[Wikimedia-l] The end

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
13 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] The end

Chris Sherlock

I've just been blocked forever. I've been bullied, and I'm having suicidal thoughts.

I don't know what to do now.

Right now I'm reaching out to anyone who might listen.  I've been called obsessive, someone who attacks people, I've not been listened to and I've been lectured on policy by people who quote three letter shortcuts at me without reading the policy.

An admin just told me that I had submitted too many kilobytes which violated some sort of policy. When I pointed out that half of the kilobytes were references I was ignored. When I pointed out that the one reverting me was deleting no contentious stuff I was told I was being contentious. When I pointed out I had been told I'm not allowed to use primary sources in any way and the policy was its ok but to use it with care, and all I was doing was checking a company directorship, I was ignored.

I wrote your [[exploding whale]] article. I invented your [citation needed] tag. I started your admins noticeboard.

But I'm not well, and nobody on Wikipedia seems to be kind. You are all so busy power tripping that you forget there is a real, live person on the other side. A person who is wounded. I haven't always been this depressed. Not anxious. I stupidly logged into my account yesterday, one that nobody knew I used, and tried to edit the Salim Mehajer article. I was surprised it wasn't there, but I've never been so obstructed I all my life. It's not even that there was a disagreement, it was like I wasn't worth anything. I spent hours of my time researching the article, trying to do a good job. But in an instant the material was ripped away, and I was called obsessed.

That's not what I was called when I rewrote the [[USA PATRIOT Act]] article. People told me it was long, but they were encouraging. My hard work was appreciated.

I've never attacked the subject of the article, Salim Mehajer. But when I was called obsessive, I guess something broke inside me. I reached badly and called the guy who called me obsessive a twit. Then I wrote a bitter article and posted it on my blog. You can read it here:

http://randomtechnicalstuff.blogspot.com.au/2016/05/dont-bite-newbies-why-wikipedia-is-such.html

Then I stewed. I couldn't stop thinking about how I'd tried to get a decent article sorted out again, but I just couldn't seem to get traction.

I originally had taken material from the [[City of Auburn]] article that was about the individual. I should have realised it was partisan, and it was a bad judgement call. I write done more material, but it was far too negative. I guess o didn't see it that way at the time.

I recall I went to bed and the next day I was accused of writing an attack article and an admin slapped on not one but two template telling me I was about to be blocked. Then I discovered the article had been deleted. Nobody had notified me. I couldn't work out what had happened. Then I realised it had been deleted.

So I tried again. This time I started from scratch. I started to edit very carefully. I started with a paragraph stub which just very, very briefly noted Mehajor is a deputy mayor and property developer. I think I wrote a short paragraph Bout his wedding which was very notable. It's in the history.

Then it was put up for deletion again. In the A7 category. I'm rusty at Wikipedia, sure, but what? A7? It was for notability. But, I thought, how? The man is highly significant! Not a day goes by without the media talking of his exploits!

So I objected. The editor rounded on me. He's famous for being famous, like a Kardashian! he said. But I said, he was a deputy mayor and he's been in the Australian media extensively! It's not just his wedding (which was notorious) - it's his property deals, and his companies, and he got his entire council sacked! And he is in court all the time and is under an AFP investigation! That *is* notable!

But, I was told, there's not enough In the article. I was referred to another acronym about notability. But I know about notability policy, I thought. It's about the subject, not the content of the article.., desperately I hunted through the policy git the section on this. I'd read it before, years ago. If the article was deleted before I got a chance to object, I'd be called a troll, or worse. I'd be blocked for recreating it. In the nick of time I found the section and objected, and I asked to have it put on Articles For Deletion. And I pointed out I was literally editing the article when it was almost deleted - because it didn't establish enough context. But, I thought, how do you establish context of the article is deleted midway through editing it?

The editor took off the CSD template. I breathed a sigh of relief. Then they stick on a {{notability}} template. This, I was informed, meant that the article could be merged, redirected, or deleted if notability couldn't be determined. But, I thought - I just established that! I didn't want it to be deleted midway through editing, and redirecting would have been as bad. And merged and redirected to what? It was already redirected to [[City of Auburn Council#History]], but that was clearly wrong. No, it was going to be deleted. I objected, and eventually removed the template, to strenuous objections from the one who put it on. I suggested it be put up for deletion and offered to do it myself. But the editor seemed reluctant. So, I reasoned, well if they truly feel that way they list it for deletion. At least then we'll get consensus one way or another.

So, now templates less but incomplete, I started to add material. I decided to start off with his early life. This was good, but every time I tried to add more material I found I was getting edit conflicts because that same editor appeared to have watchlisted the article. I sent the a message asking then to hold off editing. I also asked them not to remove huge swathes of information.

Then I got to the bit where a court case was referred to. To establish context, I quoted both the widely reported words said by the accused and the defendant. I used a secondary source that was very reliable - the Australian ABC News website. This was summarily removed. The edit summary read BLP violation.

Eh? I know what BLP is, but that can't be right. I asked why on the talk page. "It's because of BLPCRIME" they said. "You can't do it". But, I said, I don't want to summarise their words, that could look worse for Mehajer! And I need to explain the case fairly do the reader knows what it's about... I was told to read the policy. Grumbling, I read it to refresh my memory. It read that non-public figures should not have allegations put on articles. Well, I thought, this does t apply here - Mehajer is a very public figure and this was reported widely.

And on and on it went. Every time I edited the article I would be edited as quickly. It was like I was being stalked. Eventually, however, the exasperation of that editor was too much. He listed the article on Requests For Comment. But, I thought, I remember RFC back in the day. We used to hash these things out on the talk page first! And normally there was some sort of compromise - line the opposing party would say "why not summarise it thusly" and you'd look at it and go "well, OK, but I'd summarise it like this". And the partite would come up with something reasonable. Not do this editor - it was no information on the case at all, just that there had been a case.

So then things went very bad. He decided to ask at the Australisn Wikipedias Noticeboard. From there, a South Ausyrslusn editor turned up, took a look at the section that detailed vehicle incidents and just removed it. Then on the talk page he panned the edits as "obsessive" and "trivial". In fact, he was just getting started..,

"the compilation of all the companies he's a director of, many of which are so non-notable the author has had to refer to business registration records, is an atrocious case of original research and absolutely does not belong in this article. These are such trivial details that no journalist has bothered to compile them in any of the tens of thousands of stories about him for a reason."

I was gob smacked. I had sourced every one if the companies to a secondary source. One of the sources was an article in The Australian, a major Aussie newspaper. It pointed to a PDF which detailed a list of companies associated with Mehajer.

And at this point we end at the beginning. I rage quit, then I was messages by an editor from Perth, who taunted me, telling me I had relevance deprivation syndrome. I was already feeling fragile, but this egged me on I suppose. If I'd been feeling less fragile I just would have let it go.

So I did something inexcusable. I told the editor who had been stalking me what I thought of them. I swore at them and called them bad names. It was reverted.

I continued editing. It was hell or high water! I knew if I could just ask them to explain there decisions I could get the article into shape. So I asked again why non-controversial material was removed. Nobody would answer. I put back material and wrote a long talk message. I was reverted with a response that didn't answer why it was a problem. I kept tweeting because there was nothing else I could do. Even important material, utterly non-controversial, was removed.

Eventually, however, they started to suggest what the issues were. They said it was fine to include his traffic offenses, but it had to be cut down. But, I explained, it's actually only one sentence and I detailed what the offenses were otherwise it might give an impression his offenses were a lot worse than they were! I asked what they should be changed to. And, I pointed out, you still haven't explained why the other material is a violation of Biographies of Living People!

There was no response. Instead, I was reverted. So I reverted again because no answer had been provided.

Then I got a message. I was told that actually the admin hadn't read the material but he'd noticed that the total kilobytes of text had ballooned. But, I said on my talk page - half of that size is in references! Irrelevant, I was told. You aren't editing to consensus. If someone removes material, under no circumstances must you ready it until you discuss it.

But the other editor is refusing to discuss it with me! Again I pointed out the bits that were being removed without being discussed. Tough I was told.

In sheer bloody minded frustration I reverted the admin. Then I posted to the admins incident page pleading for someone to see reason. Then I got yet another message telling me I had been reported for edit warring.

I tried post, got in the first bit to appeal. But then I tried list more, to plead my innocence and rotary to make someone understand I ha dead at the end if my tether. My wife came in and startled me. I literally jumped and yelled, severely startling her badly. I felt dreadful.

Then I raced out of the house, got in my car and parked in a quiet spot. I posted to the only place I had left. A bitter post, stating who I had been and what I had contributed and what I had just been through.

This wax reverted by the admin Nick-D, from Western Australia who banned my rage quitted account (whose passwords scrambled, so it's inaccessible anyway) and had my mobile IP address blocked got a week, though I had tried to explain I would be home later and it's best block my other IP address which is my NBN IP. It was, I had said in the message, a relief.

But not only was this rolled back, but the user page was locked.

My despair and humiliation is total. So here I sit, contemplating the mess my life is in and how it's not worth even the ability to edit Wikipedia, Wikipedia the project I loved and I gave do much if my time and date to. A project where I worked to gain consensus and wrote amazing article with others, and researched for and went to meet ups and borrow books from the library to ensure the world got the best possible information I could locate about a subject.

I know I'm not well. I have fought this feeling for a decade. It's why I left the Tbsdy_lives account when Brad emailed me. At least then you gave me small degree of dignity, and deleted my user pages.

There is no more dignity to be given me. I've used up my portion.

And I sit here in my car and contemplate suicide. My despair is total. There is not a kind one amongst you. You have taken my right of appeal, my ability to protest and my dignity. You have let others mock me, and I have failed to contribute to Wikipedias great mission - one I feel so keenly.

I failed. I'm not sure what I'm going to do next. I will drive, I don't know where. I pray my family forgives me.

Chris
Ta bu shi da yu

Sent from my iPhone
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The end

Pete Forsyth-2
Reaching out offlist. Anyone who knows Chris well and has helpful input,
feel free to contact me offlist.
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 5:44 AM, Chris Sherlock <[hidden email]>
wrote:

>
> I've just been blocked forever. I've been bullied, and I'm having suicidal
> thoughts.
>
> I don't know what to do now.
>
> Right now I'm reaching out to anyone who might listen.  I've been called
> obsessive, someone who attacks people, I've not been listened to and I've
> been lectured on policy by people who quote three letter shortcuts at me
> without reading the policy.
>
> An admin just told me that I had submitted too many kilobytes which
> violated some sort of policy. When I pointed out that half of the kilobytes
> were references I was ignored. When I pointed out that the one reverting me
> was deleting no contentious stuff I was told I was being contentious. When
> I pointed out I had been told I'm not allowed to use primary sources in any
> way and the policy was its ok but to use it with care, and all I was doing
> was checking a company directorship, I was ignored.
>
> I wrote your [[exploding whale]] article. I invented your [citation
> needed] tag. I started your admins noticeboard.
>
> But I'm not well, and nobody on Wikipedia seems to be kind. You are all so
> busy power tripping that you forget there is a real, live person on the
> other side. A person who is wounded. I haven't always been this depressed.
> Not anxious. I stupidly logged into my account yesterday, one that nobody
> knew I used, and tried to edit the Salim Mehajer article. I was surprised
> it wasn't there, but I've never been so obstructed I all my life. It's not
> even that there was a disagreement, it was like I wasn't worth anything. I
> spent hours of my time researching the article, trying to do a good job.
> But in an instant the material was ripped away, and I was called obsessed.
>
> That's not what I was called when I rewrote the [[USA PATRIOT Act]]
> article. People told me it was long, but they were encouraging. My hard
> work was appreciated.
>
> I've never attacked the subject of the article, Salim Mehajer. But when I
> was called obsessive, I guess something broke inside me. I reached badly
> and called the guy who called me obsessive a twit. Then I wrote a bitter
> article and posted it on my blog. You can read it here:
>
>
> http://randomtechnicalstuff.blogspot.com.au/2016/05/dont-bite-newbies-why-wikipedia-is-such.html
>
> Then I stewed. I couldn't stop thinking about how I'd tried to get a
> decent article sorted out again, but I just couldn't seem to get traction.
>
> I originally had taken material from the [[City of Auburn]] article that
> was about the individual. I should have realised it was partisan, and it
> was a bad judgement call. I write done more material, but it was far too
> negative. I guess o didn't see it that way at the time.
>
> I recall I went to bed and the next day I was accused of writing an attack
> article and an admin slapped on not one but two template telling me I was
> about to be blocked. Then I discovered the article had been deleted. Nobody
> had notified me. I couldn't work out what had happened. Then I realised it
> had been deleted.
>
> So I tried again. This time I started from scratch. I started to edit very
> carefully. I started with a paragraph stub which just very, very briefly
> noted Mehajor is a deputy mayor and property developer. I think I wrote a
> short paragraph Bout his wedding which was very notable. It's in the
> history.
>
> Then it was put up for deletion again. In the A7 category. I'm rusty at
> Wikipedia, sure, but what? A7? It was for notability. But, I thought, how?
> The man is highly significant! Not a day goes by without the media talking
> of his exploits!
>
> So I objected. The editor rounded on me. He's famous for being famous,
> like a Kardashian! he said. But I said, he was a deputy mayor and he's been
> in the Australian media extensively! It's not just his wedding (which was
> notorious) - it's his property deals, and his companies, and he got his
> entire council sacked! And he is in court all the time and is under an AFP
> investigation! That *is* notable!
>
> But, I was told, there's not enough In the article. I was referred to
> another acronym about notability. But I know about notability policy, I
> thought. It's about the subject, not the content of the article..,
> desperately I hunted through the policy git the section on this. I'd read
> it before, years ago. If the article was deleted before I got a chance to
> object, I'd be called a troll, or worse. I'd be blocked for recreating it.
> In the nick of time I found the section and objected, and I asked to have
> it put on Articles For Deletion. And I pointed out I was literally editing
> the article when it was almost deleted - because it didn't establish enough
> context. But, I thought, how do you establish context of the article is
> deleted midway through editing it?
>
> The editor took off the CSD template. I breathed a sigh of relief. Then
> they stick on a {{notability}} template. This, I was informed, meant that
> the article could be merged, redirected, or deleted if notability couldn't
> be determined. But, I thought - I just established that! I didn't want it
> to be deleted midway through editing, and redirecting would have been as
> bad. And merged and redirected to what? It was already redirected to [[City
> of Auburn Council#History]], but that was clearly wrong. No, it was going
> to be deleted. I objected, and eventually removed the template, to
> strenuous objections from the one who put it on. I suggested it be put up
> for deletion and offered to do it myself. But the editor seemed reluctant.
> So, I reasoned, well if they truly feel that way they list it for deletion.
> At least then we'll get consensus one way or another.
>
> So, now templates less but incomplete, I started to add material. I
> decided to start off with his early life. This was good, but every time I
> tried to add more material I found I was getting edit conflicts because
> that same editor appeared to have watchlisted the article. I sent the a
> message asking then to hold off editing. I also asked them not to remove
> huge swathes of information.
>
> Then I got to the bit where a court case was referred to. To establish
> context, I quoted both the widely reported words said by the accused and
> the defendant. I used a secondary source that was very reliable - the
> Australian ABC News website. This was summarily removed. The edit summary
> read BLP violation.
>
> Eh? I know what BLP is, but that can't be right. I asked why on the talk
> page. "It's because of BLPCRIME" they said. "You can't do it". But, I said,
> I don't want to summarise their words, that could look worse for Mehajer!
> And I need to explain the case fairly do the reader knows what it's
> about... I was told to read the policy. Grumbling, I read it to refresh my
> memory. It read that non-public figures should not have allegations put on
> articles. Well, I thought, this does t apply here - Mehajer is a very
> public figure and this was reported widely.
>
> And on and on it went. Every time I edited the article I would be edited
> as quickly. It was like I was being stalked. Eventually, however, the
> exasperation of that editor was too much. He listed the article on Requests
> For Comment. But, I thought, I remember RFC back in the day. We used to
> hash these things out on the talk page first! And normally there was some
> sort of compromise - line the opposing party would say "why not summarise
> it thusly" and you'd look at it and go "well, OK, but I'd summarise it like
> this". And the partite would come up with something reasonable. Not do this
> editor - it was no information on the case at all, just that there had been
> a case.
>
> So then things went very bad. He decided to ask at the Australisn
> Wikipedias Noticeboard. From there, a South Ausyrslusn editor turned up,
> took a look at the section that detailed vehicle incidents and just removed
> it. Then on the talk page he panned the edits as "obsessive" and "trivial".
> In fact, he was just getting started..,
>
> "the compilation of all the companies he's a director of, many of which
> are so non-notable the author has had to refer to business registration
> records, is an atrocious case of original research and absolutely does not
> belong in this article. These are such trivial details that no journalist
> has bothered to compile them in any of the tens of thousands of stories
> about him for a reason."
>
> I was gob smacked. I had sourced every one if the companies to a secondary
> source. One of the sources was an article in The Australian, a major Aussie
> newspaper. It pointed to a PDF which detailed a list of companies
> associated with Mehajer.
>
> And at this point we end at the beginning. I rage quit, then I was
> messages by an editor from Perth, who taunted me, telling me I had
> relevance deprivation syndrome. I was already feeling fragile, but this
> egged me on I suppose. If I'd been feeling less fragile I just would have
> let it go.
>
> So I did something inexcusable. I told the editor who had been stalking me
> what I thought of them. I swore at them and called them bad names. It was
> reverted.
>
> I continued editing. It was hell or high water! I knew if I could just ask
> them to explain there decisions I could get the article into shape. So I
> asked again why non-controversial material was removed. Nobody would
> answer. I put back material and wrote a long talk message. I was reverted
> with a response that didn't answer why it was a problem. I kept tweeting
> because there was nothing else I could do. Even important material, utterly
> non-controversial, was removed.
>
> Eventually, however, they started to suggest what the issues were. They
> said it was fine to include his traffic offenses, but it had to be cut
> down. But, I explained, it's actually only one sentence and I detailed what
> the offenses were otherwise it might give an impression his offenses were a
> lot worse than they were! I asked what they should be changed to. And, I
> pointed out, you still haven't explained why the other material is a
> violation of Biographies of Living People!
>
> There was no response. Instead, I was reverted. So I reverted again
> because no answer had been provided.
>
> Then I got a message. I was told that actually the admin hadn't read the
> material but he'd noticed that the total kilobytes of text had ballooned.
> But, I said on my talk page - half of that size is in references!
> Irrelevant, I was told. You aren't editing to consensus. If someone removes
> material, under no circumstances must you ready it until you discuss it.
>
> But the other editor is refusing to discuss it with me! Again I pointed
> out the bits that were being removed without being discussed. Tough I was
> told.
>
> In sheer bloody minded frustration I reverted the admin. Then I posted to
> the admins incident page pleading for someone to see reason. Then I got yet
> another message telling me I had been reported for edit warring.
>
> I tried post, got in the first bit to appeal. But then I tried list more,
> to plead my innocence and rotary to make someone understand I ha dead at
> the end if my tether. My wife came in and startled me. I literally jumped
> and yelled, severely startling her badly. I felt dreadful.
>
> Then I raced out of the house, got in my car and parked in a quiet spot. I
> posted to the only place I had left. A bitter post, stating who I had been
> and what I had contributed and what I had just been through.
>
> This wax reverted by the admin Nick-D, from Western Australia who banned
> my rage quitted account (whose passwords scrambled, so it's inaccessible
> anyway) and had my mobile IP address blocked got a week, though I had tried
> to explain I would be home later and it's best block my other IP address
> which is my NBN IP. It was, I had said in the message, a relief.
>
> But not only was this rolled back, but the user page was locked.
>
> My despair and humiliation is total. So here I sit, contemplating the mess
> my life is in and how it's not worth even the ability to edit Wikipedia,
> Wikipedia the project I loved and I gave do much if my time and date to. A
> project where I worked to gain consensus and wrote amazing article with
> others, and researched for and went to meet ups and borrow books from the
> library to ensure the world got the best possible information I could
> locate about a subject.
>
> I know I'm not well. I have fought this feeling for a decade. It's why I
> left the Tbsdy_lives account when Brad emailed me. At least then you gave
> me small degree of dignity, and deleted my user pages.
>
> There is no more dignity to be given me. I've used up my portion.
>
> And I sit here in my car and contemplate suicide. My despair is total.
> There is not a kind one amongst you. You have taken my right of appeal, my
> ability to protest and my dignity. You have let others mock me, and I have
> failed to contribute to Wikipedias great mission - one I feel so keenly.
>
> I failed. I'm not sure what I'm going to do next. I will drive, I don't
> know where. I pray my family forgives me.
>
> Chris
> Ta bu shi da yu
>
> Sent from my iPhone
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The end

Kalliope Tsouroupidou
In reply to this post by Chris Sherlock
Hello Wikimedia-l readers,

Thank you for reaching us about a recent email by Chris.
Just to let you know that we are looking into it, and there is not need to
alert us further.

Thank you very much.

Warm regards,

K.

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 3:44 PM, Chris Sherlock <[hidden email]>
wrote:

>
> I've just been blocked forever. I've been bullied, and I'm having suicidal
> thoughts.
>
> I don't know what to do now.
>
> Right now I'm reaching out to anyone who might listen.  I've been called
> obsessive, someone who attacks people, I've not been listened to and I've
> been lectured on policy by people who quote three letter shortcuts at me
> without reading the policy.
>
> An admin just told me that I had submitted too many kilobytes which
> violated some sort of policy. When I pointed out that half of the kilobytes
> were references I was ignored. When I pointed out that the one reverting me
> was deleting no contentious stuff I was told I was being contentious. When
> I pointed out I had been told I'm not allowed to use primary sources in any
> way and the policy was its ok but to use it with care, and all I was doing
> was checking a company directorship, I was ignored.
>
> I wrote your [[exploding whale]] article. I invented your [citation
> needed] tag. I started your admins noticeboard.
>
> But I'm not well, and nobody on Wikipedia seems to be kind. You are all so
> busy power tripping that you forget there is a real, live person on the
> other side. A person who is wounded. I haven't always been this depressed.
> Not anxious. I stupidly logged into my account yesterday, one that nobody
> knew I used, and tried to edit the Salim Mehajer article. I was surprised
> it wasn't there, but I've never been so obstructed I all my life. It's not
> even that there was a disagreement, it was like I wasn't worth anything. I
> spent hours of my time researching the article, trying to do a good job.
> But in an instant the material was ripped away, and I was called obsessed.
>
> That's not what I was called when I rewrote the [[USA PATRIOT Act]]
> article. People told me it was long, but they were encouraging. My hard
> work was appreciated.
>
> I've never attacked the subject of the article, Salim Mehajer. But when I
> was called obsessive, I guess something broke inside me. I reached badly
> and called the guy who called me obsessive a twit. Then I wrote a bitter
> article and posted it on my blog. You can read it here:
>
>
> http://randomtechnicalstuff.blogspot.com.au/2016/05/dont-bite-newbies-why-wikipedia-is-such.html
>
> Then I stewed. I couldn't stop thinking about how I'd tried to get a
> decent article sorted out again, but I just couldn't seem to get traction.
>
> I originally had taken material from the [[City of Auburn]] article that
> was about the individual. I should have realised it was partisan, and it
> was a bad judgement call. I write done more material, but it was far too
> negative. I guess o didn't see it that way at the time.
>
> I recall I went to bed and the next day I was accused of writing an attack
> article and an admin slapped on not one but two template telling me I was
> about to be blocked. Then I discovered the article had been deleted. Nobody
> had notified me. I couldn't work out what had happened. Then I realised it
> had been deleted.
>
> So I tried again. This time I started from scratch. I started to edit very
> carefully. I started with a paragraph stub which just very, very briefly
> noted Mehajor is a deputy mayor and property developer. I think I wrote a
> short paragraph Bout his wedding which was very notable. It's in the
> history.
>
> Then it was put up for deletion again. In the A7 category. I'm rusty at
> Wikipedia, sure, but what? A7? It was for notability. But, I thought, how?
> The man is highly significant! Not a day goes by without the media talking
> of his exploits!
>
> So I objected. The editor rounded on me. He's famous for being famous,
> like a Kardashian! he said. But I said, he was a deputy mayor and he's been
> in the Australian media extensively! It's not just his wedding (which was
> notorious) - it's his property deals, and his companies, and he got his
> entire council sacked! And he is in court all the time and is under an AFP
> investigation! That *is* notable!
>
> But, I was told, there's not enough In the article. I was referred to
> another acronym about notability. But I know about notability policy, I
> thought. It's about the subject, not the content of the article..,
> desperately I hunted through the policy git the section on this. I'd read
> it before, years ago. If the article was deleted before I got a chance to
> object, I'd be called a troll, or worse. I'd be blocked for recreating it.
> In the nick of time I found the section and objected, and I asked to have
> it put on Articles For Deletion. And I pointed out I was literally editing
> the article when it was almost deleted - because it didn't establish enough
> context. But, I thought, how do you establish context of the article is
> deleted midway through editing it?
>
> The editor took off the CSD template. I breathed a sigh of relief. Then
> they stick on a {{notability}} template. This, I was informed, meant that
> the article could be merged, redirected, or deleted if notability couldn't
> be determined. But, I thought - I just established that! I didn't want it
> to be deleted midway through editing, and redirecting would have been as
> bad. And merged and redirected to what? It was already redirected to [[City
> of Auburn Council#History]], but that was clearly wrong. No, it was going
> to be deleted. I objected, and eventually removed the template, to
> strenuous objections from the one who put it on. I suggested it be put up
> for deletion and offered to do it myself. But the editor seemed reluctant.
> So, I reasoned, well if they truly feel that way they list it for deletion.
> At least then we'll get consensus one way or another.
>
> So, now templates less but incomplete, I started to add material. I
> decided to start off with his early life. This was good, but every time I
> tried to add more material I found I was getting edit conflicts because
> that same editor appeared to have watchlisted the article. I sent the a
> message asking then to hold off editing. I also asked them not to remove
> huge swathes of information.
>
> Then I got to the bit where a court case was referred to. To establish
> context, I quoted both the widely reported words said by the accused and
> the defendant. I used a secondary source that was very reliable - the
> Australian ABC News website. This was summarily removed. The edit summary
> read BLP violation.
>
> Eh? I know what BLP is, but that can't be right. I asked why on the talk
> page. "It's because of BLPCRIME" they said. "You can't do it". But, I said,
> I don't want to summarise their words, that could look worse for Mehajer!
> And I need to explain the case fairly do the reader knows what it's
> about... I was told to read the policy. Grumbling, I read it to refresh my
> memory. It read that non-public figures should not have allegations put on
> articles. Well, I thought, this does t apply here - Mehajer is a very
> public figure and this was reported widely.
>
> And on and on it went. Every time I edited the article I would be edited
> as quickly. It was like I was being stalked. Eventually, however, the
> exasperation of that editor was too much. He listed the article on Requests
> For Comment. But, I thought, I remember RFC back in the day. We used to
> hash these things out on the talk page first! And normally there was some
> sort of compromise - line the opposing party would say "why not summarise
> it thusly" and you'd look at it and go "well, OK, but I'd summarise it like
> this". And the partite would come up with something reasonable. Not do this
> editor - it was no information on the case at all, just that there had been
> a case.
>
> So then things went very bad. He decided to ask at the Australisn
> Wikipedias Noticeboard. From there, a South Ausyrslusn editor turned up,
> took a look at the section that detailed vehicle incidents and just removed
> it. Then on the talk page he panned the edits as "obsessive" and "trivial".
> In fact, he was just getting started..,
>
> "the compilation of all the companies he's a director of, many of which
> are so non-notable the author has had to refer to business registration
> records, is an atrocious case of original research and absolutely does not
> belong in this article. These are such trivial details that no journalist
> has bothered to compile them in any of the tens of thousands of stories
> about him for a reason."
>
> I was gob smacked. I had sourced every one if the companies to a secondary
> source. One of the sources was an article in The Australian, a major Aussie
> newspaper. It pointed to a PDF which detailed a list of companies
> associated with Mehajer.
>
> And at this point we end at the beginning. I rage quit, then I was
> messages by an editor from Perth, who taunted me, telling me I had
> relevance deprivation syndrome. I was already feeling fragile, but this
> egged me on I suppose. If I'd been feeling less fragile I just would have
> let it go.
>
> So I did something inexcusable. I told the editor who had been stalking me
> what I thought of them. I swore at them and called them bad names. It was
> reverted.
>
> I continued editing. It was hell or high water! I knew if I could just ask
> them to explain there decisions I could get the article into shape. So I
> asked again why non-controversial material was removed. Nobody would
> answer. I put back material and wrote a long talk message. I was reverted
> with a response that didn't answer why it was a problem. I kept tweeting
> because there was nothing else I could do. Even important material, utterly
> non-controversial, was removed.
>
> Eventually, however, they started to suggest what the issues were. They
> said it was fine to include his traffic offenses, but it had to be cut
> down. But, I explained, it's actually only one sentence and I detailed what
> the offenses were otherwise it might give an impression his offenses were a
> lot worse than they were! I asked what they should be changed to. And, I
> pointed out, you still haven't explained why the other material is a
> violation of Biographies of Living People!
>
> There was no response. Instead, I was reverted. So I reverted again
> because no answer had been provided.
>
> Then I got a message. I was told that actually the admin hadn't read the
> material but he'd noticed that the total kilobytes of text had ballooned.
> But, I said on my talk page - half of that size is in references!
> Irrelevant, I was told. You aren't editing to consensus. If someone removes
> material, under no circumstances must you ready it until you discuss it.
>
> But the other editor is refusing to discuss it with me! Again I pointed
> out the bits that were being removed without being discussed. Tough I was
> told.
>
> In sheer bloody minded frustration I reverted the admin. Then I posted to
> the admins incident page pleading for someone to see reason. Then I got yet
> another message telling me I had been reported for edit warring.
>
> I tried post, got in the first bit to appeal. But then I tried list more,
> to plead my innocence and rotary to make someone understand I ha dead at
> the end if my tether. My wife came in and startled me. I literally jumped
> and yelled, severely startling her badly. I felt dreadful.
>
> Then I raced out of the house, got in my car and parked in a quiet spot. I
> posted to the only place I had left. A bitter post, stating who I had been
> and what I had contributed and what I had just been through.
>
> This wax reverted by the admin Nick-D, from Western Australia who banned
> my rage quitted account (whose passwords scrambled, so it's inaccessible
> anyway) and had my mobile IP address blocked got a week, though I had tried
> to explain I would be home later and it's best block my other IP address
> which is my NBN IP. It was, I had said in the message, a relief.
>
> But not only was this rolled back, but the user page was locked.
>
> My despair and humiliation is total. So here I sit, contemplating the mess
> my life is in and how it's not worth even the ability to edit Wikipedia,
> Wikipedia the project I loved and I gave do much if my time and date to. A
> project where I worked to gain consensus and wrote amazing article with
> others, and researched for and went to meet ups and borrow books from the
> library to ensure the world got the best possible information I could
> locate about a subject.
>
> I know I'm not well. I have fought this feeling for a decade. It's why I
> left the Tbsdy_lives account when Brad emailed me. At least then you gave
> me small degree of dignity, and deleted my user pages.
>
> There is no more dignity to be given me. I've used up my portion.
>
> And I sit here in my car and contemplate suicide. My despair is total.
> There is not a kind one amongst you. You have taken my right of appeal, my
> ability to protest and my dignity. You have let others mock me, and I have
> failed to contribute to Wikipedias great mission - one I feel so keenly.
>
> I failed. I'm not sure what I'm going to do next. I will drive, I don't
> know where. I pray my family forgives me.
>
> Chris
> Ta bu shi da yu
>
> Sent from my iPhone
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>




--
Kalliope Tsouroupidou
Community Advocate
Wikimedia Foundation
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The end

Vi to
In reply to this post by Chris Sherlock
I'm not a regular at the English Wikipedia so I don't have any background
about what did happen to you. I spend a fair amount of my spare time
editing wikis but fuck off the wiki, it's just a virtual world.
All this happened to your virtual identity not to you!

Vito

2016-05-17 14:44 GMT+02:00 Chris Sherlock <[hidden email]>:

>
> I've just been blocked forever. I've been bullied, and I'm having suicidal
> thoughts.
>
> I don't know what to do now.
>
> Right now I'm reaching out to anyone who might listen.  I've been called
> obsessive, someone who attacks people, I've not been listened to and I've
> been lectured on policy by people who quote three letter shortcuts at me
> without reading the policy.
>
> An admin just told me that I had submitted too many kilobytes which
> violated some sort of policy. When I pointed out that half of the kilobytes
> were references I was ignored. When I pointed out that the one reverting me
> was deleting no contentious stuff I was told I was being contentious. When
> I pointed out I had been told I'm not allowed to use primary sources in any
> way and the policy was its ok but to use it with care, and all I was doing
> was checking a company directorship, I was ignored.
>
> I wrote your [[exploding whale]] article. I invented your [citation
> needed] tag. I started your admins noticeboard.
>
> But I'm not well, and nobody on Wikipedia seems to be kind. You are all so
> busy power tripping that you forget there is a real, live person on the
> other side. A person who is wounded. I haven't always been this depressed.
> Not anxious. I stupidly logged into my account yesterday, one that nobody
> knew I used, and tried to edit the Salim Mehajer article. I was surprised
> it wasn't there, but I've never been so obstructed I all my life. It's not
> even that there was a disagreement, it was like I wasn't worth anything. I
> spent hours of my time researching the article, trying to do a good job.
> But in an instant the material was ripped away, and I was called obsessed.
>
> That's not what I was called when I rewrote the [[USA PATRIOT Act]]
> article. People told me it was long, but they were encouraging. My hard
> work was appreciated.
>
> I've never attacked the subject of the article, Salim Mehajer. But when I
> was called obsessive, I guess something broke inside me. I reached badly
> and called the guy who called me obsessive a twit. Then I wrote a bitter
> article and posted it on my blog. You can read it here:
>
>
> http://randomtechnicalstuff.blogspot.com.au/2016/05/dont-bite-newbies-why-wikipedia-is-such.html
>
> Then I stewed. I couldn't stop thinking about how I'd tried to get a
> decent article sorted out again, but I just couldn't seem to get traction.
>
> I originally had taken material from the [[City of Auburn]] article that
> was about the individual. I should have realised it was partisan, and it
> was a bad judgement call. I write done more material, but it was far too
> negative. I guess o didn't see it that way at the time.
>
> I recall I went to bed and the next day I was accused of writing an attack
> article and an admin slapped on not one but two template telling me I was
> about to be blocked. Then I discovered the article had been deleted. Nobody
> had notified me. I couldn't work out what had happened. Then I realised it
> had been deleted.
>
> So I tried again. This time I started from scratch. I started to edit very
> carefully. I started with a paragraph stub which just very, very briefly
> noted Mehajor is a deputy mayor and property developer. I think I wrote a
> short paragraph Bout his wedding which was very notable. It's in the
> history.
>
> Then it was put up for deletion again. In the A7 category. I'm rusty at
> Wikipedia, sure, but what? A7? It was for notability. But, I thought, how?
> The man is highly significant! Not a day goes by without the media talking
> of his exploits!
>
> So I objected. The editor rounded on me. He's famous for being famous,
> like a Kardashian! he said. But I said, he was a deputy mayor and he's been
> in the Australian media extensively! It's not just his wedding (which was
> notorious) - it's his property deals, and his companies, and he got his
> entire council sacked! And he is in court all the time and is under an AFP
> investigation! That *is* notable!
>
> But, I was told, there's not enough In the article. I was referred to
> another acronym about notability. But I know about notability policy, I
> thought. It's about the subject, not the content of the article..,
> desperately I hunted through the policy git the section on this. I'd read
> it before, years ago. If the article was deleted before I got a chance to
> object, I'd be called a troll, or worse. I'd be blocked for recreating it.
> In the nick of time I found the section and objected, and I asked to have
> it put on Articles For Deletion. And I pointed out I was literally editing
> the article when it was almost deleted - because it didn't establish enough
> context. But, I thought, how do you establish context of the article is
> deleted midway through editing it?
>
> The editor took off the CSD template. I breathed a sigh of relief. Then
> they stick on a {{notability}} template. This, I was informed, meant that
> the article could be merged, redirected, or deleted if notability couldn't
> be determined. But, I thought - I just established that! I didn't want it
> to be deleted midway through editing, and redirecting would have been as
> bad. And merged and redirected to what? It was already redirected to [[City
> of Auburn Council#History]], but that was clearly wrong. No, it was going
> to be deleted. I objected, and eventually removed the template, to
> strenuous objections from the one who put it on. I suggested it be put up
> for deletion and offered to do it myself. But the editor seemed reluctant.
> So, I reasoned, well if they truly feel that way they list it for deletion.
> At least then we'll get consensus one way or another.
>
> So, now templates less but incomplete, I started to add material. I
> decided to start off with his early life. This was good, but every time I
> tried to add more material I found I was getting edit conflicts because
> that same editor appeared to have watchlisted the article. I sent the a
> message asking then to hold off editing. I also asked them not to remove
> huge swathes of information.
>
> Then I got to the bit where a court case was referred to. To establish
> context, I quoted both the widely reported words said by the accused and
> the defendant. I used a secondary source that was very reliable - the
> Australian ABC News website. This was summarily removed. The edit summary
> read BLP violation.
>
> Eh? I know what BLP is, but that can't be right. I asked why on the talk
> page. "It's because of BLPCRIME" they said. "You can't do it". But, I said,
> I don't want to summarise their words, that could look worse for Mehajer!
> And I need to explain the case fairly do the reader knows what it's
> about... I was told to read the policy. Grumbling, I read it to refresh my
> memory. It read that non-public figures should not have allegations put on
> articles. Well, I thought, this does t apply here - Mehajer is a very
> public figure and this was reported widely.
>
> And on and on it went. Every time I edited the article I would be edited
> as quickly. It was like I was being stalked. Eventually, however, the
> exasperation of that editor was too much. He listed the article on Requests
> For Comment. But, I thought, I remember RFC back in the day. We used to
> hash these things out on the talk page first! And normally there was some
> sort of compromise - line the opposing party would say "why not summarise
> it thusly" and you'd look at it and go "well, OK, but I'd summarise it like
> this". And the partite would come up with something reasonable. Not do this
> editor - it was no information on the case at all, just that there had been
> a case.
>
> So then things went very bad. He decided to ask at the Australisn
> Wikipedias Noticeboard. From there, a South Ausyrslusn editor turned up,
> took a look at the section that detailed vehicle incidents and just removed
> it. Then on the talk page he panned the edits as "obsessive" and "trivial".
> In fact, he was just getting started..,
>
> "the compilation of all the companies he's a director of, many of which
> are so non-notable the author has had to refer to business registration
> records, is an atrocious case of original research and absolutely does not
> belong in this article. These are such trivial details that no journalist
> has bothered to compile them in any of the tens of thousands of stories
> about him for a reason."
>
> I was gob smacked. I had sourced every one if the companies to a secondary
> source. One of the sources was an article in The Australian, a major Aussie
> newspaper. It pointed to a PDF which detailed a list of companies
> associated with Mehajer.
>
> And at this point we end at the beginning. I rage quit, then I was
> messages by an editor from Perth, who taunted me, telling me I had
> relevance deprivation syndrome. I was already feeling fragile, but this
> egged me on I suppose. If I'd been feeling less fragile I just would have
> let it go.
>
> So I did something inexcusable. I told the editor who had been stalking me
> what I thought of them. I swore at them and called them bad names. It was
> reverted.
>
> I continued editing. It was hell or high water! I knew if I could just ask
> them to explain there decisions I could get the article into shape. So I
> asked again why non-controversial material was removed. Nobody would
> answer. I put back material and wrote a long talk message. I was reverted
> with a response that didn't answer why it was a problem. I kept tweeting
> because there was nothing else I could do. Even important material, utterly
> non-controversial, was removed.
>
> Eventually, however, they started to suggest what the issues were. They
> said it was fine to include his traffic offenses, but it had to be cut
> down. But, I explained, it's actually only one sentence and I detailed what
> the offenses were otherwise it might give an impression his offenses were a
> lot worse than they were! I asked what they should be changed to. And, I
> pointed out, you still haven't explained why the other material is a
> violation of Biographies of Living People!
>
> There was no response. Instead, I was reverted. So I reverted again
> because no answer had been provided.
>
> Then I got a message. I was told that actually the admin hadn't read the
> material but he'd noticed that the total kilobytes of text had ballooned.
> But, I said on my talk page - half of that size is in references!
> Irrelevant, I was told. You aren't editing to consensus. If someone removes
> material, under no circumstances must you ready it until you discuss it.
>
> But the other editor is refusing to discuss it with me! Again I pointed
> out the bits that were being removed without being discussed. Tough I was
> told.
>
> In sheer bloody minded frustration I reverted the admin. Then I posted to
> the admins incident page pleading for someone to see reason. Then I got yet
> another message telling me I had been reported for edit warring.
>
> I tried post, got in the first bit to appeal. But then I tried list more,
> to plead my innocence and rotary to make someone understand I ha dead at
> the end if my tether. My wife came in and startled me. I literally jumped
> and yelled, severely startling her badly. I felt dreadful.
>
> Then I raced out of the house, got in my car and parked in a quiet spot. I
> posted to the only place I had left. A bitter post, stating who I had been
> and what I had contributed and what I had just been through.
>
> This wax reverted by the admin Nick-D, from Western Australia who banned
> my rage quitted account (whose passwords scrambled, so it's inaccessible
> anyway) and had my mobile IP address blocked got a week, though I had tried
> to explain I would be home later and it's best block my other IP address
> which is my NBN IP. It was, I had said in the message, a relief.
>
> But not only was this rolled back, but the user page was locked.
>
> My despair and humiliation is total. So here I sit, contemplating the mess
> my life is in and how it's not worth even the ability to edit Wikipedia,
> Wikipedia the project I loved and I gave do much if my time and date to. A
> project where I worked to gain consensus and wrote amazing article with
> others, and researched for and went to meet ups and borrow books from the
> library to ensure the world got the best possible information I could
> locate about a subject.
>
> I know I'm not well. I have fought this feeling for a decade. It's why I
> left the Tbsdy_lives account when Brad emailed me. At least then you gave
> me small degree of dignity, and deleted my user pages.
>
> There is no more dignity to be given me. I've used up my portion.
>
> And I sit here in my car and contemplate suicide. My despair is total.
> There is not a kind one amongst you. You have taken my right of appeal, my
> ability to protest and my dignity. You have let others mock me, and I have
> failed to contribute to Wikipedias great mission - one I feel so keenly.
>
> I failed. I'm not sure what I'm going to do next. I will drive, I don't
> know where. I pray my family forgives me.
>
> Chris
> Ta bu shi da yu
>
> Sent from my iPhone
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The end

Michel Vuijlsteke-2
In reply to this post by Pete Forsyth-2
Welcome to my exact experience on Dutch Wikipedia. Banned for life for
'outing' a power user.

The 'outing' is in huge inverted commas -- (1) enter her on-wiki username
in any search engine and you get oodles of vanity page(s) with her full
name and (2) she'd done much worse than that to me.

I've been called names, articles have been deleted, I've been told by many
people that, sure, were it any other person they'd be banned, and sure,
when she refers people to [Leck mich im Arsch] it *might* be construed as
uncivil, but hey, she's doing good work on vandal patrol and deleting
articles, so...

Yup. It's very, very toxic at times. And nobody really cares.

On 17 May 2016 at 14:47, Pete Forsyth <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Reaching out offlist. Anyone who knows Chris well and has helpful input,
> feel free to contact me offlist.
> -Pete
> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 5:44 AM, Chris Sherlock <
> [hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > I've just been blocked forever. I've been bullied, and I'm having
> suicidal
> > thoughts.
> >
> > I don't know what to do now.
> >
> > Right now I'm reaching out to anyone who might listen.  I've been called
> > obsessive, someone who attacks people, I've not been listened to and I've
> > been lectured on policy by people who quote three letter shortcuts at me
> > without reading the policy.
> >
> > An admin just told me that I had submitted too many kilobytes which
> > violated some sort of policy. When I pointed out that half of the
> kilobytes
> > were references I was ignored. When I pointed out that the one reverting
> me
> > was deleting no contentious stuff I was told I was being contentious.
> When
> > I pointed out I had been told I'm not allowed to use primary sources in
> any
> > way and the policy was its ok but to use it with care, and all I was
> doing
> > was checking a company directorship, I was ignored.
> >
> > I wrote your [[exploding whale]] article. I invented your [citation
> > needed] tag. I started your admins noticeboard.
> >
> > But I'm not well, and nobody on Wikipedia seems to be kind. You are all
> so
> > busy power tripping that you forget there is a real, live person on the
> > other side. A person who is wounded. I haven't always been this
> depressed.
> > Not anxious. I stupidly logged into my account yesterday, one that nobody
> > knew I used, and tried to edit the Salim Mehajer article. I was surprised
> > it wasn't there, but I've never been so obstructed I all my life. It's
> not
> > even that there was a disagreement, it was like I wasn't worth anything.
> I
> > spent hours of my time researching the article, trying to do a good job.
> > But in an instant the material was ripped away, and I was called
> obsessed.
> >
> > That's not what I was called when I rewrote the [[USA PATRIOT Act]]
> > article. People told me it was long, but they were encouraging. My hard
> > work was appreciated.
> >
> > I've never attacked the subject of the article, Salim Mehajer. But when I
> > was called obsessive, I guess something broke inside me. I reached badly
> > and called the guy who called me obsessive a twit. Then I wrote a bitter
> > article and posted it on my blog. You can read it here:
> >
> >
> >
> http://randomtechnicalstuff.blogspot.com.au/2016/05/dont-bite-newbies-why-wikipedia-is-such.html
> >
> > Then I stewed. I couldn't stop thinking about how I'd tried to get a
> > decent article sorted out again, but I just couldn't seem to get
> traction.
> >
> > I originally had taken material from the [[City of Auburn]] article that
> > was about the individual. I should have realised it was partisan, and it
> > was a bad judgement call. I write done more material, but it was far too
> > negative. I guess o didn't see it that way at the time.
> >
> > I recall I went to bed and the next day I was accused of writing an
> attack
> > article and an admin slapped on not one but two template telling me I was
> > about to be blocked. Then I discovered the article had been deleted.
> Nobody
> > had notified me. I couldn't work out what had happened. Then I realised
> it
> > had been deleted.
> >
> > So I tried again. This time I started from scratch. I started to edit
> very
> > carefully. I started with a paragraph stub which just very, very briefly
> > noted Mehajor is a deputy mayor and property developer. I think I wrote a
> > short paragraph Bout his wedding which was very notable. It's in the
> > history.
> >
> > Then it was put up for deletion again. In the A7 category. I'm rusty at
> > Wikipedia, sure, but what? A7? It was for notability. But, I thought,
> how?
> > The man is highly significant! Not a day goes by without the media
> talking
> > of his exploits!
> >
> > So I objected. The editor rounded on me. He's famous for being famous,
> > like a Kardashian! he said. But I said, he was a deputy mayor and he's
> been
> > in the Australian media extensively! It's not just his wedding (which was
> > notorious) - it's his property deals, and his companies, and he got his
> > entire council sacked! And he is in court all the time and is under an
> AFP
> > investigation! That *is* notable!
> >
> > But, I was told, there's not enough In the article. I was referred to
> > another acronym about notability. But I know about notability policy, I
> > thought. It's about the subject, not the content of the article..,
> > desperately I hunted through the policy git the section on this. I'd read
> > it before, years ago. If the article was deleted before I got a chance to
> > object, I'd be called a troll, or worse. I'd be blocked for recreating
> it.
> > In the nick of time I found the section and objected, and I asked to have
> > it put on Articles For Deletion. And I pointed out I was literally
> editing
> > the article when it was almost deleted - because it didn't establish
> enough
> > context. But, I thought, how do you establish context of the article is
> > deleted midway through editing it?
> >
> > The editor took off the CSD template. I breathed a sigh of relief. Then
> > they stick on a {{notability}} template. This, I was informed, meant that
> > the article could be merged, redirected, or deleted if notability
> couldn't
> > be determined. But, I thought - I just established that! I didn't want it
> > to be deleted midway through editing, and redirecting would have been as
> > bad. And merged and redirected to what? It was already redirected to
> [[City
> > of Auburn Council#History]], but that was clearly wrong. No, it was going
> > to be deleted. I objected, and eventually removed the template, to
> > strenuous objections from the one who put it on. I suggested it be put up
> > for deletion and offered to do it myself. But the editor seemed
> reluctant.
> > So, I reasoned, well if they truly feel that way they list it for
> deletion.
> > At least then we'll get consensus one way or another.
> >
> > So, now templates less but incomplete, I started to add material. I
> > decided to start off with his early life. This was good, but every time I
> > tried to add more material I found I was getting edit conflicts because
> > that same editor appeared to have watchlisted the article. I sent the a
> > message asking then to hold off editing. I also asked them not to remove
> > huge swathes of information.
> >
> > Then I got to the bit where a court case was referred to. To establish
> > context, I quoted both the widely reported words said by the accused and
> > the defendant. I used a secondary source that was very reliable - the
> > Australian ABC News website. This was summarily removed. The edit summary
> > read BLP violation.
> >
> > Eh? I know what BLP is, but that can't be right. I asked why on the talk
> > page. "It's because of BLPCRIME" they said. "You can't do it". But, I
> said,
> > I don't want to summarise their words, that could look worse for Mehajer!
> > And I need to explain the case fairly do the reader knows what it's
> > about... I was told to read the policy. Grumbling, I read it to refresh
> my
> > memory. It read that non-public figures should not have allegations put
> on
> > articles. Well, I thought, this does t apply here - Mehajer is a very
> > public figure and this was reported widely.
> >
> > And on and on it went. Every time I edited the article I would be edited
> > as quickly. It was like I was being stalked. Eventually, however, the
> > exasperation of that editor was too much. He listed the article on
> Requests
> > For Comment. But, I thought, I remember RFC back in the day. We used to
> > hash these things out on the talk page first! And normally there was some
> > sort of compromise - line the opposing party would say "why not summarise
> > it thusly" and you'd look at it and go "well, OK, but I'd summarise it
> like
> > this". And the partite would come up with something reasonable. Not do
> this
> > editor - it was no information on the case at all, just that there had
> been
> > a case.
> >
> > So then things went very bad. He decided to ask at the Australisn
> > Wikipedias Noticeboard. From there, a South Ausyrslusn editor turned up,
> > took a look at the section that detailed vehicle incidents and just
> removed
> > it. Then on the talk page he panned the edits as "obsessive" and
> "trivial".
> > In fact, he was just getting started..,
> >
> > "the compilation of all the companies he's a director of, many of which
> > are so non-notable the author has had to refer to business registration
> > records, is an atrocious case of original research and absolutely does
> not
> > belong in this article. These are such trivial details that no journalist
> > has bothered to compile them in any of the tens of thousands of stories
> > about him for a reason."
> >
> > I was gob smacked. I had sourced every one if the companies to a
> secondary
> > source. One of the sources was an article in The Australian, a major
> Aussie
> > newspaper. It pointed to a PDF which detailed a list of companies
> > associated with Mehajer.
> >
> > And at this point we end at the beginning. I rage quit, then I was
> > messages by an editor from Perth, who taunted me, telling me I had
> > relevance deprivation syndrome. I was already feeling fragile, but this
> > egged me on I suppose. If I'd been feeling less fragile I just would have
> > let it go.
> >
> > So I did something inexcusable. I told the editor who had been stalking
> me
> > what I thought of them. I swore at them and called them bad names. It was
> > reverted.
> >
> > I continued editing. It was hell or high water! I knew if I could just
> ask
> > them to explain there decisions I could get the article into shape. So I
> > asked again why non-controversial material was removed. Nobody would
> > answer. I put back material and wrote a long talk message. I was reverted
> > with a response that didn't answer why it was a problem. I kept tweeting
> > because there was nothing else I could do. Even important material,
> utterly
> > non-controversial, was removed.
> >
> > Eventually, however, they started to suggest what the issues were. They
> > said it was fine to include his traffic offenses, but it had to be cut
> > down. But, I explained, it's actually only one sentence and I detailed
> what
> > the offenses were otherwise it might give an impression his offenses
> were a
> > lot worse than they were! I asked what they should be changed to. And, I
> > pointed out, you still haven't explained why the other material is a
> > violation of Biographies of Living People!
> >
> > There was no response. Instead, I was reverted. So I reverted again
> > because no answer had been provided.
> >
> > Then I got a message. I was told that actually the admin hadn't read the
> > material but he'd noticed that the total kilobytes of text had ballooned.
> > But, I said on my talk page - half of that size is in references!
> > Irrelevant, I was told. You aren't editing to consensus. If someone
> removes
> > material, under no circumstances must you ready it until you discuss it.
> >
> > But the other editor is refusing to discuss it with me! Again I pointed
> > out the bits that were being removed without being discussed. Tough I was
> > told.
> >
> > In sheer bloody minded frustration I reverted the admin. Then I posted to
> > the admins incident page pleading for someone to see reason. Then I got
> yet
> > another message telling me I had been reported for edit warring.
> >
> > I tried post, got in the first bit to appeal. But then I tried list more,
> > to plead my innocence and rotary to make someone understand I ha dead at
> > the end if my tether. My wife came in and startled me. I literally jumped
> > and yelled, severely startling her badly. I felt dreadful.
> >
> > Then I raced out of the house, got in my car and parked in a quiet spot.
> I
> > posted to the only place I had left. A bitter post, stating who I had
> been
> > and what I had contributed and what I had just been through.
> >
> > This wax reverted by the admin Nick-D, from Western Australia who banned
> > my rage quitted account (whose passwords scrambled, so it's inaccessible
> > anyway) and had my mobile IP address blocked got a week, though I had
> tried
> > to explain I would be home later and it's best block my other IP address
> > which is my NBN IP. It was, I had said in the message, a relief.
> >
> > But not only was this rolled back, but the user page was locked.
> >
> > My despair and humiliation is total. So here I sit, contemplating the
> mess
> > my life is in and how it's not worth even the ability to edit Wikipedia,
> > Wikipedia the project I loved and I gave do much if my time and date to.
> A
> > project where I worked to gain consensus and wrote amazing article with
> > others, and researched for and went to meet ups and borrow books from the
> > library to ensure the world got the best possible information I could
> > locate about a subject.
> >
> > I know I'm not well. I have fought this feeling for a decade. It's why I
> > left the Tbsdy_lives account when Brad emailed me. At least then you gave
> > me small degree of dignity, and deleted my user pages.
> >
> > There is no more dignity to be given me. I've used up my portion.
> >
> > And I sit here in my car and contemplate suicide. My despair is total.
> > There is not a kind one amongst you. You have taken my right of appeal,
> my
> > ability to protest and my dignity. You have let others mock me, and I
> have
> > failed to contribute to Wikipedias great mission - one I feel so keenly.
> >
> > I failed. I'm not sure what I'm going to do next. I will drive, I don't
> > know where. I pray my family forgives me.
> >
> > Chris
> > Ta bu shi da yu
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The end

Brill Lyle
I feel really bad for the person who started this thread. I hope and assume
that the WMF response means they have some sort of way to provide support
to someone suffering from ideations of suicide.

In addition to a policy on safe space -- which I know exists and our local
chapter as well as our regular venue have this posted on our namespaces --
I hope that there is documentation and support on this issue as well. If
there isn't one there needs to be. And it should be posted in a position
where it is visible, like the safe space policy.

I've been a member of various online communities, one music mailing list
for 10+ years where we had a person who had very bad PTSD (who eventually
got better) and others who died by suicide, etc. The acting out was a very
difficult situation and one that I have learned to not take lightly. It is
a lot like life, where you don't know what's going on for people, but it
definitely makes me pause a bit in interactions online.

This editor and their editing may be an extreme case, but they are not
alone. I hope they know that from the few responses here.

I have had bad interactions with obstructive, bullying, and Wikipedia rule
tossing folks. When I have started pages I hold my breath and hope that the
work doesn't get deleted -- or even scrutinized harshly. When I feel
passionate about a topic I will try to fight for notability but it's always
dicey. Then I see articles up on Wikipedia that have no business being up
there, have two citations and are paragraphs long, but are not challenged,
subject to the type of scrutiny the new stuff I contribute, etc.

Also, adding content. Good content with citations (I'm obsessed with
citations). Having it deleted. Being told it is too encyclopedic (yes!).
Editors deleting content is a real problem. It just takes one to be an
intransigent jerk and bully or rule throw their way into making the
experience uncooperative. Sigh.

So I tend to have a very long list of stuff I want to work on, much of it
in dustier corners of Wikipedia. Thankfully my attention wanders and if a
page heats up, I unfollow and try to walk away and refocus.... Sometimes I
can do that. I had to do that for Louis C.K.'s TV show Horace and Pete (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace_and_Pete) because the editing became
super unpleasant.

Then as a counterbalance....

There are times like the collective editing to improve the page on the
Reverend Clem Pinckney (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clementa_C._Pinckney),
who was killed in South Carolina during a prayer group by a white
supremacist, and the collective creation of a page on the setting of that
tragedy, a Wikipedia entry on the church, Mother Emanuel (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emanuel_African_Methodist_Episcopal_Church),
that was long overdue for an article due to its historical importance in
the African-American community. And a few other times when I've edited with
other editors, learned stuff, just enjoyed geeking out with another person
passionate about making Wikipedia better and more representative of the
world we live in.

I would love to do more cooperative editing. Most of the editathons we help
out with here in NYC focus on the new editor. I think we all have a lot to
offer each other, folks who have been adding content for a while and are
passionate about that. I wish we did a better job supporting each other.

Best,

- Erika




*Erika Herzog*
Wikipedia *User:BrillLyle* <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrillLyle>
Secretary, Wikimedia NYC
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC>

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Michel Vuijlsteke <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Welcome to my exact experience on Dutch Wikipedia. Banned for life for
> 'outing' a power user.
>
> The 'outing' is in huge inverted commas -- (1) enter her on-wiki username
> in any search engine and you get oodles of vanity page(s) with her full
> name and (2) she'd done much worse than that to me.
>
> I've been called names, articles have been deleted, I've been told by many
> people that, sure, were it any other person they'd be banned, and sure,
> when she refers people to [Leck mich im Arsch] it *might* be construed as
> uncivil, but hey, she's doing good work on vandal patrol and deleting
> articles, so...
>
> Yup. It's very, very toxic at times. And nobody really cares.
>
> On 17 May 2016 at 14:47, Pete Forsyth <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Reaching out offlist. Anyone who knows Chris well and has helpful input,
> > feel free to contact me offlist.
> > -Pete
> > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> >
> > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 5:44 AM, Chris Sherlock <
> > [hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I've just been blocked forever. I've been bullied, and I'm having
> > suicidal
> > > thoughts.
> > >
> > > I don't know what to do now.
> > >
> > > Right now I'm reaching out to anyone who might listen.  I've been
> called
> > > obsessive, someone who attacks people, I've not been listened to and
> I've
> > > been lectured on policy by people who quote three letter shortcuts at
> me
> > > without reading the policy.
> > >
> > > An admin just told me that I had submitted too many kilobytes which
> > > violated some sort of policy. When I pointed out that half of the
> > kilobytes
> > > were references I was ignored. When I pointed out that the one
> reverting
> > me
> > > was deleting no contentious stuff I was told I was being contentious.
> > When
> > > I pointed out I had been told I'm not allowed to use primary sources in
> > any
> > > way and the policy was its ok but to use it with care, and all I was
> > doing
> > > was checking a company directorship, I was ignored.
> > >
> > > I wrote your [[exploding whale]] article. I invented your [citation
> > > needed] tag. I started your admins noticeboard.
> > >
> > > But I'm not well, and nobody on Wikipedia seems to be kind. You are all
> > so
> > > busy power tripping that you forget there is a real, live person on the
> > > other side. A person who is wounded. I haven't always been this
> > depressed.
> > > Not anxious. I stupidly logged into my account yesterday, one that
> nobody
> > > knew I used, and tried to edit the Salim Mehajer article. I was
> surprised
> > > it wasn't there, but I've never been so obstructed I all my life. It's
> > not
> > > even that there was a disagreement, it was like I wasn't worth
> anything.
> > I
> > > spent hours of my time researching the article, trying to do a good
> job.
> > > But in an instant the material was ripped away, and I was called
> > obsessed.
> > >
> > > That's not what I was called when I rewrote the [[USA PATRIOT Act]]
> > > article. People told me it was long, but they were encouraging. My hard
> > > work was appreciated.
> > >
> > > I've never attacked the subject of the article, Salim Mehajer. But
> when I
> > > was called obsessive, I guess something broke inside me. I reached
> badly
> > > and called the guy who called me obsessive a twit. Then I wrote a
> bitter
> > > article and posted it on my blog. You can read it here:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://randomtechnicalstuff.blogspot.com.au/2016/05/dont-bite-newbies-why-wikipedia-is-such.html
> > >
> > > Then I stewed. I couldn't stop thinking about how I'd tried to get a
> > > decent article sorted out again, but I just couldn't seem to get
> > traction.
> > >
> > > I originally had taken material from the [[City of Auburn]] article
> that
> > > was about the individual. I should have realised it was partisan, and
> it
> > > was a bad judgement call. I write done more material, but it was far
> too
> > > negative. I guess o didn't see it that way at the time.
> > >
> > > I recall I went to bed and the next day I was accused of writing an
> > attack
> > > article and an admin slapped on not one but two template telling me I
> was
> > > about to be blocked. Then I discovered the article had been deleted.
> > Nobody
> > > had notified me. I couldn't work out what had happened. Then I realised
> > it
> > > had been deleted.
> > >
> > > So I tried again. This time I started from scratch. I started to edit
> > very
> > > carefully. I started with a paragraph stub which just very, very
> briefly
> > > noted Mehajor is a deputy mayor and property developer. I think I
> wrote a
> > > short paragraph Bout his wedding which was very notable. It's in the
> > > history.
> > >
> > > Then it was put up for deletion again. In the A7 category. I'm rusty at
> > > Wikipedia, sure, but what? A7? It was for notability. But, I thought,
> > how?
> > > The man is highly significant! Not a day goes by without the media
> > talking
> > > of his exploits!
> > >
> > > So I objected. The editor rounded on me. He's famous for being famous,
> > > like a Kardashian! he said. But I said, he was a deputy mayor and he's
> > been
> > > in the Australian media extensively! It's not just his wedding (which
> was
> > > notorious) - it's his property deals, and his companies, and he got his
> > > entire council sacked! And he is in court all the time and is under an
> > AFP
> > > investigation! That *is* notable!
> > >
> > > But, I was told, there's not enough In the article. I was referred to
> > > another acronym about notability. But I know about notability policy, I
> > > thought. It's about the subject, not the content of the article..,
> > > desperately I hunted through the policy git the section on this. I'd
> read
> > > it before, years ago. If the article was deleted before I got a chance
> to
> > > object, I'd be called a troll, or worse. I'd be blocked for recreating
> > it.
> > > In the nick of time I found the section and objected, and I asked to
> have
> > > it put on Articles For Deletion. And I pointed out I was literally
> > editing
> > > the article when it was almost deleted - because it didn't establish
> > enough
> > > context. But, I thought, how do you establish context of the article is
> > > deleted midway through editing it?
> > >
> > > The editor took off the CSD template. I breathed a sigh of relief. Then
> > > they stick on a {{notability}} template. This, I was informed, meant
> that
> > > the article could be merged, redirected, or deleted if notability
> > couldn't
> > > be determined. But, I thought - I just established that! I didn't want
> it
> > > to be deleted midway through editing, and redirecting would have been
> as
> > > bad. And merged and redirected to what? It was already redirected to
> > [[City
> > > of Auburn Council#History]], but that was clearly wrong. No, it was
> going
> > > to be deleted. I objected, and eventually removed the template, to
> > > strenuous objections from the one who put it on. I suggested it be put
> up
> > > for deletion and offered to do it myself. But the editor seemed
> > reluctant.
> > > So, I reasoned, well if they truly feel that way they list it for
> > deletion.
> > > At least then we'll get consensus one way or another.
> > >
> > > So, now templates less but incomplete, I started to add material. I
> > > decided to start off with his early life. This was good, but every
> time I
> > > tried to add more material I found I was getting edit conflicts because
> > > that same editor appeared to have watchlisted the article. I sent the a
> > > message asking then to hold off editing. I also asked them not to
> remove
> > > huge swathes of information.
> > >
> > > Then I got to the bit where a court case was referred to. To establish
> > > context, I quoted both the widely reported words said by the accused
> and
> > > the defendant. I used a secondary source that was very reliable - the
> > > Australian ABC News website. This was summarily removed. The edit
> summary
> > > read BLP violation.
> > >
> > > Eh? I know what BLP is, but that can't be right. I asked why on the
> talk
> > > page. "It's because of BLPCRIME" they said. "You can't do it". But, I
> > said,
> > > I don't want to summarise their words, that could look worse for
> Mehajer!
> > > And I need to explain the case fairly do the reader knows what it's
> > > about... I was told to read the policy. Grumbling, I read it to refresh
> > my
> > > memory. It read that non-public figures should not have allegations put
> > on
> > > articles. Well, I thought, this does t apply here - Mehajer is a very
> > > public figure and this was reported widely.
> > >
> > > And on and on it went. Every time I edited the article I would be
> edited
> > > as quickly. It was like I was being stalked. Eventually, however, the
> > > exasperation of that editor was too much. He listed the article on
> > Requests
> > > For Comment. But, I thought, I remember RFC back in the day. We used to
> > > hash these things out on the talk page first! And normally there was
> some
> > > sort of compromise - line the opposing party would say "why not
> summarise
> > > it thusly" and you'd look at it and go "well, OK, but I'd summarise it
> > like
> > > this". And the partite would come up with something reasonable. Not do
> > this
> > > editor - it was no information on the case at all, just that there had
> > been
> > > a case.
> > >
> > > So then things went very bad. He decided to ask at the Australisn
> > > Wikipedias Noticeboard. From there, a South Ausyrslusn editor turned
> up,
> > > took a look at the section that detailed vehicle incidents and just
> > removed
> > > it. Then on the talk page he panned the edits as "obsessive" and
> > "trivial".
> > > In fact, he was just getting started..,
> > >
> > > "the compilation of all the companies he's a director of, many of which
> > > are so non-notable the author has had to refer to business registration
> > > records, is an atrocious case of original research and absolutely does
> > not
> > > belong in this article. These are such trivial details that no
> journalist
> > > has bothered to compile them in any of the tens of thousands of stories
> > > about him for a reason."
> > >
> > > I was gob smacked. I had sourced every one if the companies to a
> > secondary
> > > source. One of the sources was an article in The Australian, a major
> > Aussie
> > > newspaper. It pointed to a PDF which detailed a list of companies
> > > associated with Mehajer.
> > >
> > > And at this point we end at the beginning. I rage quit, then I was
> > > messages by an editor from Perth, who taunted me, telling me I had
> > > relevance deprivation syndrome. I was already feeling fragile, but this
> > > egged me on I suppose. If I'd been feeling less fragile I just would
> have
> > > let it go.
> > >
> > > So I did something inexcusable. I told the editor who had been stalking
> > me
> > > what I thought of them. I swore at them and called them bad names. It
> was
> > > reverted.
> > >
> > > I continued editing. It was hell or high water! I knew if I could just
> > ask
> > > them to explain there decisions I could get the article into shape. So
> I
> > > asked again why non-controversial material was removed. Nobody would
> > > answer. I put back material and wrote a long talk message. I was
> reverted
> > > with a response that didn't answer why it was a problem. I kept
> tweeting
> > > because there was nothing else I could do. Even important material,
> > utterly
> > > non-controversial, was removed.
> > >
> > > Eventually, however, they started to suggest what the issues were. They
> > > said it was fine to include his traffic offenses, but it had to be cut
> > > down. But, I explained, it's actually only one sentence and I detailed
> > what
> > > the offenses were otherwise it might give an impression his offenses
> > were a
> > > lot worse than they were! I asked what they should be changed to. And,
> I
> > > pointed out, you still haven't explained why the other material is a
> > > violation of Biographies of Living People!
> > >
> > > There was no response. Instead, I was reverted. So I reverted again
> > > because no answer had been provided.
> > >
> > > Then I got a message. I was told that actually the admin hadn't read
> the
> > > material but he'd noticed that the total kilobytes of text had
> ballooned.
> > > But, I said on my talk page - half of that size is in references!
> > > Irrelevant, I was told. You aren't editing to consensus. If someone
> > removes
> > > material, under no circumstances must you ready it until you discuss
> it.
> > >
> > > But the other editor is refusing to discuss it with me! Again I pointed
> > > out the bits that were being removed without being discussed. Tough I
> was
> > > told.
> > >
> > > In sheer bloody minded frustration I reverted the admin. Then I posted
> to
> > > the admins incident page pleading for someone to see reason. Then I got
> > yet
> > > another message telling me I had been reported for edit warring.
> > >
> > > I tried post, got in the first bit to appeal. But then I tried list
> more,
> > > to plead my innocence and rotary to make someone understand I ha dead
> at
> > > the end if my tether. My wife came in and startled me. I literally
> jumped
> > > and yelled, severely startling her badly. I felt dreadful.
> > >
> > > Then I raced out of the house, got in my car and parked in a quiet
> spot.
> > I
> > > posted to the only place I had left. A bitter post, stating who I had
> > been
> > > and what I had contributed and what I had just been through.
> > >
> > > This wax reverted by the admin Nick-D, from Western Australia who
> banned
> > > my rage quitted account (whose passwords scrambled, so it's
> inaccessible
> > > anyway) and had my mobile IP address blocked got a week, though I had
> > tried
> > > to explain I would be home later and it's best block my other IP
> address
> > > which is my NBN IP. It was, I had said in the message, a relief.
> > >
> > > But not only was this rolled back, but the user page was locked.
> > >
> > > My despair and humiliation is total. So here I sit, contemplating the
> > mess
> > > my life is in and how it's not worth even the ability to edit
> Wikipedia,
> > > Wikipedia the project I loved and I gave do much if my time and date
> to.
> > A
> > > project where I worked to gain consensus and wrote amazing article with
> > > others, and researched for and went to meet ups and borrow books from
> the
> > > library to ensure the world got the best possible information I could
> > > locate about a subject.
> > >
> > > I know I'm not well. I have fought this feeling for a decade. It's why
> I
> > > left the Tbsdy_lives account when Brad emailed me. At least then you
> gave
> > > me small degree of dignity, and deleted my user pages.
> > >
> > > There is no more dignity to be given me. I've used up my portion.
> > >
> > > And I sit here in my car and contemplate suicide. My despair is total.
> > > There is not a kind one amongst you. You have taken my right of appeal,
> > my
> > > ability to protest and my dignity. You have let others mock me, and I
> > have
> > > failed to contribute to Wikipedias great mission - one I feel so
> keenly.
> > >
> > > I failed. I'm not sure what I'm going to do next. I will drive, I don't
> > > know where. I pray my family forgives me.
> > >
> > > Chris
> > > Ta bu shi da yu
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The end

Richard Symonds-3
Hi all,

I wonder if that's the time to end the thread now (which is on a very
public list) and let people reach out privately. Discussion of this sort of
topic, especially when a specific person is involved, is not ideal, and
could make things worse.

New threads would be best for any more tangentially-related discussions, I
think.

Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0992

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).

*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*

On 17 May 2016 at 15:58, Brill Lyle <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I feel really bad for the person who started this thread. I hope and assume
> that the WMF response means they have some sort of way to provide support
> to someone suffering from ideations of suicide.
>
> In addition to a policy on safe space -- which I know exists and our local
> chapter as well as our regular venue have this posted on our namespaces --
> I hope that there is documentation and support on this issue as well. If
> there isn't one there needs to be. And it should be posted in a position
> where it is visible, like the safe space policy.
>
> I've been a member of various online communities, one music mailing list
> for 10+ years where we had a person who had very bad PTSD (who eventually
> got better) and others who died by suicide, etc. The acting out was a very
> difficult situation and one that I have learned to not take lightly. It is
> a lot like life, where you don't know what's going on for people, but it
> definitely makes me pause a bit in interactions online.
>
> This editor and their editing may be an extreme case, but they are not
> alone. I hope they know that from the few responses here.
>
> I have had bad interactions with obstructive, bullying, and Wikipedia rule
> tossing folks. When I have started pages I hold my breath and hope that the
> work doesn't get deleted -- or even scrutinized harshly. When I feel
> passionate about a topic I will try to fight for notability but it's always
> dicey. Then I see articles up on Wikipedia that have no business being up
> there, have two citations and are paragraphs long, but are not challenged,
> subject to the type of scrutiny the new stuff I contribute, etc.
>
> Also, adding content. Good content with citations (I'm obsessed with
> citations). Having it deleted. Being told it is too encyclopedic (yes!).
> Editors deleting content is a real problem. It just takes one to be an
> intransigent jerk and bully or rule throw their way into making the
> experience uncooperative. Sigh.
>
> So I tend to have a very long list of stuff I want to work on, much of it
> in dustier corners of Wikipedia. Thankfully my attention wanders and if a
> page heats up, I unfollow and try to walk away and refocus.... Sometimes I
> can do that. I had to do that for Louis C.K.'s TV show Horace and Pete (
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace_and_Pete) because the editing became
> super unpleasant.
>
> Then as a counterbalance....
>
> There are times like the collective editing to improve the page on the
> Reverend Clem Pinckney (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clementa_C._Pinckney
> ),
> who was killed in South Carolina during a prayer group by a white
> supremacist, and the collective creation of a page on the setting of that
> tragedy, a Wikipedia entry on the church, Mother Emanuel (
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emanuel_African_Methodist_Episcopal_Church),
> that was long overdue for an article due to its historical importance in
> the African-American community. And a few other times when I've edited with
> other editors, learned stuff, just enjoyed geeking out with another person
> passionate about making Wikipedia better and more representative of the
> world we live in.
>
> I would love to do more cooperative editing. Most of the editathons we help
> out with here in NYC focus on the new editor. I think we all have a lot to
> offer each other, folks who have been adding content for a while and are
> passionate about that. I wish we did a better job supporting each other.
>
> Best,
>
> - Erika
>
>
>
>
> *Erika Herzog*
> Wikipedia *User:BrillLyle* <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrillLyle>
> Secretary, Wikimedia NYC
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC>
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Michel Vuijlsteke <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Welcome to my exact experience on Dutch Wikipedia. Banned for life for
> > 'outing' a power user.
> >
> > The 'outing' is in huge inverted commas -- (1) enter her on-wiki username
> > in any search engine and you get oodles of vanity page(s) with her full
> > name and (2) she'd done much worse than that to me.
> >
> > I've been called names, articles have been deleted, I've been told by
> many
> > people that, sure, were it any other person they'd be banned, and sure,
> > when she refers people to [Leck mich im Arsch] it *might* be construed as
> > uncivil, but hey, she's doing good work on vandal patrol and deleting
> > articles, so...
> >
> > Yup. It's very, very toxic at times. And nobody really cares.
> >
> > On 17 May 2016 at 14:47, Pete Forsyth <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Reaching out offlist. Anyone who knows Chris well and has helpful
> input,
> > > feel free to contact me offlist.
> > > -Pete
> > > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 5:44 AM, Chris Sherlock <
> > > [hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I've just been blocked forever. I've been bullied, and I'm having
> > > suicidal
> > > > thoughts.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know what to do now.
> > > >
> > > > Right now I'm reaching out to anyone who might listen.  I've been
> > called
> > > > obsessive, someone who attacks people, I've not been listened to and
> > I've
> > > > been lectured on policy by people who quote three letter shortcuts at
> > me
> > > > without reading the policy.
> > > >
> > > > An admin just told me that I had submitted too many kilobytes which
> > > > violated some sort of policy. When I pointed out that half of the
> > > kilobytes
> > > > were references I was ignored. When I pointed out that the one
> > reverting
> > > me
> > > > was deleting no contentious stuff I was told I was being contentious.
> > > When
> > > > I pointed out I had been told I'm not allowed to use primary sources
> in
> > > any
> > > > way and the policy was its ok but to use it with care, and all I was
> > > doing
> > > > was checking a company directorship, I was ignored.
> > > >
> > > > I wrote your [[exploding whale]] article. I invented your [citation
> > > > needed] tag. I started your admins noticeboard.
> > > >
> > > > But I'm not well, and nobody on Wikipedia seems to be kind. You are
> all
> > > so
> > > > busy power tripping that you forget there is a real, live person on
> the
> > > > other side. A person who is wounded. I haven't always been this
> > > depressed.
> > > > Not anxious. I stupidly logged into my account yesterday, one that
> > nobody
> > > > knew I used, and tried to edit the Salim Mehajer article. I was
> > surprised
> > > > it wasn't there, but I've never been so obstructed I all my life.
> It's
> > > not
> > > > even that there was a disagreement, it was like I wasn't worth
> > anything.
> > > I
> > > > spent hours of my time researching the article, trying to do a good
> > job.
> > > > But in an instant the material was ripped away, and I was called
> > > obsessed.
> > > >
> > > > That's not what I was called when I rewrote the [[USA PATRIOT Act]]
> > > > article. People told me it was long, but they were encouraging. My
> hard
> > > > work was appreciated.
> > > >
> > > > I've never attacked the subject of the article, Salim Mehajer. But
> > when I
> > > > was called obsessive, I guess something broke inside me. I reached
> > badly
> > > > and called the guy who called me obsessive a twit. Then I wrote a
> > bitter
> > > > article and posted it on my blog. You can read it here:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://randomtechnicalstuff.blogspot.com.au/2016/05/dont-bite-newbies-why-wikipedia-is-such.html
> > > >
> > > > Then I stewed. I couldn't stop thinking about how I'd tried to get a
> > > > decent article sorted out again, but I just couldn't seem to get
> > > traction.
> > > >
> > > > I originally had taken material from the [[City of Auburn]] article
> > that
> > > > was about the individual. I should have realised it was partisan, and
> > it
> > > > was a bad judgement call. I write done more material, but it was far
> > too
> > > > negative. I guess o didn't see it that way at the time.
> > > >
> > > > I recall I went to bed and the next day I was accused of writing an
> > > attack
> > > > article and an admin slapped on not one but two template telling me I
> > was
> > > > about to be blocked. Then I discovered the article had been deleted.
> > > Nobody
> > > > had notified me. I couldn't work out what had happened. Then I
> realised
> > > it
> > > > had been deleted.
> > > >
> > > > So I tried again. This time I started from scratch. I started to edit
> > > very
> > > > carefully. I started with a paragraph stub which just very, very
> > briefly
> > > > noted Mehajor is a deputy mayor and property developer. I think I
> > wrote a
> > > > short paragraph Bout his wedding which was very notable. It's in the
> > > > history.
> > > >
> > > > Then it was put up for deletion again. In the A7 category. I'm rusty
> at
> > > > Wikipedia, sure, but what? A7? It was for notability. But, I thought,
> > > how?
> > > > The man is highly significant! Not a day goes by without the media
> > > talking
> > > > of his exploits!
> > > >
> > > > So I objected. The editor rounded on me. He's famous for being
> famous,
> > > > like a Kardashian! he said. But I said, he was a deputy mayor and
> he's
> > > been
> > > > in the Australian media extensively! It's not just his wedding (which
> > was
> > > > notorious) - it's his property deals, and his companies, and he got
> his
> > > > entire council sacked! And he is in court all the time and is under
> an
> > > AFP
> > > > investigation! That *is* notable!
> > > >
> > > > But, I was told, there's not enough In the article. I was referred to
> > > > another acronym about notability. But I know about notability
> policy, I
> > > > thought. It's about the subject, not the content of the article..,
> > > > desperately I hunted through the policy git the section on this. I'd
> > read
> > > > it before, years ago. If the article was deleted before I got a
> chance
> > to
> > > > object, I'd be called a troll, or worse. I'd be blocked for
> recreating
> > > it.
> > > > In the nick of time I found the section and objected, and I asked to
> > have
> > > > it put on Articles For Deletion. And I pointed out I was literally
> > > editing
> > > > the article when it was almost deleted - because it didn't establish
> > > enough
> > > > context. But, I thought, how do you establish context of the article
> is
> > > > deleted midway through editing it?
> > > >
> > > > The editor took off the CSD template. I breathed a sigh of relief.
> Then
> > > > they stick on a {{notability}} template. This, I was informed, meant
> > that
> > > > the article could be merged, redirected, or deleted if notability
> > > couldn't
> > > > be determined. But, I thought - I just established that! I didn't
> want
> > it
> > > > to be deleted midway through editing, and redirecting would have been
> > as
> > > > bad. And merged and redirected to what? It was already redirected to
> > > [[City
> > > > of Auburn Council#History]], but that was clearly wrong. No, it was
> > going
> > > > to be deleted. I objected, and eventually removed the template, to
> > > > strenuous objections from the one who put it on. I suggested it be
> put
> > up
> > > > for deletion and offered to do it myself. But the editor seemed
> > > reluctant.
> > > > So, I reasoned, well if they truly feel that way they list it for
> > > deletion.
> > > > At least then we'll get consensus one way or another.
> > > >
> > > > So, now templates less but incomplete, I started to add material. I
> > > > decided to start off with his early life. This was good, but every
> > time I
> > > > tried to add more material I found I was getting edit conflicts
> because
> > > > that same editor appeared to have watchlisted the article. I sent
> the a
> > > > message asking then to hold off editing. I also asked them not to
> > remove
> > > > huge swathes of information.
> > > >
> > > > Then I got to the bit where a court case was referred to. To
> establish
> > > > context, I quoted both the widely reported words said by the accused
> > and
> > > > the defendant. I used a secondary source that was very reliable - the
> > > > Australian ABC News website. This was summarily removed. The edit
> > summary
> > > > read BLP violation.
> > > >
> > > > Eh? I know what BLP is, but that can't be right. I asked why on the
> > talk
> > > > page. "It's because of BLPCRIME" they said. "You can't do it". But, I
> > > said,
> > > > I don't want to summarise their words, that could look worse for
> > Mehajer!
> > > > And I need to explain the case fairly do the reader knows what it's
> > > > about... I was told to read the policy. Grumbling, I read it to
> refresh
> > > my
> > > > memory. It read that non-public figures should not have allegations
> put
> > > on
> > > > articles. Well, I thought, this does t apply here - Mehajer is a very
> > > > public figure and this was reported widely.
> > > >
> > > > And on and on it went. Every time I edited the article I would be
> > edited
> > > > as quickly. It was like I was being stalked. Eventually, however, the
> > > > exasperation of that editor was too much. He listed the article on
> > > Requests
> > > > For Comment. But, I thought, I remember RFC back in the day. We used
> to
> > > > hash these things out on the talk page first! And normally there was
> > some
> > > > sort of compromise - line the opposing party would say "why not
> > summarise
> > > > it thusly" and you'd look at it and go "well, OK, but I'd summarise
> it
> > > like
> > > > this". And the partite would come up with something reasonable. Not
> do
> > > this
> > > > editor - it was no information on the case at all, just that there
> had
> > > been
> > > > a case.
> > > >
> > > > So then things went very bad. He decided to ask at the Australisn
> > > > Wikipedias Noticeboard. From there, a South Ausyrslusn editor turned
> > up,
> > > > took a look at the section that detailed vehicle incidents and just
> > > removed
> > > > it. Then on the talk page he panned the edits as "obsessive" and
> > > "trivial".
> > > > In fact, he was just getting started..,
> > > >
> > > > "the compilation of all the companies he's a director of, many of
> which
> > > > are so non-notable the author has had to refer to business
> registration
> > > > records, is an atrocious case of original research and absolutely
> does
> > > not
> > > > belong in this article. These are such trivial details that no
> > journalist
> > > > has bothered to compile them in any of the tens of thousands of
> stories
> > > > about him for a reason."
> > > >
> > > > I was gob smacked. I had sourced every one if the companies to a
> > > secondary
> > > > source. One of the sources was an article in The Australian, a major
> > > Aussie
> > > > newspaper. It pointed to a PDF which detailed a list of companies
> > > > associated with Mehajer.
> > > >
> > > > And at this point we end at the beginning. I rage quit, then I was
> > > > messages by an editor from Perth, who taunted me, telling me I had
> > > > relevance deprivation syndrome. I was already feeling fragile, but
> this
> > > > egged me on I suppose. If I'd been feeling less fragile I just would
> > have
> > > > let it go.
> > > >
> > > > So I did something inexcusable. I told the editor who had been
> stalking
> > > me
> > > > what I thought of them. I swore at them and called them bad names. It
> > was
> > > > reverted.
> > > >
> > > > I continued editing. It was hell or high water! I knew if I could
> just
> > > ask
> > > > them to explain there decisions I could get the article into shape.
> So
> > I
> > > > asked again why non-controversial material was removed. Nobody would
> > > > answer. I put back material and wrote a long talk message. I was
> > reverted
> > > > with a response that didn't answer why it was a problem. I kept
> > tweeting
> > > > because there was nothing else I could do. Even important material,
> > > utterly
> > > > non-controversial, was removed.
> > > >
> > > > Eventually, however, they started to suggest what the issues were.
> They
> > > > said it was fine to include his traffic offenses, but it had to be
> cut
> > > > down. But, I explained, it's actually only one sentence and I
> detailed
> > > what
> > > > the offenses were otherwise it might give an impression his offenses
> > > were a
> > > > lot worse than they were! I asked what they should be changed to.
> And,
> > I
> > > > pointed out, you still haven't explained why the other material is a
> > > > violation of Biographies of Living People!
> > > >
> > > > There was no response. Instead, I was reverted. So I reverted again
> > > > because no answer had been provided.
> > > >
> > > > Then I got a message. I was told that actually the admin hadn't read
> > the
> > > > material but he'd noticed that the total kilobytes of text had
> > ballooned.
> > > > But, I said on my talk page - half of that size is in references!
> > > > Irrelevant, I was told. You aren't editing to consensus. If someone
> > > removes
> > > > material, under no circumstances must you ready it until you discuss
> > it.
> > > >
> > > > But the other editor is refusing to discuss it with me! Again I
> pointed
> > > > out the bits that were being removed without being discussed. Tough I
> > was
> > > > told.
> > > >
> > > > In sheer bloody minded frustration I reverted the admin. Then I
> posted
> > to
> > > > the admins incident page pleading for someone to see reason. Then I
> got
> > > yet
> > > > another message telling me I had been reported for edit warring.
> > > >
> > > > I tried post, got in the first bit to appeal. But then I tried list
> > more,
> > > > to plead my innocence and rotary to make someone understand I ha dead
> > at
> > > > the end if my tether. My wife came in and startled me. I literally
> > jumped
> > > > and yelled, severely startling her badly. I felt dreadful.
> > > >
> > > > Then I raced out of the house, got in my car and parked in a quiet
> > spot.
> > > I
> > > > posted to the only place I had left. A bitter post, stating who I had
> > > been
> > > > and what I had contributed and what I had just been through.
> > > >
> > > > This wax reverted by the admin Nick-D, from Western Australia who
> > banned
> > > > my rage quitted account (whose passwords scrambled, so it's
> > inaccessible
> > > > anyway) and had my mobile IP address blocked got a week, though I had
> > > tried
> > > > to explain I would be home later and it's best block my other IP
> > address
> > > > which is my NBN IP. It was, I had said in the message, a relief.
> > > >
> > > > But not only was this rolled back, but the user page was locked.
> > > >
> > > > My despair and humiliation is total. So here I sit, contemplating the
> > > mess
> > > > my life is in and how it's not worth even the ability to edit
> > Wikipedia,
> > > > Wikipedia the project I loved and I gave do much if my time and date
> > to.
> > > A
> > > > project where I worked to gain consensus and wrote amazing article
> with
> > > > others, and researched for and went to meet ups and borrow books from
> > the
> > > > library to ensure the world got the best possible information I could
> > > > locate about a subject.
> > > >
> > > > I know I'm not well. I have fought this feeling for a decade. It's
> why
> > I
> > > > left the Tbsdy_lives account when Brad emailed me. At least then you
> > gave
> > > > me small degree of dignity, and deleted my user pages.
> > > >
> > > > There is no more dignity to be given me. I've used up my portion.
> > > >
> > > > And I sit here in my car and contemplate suicide. My despair is
> total.
> > > > There is not a kind one amongst you. You have taken my right of
> appeal,
> > > my
> > > > ability to protest and my dignity. You have let others mock me, and I
> > > have
> > > > failed to contribute to Wikipedias great mission - one I feel so
> > keenly.
> > > >
> > > > I failed. I'm not sure what I'm going to do next. I will drive, I
> don't
> > > > know where. I pray my family forgives me.
> > > >
> > > > Chris
> > > > Ta bu shi da yu
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The end

Tim Starling-2
On 18/05/16 01:18, Richard Symonds wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I wonder if that's the time to end the thread now (which is on a very
> public list) and let people reach out privately. Discussion of this sort of
> topic, especially when a specific person is involved, is not ideal, and
> could make things worse.

Fair enough. But for the benefit of concerned readers, I think it's
appropriate to relay the news from Facebook this morning (AEST) that
Chris is OK, he is feeling better.

Also, I've heard that the WMF response last night was appropriate and
treated the matter with all due seriousness.

-- Tim Starling


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The end

Isla Haddow-Flood-2
That's good to hear Tim. Really feel for Chris and what he is going though.

Thank you so much for letting us all know!

On 18 May 2016 at 02:15, Tim Starling <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 18/05/16 01:18, Richard Symonds wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I wonder if that's the time to end the thread now (which is on a very
> > public list) and let people reach out privately. Discussion of this sort
> of
> > topic, especially when a specific person is involved, is not ideal, and
> > could make things worse.
>
> Fair enough. But for the benefit of concerned readers, I think it's
> appropriate to relay the news from Facebook this morning (AEST) that
> Chris is OK, he is feeling better.
>
> Also, I've heard that the WMF response last night was appropriate and
> treated the matter with all due seriousness.
>
> -- Tim Starling
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
Isla Haddow-Flood
skype: islahaddow
twitter: @havingaflood
instgram:   islig
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Islahaddow
Linked in:  http://za.linkedin.com/pub/isla-haddow-flood
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The end

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by Chris Sherlock
On 17 May 2016 at 13:44, Chris Sherlock <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I've just been blocked forever. I've been bullied, and I'm having suicidal thoughts.


Followup: Chris is fine :-)  All is well. He's quite touched at how
many people rallied around to help him. Mostly he's a bit embarrassed
about just how many people this email went out to, but he's pretty
public about his depressive illness in order that others will be less
shy.

He wants you to know: "Please tell anyone else who has similar
suicidal feelings that life is wonderful and it's worth every painful
and wonderful moment."

Also I told him to put 127.0.0.1 en.wikipedia.org in /etc/hosts ;-)


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The end

Lane Rasberry
In reply to this post by Chris Sherlock
Hundreds of more comments on this email thread are available at Slashdot.

<
https://news.slashdot.org/story/16/05/18/1442245/wikipedia-editor-says-sites-toxic-community-has-him-contemplating-suicide
>

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 9:03 AM, David Emrany <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Thanks for the input, but is there any way for your statement to be
> confirmed directly from Chris ?
>
> Online harassment and stalking is a serious Federal crime [1], and
> this episode will have to be reported to the US and Australian law
> enforcement authorities.
>
> Dave
>
> [1] "47 U.S. Code § 230 – Protection for private blocking and
> screening of offensive material"
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
>
> On 5/18/16, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 17 May 2016 at 13:44, Chris Sherlock <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> I've just been blocked forever. I've been bullied, and I'm having
> suicidal
> >> thoughts.
> >
> >
> > Followup: Chris is fine :-)  All is well. He's quite touched at how
> > many people rallied around to help him. Mostly he's a bit embarrassed
> > about just how many people this email went out to, but he's pretty
> > public about his depressive illness in order that others will be less
> > shy.
> >
> > He wants you to know: "Please tell anyone else who has similar
> > suicidal feelings that life is wonderful and it's worth every painful
> > and wonderful moment."
> >
> > Also I told him to put 127.0.0.1 en.wikipedia.org in /etc/hosts ;-)
> >
> >
> > - d.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
Lane Rasberry
user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia
206.801.0814
[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The end

Chris Keating-2
In reply to this post by Richard Symonds-3
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Richard Symonds <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I wonder if that's the time to end the thread now (which is on a very
> public list) and let people reach out privately. Discussion of this sort of
> topic, especially when a specific person is involved, is not ideal, and
> could make things worse.
>
> New threads would be best for any more tangentially-related discussions, I
> think.
>
>
Can I reiterate this.

I'm glad we know Chris is well. Now we do, this thread is best closed.

If there are private concerns, please raise them privately. If there are
more general points to discuss, then this thread is not the place for them.
I also see little value in sharing links to other places Chris's original
post has prompted discussion. Let's leave this be.

Regards,

Chris
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The end

Austin Hair
Please consider this thread officially closed.

Continuing it further can have no possible positive value; on the
contrary, it's actively hurtful. If you want to start a new thread
discussing the issues in a generic way, go ahead, but be aware that
bullying will not be tolerated.

Austin

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>