related to the practice of education, but feel restricted in my inability to describe how they could download and apply the software. There is a tendency among school systems to get bogged down in expensive software licences, and a lack of will to explore less expensive alternatives.
Ec
On May 30, 2006, at 11:04 PM, Titoxd@Wikimedia wrote:
Well, you can see for yourselves:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3APhaedriel <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User% 3APhaedriel&diff=56024251&ol did=55557465> &diff=56024251&oldid=55557465
Holy shit. How much will it take before people get up and start taking these pricks seriously?
What we are dealing with is psychological warfare. To be taken seriously, to be responded to calmly. The point is to induce panic. The best response is to stay calm, respond in appropriate forums and support those who are attacked.
Fred
On May 31, 2006, at 12:36 AM, Philip Welch wrote:
On May 30, 2006, at 11:04 PM, Titoxd@Wikimedia wrote:
Well, you can see for yourselves:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3APhaedriel http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User% 3APhaedriel&diff=56024251&ol did=55557465 &diff=56024251&oldid=55557465
Holy shit. How much will it take before people get up and start taking these pricks seriously?
-- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On May 31, 2006, at 7:48 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
What we are dealing with is psychological warfare. To be taken seriously, to be responded to calmly. The point is to induce panic. The best response is to stay calm, respond in appropriate forums and support those who are attacked.
I do not understand how with these types of behaviors, it is so hard to extend the policy of [[WP:NPA]], as can be observed in [[Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks]].
Most people in WP, are not aware of harassment of this kind, and that it *is* happening.
-- Jossi
Yes, that's is what needs to be done.
Fred
On May 31, 2006, at 10:04 PM, jf_wikipedia@mac.com wrote:
On May 31, 2006, at 7:48 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
What we are dealing with is psychological warfare. To be taken seriously, to be responded to calmly. The point is to induce panic. The best response is to stay calm, respond in appropriate forums and support those who are attacked.
I do not understand how with these types of behaviors, it is so hard to extend the policy of [[WP:NPA]], as can be observed in [[Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks]].
Most people in WP, are not aware of harassment of this kind, and that it *is* happening.
-- Jossi _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Titoxd@Wikimedia wrote:
Well, you can see for yourselves:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3APhaedriel http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3APhaedriel&diff=56024251&oldid=55557465 &diff=56024251&oldid=55557465
Titoxd.
Holy.......shit. This has gone beyond the realm of absurd. I didn't make a big deal out of it when my office was called, oddly enough the same day Brandt put me on his Hivemind page, but then, my boss told whomever called that he was proud of my volunteer effort. How can we expect anyone to work as an admin if they have to contend with stalking as a perk?