No subject

Sun Jul 1 19:24:19 UTC 2007

> 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.

Armed Blowfish

On 02/08/07, Joshua Brady <somitho at> 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 at> wrote:
> > On 8/2/07, jayjg <jayjg99 at> wrote:
> > > On 8/2/07, Steve Summit <scs at> 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.
> > >

More information about the WikiEN-l mailing list