AOC and “I’m 10-15”

This one will go far. People are already saying she’s very quick on her feet, listen to her, and not Pelosi.

“Did you see the images of officers circulating photoshopped images of my violent rape?” Ocasio-Cortez asked.

AOC does *not* look happy.

He [Kevin McAleenan, head of Homeland Security] said he had.

But she pressed: Considering these agents are responsible for the safety of migrant women and children, she wanted to know if the ones who circulated the violent images are still on the job today. McAleenan couldn’t say exactly.

The acing head of DHS is testifying to Congress and DOES NOT HAVE AN ANSWER TO THAT????

“I’m 10-15” (red link) is a secret Facebook group for Border Patrol agents to make crude remarks about women and joke about deaths of migrants.  It has 9,500 members. “10-15” refers to the code for “aliens in custody”.

For an encore, Louisiana police officer Charlie Rispoli re-posted a fake article about her and said she “needs a round, and I don’t mean the kind she used to serve.” I understand the ammunition type of “round”, but what kind of round gets “served”?



Wikimedia Space: my 15 minutes of fame

The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them.
Isaiah 11:6

The poo-flinging contest is over.

A few weeks ago I wrote about the new Wikimedia Space forum. They noticed it and actually linked to me. Then one of the Meta stewards took notice and left a fairly nasty comment about me.

What could I do?  I depend on anonymity for my safety, and to continue to be able to write plainspoken commentary. I could hardly go over there and have a chat with them.  So I wrote about the reasons the steward might be flaming me. Then I added it to the heading of the piece they had linked to, so everyone could see it.

Today the entire post has been taken down.

wikimedia space oops 2
So “oops” it is.

If the children are going go fight over the toy, then no one gets it. And the nice moderators over at “Space” won’t have to worry about getting globally locked out of their accounts by the Sekrit Brotherhood of Stewards.

Or maybe more like Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.” I sincerely hope not.  There is too much of that going around as it is.

In any case, “Space” is shaping up to have some interesting stuff that you don’t get from the Usual Suspects, and the moderators are turning out to have some interesting international perspectives.  I will probably link to them again. And they are certainly welcome to engage here, or I would be happy to answer any questions anyone might have about the site, either through the comment section or the email listed in the sidebar.

But one thing is certain.  Wikimedia “Space” is indeed a “safe space” for the powerful elite, like Ajraddatz with his “gay Jew pony” sodomy.  But what about for the anonymous “voices crying in the wilderness”, like me? The incendiary material about me has now been removed, right?  So now I can feel so totally safe, right?

Maybe it is so safe that now I can go over there and register an account, if I can figure out how to do it.  Then it is probably only a matter of time before this steward and myself will be putting on the love beads and welcoming the Age of Aquarius together with flowers in our hair.  O Brave New World!

Except for a few small details.

An individual was able to go to this supposedly moderated, official WMF platform and make unsubstantiated accusations against someone, a woman, and was immediately believed, simply for being male.  In fact, rather than ask for proof, the WMF employee merely thanked him for “the context”. This is why women do not trust any of the processes on Wikipedia.

Whatever internal “safe space” processes there are on Wikimedia Space did not work.  The staff had obvious examples of a dox attempt and personal attack sitting right in front of them, and did nothing.  I had to put it right in the first paragraph of the article they linked to, in order to get them to see it. There does not seem to be any other way to get their attention, for instance, buttons for anonymous flagging of comments.

They removed the attacks against me by removing the whole post.  As a result, I was silenced, deplatformed.  This is the old Wikipedia definition of “safe”.  A “safe” woman is one who does not speak out, who “lowers her profile” as they told Lightbreather, when she went after the user who was making “deep fake” porn about her.  When Wikipedia makes a platform “safe”, they do so by eliminating the voices of women.

And what about Ajraddatz?  Why is a volunteer steward micro-managing the WMF’s Wikimedia Space? What are his qualifications, besides first-person shooter games and pony pr0n? Don’t they have their own competent people?  People who know how to moderate a forum?  And why did he risk so much exposure to get me silenced? The stuff I wrote about him was long buried in the archives. Surely he must know about the Streisand effect, and that his past might come to light again.  He must be very secure about the Foundation’s willingness to tolerate homophobia and antisemitism.

He has no idea who I am.  He has never posted here and to my knowledge, I have never met him IRL.  So what gives?   Ajraddatz isn’t shy about visiting some other blogs, like Dysk’s WikiCabal, in spite of Dysk’s global lock [1] [2] [3], where Ajraddatz convinced Dysklyver to delink my website.   Of course Dysk and his quasi-siblings are welcome here any time.  But I bet we’re not going to see Ajraddatz rummaging around in Dysk’s sock drawer with his checkuser tool any time soon.

They dress the wounds of the daughter of My people with very little care,
saying, ‘Peace, peace,’ when there is no peace.  –Jeremiah 8:11

As always, if this doesn’t play in your region, you can always right-click, copy the URL and paste it in a new window.

Characterizing Incivility on Wikipedia

civility 4Oh this should be good.

Livestreaming in an hour, but they are posted eventually.

The next Research Showcase will be live-streamed next Wednesday, July 17, at 11:30 AM PDT/18:30 UTC.


YouTube stream:

Characterizing Incivility on Wikipedia

Elizabeth Whittaker, University of Michigan School of Information

In a society whose citizens have a variety of viewpoints, there is a
question of how citizens can govern themselves in ways that allow these
viewpoints to co-exist. Online deliberation has been posited as a problem solving mechanism in this context, and civility can be thought of as a mechanism that facilitates this deliberation. Civility can thus be thought of as a method of interaction that encourages collaboration, while incivility disrupts collaboration. However, it is important to note that the nature of online civility is shaped by its history and the technical architecture scaffolding it. Civility as a concept has been used both to promote equal deliberation and to exclude the marginalized from deliberation, so we should be careful to ensure that our conceptualizations of incivility reflect what we intend them to in order to avoid unintentionally reinforcing inequality….

“unintentionally” lol.

Not all bias is unconscious.

It gets better:

To this end, we examined Wikipedia editors’ perceptions of interactions
that disrupt collaboration through 15 semi-structured interviews. Wikipedia is a highly deliberative platform, as editors need to reach consensus about what will appear on the article page, a process that often involves deliberation to coordinate, and any disruption to this process should be apparent. We found that incivility on Wikipedia typically occurs in one of three ways: through weaponization of Wikipedia’s policies, weaponization of Wikipedia’s technical features, and through more typical vitriolic content. These methods of incivility were gendered, and had the practical effect of discouraging women from editing. We implicate this pattern as one of the underlying causes of Wikipedia’s gender gap.

No, really?

(Can I say “No shit, Sherlock” here?)

It’s nice to have someone break it down into parts though

  • weaponization of Wikipedia’s policies,
  • weaponization of Wikipedia’s technical features,
  • and through more typical vitriolic content

Speaking of which, I believe someone did slow down the archiving bot on the WP:FRAM talk page. Makes it look like more discussion than is actually happening, other than Pine’s wall of text, but most garden-variety users won’t know it’s being staged.

How safe is Wikimedia Space?

The new Wikimedia Space forum is about to have the first test of its “safe space”.

Last month I wrote about the new feature: “WMF introduces moderation: “Wikimedia Space’“.

Unlike Wikipediocracy, which trashed Wikimedia Space with their usual stock anti-WMF bugbears, and unlike the mailing list, which for some reason responded with knee-jerk hostility, I tried to be reflective and fair. In short, this was not a puff piece. I don’t write those.  But I did find some positive things to say.

And now someone has posted a link to my review at Wikimedia Space.  And right away, someone else has proposed to censor me.



Oh Adrian.  How could you.

And just when I thought you were starting to mature and mellow out a bit.

In all fairness, I think Adrian might be one of the better and more thoughtful stewards right now. But some of his past actions have raised some major, major questions.

In case anyone doesn’t know, I wrote about Ajraddatz a while back

  • Kumioko unchained…by the most curious admin Ajraddatz – in which I detail Adrian’s curation of Uncyclopedia pages related to raping children with tentacles, shooting blacks in the face, and how to beat your wife: “Anything can be used to smack the bitch down…”, also his nine years playing League of Legends, which teaches kids how to collaborate to kill unarmed bystanders.

Maybe he had some remorse though, because he vanished his user name and has done his best to scrub his presence there, as detailed with screenshots at the end of my report.

But he didn’t erase everything.   A few things did get archived before he went on his deletion spree.  It came up here, in this comment about the arbitration committee elections.

A “gay” forum

“Raped by gay Jew ponies”

  • There was also the matter of “Mr-ex777”.  This was a kid who had some trouble fitting in at Uncyclopedia.  He was bullied and picked on. The other kids created an Uncyclopedia article about him, “Mr-ex777 raped by Magic Ponies”,  featuring a cartoon of the child being sodomized by a “gay Jew pony”.  The other users, including Ajraddatz, then proceeded to vote to put this on the next Uncyclopdia front page.

Here, Ajraddatz votes in favor: [Archived.]

Here is the “featured” article in question (NSFW): [Archived.]


The rest of the (NSFW) cartoon is below the fold.

So we don’t know how Ajraddatz feels about all of this now, we only know he tried to hide it.

And now we also know he is trying to have me silenced.

So he thinks he knows who I am?  And he is trying to dox me in that venue?  How exactly is that “friendly and welcoming”.  We already know about the classy incels and Gamergaters and what they do with dox.   It has already happened with way too many women on Wikipedia, and elsewhere.

His second point is about harassment, and how it is defined. Is it harassment to promote a cartoon for sodomizing children – or one particular child – with “gay Jew ponies”, or is harassment to point out when someone has promoted such a cartoon.  Am I harassing someone when I point out, with links and screenshots, what they have done?  This goes to the very heart of the harassment problem on Wikipedia – the harassers are in high places, and they expect omertà, the code of silence.

If Wikipedia Space is going to be “friendly and welcoming to everyone”, is it going to be “friendly and welcoming” to me, and not publish personal attacks, undocumented accusations, and attempts to identify me, which bottom line, is just another attempt to silence me?  Or is it it only going to be “friendly and welcoming” to those who think raping children is funny, and who make unsupported accusations against other volunteers.

So let’s take our questions about Wikimedia Space one step further. If the moderators of Wikimedia Space get locked out of their Wikimedia accounts, who gets them back in?  Stewards, that’s who. If Jimmy Wales gets locked out of his Meta or account, or his password gets compromised, who locks down his account, and gets it back to him safely? Stewards.  I seem to remember that happened not too long ago too.  Now, if any staffers get locked out of Wikimedia Space, who can get them back in?  I don’t know the answer to that one, but I would suggest that someone find out.  Because just maybe we have a new constitutional crisis here, where Stewards are allowed to flaunt the Safe Space rules, just because they can.

Now, how do we get our Stewards?  They aren’t stewards-for-life, like admins, are they?  They have to be elected every 2 years, right?  Wrong.  About two years ago, on an obscure back page, they voted themselves a change in the election process, since they decided they were all friends and there was nothing controversial about what they were doing.  The only person who noticed was Nemo Bis.  They are now in for good, and they have got all their friends in too, and all of them voted for each other, and you had better believe it is not a secret vote either, which is the foundation of freedom from tyranny. They communicate somewhere off-wiki, maybe IRC, more likely on Wikia.

So now, what about our current “constitutional crisis”, as has been unfolding at WP:FRAMBAN, which is a proxy for whether women, gays, blacks, and Jews are real Wikipedians, and will have a seat at the table, or whether Wikipedia will be held hostage by those with traditional Male Privilege. The strike, or revolution, or whatever you want to call it, that was declared by our resident Marxist, Tim Davenport (user:Carrite), may have failed, but there were a few individuals who followed him blindly. See Wikipedia Signpost/List of Fram related strikes. Fortunately most of these users and admins were not very active, they were just ones who like to stir the pot.  There was a bot owner as well, but the bot actually makes a lot of errors, so Wikipedia may have come out ahead on the resignation game.

Still, you have to wonder, what if all the Stewards got together in their Secret Place and decided to lock out all the WMF employees.  Seriously, the Foundation needs to find out who has the keys to the moat, and have some copies made. And while they’re at it, do an inventory of critical bots and other functions.  The Superprotect crisis is over, the community did well with that, in the absence of leadership and common sense from the Foundation, but that was in the now-distant past.  I fear “the community” — as they style themselves — is not suited for the new challenges ahead. At this point they are just a mob, and a very destructive one at that.   The Wikimedia Foundation needs to get control of their platform.  Soon.

The WMF has accused Fram of harassment.  “The community” has asked to see the evidence.

Ajraddatz has accused *me* of harassment: “frequently engages in off-wiki harassment of Wikimedia users”  So where is your evidence, Adrian?  Or are you above the law.

And when are you going to disclose your own Conflict Of Interest in making attacks against me.

Below the fold: the rest of the “featured” Uncyclopedia article, a child sodomized by “GAY JEW PONIES FTW” (for the win).  The one that Ajraddatz voted for.


Continue reading “How safe is Wikimedia Space?”

Half-blood thunder moon, plus bonus Sunspots

Tomorrow (Tuesday) is the full moon sometimes known as buck moon or thunder moon.  This is supposedly the time of year when the deer antlers are full grown, also lots of thunderstorms.  Having seen both deer and storms within the last 48 hours, I can confirm the thunderstorm part.  The deer however not so much – it wandered into the yard where I was having a conversation then wandered out a different direction, after perusing the garden and having a quick snack (not my garden, so bon appétit).  Zero antlers.

The full moon coincides with a partial eclipse, also known as “half-blood” moon or smiley face moon, where the moon turns red but with a crescent of light. It will not be visible in North America, but will appear in South America, Europe and Africa on July 16, and in Asia and Oceania on July 17. So maybe we can expect a little howling from the other side of the Pond.

Not to be outdone, the sun has also entered a new sunspot phase. We are now at solar minimum in the 11-year sunspot cycle. No sunspots have been observed for the last couple of weeks. Today’s NASA photo of the day shows the international space station crossing a spotless sun.

In fact, a few sunspots from Solar Cycle 25 have already been spotted earlier in July, identified by their polarity.  According to Hale’s Law, the polarity of sunspots reverses from one cycle to the next.

Radio buffs do follow these sunspot reports, as they have an effect on transmissions. Why do you suppose all the best CB songs are from the 70s?

“Looking under the hood”: moderation again

georgetown tech screenshot 2Last week the Wikimedia Foundation quietly participated in a forum on Artificial Intelligence [Wayback], “Wiki AI: Looking Under the Hood of Applying Ethics to Machine Learning”, that included the topic of moderation.

“Representatives from Wikimedia provided insight into the values of the Foundation and how engineers strive to develop new tools in line with Wikimedia’s commitment to openness and transparency. Key topics included how Wikimedia balances the accuracy of its content against concerns of entrenching bias through automated editing, ensuring that Wikimedia remains a human-centered platform while also enabling new workflows, and deploying tools in a way that respects the existing community while also making editing and moderation a more inclusive process.”

The event page linked to an essay on augmentation tools (stuff like Twinkle, Cluebot for vandalism, ORES for article assessment, and the translation tool) that appears to be part of the strategy process.

So who are these people?

The “Tech Institute”, if I am not mistaken, is the Institute for Technology Law & Policy at Georgetown Law.

The Center for Democracy & Technology is a non-profit concerned with privacy and with ties to the EFF.

Amanda Levendowski (red link) is “an Associate Professor of Law at Georgetown and the founding Director of the Intellectual Property and Information Policy Clinic.” Profile here, sample blog post about AI and privacy here.

Oddly enough, on the same day, there was an event across town, “The Nuts and Bolts of Content Moderation: The Myths of Moderation” that also featured participation by the Center for Democracy and Technology.

Panelists were Neil Chilson, Charles Koch Institute (yes, *that* Koch); Carl Szabo, NetChoice (pro-section 230); Clara Tsao, Mozilla Fellow (counter terrorist propaganda/disinformation); Liz Woolery, Center for Democracy and Technology

There were three parts to the series, this was part two.  Part one was “Platforms Behind the Scenes“; panelists were Mara Giorgio, Airbnb (Senior Counsel, Risk & Regulatory); Sherwin Siy, Wikimedia; Victoria McCullough, Tumblr; Kate Tummarello, Engine. Not sure why Tummaello’s profile is down, here is the cache:

Part 3 was “How the Internet Works”. Panelists: Althea Erickson, Etsy; Erica Fox, Cloudflare; Eric Goldman, Santa Clara University School of Law; Kevin Koehler, Automattic (WordPress censorship in Turkey).