Extortion, Blackmail, And Harassment
Extortion played a prominent role in this case. The committee is also aware of a variety of threats and invective that have been published on-wiki and off with the announced intent of securing specific on-wiki objectives. Some of these these threats have already succeeded in attaining some of their aims. Once again, we have an arbitration case planned off-wiki, the fruit of an extended campaign, demanding results which ArbCom has compliantly delivered. It is remarkable that the proposed decision makes no mention of harassment or extortion, save to excoriate the victim for calling attention to the harassment. Nor does it express any concern for Wikipedia’s victims.
Does the committee have in mind a solution to the problem of extortion on Wikipedia? If it does, many would like to assist. If not, I believe that urgent regulatory or legislative remedies must be sought.
MarkBernstein (
talk) 15:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
@
MarkBernstein: No one else seems to want to touch this, and apologies for the non-Arbness of my response. I am not aware of any suggestions other than yours that there was extortion or blackmail on Wikipedia, and whether there was harassment is very much in question. I do not believe the Committee has jurisdiction over off-wiki actions, although I'm sure they've done and are doing their utmost to help Gamaliel. That leaves, in this case, a bunch of aspersions and what looks like a promise to engage the law in some way. I'm sure that's not what you meant; in my view neither the aspersions nor the suggestion are justifiable. I'll stop at that general level in view of the requirement for civility and the fact that, last I checked, Wikipedia still offers anonymity.
Yngvadottir (
talk) 16:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
There is no question at all, as the committee is aware, that harassment occurred and that threats were made in order to secure specific results on-Wiki. If anonymity precludes protecting Wikipedia’s volunteers from extortionate behavior, then society needs to create and enforce regulations sufficient to end Wikipedia anonymity. I am delighted to hear you say that the committee is doing their utmost to help the victims of harassment; whether their utmost can be distinguished from "nothing at all" has not yet been demonstrated. The committee has certainly done a good deal to encourage harassment by reliably doing the harasser’s bidding in case after case while rarely showing even token concern for their targets.
MarkBernstein (
talk) 17:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
You misinterpreted me, my apologies for having written unclearly. I referred to the claim of harassment
on Wikipedia. I hope you eventually get the answer you seek from the Committee. However, the accusation that those of us who have criticized Gamaliel's conduct are harassers or doing harassers' bidding is an unfounded aspersion that you should stop making. With regards to anonymity, I was referring to Wikipedia's not requiring me - or any other editor - to reveal anything of our identity, including to defend ourselves against such aspersions. Is that clear enough, or should I insert the adjectives I left out?
Yngvadottir (
talk) 18:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
And you have misunderstood me, or so I hope. I do not believe that you were the IP editor who threatened to kill Gamaliel, for example, yet that did happen, and that's a very real concern. So, too, are the extortionate threats that were directed at Gamaliel. That's not an aspersion; it's a fact. If Wikipedia will not stop it, that is unfortunate: it can and it will be stopped. (Please, Yngvadottir, be kind to your adjectives, too!)
MarkBernstein (
talk) 20:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Then don't attack all editors criticizing Gamaliel as agents of the harasser(s). Or support Gamaliel in doing so. It is an entirely unfounded aspersion. This case was about his actions.
Yngvadottir (
talk) 21:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Mark, this is all related ti Gamergate
which you are topic banned from. It is also making claims about potential legal matters relating to living people, you mention indictments off-wiki.
Arbitrators:WTF, you are all so concerned about privacy and harassment and you let this guy use whatever it is than is going on with Gamaliel - which he (G) has not chosen to share on-wiki - to advance his (MB) agenda on Wikipedia?!!?? MB has been topic banned from this whole topic area
broadly construed. What is the point of taking him to AE again if you folks do not enforce the ban
on your own pages?
JbhTalk 18:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I do not believe that Wikipedia extortion and harassment pertains exclusively or primarily to Gamergate, and I do believe that they are wrong whether the perpetrators are members of one organization or another. An encyclopedia built on a foundation of extortion, whatever its source, is unlikely to merit support.
MarkBernstein (
talk) 20:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
LOSECHALLENGE.
