Shell Kinney - retired? Options

[Abd]

Why not? Wikipedia has grown incredibly toxic since I joined in 2006.

It was toxic when you joined, you just didn't realize it at the time.

Yeah, that's what I've seen. It really didn't seem so bad, until I became familiar with what comes down when conflict arises.

The policies and guidelines seemed great. Too bad they weren't policies that were actually followed.

[SpiderAndWeb]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=437910493

Looks like the main impetus was frustration at the Foundation. Interesting.

[gomi]

No comment, other than to say that we see yet another "encyclopedia editor" who doesn't know the difference between "its" and "it's".

[SB_Johnny]

Reproducing on the good chance that this page will be "courtesy deleted":

Drumroll please

Unfortunately the committee got around to announcing my departure faster than I could write something up, which given our track record, is somewhat of a surprise

The recent situation has clarified something for me that's been nagging at the back of my brain for quite some time:

I originally joined the projects a number of years ago because I believe very strongly in what they are doing; I also support a number of other open source movements. I've ended up helping in just about every area possible over the years as I discovered when trying to unravel my various points of access. I started to work with ArbCom mostly because people kept telling me they thought I would be good at it and I decided I could volunteer some additional time to in order to help the English Wikipedia run more smoothly.

I remember being very surprised at the things that the committee deals with behind the scenes and even more surprised that this takes up the majority of their time. In my experience, issues of volunteer harassment, pedophiles using organization resources for inappropriate purposes and organizational privacy and security are usually dealt with by someone working for the organization or someone in very close contact with the organization rather than a random body of volunteers making these decisions without guidance. It's always seemed to me that the behind the scenes issues would be better handled by a group dedicated to such things so that the committee could bring its focus back to dispute resolution, but since no one else was doing these things, the committee couldn't just ignore them.

I'm sure the Wikimedia Foundation has unique issues with volunteer coordination and communication due to it's large scope, the novelty of an internet medium and it's need to remove itself from "publishing" the works it helps to create. Nevertheless, I've always felt a bit uncomfortable with the way the Foundation distances itself and the lack of good communication, especially in serious cases such as this recent leak. That someone had to "break ranks" for the committee to get any concrete information on the various issues at play seriously concerns me and we're still almost completely in the dark about what the Foundation is doing and how it plans to handle security going forward - so it's not just the community who's being left out here. Looking back at emails from the past couple of years, the committee has been asking the Foundation for quite some time about getting better, more appropriate and more secure tools. Of course, if the committee was focused on its primary task, it's likely these kinds of things wouldn't be necessary. On top of all this, change is always hard but when dealing with a group of 18 people, getting anyone to agree with or stay focused on change is rather close to impossible.

There's also lot going on in my life at the moment, so it's likely that a long, long break will do a world of good. It's possible that as the project continues to change and evolve, it will turn back into something that makes sense to me so a return is always a possibility. I've turned in all of the access and advanced rights not necessarily as a final break with the projects, but because as recent issues have reminded us yet again, having those things lying around can pose security issues. Shell babelfish 04:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess this adds some proof to the theory that the sensible arbs will be the ones to resign. What remains to be seen is whether there will be more of them leaving. Jimbo is most likely frantically emailing and PMing on IRC trying to convince everyone that resigning now would be "feeding the WR trolls".

[lilburne]

I guess this adds some proof to the theory that the sensible arbs will be the ones to resign. What remains to be seen is whether there will be more of them leaving. Jimbo is most likely frantically emailing and PMing on IRC trying to convince everyone that resigning now would be "feeding the WR trolls".

The bunch of them but particularly the European ones need to get independent legal advice on their legal exposure. Admins requesting CU information, and CUs keeping and communicating the results of such information, particularly on named people, might also be well advised to check their legal liabilities.

[thekohser]

No comment, other than to say that we see yet another "encyclopedia editor" who doesn't know the difference between "its" and "it's".

Damn, you beat me to it, Gomi.



On another note -- are there any freely-licensed photos of "Shell Kinney", and is that a real name?

[carbuncle]

Reproducing on the good chance that this page will be "courtesy deleted":

Drumroll please

Unfortunately the committee got around to announcing my departure faster than I could write something up, which given our track record, is somewhat of a surprise

The recent situation has clarified something for me that's been nagging at the back of my brain for quite some time:

I originally joined the projects a number of years ago because I believe very strongly in what they are doing; I also support a number of other open source movements. I've ended up helping in just about every area possible over the years as I discovered when trying to unravel my various points of access. I started to work with ArbCom mostly because people kept telling me they thought I would be good at it and I decided I could volunteer some additional time to in order to help the English Wikipedia run more smoothly.

I remember being very surprised at the things that the committee deals with behind the scenes and even more surprised that this takes up the majority of their time. In my experience, issues of volunteer harassment, pedophiles using organization resources for inappropriate purposes and organizational privacy and security are usually dealt with by someone working for the organization or someone in very close contact with the organization rather than a random body of volunteers making these decisions without guidance. It's always seemed to me that the behind the scenes issues would be better handled by a group dedicated to such things so that the committee could bring its focus back to dispute resolution, but since no one else was doing these things, the committee couldn't just ignore them.

I'm sure the Wikimedia Foundation has unique issues with volunteer coordination and communication due to it's large scope, the novelty of an internet medium and it's need to remove itself from "publishing" the works it helps to create. Nevertheless, I've always felt a bit uncomfortable with the way the Foundation distances itself and the lack of good communication, especially in serious cases such as this recent leak. That someone had to "break ranks" for the committee to get any concrete information on the various issues at play seriously concerns me and we're still almost completely in the dark about what the Foundation is doing and how it plans to handle security going forward - so it's not just the community who's being left out here. Looking back at emails from the past couple of years, the committee has been asking the Foundation for quite some time about getting better, more appropriate and more secure tools. Of course, if the committee was focused on its primary task, it's likely these kinds of things wouldn't be necessary. On top of all this, change is always hard but when dealing with a group of 18 people, getting anyone to agree with or stay focused on change is rather close to impossible.

There's also lot going on in my life at the moment, so it's likely that a long, long break will do a world of good. It's possible that as the project continues to change and evolve, it will turn back into something that makes sense to me so a return is always a possibility. I've turned in all of the access and advanced rights not necessarily as a final break with the projects, but because as recent issues have reminded us yet again, having those things lying around can pose security issues. Shell babelfish 04:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess this adds some proof to the theory that the sensible arbs will be the ones to resign. What remains to be seen is whether there will be more of them leaving. Jimbo is most likely frantically emailing and PMing on IRC trying to convince everyone that resigning now would be "feeding the WR trolls".

Short version: The WMF let us holding the bag. ArbCom shouldn't have to deal with the seriously crazy stuff that any rational person would expect to be handled by the site's owners. I'll see you all when this blows over and I'll expect my bits back.

[Kelly Martin]

Yup, as usual the ones with some sanity remaining flee when another bit of the community insanity becomes more obvious. I wish Shell the best of luck in her recovery.

[Mathsci]

I can't see him editing Signpost for very much longer.

Why not? Wikipedia has grown incredibly toxic since I joined in 2006. He's following "community norms." Besides, who would have the authority to remove him?

As far as the item about Shell goes, NuclearWarfare tried to make a correction twice on the Signpost but was reverted each time by Ncmvocalist.

[Milton Roe]

Reproducing on the good chance that this page will be "courtesy deleted":

Drumroll please

Unfortunately the committee got around to announcing my departure faster than I could write something up, which given our track record, is somewhat of a surprise

The recent situation has clarified something for me that's been nagging at the back of my brain for quite some time:

I originally joined the projects a number of years ago because I believe very strongly in what they are doing; I also support a number of other open source movements. I've ended up helping in just about every area possible over the years as I discovered when trying to unravel my various points of access. I started to work with ArbCom mostly because people kept telling me they thought I would be good at it and I decided I could volunteer some additional time to in order to help the English Wikipedia run more smoothly.

I remember being very surprised at the things that the committee deals with behind the scenes and even more surprised that this takes up the majority of their time. In my experience, issues of volunteer harassment, pedophiles using organization resources for inappropriate purposes and organizational privacy and security are usually dealt with by someone working for the organization or someone in very close contact with the organization rather than a random body of volunteers making these decisions without guidance. It's always seemed to me that the behind the scenes issues would be better handled by a group dedicated to such things so that the committee could bring its focus back to dispute resolution, but since no one else was doing these things, the committee couldn't just ignore them.

I'm sure the Wikimedia Foundation has unique issues with volunteer coordination and communication due to it's large scope, the novelty of an internet medium and it's need to remove itself from "publishing" the works it helps to create. Nevertheless, I've always felt a bit uncomfortable with the way the Foundation distances itself and the lack of good communication, especially in serious cases such as this recent leak. That someone had to "break ranks" for the committee to get any concrete information on the various issues at play seriously concerns me and we're still almost completely in the dark about what the Foundation is doing and how it plans to handle security going forward - so it's not just the community who's being left out here. Looking back at emails from the past couple of years, the committee has been asking the Foundation for quite some time about getting better, more appropriate and more secure tools. Of course, if the committee was focused on its primary task, it's likely these kinds of things wouldn't be necessary. On top of all this, change is always hard but when dealing with a group of 18 people, getting anyone to agree with or stay focused on change is rather close to impossible.

There's also lot going on in my life at the moment, so it's likely that a long, long break will do a world of good. It's possible that as the project continues to change and evolve, it will turn back into something that makes sense to me so a return is always a possibility. I've turned in all of the access and advanced rights not necessarily as a final break with the projects, but because as recent issues have reminded us yet again, having those things lying around can pose security issues. Shell babelfish 04:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess this adds some proof to the theory that the sensible arbs will be the ones to resign. What remains to be seen is whether there will be more of them leaving. Jimbo is most likely frantically emailing and PMing on IRC trying to convince everyone that resigning now would be "feeding the WR trolls".

And we are SUCH trolls.

Make thee more flatulent opinions, ArbComm twits,
As thou accumulate more zits.
Leave thy low-valued past.
Let each new case, lamer than the last,
Shut thee from paid jobs with work more crass,
Till thy mailing lists art free,
Leaving thine outgrown Shell by strife's unresting sea!

[lilburne]

meanwhile it is head-in-soup time.

I think we do need to clarify which tasks should be handled by whom. Once I get some direction on where to go with this, I might have a better idea how best to iron out these issues. (I'm still working on that communication system, so can't rely on it yet. ) I think voicing them here is a good start.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mde...om_and_security

Yep definitely a good start.

[No one of consequence]

meanwhile it is head-in-soup time.
Yep definitely a good start.

Well, soup is a change from sand, at least.

[SB_Johnny]

Ah, it seems the other arbs just have more dedication to and more sincere belief in the project.

[Kelly Martin]

meanwhile it is head-in-soup time.

I think we do need to clarify which tasks should be handled by whom. Once I get some direction on where to go with this, I might have a better idea how best to iron out these issues. (I'm still working on that communication system, so can't rely on it yet. ) I think voicing them here is a good start.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mde...om_and_security

Yep definitely a good start.

Personally, I don't think the WMF will ever provide proper protection or legal guidance to its volunteers, because that would risk its section 230 immunity.

They sure do love trotting out incoherent theories of Section 230 as an excuse not to do anything, don't they? There is absolutely nothing that even begins to suggest that offering either acceptable-use policies or legal guidance to customers (let's keep it straight, Wikipedia editors are customers, not volunteers) would breach Section 230. In fact, calling them "volunteers" is more likely to breach 230 protection than having AUPs would. But the WMF doesn't have AUPs, and it only calls its customers "volunteers" when it's trying to raise money.

Providing "protection" is more complicated, since it could end up making the editors agents. But the Association of the Editors of the English Wikipedia could readily enter into an agreement with an insurance company that would then offer general liability policies to its members at reasonable rates, which could be incorporated as part of the membership dues; such an arrangement would not necessarily make the Association liable. If only such an entity existed....

[No one of consequence]

They sure do love trotting out incoherent theories of Section 230 as an excuse not to do anything, don't they?

By way of clarification, I can't say for certain that they think they are hamstrung by section 230, only that they have refused in the past to provide the kind of guidance and support that anyone else in a multi-million dollar organization would get*. If there was a specific reason cited, I don't recall it.

*Do you imagine, for example, that if a Red Cross volunteer was harassed at her home by a mentally unstable person who who was opposed to blood donation, that the leaders of the local chapter would shrug their shoulders and tell the volunteer that she was on her own, and good luck?

[lilburne]

They sure do love trotting out incoherent theories of Section 230 as an excuse not to do anything, don't they?

By way of clarification, I can't say for certain that they think they are hamstrung by section 230, only that they have refused in the past to provide the kind of guidance and support that anyone else in a multi-million dollar organization would get*. If there was a specific reason cited, I don't recall it.

*Do you imagine, for example, that if a Red Cross volunteer was harassed at her home by a mentally unstable person who who was opposed to blood donation, that the leaders of the local chapter would shrug their shoulders and tell the volunteer that she was on her own, and good luck?

You forget they are Randroids and other assorted Monarchists. Rugged individualistic frontiersmen swashbuckling through wilderness inhabited by sockpuppets, and trolls, to reach the castle "MOAR PR0N". Anyone that gets waylaid by the forces of parents, teachers, or courts, is on their own.

[Kelly Martin]

You forget they are Randroids and other assorted Monarchists. Rugged individualistic frontiersmen swashbuckling through wilderness inhabited by sockpuppets, and trolls, to reach the castle "MOAR PR0N". Anyone that gets waylaid by the forces of parents, teachers, or courts, is on their own.

No, not merely on their own: they are people to be laughed at, for being inferior at the dog-eat-dog game that they love so much because it gives them a tiny smidgen of self-worth in their otherwise entirely unfulfilled lives.

I had a history professor back in college that pointed out that one of the keys to broad social stability is to ensure that there is always some identifiable group of people who are below the ordinary working class stiff, so that that group can take comfort and pleasure in knowing that, no matter how bad their lot is, these other blokes have it worse. This particular professor was teaching a US history class, and pointed out that in the years after emancipation in the South, reports of eyegougings among white sharecroppers rose dramatically. Her thesis was that the white sharecroppers no longer had black slaves to look to as being "beneath them", which led to increased violence among themselves. Of course, Jim Crow was established not much later and established free blacks as the underclass, and the eyegouging epidemic was abated.

And that, dear friends, explains pretty much everything that goes on at every Wikipedia noticeboard.

[thekohser]

Michelle probably got a lot of flack for aiding and abetting the website of a globally banned troll. I suppose her retirement was all but an eventuality from that moment onward.

[mydog]

No comment, other than to say that we see yet another "encyclopedia editor" who doesn't know the difference between "its" and "it's".

Damn, you beat me to it, Gomi.



On another note -- are there any freely-licensed photos of "Shell Kinney", and is that a real name?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shell.jpg

She has brief bios on both the English and French wikipedias. Not sure about the name, but on the French bio she says her name's Michelle, so it's plausible.

[thekohser]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shell.jpg

Is that a harrier or a beagle? The Kohses have a beagle! Maybe Michelle and I could see eye-to-eye on a few things, being that she seems to have disdained Wikipedia's management practices.