The group who discussed this included the arbitration committee, the staff of Foundation, and SlimVirgin and others who have from time to time been victims of harassment or stalking. We listened particularly to the advice of those who have have been harassed. The conclusion is that continuing to link to and communicate with harassers just encourages them. A firm "no" is what is called for.
Fred
-----Original Message----- From: William Pietri [mailto:william@scissor.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 11:56 AM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Spam blacklist and BADSITES
fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
There has been extensive discussion, although not in a public forum. We have had enough of Judd Bagley and his site.
Despite having read through this thread, I'm not very clear on what went on. Perhaps when some private group makes a judgment on behalf of Wikipedia they could produce a short on-wiki document? I'm thinking it would contain
- a list of participants,
- the decision or recommendation, and
- the findings of fact on which they base their decision.
Part of the trouble for me -- and others, I'm sure -- is that the easiest source for me to find is often the one under dispute. Having something to balance that would be helpful.
Thanks,
William
-- William Pietri william@scissor.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Except... except the stalking, harassment, attacks, and other hurtful things go in all directions, and Wikipaedia did start much of this.
Yes, linking to attacks on other websites is bad, as it furthers the attack, and may even be in violation of British law. I'm not sure, I am not a lawyer. But, at the same time, Wikipaedia itself is a worst attack site than all of them.
But you suggest not communicating with them, because doing so would only encourage them?
Okay, wow. Look, I've been through all sorts of abuse and harassment in real life. If you can't get away from them, for whatever reason, ignoring them won't help. They'll just raise the volume until you can't ignore them. Or can you ignore a kick in the chest? I can't.
Fear - fight-or-flight. These instincts are in you because you need them, to survive. Ignorance makes you a sitting duck.
Those who have been hurt should not be forced to face those who hurt them, as this may be traumatic. However, it may be helpful for others, not so involved, to face these problems instead.
People on the other sides have been hurt too, and there are things you can do to resolve these conflicts without hurting anyone else.
As such, I strongly encourage the Arbitration Committee to talk to the people from the attack sites.
On 12/09/2007, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
The group who discussed this included the arbitration committee, the staff of Foundation, and SlimVirgin and others who have from time to time been victims of harassment or stalking. We listened particularly to the advice of those who have have been harassed. The conclusion is that continuing to link to and communicate with harassers just encourages them. A firm "no" is what is called for.
Fred
-----Original Message----- From: William Pietri [mailto:william@scissor.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 11:56 AM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Spam blacklist and BADSITES
fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
There has been extensive discussion, although not in a public forum. We
have had enough of Judd Bagley and his site.
Despite having read through this thread, I'm not very clear on what went on. Perhaps when some private group makes a judgment on behalf of Wikipedia they could produce a short on-wiki document? I'm thinking it would contain
- a list of participants,
- the decision or recommendation, and
- the findings of fact on which they base their decision.
Part of the trouble for me -- and others, I'm sure -- is that the easiest source for me to find is often the one under dispute. Having something to balance that would be helpful.
Thanks,
William
-- William Pietri william@scissor.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri
On 9/12/07, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
The group who discussed this included the arbitration committee, the staff of Foundation, and SlimVirgin and others who have from time to time been victims of harassment or stalking. We listened particularly to the advice of those who have have been harassed. The conclusion is that continuing to link to and communicate with harassers just encourages them. A firm "no" is what is called for.
I've been told on no uncertain terms that the arbcom has endorsed no such position.
I've also now spoken to foundation staff and heard what I could only describe as nearly the opposite response.
Can you explain this discrepancy?
My last message on this subject brought me a mountain of insults and hate mail, so I can understand why no one is jumping up to cast more light on this situation... but I will personally not be intimidated by attacks or threats.
On Sep 12, 2007, at 5:45 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 9/12/07, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
The group who discussed this included the arbitration committee, the staff of Foundation, and SlimVirgin and others who have from time to time been victims of harassment or stalking. We listened particularly to the advice of those who have have been harassed. The conclusion is that continuing to link to and communicate with harassers just encourages them. A firm "no" is what is called for.
I've been told on no uncertain terms that the arbcom has endorsed no such position.
I've also now spoken to foundation staff and heard what I could only describe as nearly the opposite response.
Can you explain this discrepancy?
My last message on this subject brought me a mountain of insults and hate mail, so I can understand why no one is jumping up to cast more light on this situation... but I will personally not be intimidated by attacks or threats.
I second this - I was on the list that Fred is referring to, and I must say, I find his account of how the conversation ended novel.
If this is an official action, so be it. If it's an action that's standing because Bagley is so odious that everybody is unwilling to take him off the blacklist, even if they wouldn't have put him there themselves, well, that's a non-trivial difference.
-Phil
On 12/09/2007, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
If this is an official action, so be it. If it's an action that's standing because Bagley is so odious that everybody is unwilling to take him off the blacklist, even if they wouldn't have put him there themselves, well, that's a non-trivial difference.
I think (b) is the major factor. At least ED has a sense of humour, if a sociopathic one.
- d.