The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> Discussions in this subforum are hidden from search engines.

However, they are not hidden from automobile engines, including the newer, more "environmentally-friendly" electric and hybrid engines. Also, please note that this subforum is meant to be used for discussion of the actual biographical articles themselves; more generalized discussions of BLP policy should be posted in the General Discussion or Bureaucracy forums.

2 Pages V < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Cumulus Clouds, Synopsis for Peter Damian
TungstenCarbide
post Mon 28th November 2011, 5:07pm
Post #21


Allegedly shot down by stray Ukrainian missile
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,405
Joined: Sat 14th Mar 2009, 6:12am
Member No.: 10,787

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Mon 28th November 2011, 2:12pm) *

The situation described in this thread was discussed here on WR when it first came to light, in January 2009. (The link can be found in the general discussion from last night.) It appears to have involved a combination of cyberbullying, trolling, harassment, and game-playing on another website, which was imported into Wikipedia and was followed by a tragedy.

A main focus of the WR thread at the time was disagreement with the action of a Wikipedia administrator who had unnecessarily disclosed the suicide of one of the people involved. There was a strong consensus among the WR members commenting that this should not have been done.

That was two years ago. I don't know who lonza leggiera is or why he started this thread, but some things are better examined after time has passed.

QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Mon 28th November 2011, 2:12pm) *
Do I correctly understand that for potential use in connection with a challenge to a Wikimedia chapter's tax status, some 34 months later, the whole matter is now being deliberately re-publicized here?

good question - how does this sorry episode reflect on Wikipedia's tax exempt status ...

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 28th November 2011, 2:36pm) *

Please note that Wikipedia took no action against the malfeasors in this case until posters at Wikipedia Review pointed out that no action had been taken. If not for WR, it's entirely possible that these bags of slime would still be trolling Wikipedia, seeking more victims. (Actually, they probably still are, just under different accounts.)

Bullying is a hotbutton issue right now. Wikipedia's practice of covering it up when discovered effectively protects the perpetrators and perpetuates the silence. Not surprising when you consider that Wikipedia is essentially run by bullies.


QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 28th November 2011, 3:45pm) *
I would also like to add a point to this. There is a significant difference between Wikipedia and Wikipedia Review. Wikipedia Review is not a public charity: it operates as the personal hobby of a handful of people, with no tax or other public benefits. As such, it has only the ordinary duty of the private person to avoid harming others. (The same can be said of Something Awful, although I frankly don't think that a comparison of WR and SA is fair, either.) This is not true of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is run by and for the benefit of the Wikimedia Foundation, a public charity. As such, the Foundation has an obligation to serve not only its own interests, but also the public interest; this is part and parcel of charitable status. And it is certainly not in the public interest for tax exemptions and the other benefits of charitable status to be used to coddle bullies.

Wikipedia is certainly free to be a haven for bullies; such is our cultural conviction of the merits of free speech. But it is not free to do so with tax-exempt dollars or pounds. And that is why the incident with Cumulus Clouds ought to be publicized.

Good points, Kelly.


getting back to Newyorkbrad;
WR is populated by people who left Wikpedia in disgust, or were banned or run off. And yet here is where you will find, time and time again, honest discussion that isn't tolerated at Wikipedia. Every week you'll see Wikipedia positively influenced by WR.

Newyorkbrad, What I don't understand is what you are doing at Wikipedia. Every time you post here I look at your wiki contributions and ask the same question. In the last month your greatest contribution to the mainspace seems to be some punctuation at 'hotel california'. Years ago, long before I was TungstenCarbide, I edited Wikipedia and had some fun, but after a few months left in disgust at the trolls and worms and emotional midgets that the run the place. You're obviously smarter and more emotionally mature than the average Wikipedian - so if you aren't interested in writing an encyclopedia, why are you there? Is social manipulation a hobby of yours? Does hanging out with these people make you feel better about yourself? Do you like spending your time in murky back rooms collecting privileged information and pulling strings?

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide: Mon 28th November 2011, 5:48pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mbz1
post Mon 28th November 2011, 5:10pm
Post #22


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue 24th Aug 2010, 10:50pm
Member No.: 25,791



QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Mon 28th November 2011, 2:12pm) *

The situation described in this thread was discussed here on WR when it first came to light, in January 2009. (The link can be found in the general discussion from last night.) It appears to have involved a combination of cyberbullying, trolling, harassment, and game-playing on another website, which was imported into Wikipedia and was followed by a tragedy.

A main focus of the WR thread at the time was disagreement with the action of a Wikipedia administrator who had unnecessarily disclosed the suicide of one of the people involved. There was a strong consensus among the WR members commenting that this should not have been done.

Do I correctly understand that for potential use in connection with a challenge to a Wikimedia chapter's tax status, some 34 months later, the whole matter is now being deliberately re-publicized here?

Who cares about Wikimedia chapter's tax status,Newyorkbrad? We're talking about life of a real person here, or rather about a death of a real person who took his life because he was bullied. Here's what Proofreader 77 wrote about pleasure of bulling on wikipedia:

QUOTE
Of course, Wikipedia needs its bullies — it does not pay salaries, but there is the psychic pleasures of bullying.

Obviously not everyone is a bully. There are some good-hearted admins. But the patterns of the social dynamics of Wikipedia are almost designed to cultivate a collection of bullies to do the work, and provide structural support for that bullying.


And you, Newyorkbrad, is one of these who does not care helping editors who are being bullied. I asked for your help at your Wikipedia talk page. It was a cry for help, but you have never bothered even to respond! hrmph.gif
A member of arbcom, Newyorkbrad, who does not wish to help an editor, no not an editor, a real person, who's being bullied on wikipedia, is not any better than bullies themselves, Newyorkbrad.

But you are not alone, Newyorkbrad. When a few weeks ago I asked Xeno to warn bully- tarc over yet another lie it told about me, Xeno responded to me that he is not an active arbitrator now. I did not need a help from an active arbitrator, I needed a help from a decent person, but was refused in one.

This post has been edited by mbz1: Mon 28th November 2011, 6:36pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lonza leggiera
post Mon 28th November 2011, 8:54pm
Post #23


New Member
*

Group: Contributors
Posts: 44
Joined: Sat 17th Jul 2010, 2:12pm
Member No.: 23,009



QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 28th November 2011, 3:34pm) *

QUOTE(lonza leggiera @ Sun 27th November 2011, 9:45pm) *

Two days later Cumulus Clouds took his own life. He was 25.


I hate to do this, but... {{citation needed}}.

Good question. At the time I wondered myself what the evidence for this was. I thought I had carried out a thorough investigation of what evidence was then available and convinced myself that it was pretty conclusive. However, on reexamining the evidence still available to me, I now find it much less convincing. That Cumulus Clouds committed suicide is an inference from two prior conlusions:

1. That the person named in this obituary committed suicide; and
2. That the person named in that obituary was Cumulus Clouds.

The problem with both of these conclusions is that the earliest statement of either of them that I can find appears in the FYAD forum, which is an utterly untrustworthy source, and none of the subsequent statements of them that I have been able to find are demonstrably independent of that source. One of the pieces of evidence, for instance, to which I had attached some importance at the time was a comment left in the comments section of the above-mentioned obituary on January 9th, 2009:
QUOTE(Edward Kyanke)

I was one of Clayton’s e-friends…it is a tragedy when people can be struck down in the prime of their lives, especially because of cyberbullying. My thoughts and prayers are with his family.

The comment was subsequently removed, but it can still be found in an archived copy of the obituary. The problem with this, which I didn't notice back in 2009, is that it post-dates the announcement on the FYAD forum. So, even if the comment was sincere, it could still have been based on the commenter's credulously accepting the FYAD announcement at face value. But the commenter's given surname is also suspiciously similar to that of Richard Kyanka, the owner of the something awful website, and that would have to raise some doubts about the genuineness of the comment anyway.

The evidence for the first of the above conclusions would be much stronger if one could be sure of the second. But the evidence I was relying on for that conclusion was that it seemed to have been accepted without question by several Wikipedia admins, apparently including Raul654, John Vandenberg, Alison and Newyorkbrad, and that Cumulus Clouds himself had not reappeared to contest the announcements of his death on Wikipedia. To be fair, these admins (or some of them) might have been aware of more credible evidence than I have been able to find, but as far as I can tell at the moment they may well have been relying on nothing more than rumours ultimately traceable to the FYAD forum.

For the purposes of illustrating problems with Wikipedia's control over its content, it doesn't really matter whether Cumulus Clouds was the same person as the one named in the Issaquah Press obituary anyway. In fact, if Cumulus Clouds were not that person, the fact that Wikipedia states in its memorial listing of deceased Wikipedians that he was would make this a much more powerful illustration of the problems with its control over content.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Damian
post Mon 28th November 2011, 9:00pm
Post #24


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm
Member No.: 4,212

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(lonza leggiera @ Mon 28th November 2011, 8:54pm) *

For the purposes of illustrating problems with Wikipedia's control over its content, it doesn't really matter whether Cumulus Clouds was the same person as the one named in the Issaquah Press obituary anyway. In fact, if Cumulus Clouds were not that person, the fact that Wikipedia states in its memorial listing of deceased Wikipedians that he was would make this a much more powerful illustration of the problems with its control over content.


Ok,

1. what specifically were the control failures that led to this incident?

2. what controls would we expect to see to prevent this kind of thing occurring

3. are those expected controls now in place, or something like them, in November 2011

It's a sad story if true, but what are the lessons we learn from it? Has Wikipedia learned those lessons?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Mon 28th November 2011, 10:44pm
Post #25


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 28th November 2011, 6:30am) *

QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Mon 28th November 2011, 8:23am) *
Kelly, I have to confess that I am a little bit bewildered, because a main person objecting to public disclosure of Cumulus Clouds' suicide in January 2009 was you.
Yes, well, you never were a very bright individual, now, were you?

I used to respect you, you know, but now every time we interact, even in the slightest, I realize that much more how misplaced that respect was.

If Ira were an elected official (perhaps a school board member), and he handled a bullying case that
resulted in a suicide like this, people would be screaming for his head on a pike. And his bid for
reelection would not go very smoothly.

Despite all its mush-mouthing about being an organization set up to "help the public" and "maintain the
public trust", Wikipedia is more like a motorcycle gang internally. Made of aggressive nerds and bloviators,
instead of genuine outlaws.

If you cared, Ira, you'd resign. Better people than you already have.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ottava
post Tue 29th November 2011, 4:41pm
Post #26


Über Pokemon
********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined: Thu 31st Jul 2008, 6:35pm
Member No.: 7,328

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 28th November 2011, 5:44pm) *


If Ira were an elected official (perhaps a school board member), and he handled a bullying case that
resulted in a suicide like this, people would be screaming for his head on a pike. And his bid for
reelection would not go very smoothly.



...

You know that he is a lawyer, right? He passed the NY Bar (I assume), right?

If he offered any advice on the matter that resulted in the kid's death or unethical advice that could be construed as covering it up without any note that it isn't official legal advice, he could be de-barred.

It has happened to people before who involved themselves in such situations where they probably shouldn't have. I'm surprised he handles so many controversial ArbCom stuff while potentially putting his own career in jeopardy.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Detective
post Tue 6th December 2011, 9:28pm
Post #27


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 331
Joined: Thu 9th Dec 2010, 11:17am
Member No.: 35,179



Going back to the obituary, a comment that is still there is
QUOTE

Jim, Barnacle on January 9th, 2009 3:33 pm

Clayton was one of my best friends back in Eastlake. He will always be remembered as the best Wiki user to me. The encyclopedia just won’t be the same without him. I threw out all of my anime, they reminded me too much of him, how we’d watch it together.

This (if genuine) proves that he was involved with WP. Is there any reason to doubt it?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 14th 12 17, 8:39pm