Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: MaliceAforethought

[binning for now]

Posted by: The Adversary

Whaw.
And if this does not give a "sympathy backlash" for ArbCom, I don´t know what will.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

The truth will out. Being an arb is tough, especially if you try to actually do the job as advertised, instead of being a political gameplayer. And even if you don't you're still a target for all the nutters involved in Wikipedia.

The fact that the job is so hard and has so few meaningful rewards is one of the reasons I'm deeply suspicious of anyone who consents to do it, and especially anyone who consents to do it twice. It's my considered opinion at this point that accepting (or seeking) the role more than once, absent exceptional circumstances, is evidence of some form of psychosocial malfunction. The first time can just be due to being misled, and staying "on post" can merely be due to a strong sense of duty, but willfully seeking to reup after having learned what the job really is is fairly clearly evidence of something being not right with you.

The simple fact is that no sane person remains in close association with Wikipedia for long. Its community environment is deeply dysfunctional and only those who are dysfunctional themselves can thrive in that environment. Sane people flee such places once they realize what they're up against, or at best stay on the peripheries, editing uncontroversially and ducking whenever they run into conflict.

Posted by: Anna

Adversary --

Is it really all that surprising?

I mean, really, how many people are fortunate enough to have actually made it, say, 30 years in life (if not less) without being confronted with at least a credible threat of bodily harm, if not actual violence?

Yes, there are criminals in the world.

Posted by: The Adversary

Well, I live in a very peaceful part of the world. I would say at least 90% of people I know have made it to their 30th birthday without the threat of bodily harm. At least. (In my country you will be fined/go to jail if you slap your own children. No kidding.)

There are those those who do face violence on a regular basis (police, wardens, etc) are quite well paid to do so, and, (more importantly) have a back-up system to support them when they do.



But wikipedia is a hobby, dammit!
It is not as if it pays a lot (read: at all).

That you (or someone close to you) should have to face treats of violence, direct or indirect, because of a hobby, is ..is... beyond words.


Understandable, but sad.

It basically leaves any controversy to people who are in an "untouchable" situation..eg. being anonymous. With all the opportunity for misuse that gives.

(btw, if one thinks about the info being presented here...and the "hunt" for Iridescent http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=34149... I feel deeply uncomfortable.)

As I see it: wikipedia is presently in a completely unsustainable situation: one one hand we expect, nay, demand openess and and accountability from its "officials", ..on the other hand: when they are subjected to any nutters out there, we give them zero in support.

Posted by: MaliceAforethought

Yes, this thread's gone the way of the faeries. Someone's pointed out that buried in the thread was the blackmailer's threat of harm if this ever went public and even I can't stand for that.

EDIT: Munged the title as well. I'm all for hoping the bloke that requested this thread was just curious cause I'd hate to see ya burn in hell for threatening children.

Posted by: The Adversary

Thanks. Well done.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

Thanks... I was just about to request that this one be taken down, after reading it.

If anything ever happens to one of the arbs because of this kind of crap, I hope they'll hold the WMF criminally negligent.

Posted by: Sololol

Kelly, you were an Arb, right? After the ritual initiation rites do they give you any sort of warning about these things? Any "By the by, your volunteer duties could expose you and your loved ones to threats of physical harm and blackmailing?" It would be atrocious if they didn't.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

They might not have known that yet back then... Kelly was one of the initial appointees, iirc. Which reminds me that it would be interesting to see the damage control discussions after they kicked her off the mailing list.

Posted by: cyofee

Having read the leaks, I support them being hidden from view.

Posted by: Anna

The Adversary --

Erm, wow. Appalling? Yes. But surprising? No. Lots of people face violence (or threat thereof, but probably the actual violence more often than the threat) -- sometimes on a more or less regular basis -- and are not paid for it and do not necessarily have any back-up.

The usual motivations tend to be drugs, material wealth, lust, and hatred of minorities, e.g. people of particular races, disabled people or people of a particular disability. In the hate crime section, I personally have seen more hatred of disabled people, but worldwide, racial hatred is probably more common. There are also a lot of "honor" crimes, for some perverted meaning of the word "honor".

So, people are regularly victimized for simply living in poor neighborhoods (with lots of desperate people looking for an illicit way to make a living); for living near drug dealers and their clients (not always in poor neighborhoods; meth dealers often make a lot of money and can afford to live in rich neighborhoods; legal drugs like alcohol and nicotine included); for being women living in towns with excessive numbers of horny males who can't control themselves (in South Africa, a woman is more likely to be raped than to learn how to read); for living in a neighborhood that's crime-ridden for some other reason; for the color of their skin; for their disability; for being a slave; for having a mad parent/step-parent/other family member; sheer bad luck; and so on and so forth. Some people get killed just for offending a politician. Of course, a hitman is hired so it can't actually be proved. I heard of one person who offended a politician in some major way and was shot dead in a church.

And if you count poisoning as a form of violence... well, then the figures just skyrocket.

So, unfortunately, the victim in question is far from alone. On the bright side, I'm sure he won't have too look far for someone to commiserate with.

The police often don't turn up until long after the violence has occurred. Even then, many police investigations, even of bloody, violent crime, fall far short of thorough. In some rural parts of the country, a police is a sort of mythological being people think they might have seen once.

Most violence is appalling. I mean, what actually is a good reason for it? To defend yourself and others. Which really accounts for only a small fraction of violence.

A more or less reasonable person, when insulted verbally, will ignore the insult, or reply back verbally, or perhaps, if the insult was particularly severe and made by a particularly high profile person, start some sort of petition or other political action over it. There are a number of things a more or less reasonable person might do. But a reasonable person would not reply to a verbal or written insult with a violent reply. A drunk might opt for a violent reply. Some other sort of drug addict might opt for a violent reply. Someone on a bad psychoactive medication might opt for a violent reply. A really nasty person might opt for a more violent reply even when not under the influence of any mind altering substances.

Modern technology merely lets people commit the oldest sins in the newest ways.

Posted by: RMHED

Even if you added the word black before woman, I still think it rather questionable. If this were accurate, what I wonder does it say about black South African men?

Posted by: Anna

RMHED --

Read the BBC report if you don't believe me.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1909220.stm

"It is a fact that a woman born in South Africa has a greater chance of being raped, than learning how to read."

The BBC does not limit the statement to only black women. In fact, they show one white victim and one black victim in their report.

Anyway, as I said before, technology -- the internet included -- merely allows people to commit the oldest sins in the newest ways. I suppose, for violent criminals, the internet might be seen as a new way to find victims.

Posted by: Malleus

That's rather shocking, and rather revealing that South Africa's Deputy President Jacob Zuma blames apartheid for "sowing the seeds for the breakdown of the institution of the family", instead of his own government for failing to deal with it.

Posted by: Anna

Malleus --

Perhaps you would care to sign this petition?
http://www.change.org/petitions/south-africa-follow-words-with-action-against-rape

If I remember correctly, my original point was less about South Africa and more about the fact that violence (and threats of it) is common and thus the victim in question, if he reads this, should know that he is not alone.

However, you should sign the petition anyway.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

Not when I was an arbitrator. But I served in late 2005 through early 2006, and the situation was not quite so bad then; Wikipedia didn't have nearly the exposure then it does now, and the "nutter vortex" wasn't nearly as well developed.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

Just for the benefit of the curious, a quick synopsis is that some asshole threatened to do harm to the loved ones (including children) of one of the arbs if the arb didn't do what he wanted. The other arbs (appropriately and gracefully) gave their moral and emtional support to the victim. 'Nuff said on that.

The only thing that's really of interest if that there wasn't much in the way of support from Jimbo or the WMF (at least not in the dox provided), but only interesting in the sense that it was a rather alarming example of the sorts of things WMF volunteers are exposed to, and the WMF's apparent disinterest in their fates.

I think M.A. is doing a pretty decent job of selecting what to put out here for the most part, but perhaps a vetting process with a few of the trusted old hands around here might be a good idea. Hopefully no damage done this time.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

I wasn't kicked off it; I voluntary resigned from it in September 2006 at the same time I resigned my adminship, and while I imagine they had discussions as to what to do should I request access back I never made such a request so the issue was moot. My understanding, based on conversations with NYB, is that there were several arbs who wanted me hung from a yardarm until well-poached, but NYB and a few others argued for something less severe, leading to their "resigned under a cloud" nonsense. To this day I still feel vaguely insulted at having been backhandedly "thanked" for my service, something which NYB says he fought hard to include in that decision. Honestly I would have preferred to have been banned; it would have been less insulting.

Posted by: Malleus

I don't believe that online petitions change anything, they're just lazy, so I decline.

Posted by: Zoloft

I agree somewhat. I suggest donating to organizations that are effectively working on the ground to help the victims and lobby for change. When I spend my money on such and receive feedback from the people helped, it is most gratifying. Change comes from people working together to fix things, not from those who only express their moral outrage or support.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

Indeed. Think globally, act locally. Signing nonbinding Internet petitions is not "acting locally", and really accomplishes nothing at all except makes you feel good for having "done something". Which is what those sites are really all about anyway. So many sheeples out there.

The only way I can think of that I, living as I do in the midwestern United States, could effect change in South Africa, that doesn't involve actually traveling there, would be to identify charities that are boots-on-the-ground there trying to make a difference, and then donating to those charities.

Posted by: Malleus

And that's what I've done with issues in other African countries like Zambia. But I'm not a nation, my resources are limited, and I have to decide what's more important; that people have safe water to drink or that women aren't raped? That's a choice that I shouldn't be forced to make; that's a dilemma that disgraces the South African government, and their efforts to blame a colonial past are just pitiful.

Posted by: radek

Except that he's right. Actually, detailed crime statistics, particularly for black inhabited areas were not even collected under apartheid, which tells you something already. But the fact is that at the dawn of democracy in 1994/5, when the new government DID initiate the collection of such data, South Africa was already one of the most crime ridden countries in the world, particularly given its relative level of income (I believe 2nd most dangerous country in the world in 1994). I don't know if the crime rates have gone up, down, or stayed the same since (I'd have to look up exact data again), but he's clearly correct in saying that the problem was "sown" during apartheid.

There's also some indication that only a portion of the crime rate - about a third - is actually sensitive to government efforts (more money on police, more police, etc) - with the rest being pretty much driven by unemployment (which has always been high - and under apartheid, especially for blacks) and the demographic structure (SA has a TON of young males).

Note also that saying that "seeds were sown" is different than making excuses for not dealing with it (both those things could be true).

And in terms of rape specifically, as it turns out Australia's not that far off, neither is Canada, and Sweden is moving up there: http://www.heuni.fi/Satellite?blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobcol=urldata&SSURIapptype=BlobServer&SSURIcontainer=Default&SSURIsession=false&blobkey=id&blobheadervalue1=inline;%20filename=Hakapaino_final_07042010.pdf&SSURIsscontext=Satellite%20Server&blobwhere=1266335656647&blobheadername1=Content-Disposition&ssbinary=true&blobheader=application/pdf. Sometimes stuff like this gets made out to be a third-world-country issue, or specifically a "oh that fucked up Africa" issue but in this case it simply isn't.

And that statement about learning how to read simply cannot be true. Sound bites like this are often created to bring attention to a very real problem - and for best of intentions - but female literacy rate in South Africa is pretty much the same as in US; above 90%. 97% according http://www.tradingeconomics.com/south-africa/literacy-rate-youth-female-percent-of-females-ages-15-24-wb-data.html, which means that virtually all women in South Africa learn how to read. According to the BBC article itself, the chance a woman has of being raped is 1 in 4, before age of 16. Even allowing for a higher rate over life time, it would have to be more than 97%, and in that case, if it somehow was, that kind of numbers are going to be so close together that given statistical uncertainty inherent in such comparisons means you just can't say which one would be higher. But it probably isn't. Which isn't to say that this isn't a super huge problem...

...I don't know, personally I have mixed feelings about this kind of "lying for a good cause" (which is what that sound bite, repeated by BBC News (what did Doc Macdonald says about newspapers not being reliable sources? For somethings, it's not just the Daily Mail) is). On one hand it brings attention to a real problem and maybe gets people to try and do something about it. On the other, it is still lying and in some sense trivializes the issue.

Edit: Looking at the literacy chart, I could see the sound bite being true if this was 1980 we were talking about. Not 2010.

Posted by: Anna

Malleus, Zoloft --

Then explain this:
http://www.change.org/victories
http://news.change.org/stories/victory-ministry-of-justice-agrees-to-corrective-rape-activists-demands

There are charities you could donate to, of course, but figuring out which charities would actually spend your money responsibly can be difficult. A lot of them pay huge salaries to their top management. In any case, there are no doubt rape survivors, albeit probably in smaller numbers, near you.

Looking at your personal impact, there's plenty of ways to spend money on eco-friendly, fair labor products rather than Earth destroying slave labor (or some degree of worker maltreatment that falls short of actual slavery) products.

radek --

The BBC page was published in 2002. Still, how much do you think human nature has changed in only 30 years?

Posted by: radek

Probably not at all, but the literacy rate in South Africa has increased greatly, especially post-apartheid.