Hi all,
I wonder if that's the time to end the thread now (which is on a very public list) and let people reach out privately. Discussion of this sort of topic, especially when a specific person is involved, is not ideal, and could make things worse.
New threads would be best for any more tangentially-related discussions, I think.
Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
On 17 May 2016 at 15:58, Brill Lyle wp.brilllyle@gmail.com wrote:
I feel really bad for the person who started this thread. I hope and assume that the WMF response means they have some sort of way to provide support to someone suffering from ideations of suicide.
In addition to a policy on safe space -- which I know exists and our local chapter as well as our regular venue have this posted on our namespaces -- I hope that there is documentation and support on this issue as well. If there isn't one there needs to be. And it should be posted in a position where it is visible, like the safe space policy.
I've been a member of various online communities, one music mailing list for 10+ years where we had a person who had very bad PTSD (who eventually got better) and others who died by suicide, etc. The acting out was a very difficult situation and one that I have learned to not take lightly. It is a lot like life, where you don't know what's going on for people, but it definitely makes me pause a bit in interactions online.
This editor and their editing may be an extreme case, but they are not alone. I hope they know that from the few responses here.
I have had bad interactions with obstructive, bullying, and Wikipedia rule tossing folks. When I have started pages I hold my breath and hope that the work doesn't get deleted -- or even scrutinized harshly. When I feel passionate about a topic I will try to fight for notability but it's always dicey. Then I see articles up on Wikipedia that have no business being up there, have two citations and are paragraphs long, but are not challenged, subject to the type of scrutiny the new stuff I contribute, etc.
Also, adding content. Good content with citations (I'm obsessed with citations). Having it deleted. Being told it is too encyclopedic (yes!). Editors deleting content is a real problem. It just takes one to be an intransigent jerk and bully or rule throw their way into making the experience uncooperative. Sigh.
So I tend to have a very long list of stuff I want to work on, much of it in dustier corners of Wikipedia. Thankfully my attention wanders and if a page heats up, I unfollow and try to walk away and refocus.... Sometimes I can do that. I had to do that for Louis C.K.'s TV show Horace and Pete ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace_and_Pete) because the editing became super unpleasant.
Then as a counterbalance....
There are times like the collective editing to improve the page on the Reverend Clem Pinckney (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clementa_C._Pinckney ), who was killed in South Carolina during a prayer group by a white supremacist, and the collective creation of a page on the setting of that tragedy, a Wikipedia entry on the church, Mother Emanuel ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emanuel_African_Methodist_Episcopal_Church), that was long overdue for an article due to its historical importance in the African-American community. And a few other times when I've edited with other editors, learned stuff, just enjoyed geeking out with another person passionate about making Wikipedia better and more representative of the world we live in.
I would love to do more cooperative editing. Most of the editathons we help out with here in NYC focus on the new editor. I think we all have a lot to offer each other, folks who have been adding content for a while and are passionate about that. I wish we did a better job supporting each other.
Best,
- Erika
*Erika Herzog* Wikipedia *User:BrillLyle* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrillLyle Secretary, Wikimedia NYC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipedia@zog.org wrote:
Welcome to my exact experience on Dutch Wikipedia. Banned for life for 'outing' a power user.
The 'outing' is in huge inverted commas -- (1) enter her on-wiki username in any search engine and you get oodles of vanity page(s) with her full name and (2) she'd done much worse than that to me.
I've been called names, articles have been deleted, I've been told by
many
people that, sure, were it any other person they'd be banned, and sure, when she refers people to [Leck mich im Arsch] it *might* be construed as uncivil, but hey, she's doing good work on vandal patrol and deleting articles, so...
Yup. It's very, very toxic at times. And nobody really cares.
On 17 May 2016 at 14:47, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
Reaching out offlist. Anyone who knows Chris well and has helpful
input,
feel free to contact me offlist. -Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 5:44 AM, Chris Sherlock < chris.sherlock79@gmail.com> wrote:
I've just been blocked forever. I've been bullied, and I'm having
suicidal
thoughts.
I don't know what to do now.
Right now I'm reaching out to anyone who might listen. I've been
called
obsessive, someone who attacks people, I've not been listened to and
I've
been lectured on policy by people who quote three letter shortcuts at
me
without reading the policy.
An admin just told me that I had submitted too many kilobytes which violated some sort of policy. When I pointed out that half of the
kilobytes
were references I was ignored. When I pointed out that the one
reverting
me
was deleting no contentious stuff I was told I was being contentious.
When
I pointed out I had been told I'm not allowed to use primary sources
in
any
way and the policy was its ok but to use it with care, and all I was
doing
was checking a company directorship, I was ignored.
I wrote your [[exploding whale]] article. I invented your [citation needed] tag. I started your admins noticeboard.
But I'm not well, and nobody on Wikipedia seems to be kind. You are
all
so
busy power tripping that you forget there is a real, live person on
the
other side. A person who is wounded. I haven't always been this
depressed.
Not anxious. I stupidly logged into my account yesterday, one that
nobody
knew I used, and tried to edit the Salim Mehajer article. I was
surprised
it wasn't there, but I've never been so obstructed I all my life.
It's
not
even that there was a disagreement, it was like I wasn't worth
anything.
I
spent hours of my time researching the article, trying to do a good
job.
But in an instant the material was ripped away, and I was called
obsessed.
That's not what I was called when I rewrote the [[USA PATRIOT Act]] article. People told me it was long, but they were encouraging. My
hard
work was appreciated.
I've never attacked the subject of the article, Salim Mehajer. But
when I
was called obsessive, I guess something broke inside me. I reached
badly
and called the guy who called me obsessive a twit. Then I wrote a
bitter
article and posted it on my blog. You can read it here:
http://randomtechnicalstuff.blogspot.com.au/2016/05/dont-bite-newbies-why-wi...
Then I stewed. I couldn't stop thinking about how I'd tried to get a decent article sorted out again, but I just couldn't seem to get
traction.
I originally had taken material from the [[City of Auburn]] article
that
was about the individual. I should have realised it was partisan, and
it
was a bad judgement call. I write done more material, but it was far
too
negative. I guess o didn't see it that way at the time.
I recall I went to bed and the next day I was accused of writing an
attack
article and an admin slapped on not one but two template telling me I
was
about to be blocked. Then I discovered the article had been deleted.
Nobody
had notified me. I couldn't work out what had happened. Then I
realised
it
had been deleted.
So I tried again. This time I started from scratch. I started to edit
very
carefully. I started with a paragraph stub which just very, very
briefly
noted Mehajor is a deputy mayor and property developer. I think I
wrote a
short paragraph Bout his wedding which was very notable. It's in the history.
Then it was put up for deletion again. In the A7 category. I'm rusty
at
Wikipedia, sure, but what? A7? It was for notability. But, I thought,
how?
The man is highly significant! Not a day goes by without the media
talking
of his exploits!
So I objected. The editor rounded on me. He's famous for being
famous,
like a Kardashian! he said. But I said, he was a deputy mayor and
he's
been
in the Australian media extensively! It's not just his wedding (which
was
notorious) - it's his property deals, and his companies, and he got
his
entire council sacked! And he is in court all the time and is under
an
AFP
investigation! That *is* notable!
But, I was told, there's not enough In the article. I was referred to another acronym about notability. But I know about notability
policy, I
thought. It's about the subject, not the content of the article.., desperately I hunted through the policy git the section on this. I'd
read
it before, years ago. If the article was deleted before I got a
chance
to
object, I'd be called a troll, or worse. I'd be blocked for
recreating
it.
In the nick of time I found the section and objected, and I asked to
have
it put on Articles For Deletion. And I pointed out I was literally
editing
the article when it was almost deleted - because it didn't establish
enough
context. But, I thought, how do you establish context of the article
is
deleted midway through editing it?
The editor took off the CSD template. I breathed a sigh of relief.
Then
they stick on a {{notability}} template. This, I was informed, meant
that
the article could be merged, redirected, or deleted if notability
couldn't
be determined. But, I thought - I just established that! I didn't
want
it
to be deleted midway through editing, and redirecting would have been
as
bad. And merged and redirected to what? It was already redirected to
[[City
of Auburn Council#History]], but that was clearly wrong. No, it was
going
to be deleted. I objected, and eventually removed the template, to strenuous objections from the one who put it on. I suggested it be
put
up
for deletion and offered to do it myself. But the editor seemed
reluctant.
So, I reasoned, well if they truly feel that way they list it for
deletion.
At least then we'll get consensus one way or another.
So, now templates less but incomplete, I started to add material. I decided to start off with his early life. This was good, but every
time I
tried to add more material I found I was getting edit conflicts
because
that same editor appeared to have watchlisted the article. I sent
the a
message asking then to hold off editing. I also asked them not to
remove
huge swathes of information.
Then I got to the bit where a court case was referred to. To
establish
context, I quoted both the widely reported words said by the accused
and
the defendant. I used a secondary source that was very reliable - the Australian ABC News website. This was summarily removed. The edit
summary
read BLP violation.
Eh? I know what BLP is, but that can't be right. I asked why on the
talk
page. "It's because of BLPCRIME" they said. "You can't do it". But, I
said,
I don't want to summarise their words, that could look worse for
Mehajer!
And I need to explain the case fairly do the reader knows what it's about... I was told to read the policy. Grumbling, I read it to
refresh
my
memory. It read that non-public figures should not have allegations
put
on
articles. Well, I thought, this does t apply here - Mehajer is a very public figure and this was reported widely.
And on and on it went. Every time I edited the article I would be
edited
as quickly. It was like I was being stalked. Eventually, however, the exasperation of that editor was too much. He listed the article on
Requests
For Comment. But, I thought, I remember RFC back in the day. We used
to
hash these things out on the talk page first! And normally there was
some
sort of compromise - line the opposing party would say "why not
summarise
it thusly" and you'd look at it and go "well, OK, but I'd summarise
it
like
this". And the partite would come up with something reasonable. Not
do
this
editor - it was no information on the case at all, just that there
had
been
a case.
So then things went very bad. He decided to ask at the Australisn Wikipedias Noticeboard. From there, a South Ausyrslusn editor turned
up,
took a look at the section that detailed vehicle incidents and just
removed
it. Then on the talk page he panned the edits as "obsessive" and
"trivial".
In fact, he was just getting started..,
"the compilation of all the companies he's a director of, many of
which
are so non-notable the author has had to refer to business
registration
records, is an atrocious case of original research and absolutely
does
not
belong in this article. These are such trivial details that no
journalist
has bothered to compile them in any of the tens of thousands of
stories
about him for a reason."
I was gob smacked. I had sourced every one if the companies to a
secondary
source. One of the sources was an article in The Australian, a major
Aussie
newspaper. It pointed to a PDF which detailed a list of companies associated with Mehajer.
And at this point we end at the beginning. I rage quit, then I was messages by an editor from Perth, who taunted me, telling me I had relevance deprivation syndrome. I was already feeling fragile, but
this
egged me on I suppose. If I'd been feeling less fragile I just would
have
let it go.
So I did something inexcusable. I told the editor who had been
stalking
me
what I thought of them. I swore at them and called them bad names. It
was
reverted.
I continued editing. It was hell or high water! I knew if I could
just
ask
them to explain there decisions I could get the article into shape.
So
I
asked again why non-controversial material was removed. Nobody would answer. I put back material and wrote a long talk message. I was
reverted
with a response that didn't answer why it was a problem. I kept
tweeting
because there was nothing else I could do. Even important material,
utterly
non-controversial, was removed.
Eventually, however, they started to suggest what the issues were.
They
said it was fine to include his traffic offenses, but it had to be
cut
down. But, I explained, it's actually only one sentence and I
detailed
what
the offenses were otherwise it might give an impression his offenses
were a
lot worse than they were! I asked what they should be changed to.
And,
I
pointed out, you still haven't explained why the other material is a violation of Biographies of Living People!
There was no response. Instead, I was reverted. So I reverted again because no answer had been provided.
Then I got a message. I was told that actually the admin hadn't read
the
material but he'd noticed that the total kilobytes of text had
ballooned.
But, I said on my talk page - half of that size is in references! Irrelevant, I was told. You aren't editing to consensus. If someone
removes
material, under no circumstances must you ready it until you discuss
it.
But the other editor is refusing to discuss it with me! Again I
pointed
out the bits that were being removed without being discussed. Tough I
was
told.
In sheer bloody minded frustration I reverted the admin. Then I
posted
to
the admins incident page pleading for someone to see reason. Then I
got
yet
another message telling me I had been reported for edit warring.
I tried post, got in the first bit to appeal. But then I tried list
more,
to plead my innocence and rotary to make someone understand I ha dead
at
the end if my tether. My wife came in and startled me. I literally
jumped
and yelled, severely startling her badly. I felt dreadful.
Then I raced out of the house, got in my car and parked in a quiet
spot.
I
posted to the only place I had left. A bitter post, stating who I had
been
and what I had contributed and what I had just been through.
This wax reverted by the admin Nick-D, from Western Australia who
banned
my rage quitted account (whose passwords scrambled, so it's
inaccessible
anyway) and had my mobile IP address blocked got a week, though I had
tried
to explain I would be home later and it's best block my other IP
address
which is my NBN IP. It was, I had said in the message, a relief.
But not only was this rolled back, but the user page was locked.
My despair and humiliation is total. So here I sit, contemplating the
mess
my life is in and how it's not worth even the ability to edit
Wikipedia,
Wikipedia the project I loved and I gave do much if my time and date
to.
A
project where I worked to gain consensus and wrote amazing article
with
others, and researched for and went to meet ups and borrow books from
the
library to ensure the world got the best possible information I could locate about a subject.
I know I'm not well. I have fought this feeling for a decade. It's
why
I
left the Tbsdy_lives account when Brad emailed me. At least then you
gave
me small degree of dignity, and deleted my user pages.
There is no more dignity to be given me. I've used up my portion.
And I sit here in my car and contemplate suicide. My despair is
total.
There is not a kind one amongst you. You have taken my right of
appeal,
my
ability to protest and my dignity. You have let others mock me, and I
have
failed to contribute to Wikipedias great mission - one I feel so
keenly.
I failed. I'm not sure what I'm going to do next. I will drive, I
don't
know where. I pray my family forgives me.
Chris Ta bu shi da yu
Sent from my iPhone _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe