tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12886811.post3909007596250371927..comments2024-03-06T19:01:26.120-08:00Comments on Durova: What if the target were you?Lise Broerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15087397520904837725noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12886811.post-73474744825218284932008-06-10T18:07:00.000-07:002008-06-10T18:07:00.000-07:00Thanks very much, Dan. :)Thanks very much, Dan. :)Lise Broerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15087397520904837725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12886811.post-39140774956428812402008-06-10T18:06:00.000-07:002008-06-10T18:06:00.000-07:00My apologies for "hijacking" the thread... I do ge...My apologies for "hijacking" the thread... I do get somewhat obsessed with my own hobby-horses sometimes. I didn't mean to trivialize the attacks Mr. Shankbone, or others, have suffered.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17724373978066396316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12886811.post-83674237930961358932008-06-10T09:15:00.000-07:002008-06-10T09:15:00.000-07:00This one was actually written by David Shankbone, ...This one was actually written by David Shankbone, and in my pre-coffee stupor I accidentally hit the "reject" button rather than the "publish" button. So with apologies to David, here's the cut and paste.<BR/><BR/>From David Shankbone:<BR/>But what's your point, Dan? You bring up instances where people misuse the claim of "harassment." My case is a clear case of Cyberstalking. I was defamed, I had threats, and it went on for three months. It all happened on wiki. I don't understand why you are trying to use this clear-cut situation that should have had a community response, to say, "Harassment doesn't always exist." We know that already.<BR/><BR/>At least say why you are raising it. It seems like your comments are better geared to the "let's define harassment and stalking" discussion then they are suited to where we are at here. What are you proposing?<BR/><BR/>Here is what I am proposing: we should all be able to agree at the very least that a repeated threat of physical violence is a low bar to define harassment. Can we all agree on that? There needs to be a community response to it. I am not saying that every time a person claims harassment or stalking that they are deserving of a community response. But physical threats have no place in any interaction any of us have.Lise Broerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15087397520904837725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12886811.post-1505151656190916572008-06-10T08:05:00.000-07:002008-06-10T08:05:00.000-07:00Durova, please go to the news media with this. Jim...Durova, please go to the news media with this. Jimbo doesn't respond to the concerns of us peons, but he <I>does</I> respond to the prospect of bad publicity.<BR/><BR/>Ignore Dan, as usual. It's bad enough that he continues to spew his abuse on WP. His incessant blame-the-victim, ZOMG BADSITES!1!!1! attitude lost its novelty value long ago. But I assume you're free to mod him out here.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10279075926132482036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12886811.post-73783079892027711572008-06-09T21:14:00.000-07:002008-06-09T21:14:00.000-07:00Yet another abuse of the term "harassment" is this...Yet another abuse of the term "harassment" is <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Sceptre%2C_Sxeptomaniac%2C_SirFozzie%2C_B#Statement_of_the_dispute" REL="nofollow">this recently-filed RFC</A>, where parties (and, bizarrely, a whole list of <I>non-parties</I>, including myself) are asked to stop "harassment" which consists of "participating in discussions" about certain other users. Apparently, critical discussion = harassment.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17724373978066396316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12886811.post-64961436421274735782008-06-09T18:27:00.000-07:002008-06-09T18:27:00.000-07:00What does a troll do, though? A troll takes a ser...What does a troll do, though? A troll takes a serious issue and derails the thread on a tangent to waste people's time.<BR/><BR/>What does an enabler of harassment do? An enabler of harassment dismisses concerns out of hand, or blames the victim, and ignores solid evidence that a genuine problem exists.<BR/><BR/>Dan, I think you're sincere. When we spoke in voice you came across as someone who does not have harmful intentions. In text, though, consider the impression your reaction creates.Lise Broerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15087397520904837725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12886811.post-90986918082651465022008-06-09T18:19:00.000-07:002008-06-09T18:19:00.000-07:00No matter how I'm caricatured, I'm not singleminde...No matter how I'm caricatured, I'm <I>not</I> singlemindedly obsessed with BADSITES alone. True, it's tended to be at the center of my focus, given that it's the issue that got me involved as a vocal activist in WikiPolitics a year or so ago, and sometimes I get a bit overboard in trying to tie every conceivable issue to it, but it's still not the <I>only</I> thing I'm concerned with. In particular, I've come to see it as just one part of a harmful mindset that goes way beyond BADSITES itself, to encompass such things as those in Slim's recent proposal, many of which are, as you note, not directly related. They're still a bad idea, as you also say, but unfortunately there is a political atmosphere these days where somebody who opposes bad ideas like these on principle are likely to be labeled "trolls" or "enablers of harassment" or similar things, as in the manner in which the admin nominations of Cla68 and Gracenotes were scuttled. Slim's message seems to be soliciting the assistance of the Foundation in accomplishing such scuttlings in the future.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17724373978066396316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12886811.post-85009484375489408742008-06-09T14:55:00.000-07:002008-06-09T14:55:00.000-07:00Dan, that some people are still advocating it does...Dan, that some people are still advocating it doesn't change what's generally been decided by the community. If you haven't figured out by now, almost no one stops arguing their positions even after there is a set decision (look at for example issues with fair use of pictures on the English Wikipedia). Frankly, I don't think Sarah will have any success. The Foundation has neither the resources nor the inclination to get involve in that sort of thing, and it would at minimum make the Foundation much more legally involved with the various projects than it wants to be. <BR/><BR/>And frankly, SV's ideas about admins and crats isn't BADSITES, its a distinct proposal having little to do with the BADSITES. It is a bad idea, and I'd be pretty annoyed if the Foundation did anything like that, but it isn't BADSITES. Moreover, the problems with it are completely distinct from that.<BR/><BR/>And none of this changes the most serious point: even if one disagrees with SV's views about how we should handle harassment, the fact is that there is a serious problem and we haven't dealt with it. It is not only ruining lives but also damaging the various Wikimedia projects.Joshuahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00637936588223855248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12886811.post-79246261429970451532008-06-09T12:58:00.000-07:002008-06-09T12:58:00.000-07:00@joshua: The original BADSITES may be defeated, bu...@joshua: The original BADSITES may be defeated, but see <A HREF="http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-Stalking-Article-p17728615.html" REL="nofollow">Slim Virgin's recent mailing list post</A> where she seems to be advocating something very similar, as a <I>foundation-level policy</I> to be imposed on all Wikimedia projects <I>regardless of the feelings of the local communities</I>. In addition to wanting the Foundation to impose bans on linking to sites she considers to be involved in harassment, she wants people to be prohibited from <I>discussing</I> such things, and she wants community decisions on who to promote to admin or bureaucrat to be overruled when she regards the person as bad.<BR/><BR/>But I guess this is just my pernicious obsession with BADSITES reading things into her words that aren't really there and discrediting my own position, so maybe I should just shut up and leave.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17724373978066396316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12886811.post-15828099743964620542008-06-09T00:42:00.000-07:002008-06-09T00:42:00.000-07:00The first three of Dan's examples all relate to a ...The first three of Dan's examples all relate to a particular off-Wikipedia website, and two of the three also relate to a particular Wikipedia editor who was singled out in retaliation by the people who run that website. Although it claims to be a parody, a substantial portion of its content goes well beyond the realm of protected speech. For example, on the day it was proposed that Wikipedia re-link to that site, their main page featured a "profile" of a fifteen-year-old boy that patched his face onto a pig, onto Hitler, and onto gay pornography. For over half a year that site also ran a recent photograph of my seventy-four-year-old uncle along with his real name and a not very subtle threat to harass him in real life if I don't stop volunteering for Wikipedia. That uncle of mine surived 9/11 from a high floor. The photograph of him violated copyright, their photos of me violate copyright, and I doubt they have model permission for the indoor picures they run.<BR/><BR/>The fourth of Dan's links goes to a long threaded discussion where my search function found no instance of either "stalk" or "harass". He linked to the entire page rather than any particular post.<BR/><BR/>The fifth instance might indeed be hyperbolic, but not by as far a stretch as Dan implies. To put this in simple terms, Editor A had come from a notable family and contributed to articles about her late relatives when she was new to the site. She later learned about the conflict of interest guideline and stopped doing so. Afterward, Editor B went to those same articles and attempted to have them shortened or deleted. He did that not for a brief time but for months, picking up multiple blocks, and pursued the matter in ways that reflected a palpable grudge against Editor A. To the best of my knowledge he made no actual threat.Lise Broerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15087397520904837725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12886811.post-86016012172078074762008-06-08T19:57:00.000-07:002008-06-08T19:57:00.000-07:00A few examples of people over-using the "harassmen...A few examples of people over-using the "harassment" or "stalking" or related labels, for <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence&diff=158660255&oldid=158659999" REL="nofollow">posting concerns to a user talk page</A>, or <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/MONGO_3#View_of_Crockspot" REL="nofollow">starting a user conduct RFC</A>, or <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/MONGO_3#Outside_view" REL="nofollow">wanting an article to be created about a site</A>, or <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shii/Image_talk:Anime_by_nima.jpg" REL="nofollow">raising concerns about the copyright status of an image</A>, or <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Elonka_3&diff=176447053&oldid=176446361" REL="nofollow">editing the same articles as another editor</A>.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17724373978066396316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12886811.post-6354593971160770832008-06-08T19:46:00.000-07:002008-06-08T19:46:00.000-07:00For people who don't know the context, Dan is refe...For people who don't know the context, Dan is referring to a failed proposal about external linking.<BR/><BR/>Two things, Dan:<BR/><BR/>First, I've got doubts about the appropriateness of focusing on a dispute that ended last year in this discussion. Neither David nor I were supporters of that proposal. David's problem is real and ongoing: the person who targeted him is still at large. It's a courageous thing he's done by stepping forward. It would be easy to interpret your posts as trivializations, because you focus on something that barely even relates to the serious matter at hand without acknowledgement of the legitimage portion of the issue.<BR/><BR/>Second, you say this problem you describe is commonplace. Okay. Please send me specific examples where established editors use the word "harassment" or "stalking" in those contexts. If that's a problem that's clouding the real issue, that deserves to be addressed.Lise Broerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15087397520904837725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12886811.post-75849566615424029232008-06-08T19:40:00.000-07:002008-06-08T19:40:00.000-07:00Dan, there are many problems with what you are say...Dan, there are many problems with what you are saying: first, the so-called "BADSITES" did have real harassment by any reasonable definition. BADSITES was a bad idea but you don't need to pretend that there was serious harassment occurring in many of those external links.<BR/><BR/>Second, note my past tense "BADSITES was a bad idea". That policy proposal was rejected for good reasons. Not everything is about BADSITES. There are few things which hurt your credibility more than invoking BADSITES as some mantra that must be mentioned in almost every single post.Joshuahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00637936588223855248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12886811.post-39892716129122487782008-06-08T19:04:00.000-07:002008-06-08T19:04:00.000-07:00The problem with DanT's comment is that it looks a...The problem with DanT's comment is that it looks at the issue in the wrong light. The question is not "Does harassment and stalking exist?" It does. The question is now: How do we determine what is harassment, and what do we do about it? Focusing on all those people who cry harassment (homophobia, racism, sexism...) falsely doesn't solve the issue for when it does exist. <BR/><BR/>The main thing, the main problem with my situation, is that it was ALL on-wiki. Not once was it off. No e-mails, no nothing. Soft-blocking a range of 65,000 IPs solved the problem. For three months I had to go through this, have my reputation smeared, when the solution was so simple. Three months. I became irritable, I felt unappreciated, and it made contributing a joyless task. Why bother continuing in an environment like that.David Shankbonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08823790274218778904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12886811.post-12939651205392394672008-06-08T17:59:00.000-07:002008-06-08T17:59:00.000-07:00When I wrote that comment, I wasn't referring to t...When I wrote that comment, I wasn't referring to things like direct threatening messages as described here... I was referring more to the mindset in which everything from leaving a talk-page message critical of an editor's behavior to linking to a "BADSITE" in a non-harassing context is labeled "harassment" and "stalking" and other nasty words and used to call for the banning of users who do that, and the complete suppression of their point of view even if it might have validity to it.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17724373978066396316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12886811.post-55319543444802667882008-06-08T03:46:00.000-07:002008-06-08T03:46:00.000-07:00Deeply troubling, and I have difficulty seeing any...Deeply troubling, and I have difficulty seeing any good solution.pfctdayelisehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16930652936935871532noreply@blogger.com