[Foundation-l] On the cost of explaining things.

[Durova]

Once again I discover in passing that people are discussing something I did
without actually talking to me.  My e-mail is enabled; I'm not hard to
find.  I get this list in digest form; it would be rather nice to have been
approached directly, or at least to have gotten a friendly heads up.

Sometimes memes overtake a discussion and this has been one of those
instances.  The news reports really were quite far off base.  The only
journalist who checked the facts with me before publishing a piece about it
was Seth Finkelstein.  The other stories were mistaken on several points on
both facts and tone.  I'll trust that the Wikipedians who went on record
were sincere, but they really hadn't double checked either.

I made a mistake and am very sorry for it.  Within 75 minutes I realized
that and unblocked the account with apologies.  The editor wasn't even
online at the time.  I specifically opened my actions to scrutiny on an
administrative noticeboard and made a statement to clear that editor of
suspicion, asking that scrutiny concentrate on my actions alone.  Afterward
I shared my research with a few individuals, telling them I was ashamed of
the mistake, and asking for private feedback.  Someone violated that trust.
And then, two days later, another person published it.  I had already
extended apologies to the individual before he published it, and I had asked
the people who were defending me at his user talk to withdraw their
statements.  He had a right to be angry with me too and I did my best to
atone for it, but he was implacable.

The list was called cyberstalking and was, for the most part, exactly what
that name implies.  It doesn't take long on a Google search to see that I
had been the target of some particularly vicious online attacks.  I'll give
one example because it's already public.  Here's a community ban I sought
because I discovered that an editor who admitted to an arrest record and an
inpatient psychiatric history was posting graphic sexual fantasies about me
both on Wikipedia and on his private website.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard/Archive6#Proposed_community_ban_of_Arkhamite_and_68.84.17.112

I was up front and candid about that when most women wouldn't be, and the
result of that candor is a certain attack site has been paraphrasing the
incident in a manner designed to discredit me.  According to them, I saw the
editor's fictional reference to Arkham Asylum of the Batman comics and went
on a rampage for no reason at all.  Well I don't happen to read graphic
novels and didn't notice that allusion until someone pointed it out to me
after the fact.  Another administrator deleted his user page; the rest of my
evidence ought to speak for itself.  And that particular incident was the
tip of the iceberg.

The people who populated that list were untrained amateurs - well
intentioned - but making their newbie mistakes.  Most of them were just
fine, yet the luck of the draw was that each time I brought a specific
instance of harassment to their attention one or more people intervened in a
way that made things worse.  I am nearly untrollable, but not being able to
trust the people who were close to me was much harder to take.  My
concentration and judgement slipped; I realized that in retrospect.  And I
wrote an experimental report that wasn't all that much like my previous
work, then made the mistake of acting upon it.  I regret that deeply and I
regret the hassle it caused.  Now I'm endeavoring to rebuild the reputation
I damaged.  Do 99 investigations right and get one wrong; everyone remembers
the mistake.

And I would very much appreciate it if, in future, people seek their
information from the horse's mouth.

-Durova