u Mad?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 206
Joined:
From: Wonderland
Member No.: 57,801
|
From: (jayjg) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 17:37:58 -0400 Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive sockpuppetry]
On 8/24/07, Matthew Brown wrote: > > As I recall, these oversights in question were among the first uses of > the tool (let me know if I'm mistaken)
Correct.
> and possibly set the precedent > for other oversighters to believe removing IP edits was appropriate in > practice.
I don't think that's the case. It was done before by developers; it was they who set the precedent, and who also wanted an easier way of doing it that removed the burden from them. ----------
From: (jayjg) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 17:39:10 -0400 Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive sockpuppetry]
On 8/24/07, Matthew Brown wrote: > On 8/24/07, Jimmy Wales wrote: > > In the current case, he has evidence, evidence which looks to me > > reasonably compelling. Certainly, let me put it this way: people are > > indef blocked daily at Wikipedia on evidence slimmer than this. > > Generally speaking, an editor would be given a short block and a > warning in such a case, unless they already had a history of trouble. > Some gung-ho admins might block for longer, but IMO they should not > and such blocks tend to be reversed. > > No blocks would be issued on 3 year old sockpuppetry in such a limited fashion. > > I would suspect that some would call for de-adminship in such a case. > However, I'm not sure it would be successful considering the age and > apparent non-recurrence of the conduct, as well as the fact that the > double-voting didn't appear to have changed anything. > > I do think that the edits that were oversighted in this case should be > restored. There is no longer a case for secrecy, and there is much > case for openness.
What message would the restoring send, and to what audiences? I think we should think carefully about that. ----------
From: charles.r.matthews Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 22:44:32 +0100 Subject: [Arbcom-l] "Wikipedia's response to cyberstalking" - SlimVirgin speaks out
Just when it was going quieter. Has everyone on this list seen this mail from SlimVirgin? I thought I'd ask before discussing the content.
Charles ----------
From: (Matthew Brown) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 14:56:42 -0700 Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive sockpuppetry]
On 8/24/07, jayjg wrote: > On 8/24/07, Matthew Brown wrote: > > and possibly set the precedent > > for other oversighters to believe removing IP edits was appropriate in > > practice. > > I don't think that's the case. It was done before by developers; it > was they who set the precedent, and who also wanted an easier way of > doing it that removed the burden from them.
Thanks for the clarification. Therefore, it was part of the unofficial policy-in-practice from before the availability of Oversight.
I still feel that it needs to be clarified what exactly we will or won't do in terms of hiding IP addresses. It's certainly not explicitly in the policy, although it could arguably be inferred from it.
-Matt ----------
From: (Theresa Knott) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 22:57:10 +0100 Subject: [Arbcom-l] "Wikipedia's response to cyberstalking" - SlimVirgin speaks out
On 8/24/07, charles.r.matthews wrote: > Just when it was going quieter. Has everyone on this list seen this mail from SlimVirgin? I thought I'd ask before discussing the content.
I've seen it.
Theresa -----------
From: (Timothy Titcomb) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 17:57:20 -0400 Subject: [Arbcom-l] "Wikipedia's response to cyberstalking" - SlimVirgin speaks out
On Aug 24, 2007, at 5:44 PM, <charles.r.matthews> wrote:
> Just when it was going quieter. Has everyone on this list seen this > mail from SlimVirgin? I thought I'd ask before discussing the content.
I've read it.
P -----------
From: (James Forrester) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 22:57:39 +0100 Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive sockpuppetry]
On 24/08/07, Matthew Brown wrote: > On 8/24/07, David Gerard wrote: > > Mind you, I'm tempted to edit the anon edit message to be clearly and > > visibly different ... > > We need to ensure that getting inadvertently logged out and causing an > IP-revealing edit to be made is a lot harder than it is. If we made > it hard to do, we wouldn't get nearly as many oversight requests > wishing for it. It is frankly a big grey area in our oversight policy > - a little outside the wording, but arguably within the spirit, and > fervently desired by many users who make that mistake. We should (a) > make it hard to do, and (b) clarify oversight policy about that > situation - either explicitly forbid it or add it to the allowed > reasons.
Thinking about the future, what about a (*very* carefully used) tool to merge user accounts and their contributions, and IP's contributions, too? This would keep the transparency whilst also removing the source of many of the OS requests. Note that this is a reasonably-core functionality for SUL, so shouldn't be beyond reasonability (though may take some time). Security would be along the same level as the import functionality, given the ease of screwing up attribution (our main piece of meta-data, and vitally important to avoid poisoning the well), but that's just asking for very big red text with flashing lights saying "Are you sure?". :-)
> As I recall, these oversights in question were among the first uses of > the tool (let me know if I'm mistaken) and possibly set the precedent > for other oversighters to believe removing IP edits was appropriate in > practice.
Yes. IHTS that I've never been comfortable with helping people who fail to notice significant changes in their edit token status (FFS, it removes the "minor edit" box - if you don't notice that, you're likely posting without fully thinking through your edits).
Yrs, -- James D. Forrester ----------
From: (Matthew Brown) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 15:02:17 -0700 Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive sockpuppetry]
On 8/24/07, James Forrester wrote: > Yes. IHTS that I've never been comfortable with helping people who > fail to notice significant changes in their edit token status (FFS, it > removes the "minor edit" box - if you don't notice that, you're likely > posting without fully thinking through your edits).
Not in the case where the edit page was loaded logged-in but the user is logged out between then and submitting the edit, which I believe can happen - since that's hard to simulate, I'm not absolutely sure.
I'd imagine that most editors would only notice the lack of the 'minor edit' checkbox if they were going to use it; I'm pretty sure 90% of the time I wouldn't notice. I double-check my words, not the presentation of the edit web page.
-Matt -----------
From: (Matthew Brown) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 15:02:54 -0700 Subject: [Arbcom-l] "Wikipedia's response to cyberstalking" - SlimVirgin speaks out
On 8/24/07, charles.r.matthews wrote: > Just when it was going quieter. Has everyone on this list seen this mail from SlimVirgin? I thought I'd ask before discussing the content.
The post to this list?
-Matt ------------
From: (Kirill Lokshin) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 18:03:07 -0400 Subject: [Arbcom-l] "Wikipedia's response to cyberstalking" - SlimVirgin speaks out
On 8/24/07, Timothy Titcomb wrote: > > On Aug 24, 2007, at 5:44 PM, <charles.r.matthews> wrote: > > > Just when it was going quieter. Has everyone on this list seen this > > mail from SlimVirgin? I thought I'd ask before discussing the content. > > I've read it. > > Paul August
Same here.
Kirill ------------
From: (James Forrester) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 23:04:53 +0100 Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive sockpuppetry]
On 24/08/07, Matthew Brown wrote: > On 8/24/07, James Forrester wrote: > > Yes. IHTS that I've never been comfortable with helping people who > > fail to notice significant changes in their edit token status (FFS, it > > removes the "minor edit" box - if you don't notice that, you're likely > > posting without fully thinking through your edits). > > Not in the case where the edit page was loaded logged-in but the user > is logged out between then and submitting the edit, which I believe > can happen - since that's hard to simulate, I'm not absolutely sure. > > I'd imagine that most editors would only notice the lack of the > 'minor edit' checkbox if they were going to use it; I'm pretty sure > 90% of the time I wouldn't notice. I double-check my words, not the > presentation of the edit web page.
Not so. It presents a page saying "Your edit-token has expired" (given that I'm based in the UK, so my edits go through the second-class servers in Europe, I get this relatively often). Though perhaps this functionality is new?
Yours, -- James D. Forrester -----------
From: (Kirill Lokshin) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 18:05:22 -0400 Subject: [Arbcom-l] "Wikipedia's response to cyberstalking" - SlimVirgin speaks out
On 8/24/07, Matthew Brown wrote: > On 8/24/07, charles.r.matthews wrote: > > Just when it was going quieter. Has everyone on this list seen this mail from SlimVirgin? I thought I'd ask before discussing the content. > > The post to this list?
No, the offlist one we were (all?) cc-d on.
Kirill ----------
From: (jayjg) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 18:05:48 -0400 Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive sockpuppetry]
On 8/24/07, James Forrester wrote: > On 24/08/07, Matthew Brown wrote: > > On 8/24/07, David Gerard wrote: > > > Mind you, I'm tempted to edit the anon edit message to be clearly and > > > visibly different ... > > > > We need to ensure that getting inadvertently logged out and causing an > > IP-revealing edit to be made is a lot harder than it is. If we made > > it hard to do, we wouldn't get nearly as many oversight requests > > wishing for it. It is frankly a big grey area in our oversight policy > > - a little outside the wording, but arguably within the spirit, and > > fervently desired by many users who make that mistake. We should (a) > > make it hard to do, and (b) clarify oversight policy about that > > situation - either explicitly forbid it or add it to the allowed > > reasons. > > Thinking about the future, what about a (*very* carefully used) tool > to merge user accounts and their contributions, and IP's > contributions, too? This would keep the transparency whilst also > removing the source of many of the OS requests.
If I understand what you're saying, before Oversight was created developers sometimes also replaced IP edits with the Userid of the editor. This was actually often preferred by the editors in question, but wasn't a feature of Oversight. I'm not sure how it would impact people who download the database and obsessively comb through it looking to expose oversights; would it make their job harder, or would it actually clearly identify for them people's IP addresses? WordBomb/Judd Bagley seems to be the first person to have done this in any systematic way, but I doubt he will be the last. ----------
From: (Matthew Brown) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 15:06:11 -0700 Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive sockpuppetry]
On 8/24/07, James Forrester wrote: > Not so. It presents a page saying "Your edit-token has expired" (given > that I'm based in the UK, so my edits go through the second-class > servers in Europe, I get this relatively often). Though perhaps this > functionality is new?
It may be; I used to have this happen to me, but it hasn't happened for a couple of years.
-Matt -----------
From: (Matthew Brown) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 15:06:54 -0700 Subject: [Arbcom-l] "Wikipedia's response to cyberstalking" - SlimVirgin speaks out
On 8/24/07, Kirill Lokshin wrote: > No, the offlist one we were (all?) cc-d on.
Ah - yes, I have now received it.
-Matt -----------
From: (jayjg) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 18:07:04 -0400 Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive sockpuppetry]
On 8/24/07, James Forrester wrote: > On 24/08/07, Matthew Brown wrote: > > On 8/24/07, James Forrester wrote: > > > Yes. IHTS that I've never been comfortable with helping people who > > > fail to notice significant changes in their edit token status (FFS, it > > > removes the "minor edit" box - if you don't notice that, you're likely > > > posting without fully thinking through your edits). > > > > Not in the case where the edit page was loaded logged-in but the user > > is logged out between then and submitting the edit, which I believe > > can happen - since that's hard to simulate, I'm not absolutely sure. > > > > I'd imagine that most editors would only notice the lack of the > > 'minor edit' checkbox if they were going to use it; I'm pretty sure > > 90% of the time I wouldn't notice. I double-check my words, not the > > presentation of the edit web page. > > Not so. It presents a page saying "Your edit-token has expired" (given > that I'm based in the UK, so my edits go through the second-class > servers in Europe, I get this relatively often). Though perhaps this > functionality is new?
I've certainly never seen that "edit-token" message, and I've been logged out by Wikipedia many times in the past, though very rarely more recently. -----------
From: (jayjg) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 18:07:47 -0400 Subject: [Arbcom-l] "Wikipedia's response to cyberstalking" - SlimVirgin speaks out
On 8/24/07, Matthew Brown wrote: > On 8/24/07, Kirill Lokshin wrote: > > No, the offlist one we were (all?) cc-d on. > > Ah - yes, I have now received it. > > -Matt
I have received it as well. ------------
From: (Dmcdevit) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 15:09:54 -0700 Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive sockpuppetry]
James Forrester wrote: > > Thinking about the future, what about a (*very* carefully used) tool > to merge user accounts and their contributions, and IP's > contributions, too? This would keep the transparency whilst also > removing the source of many of the OS requests. Note that this is a > reasonably-core functionality for SUL, so shouldn't be beyond > reasonability (though may take some time). Security would be along the > same level as the import functionality, given the ease of screwing up > attribution (our main piece of meta-data, and vitally important to > avoid poisoning the well), but that's just asking for very big red > text with flashing lights saying "Are you sure?". :-) This has been a desired function for as long as I can remember, but I think the devs have been refusing to do it for grounds other than just technical. The only surefire way to ensure that a particular account made a particular edit is to require them to log in and edit from the account. Even if it was only done on specific requests of users that identified anon edits as their own, it will be difficult if not impossible to match the anon edits with the account even if you are matching IPs. And misattributing edits presumably has significant copyright implications.
Dominic ------------
From: (Matthew Brown) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 15:10:47 -0700 Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive sockpuppetry]
On 8/24/07, jayjg wrote: > What message would the restoring send, and to what audiences? I think > we should think carefully about that.
Several different messages.
It would, unfortunately, say "Yes, you were right" to the stalkers and creeps. However, they have much more power if they can imply things were worse than they really are.
It would, however, increase transparency to Wikipedia's contributors. The incredibly minor nature of the actual events behind all the drama would, I hope, help to defuse the issue among the non-insane.
-Matt ------------
From: (Timothy Titcomb) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 18:10:57 -0400 Subject: [Arbcom-l] "Wikipedia's response to cyberstalking" - SlimVirgin speaks out
On Aug 24, 2007, at 6:02 PM, Matthew Brown wrote:
> On 8/24/07, charles.r.matthews wrote: >> Just when it was going quieter. Has everyone on this list seen >> this mail from SlimVirgin? I thought I'd ask before discussing the >> content. > > The post to this list? > > -Matt
No it wasn't to this list, but it was copied to many members of this list, including you.
Paul August ------------
From: charles.r.matthews Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 23:12:10 +0100 Subject: [Arbcom-l] "Wikipedia's response to cyberstalking" - SlimVirgin speaks out
> > From: "Kirill Lokshin" > Date: 2007/08/24 Fri PM 11:05:22 BST > To: "Arbitration Committee mailing list" <arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org> > Subject: Re: [Arbcom-l] "Wikipedia's response to cyberstalking" - SlimVirgin > speaks out Matthew Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote
> > The post to this list? > > No, the offlist one we were (all?) cc-d on. > > Kirill
Matthew, yes, you were amongst the 37 addressees. Well, it's going to be a full-inbox time while the "I agrees" get circulated.
Charles -----------
From: (James Forrester) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 23:12:26 +0100 Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive sockpuppetry]
On 24/08/07, jayjg wrote: > On 8/24/07, James Forrester wrote: > > On 24/08/07, Matthew Brown wrote: > > > On 8/24/07, David Gerard wrote: > > > > Mind you, I'm tempted to edit the anon edit message to be clearly and > > > > visibly different ... > > > > > > We need to ensure that getting inadvertently logged out and causing an > > > IP-revealing edit to be made is a lot harder than it is. If we made > > > it hard to do, we wouldn't get nearly as many oversight requests > > > wishing for it. It is frankly a big grey area in our oversight policy > > > - a little outside the wording, but arguably within the spirit, and > > > fervently desired by many users who make that mistake. We should (a) > > > make it hard to do, and (b) clarify oversight policy about that > > > situation - either explicitly forbid it or add it to the allowed > > > reasons. > > > > Thinking about the future, what about a (*very* carefully used) tool > > to merge user accounts and their contributions, and IP's > > contributions, too? This would keep the transparency whilst also > > removing the source of many of the OS requests. > > If I understand what you're saying, before Oversight was created > developers sometimes also replaced IP edits with the Userid of the > editor. This was actually often preferred by the editors in question, > but wasn't a feature of Oversight.
Yes, I recall how we used to do things before OS came along (indeed, before *you* came along ;-)). That is eactly what I mean, yes.
> I'm not sure how it would impact > people who download the database and obsessively comb through it > looking to expose oversights; would it make their job harder, or would > it actually clearly identify for them people's IP addresses?
OS is and always has been meaningless and counter-productive for concealing any privacy issues, such as the ones discussed here, which pre-date the most recent dump. This tool would be the same. Note that we've not had a successful dump for many many months, so right now this issue isn't as live as it was when the tool was new, but it *was* mentioned as part of the roll-out, IIRC. Certainly, I recall discussing it as the tool went live.
> WordBomb/Judd Bagley seems to be the first person to have done this in > any systematic way, but I doubt he will be the last.
Indeed.
Yours, -- James D. Forrester -----------
From: (James Forrester) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 23:18:59 +0100 Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: The Skinny on SlimVirgin's abusive sockpuppetry]
On 24/08/07, Dmcdevit wrote: > James Forrester wrote: > > > > Thinking about the future, what about a (*very* carefully used) tool > > to merge user accounts and their contributions, and IP's > > contributions, too? This would keep the transparency whilst also > > removing the source of many of the OS requests. Note that this is a > > reasonably-core functionality for SUL, so shouldn't be beyond > > reasonability (though may take some time). Security would be along the > > same level as the import functionality, given the ease of screwing up > > attribution (our main piece of meta-data, and vitally important to > > avoid poisoning the well), but that's just asking for very big red > > text with flashing lights saying "Are you sure?". :-) > This has been a desired function for as long as I can remember, but I > think the devs have been refusing to do it for grounds other than just > technical.
The devs used to do such actions on request.
> The only surefire way to ensure that a particular account > made a particular edit is to require them to log in and edit from the > account.
Yes, well, this isn't a truly difficult request. Anyway, my point was that account merging is coming with SUL, so we might be able to hop on this bandwagon.
> Even if it was only done on specific requests of users that > identified anon edits as their own, it will be difficult if not > impossible to match the anon edits with the account even if you are > matching IPs.
A CU check to confirm isn't too hard a requirement for the executing EditMunger (or whatever term is given).
> And misattributing edits presumably has significant > copyright implications.
Certainly, but OS for content (rather than reverted vandalism) has exactly the same problem.
Yrs, -- James D. Forrester ----------
From: (James Forrester) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 23:21:09 +0100 Subject: [Arbcom-l] "Wikipedia's response to cyberstalking" - SlimVirgin speaks out
On 24/08/07, charles.r.matthews wrote: > > > > > From: "Kirill Lokshin" > > Date: 2007/08/24 Fri PM 11:05:22 BST > > To: "Arbitration Committee mailing list" <arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org> > > Subject: Re: [Arbcom-l] "Wikipedia's response to cyberstalking" - SlimVirgin > > speaks out > Matthew Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote > > > > The post to this list? > > > > No, the offlist one we were (all?) cc-d on. > > Matthew, yes, you were amongst the 37 addressees. Well, it's going > to be a full-inbox time while the "I agrees" get circulated.
I seemingly didn't get sent the missive (unless she sent it to an old address, or it was spam-killed by GMail...). Might I request a copy?
-- James D. Forrester ----------
From: (Kirill Lokshin) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 18:24:56 -0400 Subject: [Arbcom-l] "Wikipedia's response to cyberstalking" - SlimVirgin speaks out
On 8/24/07, James Forrester wrote: > I seemingly didn't get sent the missive (unless she sent it to an old > address, or it was spam-killed by GMail...). Might I request a copy?
It doesn't seem like you were included; I'm not sure how the list of recipients was compiled here. In any case:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Slim Virgin Date: Aug 24, 2007 5:27 PM Subject: Wikipedia's response to cyberstalking To: Jimmy Wales , ElinorD , Will Beback , Mongo Montana, "Samir C. Grover", Jay, Mantan Moreland, Katefan0, Iron Duke, Phil Sandifer, Rebecca, Fred Bauder, highinbc, crum375, samiharris800, Phaedriel, Durova, Dakota Kahn Cc: florencedevouard, Anthere, Angela, Kat Walsh, FloNight, David Gerard, Josh Gordon, Blnguyen, Dmcdevit, Guy Chapman, Mark Pellegrini, charles matthews, Theresa Knott, Steve Dunlop, Charles Fulton, Matt Brown, Paul August/Timothy Titcomb, kirill.lokshin, Cary Bass, Michael Waddell
Jimbo wrote to me and the ArbCom recently in response to yet another an allegation from WordBomb, a banned editor who in real life is Judd Bagley, the Vice-President of Social Media for Overstock.com.
Bagley is a known cyberstalker. His latest allegation is that, when I first started at Wikipedia, I had a sockpuppet account. This follows allegations from Daniel Brandt that I work for MI5 and am being paid to edit Wikipedia. I don't know how these allegations tie together, but I've no doubt the synthesis is imaginative. WordBomb has told Jimbo he is about to have something about it published, implying mainstream media (he's already published it on his website). He's been threatening this kind of thing for over a year.
I'm sending my response to the sockpuppet allegations in another e-mail, which I'll copy to everyone on this list. I've already told Jimbo that the MI5 allegation is pure fantasy.
The reason I'm writing this is that I'm becoming increasingly concerned about the way Wikipedia responds when its editors and administrators are under attack. This issue has been raised many times, mostly by the people who've been cyberstalked, but the discussions don't lead anywhere. Here, again, we have a situation where a regular editor is being investigated (it appears) by the Arbitration Committee as a result of abuse from a banned editor, and is expected to spend time wading through nonsense on various attacks sites in order to defend herself. The bottom line is that it sometimes feel as if AGF and BLP apply to everyone except Wikipedians who are being attacked by banned editors.
I therefore want to open up a discussion about this between the Foundation, the ArbCom, people who've expressed concern about cyberstalking, and the victims of it, most of whom are administrators who were targeted for doing their jobs. The consequences of the stalking have been very serious for us as individuals, but because we all live in our little bubbles and don't talk about it much, the seriousness of the situation has perhaps not struck home forcefully enough.
The editors on this list include someone who has had to move house because of cyberstalking; someone who had to pretend that her mother had died in order to stop the harassment of her family; two people accused of being paid to edit Wikipedia by intelligence agencies; various people who've had their names, addresses, and photographs published; at least two people who've been named and accused of pedophilia; one person whose disabled father was threatened with violence; one person who had to stop editing because the stalkers were going to contact her employer with various allegations; one person who was investigated by the police after a stalker told his university that he might have murdered someone; a lawyer named for alleged inappropriate behavior; people named as having various sexual preferences that their friends or families don't know about; and people whose employment possibilities have been undermined, perhaps for the rest of their lives, because of the seriousness of the allegations against them.
At least seven of us are women. Whether that makes any difference to the intensity of the stalking, I don't know. I feel it does, but I know others disagree. In my own case, my appearance has been discussed in detail, what kind of bra I wear, whether I've slept with people to get jobs in real life, whether I'm a whore, whether I enjoy having sex with young boys, and whether I'm worried about being raped.
Most of the time, the police can't or won't help, because it involves the Web, and the laws governing cyberspace are complex and differ around the world. Libel lawyers are expensive, and the stalkers often don't have assets worth suing for anyway. So it's difficult to know how or whether to respond.
Everyone accepts that there's a limit to how much the Foundation can help, primarily because of limited funds. But the lack of help seems to go beyond money issues. I'm not aware of anyone who has received even the most rudimentary legal advice, although maybe there has been help that I don't know about. I do know that a few people under attack have written expressing concern and received no response. Perhaps the issue is that the Foundation's legal position is that it's not a publisher, and therefore it can't be seen to involve itself in these situations. The problem with that position is that it leaves those under attack swinging in the wind.
What's worse than that, though, is that editors who are attacked sometimes find themselves being accused again via the mailing list or the ArbCom. And the admins who help those editors end up in more trouble from the stalkers, then from the ArbCom again.
In my own case, I've been attacked a lot because, as an administrator, I went to the assistance of editors who were being outed. I helped Iron Duke who was being outed by a banned user, who turned on me, and ended up posting a great deal of nonsense about me to Wikipedia Review (I won't name him because he and I have reached a rapprochement). The attacks on me from WordBomb stem from my helping Mantanmoreland, who was being outed by WordBomb. There are many other examples where the attacker switched his attention to the admin who blocked him for the original offence, and that admin became the main enemy.
ElinorD and Quadell have been criticized for helping me. Jayjg has been threatened with losing oversight because he deleted some early edits of mine that I feared would identify me. This was after I received threats of violence from an obvious lunatic on Wikipedia Review who lives in the same country as me, yet the admin I turned to for help is now facing sanctions. MONGO ended up being desyopped because his response to being attacked was seen as inappropriate.
Admins who deal with these situations need strong and consistent support from the Foundation and the ArbCom, and if they're not reacting as well as they might, they need constructive advice, not more criticism. Instead, we find ourselves being investigated, months or even years after the fact, when the details are long forgotten, and all that's remembered is the banned editors' increasingly ludicrous allegations. It seems to me that, if you say something loudly enough and often enough, someone from the Foundation or ArbCom will end up believing it. I'm sorry to say this, and I know it doesn't apply to the vast majority of you. But it only takes one or two.
After my recent experience of being slashdotted based on the MI5 allegation, I received more e-mails of support from Wikipedians than I've had time to reply to. They included people I know and like, people I barely know, people I don't know, and people I've been in serious content disputes with, who offered their unconditional support. The response was very moving, and it taught me that the overwhelming majority of this community is decent and honorable, and has no time for this nonsense. But it's the very, very small number of people who extend good faith to the troublemakers -- but not to the Wikpedian under attack -- who become the squeakiest wheels.
Something has to change about this situation. It's only a matter of time before someone ends up being physically attacked, or even turns on themselves in distress. The stalking is *incredibly* upsetting, and the lack of support from the Foundation or ArbCom feels like the last straw. It's impossible to explain to people who've never experienced it how disorienting the situation can be. In my own case, when it first started, I'd find myself bursting into tears for no reason, losing sleep, not eating properly, worrying all the time, with a constant feeling of nausea in the pit of my stomach. In the end, I stopped reading the websites publishing it, and that helped a lot. Now I have to read it all again to defend myself to the ArbCom.
I was going to include some background on WordBomb/Judd Bagley for those of you not familiar with him, but this e-mail is getting long, so I'll send it separately. The important point is that he is a *professional* spin doctor, who has been outed by the mainstream media for cyberstalking, so he has zero credibility. Yet for some reason his threats are being taken seriously by Wikipedia.
I hope this e-mail stimulates a debate that leads to a change of mindset about defending Wikipedians. It's only going to get worse the more popular WP becomes, so we need a strategy. Any one of us might block the wrong person at the wrong time, and find ourselves in the middle of this nonsense, so please don't think: "There's no smoke without fire, and it could never happen to me." Not true.
Sarah Malice's note: Ach, we've found the genesis of the secret "Cyberstalking" list.
|