Wikiconference USA - May 30 to June 1, 2014

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

And now I'm being asked to shut up by someone on twitter:

https://twitter.com/nwjerseyliz/status/ ... 5226812418

I find it very interesting how many somehow believe that my strongly held ideals around openness and hearing everyone out will somehow be influenced by more experience editing Wikipedia. If that is true, doesn't it say a lot about what the Wikipedia experience has to offer?

Careful, Wil... she's sharp. She has an MPhil degree in Sociology (sort of an advanced, second Master's degree, below a PhD) from Drew University, which she earned between 1999 and 2008. If it took nine years, you know it's a tough degree to earn. She's been a Twitter Trend Analyst and a Community Manager of other Twitter Trend contributors at What The Trend. So, if you're trying to do battle with her on Twitter, that's like wrasslin' a gator in 3 feet of water and one foot of muck.

Drew University seems not to offer Master degrees in any social-studies discipline. (It appears to have a history and culture M.A. program.) Its sociology department does offer a course in garbage.

[eagle]

I'm not denying the fundamental awesomeness of Wikipedia. I'm denying the infallibility of members of its community. And fallibility is nothing to be ashamed of, IMO; all people make mistakes.

Theoretically, the "fundamental awesomeness of Wikipedia" comes from an open group process of repeated refinement. Encyclopedia articles are crowd-sourced by any and all editors. In contrast, there has been no group process to develop a policy to exclude "banned" editors for participating in bricks-and-mortar WMF funded events. In fact, various projects rely upon the fact that their disciplinary actions have no "meatspace" consequences to justify the lack of due process in their procedures.

So, this boils down to "We are the clique that got the WMF money for a conference that we promised to be open to all 'even the skeptical', and we are going to exclude people from attending based on no reason that we are willing to articulate or defend. Otherwise, people would not know that we are the clique."

[thekohser]

I've broadly hinted to Wil that he needs to be cognizant of [[WP:NOTHERE]] (Not Here to Build an Encyclopedia).

When the religious townspeople gather pitchforks to have themselves a hangin' in the village square, that's the argument they're going to use against him.

Without an ongoing work history on WP, they'll wipe him out slicker than snot for "disruption."

RfB

In an ironic twist, I'm sure they'll have him step up onto a section of Chadwick modular seating (T-H-L), slip the noose over his neck, then kick that royal blue sectional out from under him!

[Randy from Boise]

I've broadly hinted to Wil that he needs to be cognizant of [[WP:NOTHERE]] (Not Here to Build an Encyclopedia).

When the religious townspeople gather pitchforks to have themselves a hangin' in the village square, that's the argument they're going to use against him.

Without an ongoing work history on WP, they'll wipe him out slicker than snot for "disruption."

RfB

In an ironic twist, I'm sure they'll have him step up onto a section of Chadwick modular seating (T-H-L), slip the noose over his neck, then kick that royal blue sectional out from under him!

That would actually be a fairly hilarious editing theme for him, if he worked on nothing but the history of lynching, capital punishment, and objects having either an obvious or whimsical connection to being killed by others.

In a world in which criticism = "trolling" and in which sins are only washed away with labor given to The Project, he's already probably a marked man...

RfB

P.S. Ooo, I take that back, 105 edits to mainspace so far this month, he has been a busy guy!

[eagle]

There is an open house tonight at Wikimedia DC where you can raise any questions that you might have about WikiConference USA:

WikiSalon
WHEN
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
7:00 PM – 9:00 PM
WHERE
Cove
1730 Connecticut Avenue NW, Washington, DC

Join us for an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts to chat about free culture topics and to edit articles together. There is no set agenda, and guests are invited to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Coffee, tea and soft drinks will be available on site. If enough people come we'll order a pizza!

[Notvelty]

And now I'm being asked to shut up by someone on twitter:

https://twitter.com/nwjerseyliz/status/ ... 5226812418

I find it very interesting how many somehow believe that my strongly held ideals around openness and hearing everyone out will somehow be influenced by more experience editing Wikipedia. If that is true, doesn't it say a lot about what the Wikipedia experience has to offer?

Wow.. that's some inspiring condescension tilt there. It's like she's taken the usual head tilt and done a complete reverse on it.

[Notvelty]

I'm not denying the fundamental awesomeness of Wikipedia.

I'm not saying you are. What I'm saying is that, if you participate in Wikipedia long enough, you will learn the rule that you must refuse to listen to anyone who does deny the awesomeness of Wikipedia, in any way whatsoever. That is, you must refuse to listen to anyone who doesn't accept that Wikipedia is awesome. This goes against your self-identified ideal of "hearing everyone out". If you fail to accept this rule of Wikipedia, you will be, at best, marginalized, and at worst pushed out entirely.

The "you haven't edited enough to comment" response is a marginalization effort: your opinion is being marginalized on the basis that "you haven't edited enough, therefore your opinion is of no consequence and can therefore be ignored". It is one of the many excuses they use to disregard undesirable opinions and the people who offer them.

Yes. It's the "heads I win, tails you lose" option. They'll demand that you make enough edits to comment, but then won't allow you to make those edits unless you toe the line. Object to this and it's "but you haven't made enough edits".

The only people who are able to make enough edits to be allowed to comment are those who have swallowed the Kool-Aid.

[Cla68]

There is an open house tonight at Wikimedia DC where you can raise any questions that you might have about WikiConference USA:

WikiSalon
WHEN
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
7:00 PM – 9:00 PM
WHERE
Cove
1730 Connecticut Avenue NW, Washington, DC

Join us for an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts to chat about free culture topics and to edit articles together. There is no set agenda, and guests are invited to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Coffee, tea and soft drinks will be available on site. If enough people come we'll order a pizza!

Anyone here attending this?

[wllm]

I've broadly hinted to Wil that he needs to be cognizant of [[WP:NOTHERE]] (Not Here to Build an Encyclopedia).

When the religious townspeople gather pitchforks to have themselves a hangin' in the village square, that's the argument they're going to use against him.

Without an ongoing work history on WP, they'll wipe him out slicker than snot for "disruption."

RfB

In an ironic twist, I'm sure they'll have him step up onto a section of Chadwick modular seating (T-H-L), slip the noose over his neck, then kick that royal blue sectional out from under him!

Note that the photo is from the WMF offices in SF. I have a few sections at home, too. One of the least appreciated designs evar.

[wllm]

FWIW, it's looks like Liz Pullen is following the discussion here, too:

https://twitter.com/nwjerseyliz/status/ ... 2934345728

Welcome!

[neved]

All right. We just strayed back in to that territory of asking people to not talk about something. I'm glad it was NYB, tho, because I have something to say to him. NYB, I think it is highly unethical of a conference organizer to assert that there are good reasons for banning an attendee that they are privately aware of and not disclose them. You are playing with a man's reputation, NYB, and frankly it's starting to look like you'd be perfectly willing to compromise his to save your own. You are condemning him without a trial, and that is precisely the issue at the heart of this controversy. There is only one circumstance I can think of under which that would be appropriate, and that's if this attendee presented a threat to other attendees. In that case, I think many people would agree that it is sufficient disclosure to simply state that he was not allowed because he presented a threat. So, it's about time we got down to brass tacks. Was Greg Kohs banned from WikiConference USA 2014 because he presented a threat to other attendees, including, not limited to, organizers, presenters, or sponsored attendees, either legally or physically? You have the floor. ,Wil (talk) 04:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Wil has this absolutely right. By all means 'disinvite' someone. But state the reasons out in the open. In particular, don't hint or intimate that the secret ban invoked a policy which designates 'harassment' and 'harassing behaviour', 'deliberate intimidation', 'inappropriate physical contact, and unwelcome sexual attention' and similar unsavoury, unpleasant or criminal practices.

This is playing with a man's reputation. Ira's behaviour in this affair has been unseemly.

Bravo, Wil!
Mr. Ira Brad Matetsky, Wil has been in Wikipedia business only for a month or so, and he already sees what you are about.
I am asking you once again, do you have any problems living with yourself? Do you have any issues with respecting yourself?

[Zoloft]

Incoming from nwjerseyliz, she has (I presume) registered here as Liz99, and I activated that account.

[Notvelty]

FWIW, it's looks like Liz Pullen is following the discussion here, too:

https://twitter.com/nwjerseyliz/status/ ... 2934345728

Welcome!

I love the lack of self awareness that makes people able to believe that statements like 'stop talking and do some work instead' are not exactly equivalent to "shut up".

No, no. When I told you not to speak, I wasn't telling you to shut up. You're still allowed to say things of which I approve. It's all about "good speech", you see.

Just don't offend her, Will. People have a right not to be offended, you know.

[Zoloft]

FWIW, it's looks like Liz Pullen is following the discussion here, too:

https://twitter.com/nwjerseyliz/status/ ... 2934345728

Welcome!

I love the lack of self awareness that makes people able to believe that statements like 'stop talking and do some work instead' are not exactly equivalent to "shut up".

No, no. When I told you not to speak, I wasn't telling you to shut up. You're still allowed to say things of which I approve. It's all about "good speech", you see.

Just don't offend her, Will. People have a right not to be offended, you know.

*looks around*

Did... did we become tumblr, Toto?

[neved]

FWIW, it's looks like Liz Pullen is following the discussion here, too:

https://twitter.com/nwjerseyliz/status/ ... 2934345728

Welcome!

I've no respect for Liz.
She has a user box on her talk page that states: "This user is against Cyber-bullying."
So once I asked her on her talk page about Cyber-bullying on wikipedia.
Here's some of her response

Well, Wikipedia is very different in that it has an organizational structure and plenty of content devoted to policy and guidelines. So, it's not an anarchy. But, sometimes rules conflict with practice or there are different interpretations over which policies are more significant. Hence, a lot of disputes are "talked out" on article talk pages and noticeboards. So, there are forums devoted to resolving conflict which most online communities do not have. But, clearly, experienced Wikipedians who are familiar with its guidelines have the edge in these debates so newcomers start at a disadvantage. This is where bullying can occur.
Civility is important not just because everyone should be nice to each other. Editors burn out on editing Wikipedia so there is a natural turnover in contributors. Bringing enthusiastic new users on board, showing them the ropes and making them feel welcome is important to Wikipedia because every new editor brings their own knowledge to the project. They might know a lot about airplanes, silent film stars, chemistry, comic books or Chaucer and can contribute in those areas. That's why I try to refer new editors to the Teahouse where editors who staff it go out of their way to address newbies' questions and concerns. Liz Read! Talk!

Then the worst cyber-bully Demiurge1000 wikihounded me to Liz's page and offered to send her email about me. Liz agreed to listen to that anonymous troll. She has never tried to contact me to listen to my part of the story although contacting me is quite easy.
Liz, I hope you're reading this.

[Zoloft]

FWIW, it's looks like Liz Pullen is following the discussion here, too:

https://twitter.com/nwjerseyliz/status/ ... 2934345728

Welcome!

I've no respect for Liz.
She has a user box on her talk page that states: "This user is against Cyber-bullying."
So once I asked her on her talk page about Cyber-bullying on wikipedia.
Here's some of her response

Well, Wikipedia is very different in that it has an organizational structure and plenty of content devoted to policy and guidelines. So, it's not an anarchy. But, sometimes rules conflict with practice or there are different interpretations over which policies are more significant. Hence, a lot of disputes are "talked out" on article talk pages and noticeboards. So, there are forums devoted to resolving conflict which most online communities do not have. But, clearly, experienced Wikipedians who are familiar with its guidelines have the edge in these debates so newcomers start at a disadvantage. This is where bullying can occur.
Civility is important not just because everyone should be nice to each other. Editors burn out on editing Wikipedia so there is a natural turnover in contributors. Bringing enthusiastic new users on board, showing them the ropes and making them feel welcome is important to Wikipedia because every new editor brings their own knowledge to the project. They might know a lot about airplanes, silent film stars, chemistry, comic books or Chaucer and can contribute in those areas. That's why I try to refer new editors to the Teahouse where editors who staff it go out of their way to address newbies' questions and concerns. Liz Read! Talk!

Then the worst cyber-bully Demiurge1000 wikihounded me to Liz's page and offered to send her email about my. Liz agreed. She has never tried to contact me to listen to my part of the story although contacting me is quite easy.
Liz, I hope you're reading this.

Well, pretty soon Liz will be on these very pages, and I expect some restraint both on her part and yours. You can be frank, just not... er too colorful, please.

[Sweet Revenge]

Drew University seems not to offer Master degrees in any social-studies discipline. (It appears to have a history and culture M.A. program.) Its sociology department does offer a course in garbage.

First I thought maybe you'd missed it because she matriculated in 1999, and so almost certainly would graduate under the catalog in force at that time. However, it looks like even in 1999 Drew did not offer an M.Phil. in Sociology (1999 grad programs at Drew from wayback machine). The nearest thing I could find to an M.Phil. is an M.Litt. in arts and letters, which seems to be a choose-your-own-adventure program, which could reasonably result in something one might call a degree in sociology (see it here in the wayback machine).

[wllm]

Incoming from nwjerseyliz, she has (I presume) registered here as Liz99, and I activated that account.

I'd love to hear what she has to say. And not just in 140 characters or less. Liz, please, chime in. We can always use more diverse perspectives here.

Everyone, please. Let's stay on topic and make Liz feel welcome. If she has come here to address this forum, she deserves nothing but respect for that.

[Zoloft]

Incoming from nwjerseyliz, she has (I presume) registered here as Liz99, and I activated that account.

I'd love to hear what she has to say. And not just in 140 characters or less. Liz, please, chime in. We can always use more diverse perspectives here.

Everyone, please. Let's stay on topic and make Liz feel welcome. If she has come here to address this forum, she deserves nothing but respect for that.

I certainly agree.

[Notvelty]

FWIW, it's looks like Liz Pullen is following the discussion here, too:

https://twitter.com/nwjerseyliz/status/ ... 2934345728

Welcome!

I love the lack of self awareness that makes people able to believe that statements like 'stop talking and do some work instead' are not exactly equivalent to "shut up".

No, no. When I told you not to speak, I wasn't telling you to shut up. You're still allowed to say things of which I approve. It's all about "good speech", you see.

Just don't offend her, Will. People have a right not to be offended, you know.

*looks around*

Did... did we become tumblr, Toto?

Intellectual dishonesty gets my goat. And not in an FT2 way. I had assumed this was already apparent.

[neved]

He also notes that he has "greater knowledge of the relevant background than most others who have edited this page".

Ira can be reliably expected to slash about with the "greater knowledge" bully-whip. It makes him feel important and powerful when he does that.

Joseph McCarthy used to do that very thing, too! Well done, Brad. You have another 12 hours to do one of the three ethical things I told you you could do. If not, your e-mail to me goes public.

You should have a pity on the poor man. He lost sleep and is completely lacking a sense of humor because of you

I'm not talking about NYBrad's political philosophies more generally or what web forums he haunts in his spare time, I'm saying that if he went into a room, decided to do X, walked out of the room, and then is asked "was X controversial enough to be added to this article", could NYB be truly neutral about same, since it involves a decision he actually participated in making? It's not editing an article about himself, but it is, indirectly, editing content about a decision he was one the few people involved with, if I understand correctly. It's a minor point, and I'm only suggesting that he consider recusing himself from actually voting in the discussion in the same way an involved admin would not use his tools? In this case he'd be recusing his right to !vote. As to your other point, WO forum members would not be conflicted by my logic, but Kohs of course would be. I suppose that's a moot point since Kohs is already editing there and has already !voted, under the pseudon***CARRIER LOST***

Looking at it again, NYB clearly stated his COI, so I suppose whether he puts his comment under "oppose" or elsewhere isn't that big of a deal. Nothing to see here, go about your business.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. If you aren't jesting and if Mr. Kohs is actually participating in that discussion about himself via a sockpuppet without disclosing it, a claim I am extremely reluctant to accept without powerful evidence, then it would be doubly problematic, secondarily because he is indefblocked or banned and not allowed to edit at all, and primarily because his conflict of interest in that discussion would exceed mine sevenfold. (And if you are jesting, it might be best to say so, as I'm sincerely not sure.) And with that I am going to again step back from commenting on this matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

sorry I thought my being cut-off midstream by nefarious ninjas clipping my modem cables would have illustrated I was kidding...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 08:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. My apologies for my humor detector's not being well-honed at this insomniac hour. I empathize with the pain of having a punchline squashed like this. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

[mac]

When I first edited Wikipedia, I had no gray hair. Maybe there is something to this theory.

Clearly, you should have become an admin.

Hm, I would need a sock.

[Cla68]

When potential attendees at the conference said they wouldn't attend if Kohs was there, why didn't the organizers remind them that the conference platform specifically welcomed everyone, regardless of their status on WP, then told them that it was unfortunate that they couldn't attend but that the conference organizers needed to be true to their word? Wouldn't that have been the right thing to do?

NewYorkBrad, can you answer?

[Midsize Jake]

Interestingly, the wording of the original press release differs somewhat from the online registration page. It's probably impossible at this point to determine if the registration page was changed after the decision to "disinvite" Mr. Kohs, but the press release is dated January 28, 2014, the day before this thread was started.

From the press release (PDF):

Who Should Attend?
WikiConference USA is open to all participants, regardless of previous level of involvement with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia projects. We welcome the curious, the skeptical, and others wishing to engage in meaningful conversation about the Wikimedia movement in the United States, free culture and digital rights, advocacy and outreach, community building, and technology.

From the registration page on eventbrite.com:

Who Should Attend?
WikiConference USA is for all Wikipedians, whether newly registered or experienced editors, as well as those who read Wikipedia or are interested in free knowledge initiatives. We welcome the curious, the skeptical, and others wishing to engage in meaningful conversation about the Wikimedia movement in the United States, free culture and digital rights, advocacy and outreach, community building, or technology.

Of course, I could have written a much shorter version of this consisting of just the word "Fools!" but I guess some people don't appreciate my concise, uncomplicated approach to such things.

Anyway, they could probably make the case that Mr. Kohs is not a "Wikipedian," since this is presumably a term they can define in any way they see fit, but they obviously can't make the case that he doesn't read Wikipedia, or isn't "curious" or "skeptical." So either way, they have no leg to stand on in terms of phrasing. Still, it seemed interesting that the wording was different, at least when I started writing all this. Now I'm not so sure, so maybe I'll just click the "Cancel" bu

[everyking]

When potential attendees at the conference said they wouldn't attend if Kohs was there, why didn't the organizers remind them that the conference platform specifically welcomed everyone, regardless of their status on WP, then told them that it was unfortunate that they couldn't attend but that the conference organizers needed to be true to their word? Wouldn't that have been the right thing to do?

NewYorkBrad, can you answer?

In the future maybe they should say the conferences are open only to people who haven't been branded as enemies.

On what level were these people supposedly concerned about Kohs, anyway? "Friendly space"? I mean, what did they think he was going to do? All these vague, unexplained insinuations make it seem like they think he is dangerous. If they had just banned him for having a different opinion, at least that would be honest and it wouldn't impugn his character.

[Hex]

Well done, Brad. You have another 12 hours to do one of the three ethical things I told you you could do. If not, your e-mail to me goes public.

[Zoloft]

He also notes that he has "greater knowledge of the relevant background than most others who have edited this page".

Ira can be reliably expected to slash about with the "greater knowledge" bully-whip. It makes him feel important and powerful when he does that.

Joseph McCarthy used to do that very thing, too! Well done, Brad. You have another 12 hours to do one of the three ethical things I told you you could do. If not, your e-mail to me goes public.

[wllm]

NewYorkBrad, time has run out. Silence will not make this go away. Please be intelligent and considerate enough to speak up now. This will send a clear message to the community that we will be truly open about community affairs- even when it is hard- and start backing up all of those lofty promises that Wikipedia makes to all of us users pretty much all of the time. If you remain silent, it will send an equally clear message to the community and beyond.

What say you?

,Wil

[lilburne]

I'm sure he'll be a long in a moment.



What this? See he's strolling down the street, and if we are lucky he'll sing and dance for us all.

[Stierlitz]

That deserves musical accompaniment:
Or maybe if you want to be depressed:

[thekohser]

An award-winning technologist has advised me that the upright path for me to follow is not to "attack" Ira Brad Matetsky over the conference organizers' malfeasance. I am tending to agree. Brad is a sensitive soul. He didn't deliberately plan for this fiasco to be a Kafkaesque torment for me. He only enabled the planners.

Therefore, for the time being, I do not intend to release Brad's e-mails to me, which would have cast him in a very unfavorable light.

I concur with Wil Sinclair, that "Silence will not make this go away. Please be intelligent and considerate enough to speak up now." However, Brad isn't the one who needs to speak up. It's the conference director:

Conference Director
Jennifer Baek: Wikimedia NYC Secretary. She is a free culture activist and organizer, interested in digital rights, alternative copyright education, and open access.
Email: jen@wikimedianyc.org
Mobile: +16467569783
Twitter: @jenbaek

As I simply don't have the time or patience to deal with such malfeasance any longer, I will not further pursue a direct investigation of my Kafkaesque trial, but others who are offended by how this supposedly "open" conference that was billed to accept "skeptics" became a closed, discriminatory Star Chamber event for me, are welcome (I presume) to contact Ms. Baek for an official (or off-the-record) comment. Note I am not advocating harassing or intimidating Ms. Baek in any way! Communications should always be cordial, polite, and between mature adults. If she declines to answer you, that is her prerogative.

[Triptych]

An award-winning technologist has advised me that the upright path for me to follow is not to "attack" Ira Brad Matetsky over the conference organizers' malfeasance. I am tending to agree. Brad is a sensitive soul. He didn't deliberately plan for this fiasco to be a Kafkaesque torment for me. He only enabled the planners.

Therefore, for the time being, I do not intend to release Brad's e-mails to me, which would have cast him in a very unfavorable light.

In my opinion you make the right call in not releasing a personal email. If Brad sent it in an official capacity, as in conference organizer or arbitrator or whatever, or even if he just skirted around the edges of officiality, I'd say release away. However I think you've decided the email was not like that.

You could still possibly paraphrase it. I don't think that's violating any trust. I'm not asking you to do that though, I'm just expressing a viewpoint as to when emails should be confidential and when they should not. Important stuff!

[Randy from Boise]

An award-winning technologist has advised me that the upright path for me to follow is not to "attack" Ira Brad Matetsky over the conference organizers' malfeasance. I am tending to agree. Brad is a sensitive soul. He didn't deliberately plan for this fiasco to be a Kafkaesque torment for me. He only enabled the planners.

Therefore, for the time being, I do not intend to release Brad's e-mails to me, which would have cast him in a very unfavorable light.

This just in from Wall Street: At the opening bell ConAgra stock has fallen nearly 21 points in a very major sell-off...

RfB

[thekohser]

And so it begins.

[snowskarlet]

Incoming from nwjerseyliz, she has (I presume) registered here as Liz99, and I activated that account.

I'd love to hear what she has to say. And not just in 140 characters or less. Liz, please, chime in. We can always use more diverse perspectives here.

Everyone, please. Let's stay on topic and make Liz feel welcome. If she has come here to address this forum, she deserves nothing but respect for that.

I certainly agree.

Echoes from me. Welcome, Liz and thanks for joining.

[Peter Damian]

Kevin, I'm starting to think these private emails are a big part of the problem. I'd like to publish the unsolicited email you sent to me regarding this issue on June 5. It's the one in which you suggest I "back the fuck off." Is that OK with you? Please, Kevin, in the future if you have anything to say to me regarding Wikipedia, try to do it on-wiki where everyone can take part. Best. ,Wil 10:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Wil, this comes from a friendly place as I like you, so I'm asking you to consider carefully the path you are going down. I see over at WPO you have joined into the blackmail thread, whereby if NYB doesn't release certain info, other negative (and presumably sent in confidence) info will be released. This is a form of blackmail, and while it seems Greg has wisely decided not to follow through on his threat I want you to think carefully about how it makes you look, and unfortunately how it makes your partner look, that her life partner joined in a call to blackmail a sitting arb - eg "Time is up Brad" etc. Secondly I've just seen that you proposed releasing an email from Gorman and already quoted some colorful language from within - emails sent in confidence are considered private and you should never release their contents more widely without permission, regardless of legality- it is simply rude - I know to asked permission but you nonetheless leaked a wee bit already. Finally, I took a look at mywikibiz last night - have you seen the hit piece on Jimbo? It's a carefully crafted character assassination piece - worthy of encyclopedia dramatica but built almost entirely by Kohs (and not written as satire, he's deadly serious) - replete with mocking photo and puerile commentary. It has nothing to do with serious journalism. This is the same guy you're defending now. I see nothing wrong with critics, but that piece shows a rather extreme level of obsession and revenge. Liz was right Wil - it's not about asking you to shut up, it's just asking you to take in the bigger picture before judging. That your naïveté has led you to join a blackmail thread is, well, not a good sign, and now you've taken a cue and are proposing releasing private emails in the middle of a public talk page.--Obiwankenobi (T-C-L) 13:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

[wllm]

Kevin, I'm starting to think these private emails are a big part of the problem. I'd like to publish the unsolicited email you sent to me regarding this issue on June 5. It's the one in which you suggest I "back the fuck off." Is that OK with you? Please, Kevin, in the future if you have anything to say to me regarding Wikipedia, try to do it on-wiki where everyone can take part. Best. ,Wil 10:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Obi-wan has reverted his edit to my page, citing "overstepping." Although I never think one has to say sorry for airing their opinions, and I do believe this was written in good faith, s/he apologized in the logs. I think we should consider taking it down here, then. People sometimes want undos in life, and I think we should grant them. Or, if Obi-wan prefers it stay up, then so be it. There's nothing here that I don't mind everyone reading.

If Kevin apologizes for sending me unsolicited mails with advice like "back the fuck off" in them, then I would consider reverting my own comment on the List of Wikipedia Controversies talk page. In fact, he didn't even apologize when I asked him politely not to butt in to my private life. Here's a little more unsolicited information:

"
Given how cautious people have asked me to be in speaking to you I would
normally hesitate to share this - but given the sheer number of people who
were reiterating the sentiment in NYC, I don't think it has implications for
anyone's anonymity - more than a couple people in NYC, including in
positions where this would normally get them in shit in any organization
other than the Wikimedia movement - were pretty explicitly and pretty
publicly asking why Lila hadn't either dumped you or banished you from the
Wikimedia world yet. That's not something I want to happen - least of all
because it would be a bloody mess - but that's something that multiple
influential people are already explicitly bringing up in semi-public
settings. (This is pretty certainly on the list of issues people would
rather I don't discuss with you... but I can't even think of every person at
the conference who brought it up with me.)
"

Dumped me, huh? A bloody mess, indeed. And it would tear a family apart, leaving a child without a father at home. But, yeah, I guess it would also affect the community.

[Midsize Jake]

Well, to be fair, "blackmail" is one of those words that Wikipedians have redefined and twisted over the years to mean just about anything they want it to mean at any given time.

In the real world, if you tell someone you'll do something that might embarrass them if they don't do the right thing, it may be a threat, but it's a threat of shaming, not "blackmail." Traditionally, blackmail usually involves some sort of substantive (if not tangible) quid pro quo that benefits the blackmailer.

I apologize for being a traditionalist in this regard, but the fact remains, it would be better if Mr. Brad were to do the right thing in this case.

[Midsize Jake]

A bloody mess, indeed. And it would tear a family apart, leaving a child without a father at home....

This is why you should be extra-careful, though. Quite of few of them over there would see that as a "win."

[wllm]

Well, to be fair, "blackmail" is one of those words that Wikipedians have redefined and twisted over the years to mean just about anything they want it to mean at any given time.

In the real world, if you tell someone you'll do something that might embarrass them if they don't do the right thing, it may be a threat, but it's a threat of shaming, not "blackmail." Traditionally, blackmail usually involves some sort of substantive (if not tangible) quid pro quo that benefits the blackmailer.

I apologize for being a traditionalist in this regard, but the fact remains, it would be better if Mr. Brad were to do the right thing in this case.

Yup. That might have applied to Greg, and, as I understand it, that's why he didn't release that email.

Note that this is *not* what I have done. I find it amazing have expressed the opinion that I should somehow take responsibility for everything that is said here. I say what I say, and the rest of y'all say what you do. Since all of my msgs here have my name right next to them, I don't see why it would be so difficult to hold me responsible for what *I* say and not others.

I sure as hell wouldn't want to be held responsible for everything that is said in every thread I chime in on at Wikipedia, either.

[neved]

Here's a little more unsolicited information:

"
Given how cautious people have asked me to be in speaking to you I would
normally hesitate to share this - but given the sheer number of people who
were reiterating the sentiment in NYC, I don't think it has implications for
anyone's anonymity - more than a couple people in NYC, including in
positions where this would normally get them in shit in any organization
other than the Wikimedia movement - were pretty explicitly and pretty
publicly asking why Lila hadn't either dumped you or banished you from the
Wikimedia world yet. That's not something I want to happen - least of all
because it would be a bloody mess - but that's something that multiple
influential people are already explicitly bringing up in semi-public
settings. (This is pretty certainly on the list of issues people would
rather I don't discuss with you... but I can't even think of every person at
the conference who brought it up with me.)
"

Dumped me, huh? A bloody mess, indeed. And it would tear a family apart, leaving a child without a father at home. But, yeah, I guess it would also affect the community.

I would have never expected something like that from Kevin, but Kevin should have known at least that Lila has no power to banished anybody from the Wikimedia world. Banishing people from the Wikimedia world is done by the arbcom's secret tribunals, or by community bans lynching mob of the psychotic, anonymous bullies who call themselves "the community".

[Kelly Martin]

Well, to be fair, "blackmail" is one of those words that Wikipedians have redefined and twisted over the years to mean just about anything they want it to mean at any given time.

In the real world, if you tell someone you'll do something that might embarrass them if they don't do the right thing, it may be a threat, but it's a threat of shaming, not "blackmail." Traditionally, blackmail usually involves some sort of substantive (if not tangible) quid pro quo that benefits the blackmailer.

I apologize for being a traditionalist in this regard, but the fact remains, it would be better if Mr. Brad were to do the right thing in this case.

It is technically extortion to threaten to subject a person to ridicule or embarrassment to coerce them to do some thing, when that thing has economic value. It is not blackmail to threaten to expose someone's misdeeds unless they admit them on their own. The underlying "evil motive" in extortion is the intent to obtain something of economic value.

Also, I would stress that the principle that "private emails are private" morally does not apply to emails which are sent for an immoral purpose. If you send an email to someone for the purpose of threatening, intimidating, or bullying them, or with the purpose of interfering with their exercise of a right or privilege to which they are reasonably entitled, you have no reasonable right to expect that email to be kept private.

[wllm]

A bloody mess, indeed. And it would tear a family apart, leaving a child without a father at home....

This is why you should be extra-careful, though. Quite of few of them over there would see that as a "win."

If any partner of mine were to be influenced by any community in to making a decision like this, so would I. One only has so many years to live, and I wouldn't waste that much time with anyone but a true friend.

We can see how ridiculously personal some Wikipedians are willing to make this. Please, everyone reading this, lurkers or otherwise, stay out of my private life. If and when I'd like you to be part of it, I will invite you.

[Peter Damian]

Well, to be fair, "blackmail" is one of those words that Wikipedians have redefined and twisted over the years to mean just about anything they want it to mean at any given time.

In the real world, if you tell someone you'll do something that might embarrass them if they don't do the right thing, it may be a threat, but it's a threat of shaming, not "blackmail." Traditionally, blackmail usually involves some sort of substantive (if not tangible) quid pro quo that benefits the blackmailer.

I apologize for being a traditionalist in this regard, but the fact remains, it would be better if Mr. Brad were to do the right thing in this case.

It is technically extortion to threaten to subject a person to ridicule or embarrassment to coerce them to do some thing, when that thing has economic value. It is not blackmail to threaten to expose someone's misdeeds unless they admit them on their own. The underlying "evil motive" in extortion is the intent to obtain something of economic value.

Also, I would stress that the principle that "private emails are private" morally does not apply to emails which are sent for an immoral purpose. If you send an email to someone for the purpose of threatening, intimidating, or bullying them, or with the purpose of interfering with their exercise of a right or privilege to which they are reasonably entitled, you have no reasonable right to expect that email to be kept private.

I don't know US law, but English law simply (and rightly) refers to 'gain', not 'financial gain'. On the other hand, there are two exclusions, one of them the 'reasonable grounds'.

If Brad has been concealing information with the result that Kohs's reputation is being damaged (the implication of sexual harassment, e.g.), then it is reasonable IMO that Kohs demand he reveal that information, by threatening to reveal it himself.

(1) A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces; and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief:

(a) that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and
(b) that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand.

(2) The nature of the act or omission demanded is immaterial, and it is also immaterial whether the menaces relate to action to be taken by the person making the demand.

[Midsize Jake]

Since all of my msgs here have my name right next to them, I don't see why it would be so difficult to hold me responsible for what *I* say and not others.

Guilt by association is pretty much a constant on Wikipedia, in both content disputes and in efforts to get people banned, but to be fair, that's true all over the interwebs.

Kelly M. can explain this better than I can, but in trying to deal with the way admins and other heavily time-invested users react to new arrivals, you have to understand the concept of "editor trajectory." New users show up and they immediately start doing certain things that admins hope will allow them to be pigeonholed by what they're expected to do if they continue editing. Various names for these things have been developed over the years - "SPA," "wikignome," "vandal-fighter," "Dave Gerard," and so on. The predictability associated with those things is what the the admins, etc., want - and there's nothing wrong or unjustifiable about that; they have limited time and they're not getting paid, after all.

In your case, however, there's no clear trajectory at all, is there? You just sort of plopped down on them out of the sky like an alien spacecraft or something, and to make things worse from their perspective, you revel in your own unpredictability. So it's understandable that they'd be a bit stressed by this, even if you didn't register here at Wikipediocracy.

Long story short, it's definitely tricky, but if I were in your shoes I'd just keep doing what you're doing, just maybe less of it. It's true that they live for drama, but as you've seen, that works both ways - they will try to manufacture drama out of your actions, even if your intention is to avoid drama of any kind. Don't give them any more fuel than you have to.

[thekohser]

Whether it was extortion, blackmail, a threat, or just a good ol' ultimatum, I admit that one of the reasons I introduced the idea of publicly announcing that Newyorkbrad would have an e-mail of his revealed if he didn't do something ethical about this fiasco, was simply to give him (and the Wikipediot horde) a taste of what it's like to make a public announcement that suggests the subject did something wrong, but then not produce the evidence that would explain the innuendo. In other words, turn the tables on the character assassins themselves.

And look what resulted! Obiwankenobi got his panties in such a twist over this "blackmail thread", he spent exactly 1 hour, 42 minutes, 29 seconds on MyWikiBiz last night, even searching the database for "obiwan", just to make sure I haven't said anything mean about him. I'm pleased that he spent some time on the Sophismata page, though. That's a good read just before bedtime!

I marvel at exactly how educational and an opportunity for bridge-building it would have been if I had just been given a last-minute spot on the paid editing discussion panel at WikiConUSA. I would have come into the conference around 2:30, watched Beutler's session, then done the panel, then talked with Wikipedians for an hour or so afterward, let commuter traffic die down a bit, then headed out to my friend's DJ gig in New Jersey. Probably would have gotten a nice Examiner story out of it, and that would have been about it.

Instead, we now have Wikipedians talking about how their new Executive Director would be better off dumping her partner, because he supports the idea of an "open" conference being "open".

If I had tried with all my might, I probably couldn't have orchestrated a more palpable demonstration of just how insane the Wikipedia "community" is.



By the way, here are the three options I gave Newyorkbrad to halt the reveal of his e-mail message to me:

(A) Publicly inform people like the Kevins that prancing about saying you have dirt on someone, but not sharing it, especially when that someone is not permitted a right of response -- is highly inappropriate; or,

(B) Publicly state that the evidence is flimsy and is now being misused as a false omen of doom; or,

(C) Share the evidence with me.

Pretty simple, huh? I think it's pretty clear now that Option B was probably the most relevant one for Brad, but he's not willing to throw under the bus his buddies on the conference organizing team.

[wllm]

edward, please consider removing that quote from Obi-wan. I don't believe s/he needs to apologize, but s/he has apologized to me personally and now WO on my talk page. It appears s/he preemptively reverted the comment that was quoted. Sometimes we could all use an undo.

Greg, you were right in putting quotes around "community." I don't think that this kind of behavior typifies the vast majority of Wikipedians. There are some that seem to be so caught up in the politics that they have lost sight that they are talking about real people. Communities are made up of people; forget the people, and you might as well forget the community.

[Hex]

In your case, however, there's no clear trajectory at all, is there? You just sort of plopped down on them out of the sky like an alien spacecraft or something, and to make things worse from their perspective, you revel in your own unpredictability. So it's understandable that they'd be a bit stressed by this, even if you didn't register here at Wikipediocracy.

Unpredictability is Kryptonite to autists, and Wil is busying himself demonstrating the Emperor's lack of clothes. If he wasn't the partner of the ED, he'd be seven shades of banned from everything and everywhere Communitah-related by now.

[lilburne]

A bloody mess, indeed. And it would tear a family apart, leaving a child without a father at home....

This is why you should be extra-careful, though. Quite of few of them over there would see that as a "win."

If any partner of mine were to be influenced by any community in to making a decision like this, so would I. One only has so many years to live, and I wouldn't waste that much time with anyone but a true friend.

We can see how ridiculously personal some Wikipedians are willing to make this. Please, everyone reading this, lurkers or otherwise, stay out of my private life. If and when I'd like you to be part of it, I will invite you.

You need to realize that there are at most 50-100 of these idiots, plus a bunch of hangers on. The 50-100 are loud, semi-tenacious, and can dominate any discussion. They do what they do because few amongst their peers ever calls them to account, and they use what tools they have to silence critics. Don't be fooled this is not a swarm it is really just a handful of shrill jerks. The WMF appears to be stymied by this vocal group it shouldn't be. They are very few in numbers and can be faced down.

[Peter Damian]

edward, please consider removing that quote from Obi-wan. I don't believe s/he needs to apologize, but s/he has apologized to me personally and now WO on my talk page. It appears s/he preemptively reverted the comment that was quoted. Sometimes we could all use an undo.

I don't think this is possible given that you have already quoted it, and removing it would mean removing other things that were said. In any case, I don't think it should be removed, as it is part of the story that we need to understand. Wikipedians often distort history by removing chunks of things, why should we? Of course Obi removed it from your talk page, but that is because he no longer wants to say it to you. That doesn't mean we should obliterate the fact that he said it. We can note that he said it, and then that he retracted it. How is that?