Talk:Catherine A. Fitzpatrick

Untitled

I am not the author of this biographical page about me. Indeed, as a minor blogger and a well-known but not prominent Russian translator, if Wikipedia was a community operating in good faith with moral standards, and not anonymous and unaccountable propagandists, likely I would not ordinarily merit a Wikipedia entry.

This biographical entry was originally posted some years ago by a group of anonymous members of the Second Life community, known as "griefers" from Woodbury University in California who in fact have been banned from that virtual online world. They created essentially a vandalized entry by taking actual facts from my real life, and then mixing them with an exaggerated account of my relationship to them, as if I were some sort of crazy cat lady obsessed with them and communism, etc. They make it seem as if my abuse-reporting of them for violations of the terms of service of Second Life, or my reporting on their griefing of my servers in Second Life, are somehow the "highlights" of my career. This is a standard Anonymous/4chan sort of methodology familiar to those in these communities.

In order to make their harassment more credible, they mingled their griefing account with my actual career achievements, although they are completely haphazardly rendered, with random years and publications that include none of the publications of the last 10 years or so, for example. I am best known for my translations of Russian authors, including Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin, leaders of Russia, and many other Russian books (about 30 books). I am also a journalist in the field of Eurasian current events and human rights, and have written for a number of regional publications like rferl.org, eurasianet.org, naturalgaseurope.com and freedomhouse.org So what you see here is a case of online stalkers taking some minor events of my life and elevating them to the status of dramatic exaggeration, like Encyclopedia Dramatica does, merely as a form of online harassment. This entry was undertaken in order to further "out" my real-life identity with my Second Life avatar, in the hopes that this would intimidate me from my critical blog.

Indeed, I am known for my criticism of WikiLeaks (I have also written most of the articles about WikiLeaks cables on Turkmenistan and other Central Asian countries), and I am also well-known for my criticism of the open-source software movement, Wikipedia, and Occupy Wall Street. But my blogs Second Thoughts, Wired State, and Minding Russia, while known in small communities, and sometimes cited by the New York Times and others, are not high-traffic blogs.

I have no objection to having any Wikipedia entry; I also don't object to having my avatar name and RL name outed because I myself already linked it in the New York Times some years ago. But in fact this entire concoction you see here was undertaken as a way of harassing, shaming, and silencing my criticism, and Wikipedia editors should not be part of that. I don't edit Wikipedia, and I won't attempt to edit my own entry or get anyone else to do so. I believe in a free press. But anyone who undertakes a good-faith rather than a bad-faith composition and editing of a biographical entry would not emphasize the antics of a a bunch of script kiddies at a commuter college in California harassing an an older woman online whose critical blog they don't like, and would cover actual publications in my professional field, or actual events in my life for which I'm known, i.e. being among the first Westerners to visit a Soviet psychiatric hospital and labor camp, and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catfitz (talk • contribs) 05:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, to me this whole article reads more like a hagiography written by either you or someone close to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.66.183.95 (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Look, I have no need to write my own Wikipedia entry. For years I was merely listed in other people's entries here as their translator, and had didn't have any entry of my own. The entry for me was created by the 4chan group in the virtual world of Second Life from the real-world Woodbury University in California as a form of griefing (malicious prank). You can study its iterations over the years, the wild talk and debate about removing it or keeping it -- all populated by members of Second Life notorious for their griefing -- and look at the IP addresses. I have not had any involvement in it whatsoever, except to periodically blog about its to correct the record. If I wanted to have a hagiography, not only would I write it with many more accomplishments and things for which I'm noted (like the first visit to the Soviet labour camp with AM Rosenthal of the New York Times in 1988), since I don't want to participate in the Wikipedia cult or learn its arcane rituals, I'd ask some real colleague to write it. I'm a big critic of Wikipedia, and regardless of what happens to this entry, will remain one. My biggest criticism has to do with its anonymity. Anyone anonymous drive-by vandal can come here and claim someone has "written their own entry," and they will automatically trigger suspicion without any due process. It's really appalling." Catfitz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.68.191 (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I have every reason to remain skeptical. Also, your exceedingly long-winded answers, articles, posts etc in which you claim that practically everyone is unfairly against you and that everyone is griefing you, trolling you or whatever show a rather peculiar mindset and way of thinking, or, even worse, a certain condition which is not the best for someone to have. What is certain is that this article does read a lot like a thinly-veiled hagiography. Oh, and something else: if I were in a position where "everyone" disliked me, I would start wondering what I'm doing wrong; you, on the other hand, basically accuse everyone else. Maybe you should look into your own behaviour for answers? Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.66.160.189 (talk) 04:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Another vote for the hagiographic theory. Regular readers of Cathy's work will have noted her behaviour pattern of either 1) visiting a popular internet gathering place (a forum, blog, reddit etc.) or 2) nipping at the heels of a well known tech identity through similar media, then manufacturing a controversy and mentioning her blog or blogs (the ones sprinkled with the Google ads), where lengthy manifestos on the subject will appear soon after, and the inevitable comment flame war ensues. Follow the money trail I say. This article and the "outrage" from Catfitz above, would appear to check all those boxes. Whether she penned it personally or not though, I would defend the validity of the article in principle if for no other reaon than the compilation of excellent reference resources it provides, for what I imagine is a steady stream of people wondering who Cathy is when she arrives on their internet doorstep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Device Unplugged (talk • contribs) 08:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the comment from the anonymous contributor "Device Unplugged" above: I have a legitimate blog and I make legitimate criticism of Internet policy and the open source software movement. That's okay to do. That's free speech. That is not "trolling" or somehow "manufacturing controversy" -- it's just blogging, which is a legitimate activity and one that Wikipedia editors should support and not suppress through maintaining vandalized entries. Commenting on public figures is not "manufacturing controversy" or hitching my little blog to their name as implied here, but the legitimate activity of a blogger which should be protected. I'm being heckled and bullied here, and one of the ways this is being accomplished is through the fake claim that I'm some sort of "bully" or drive-by "troll". In a free democratic society, computer programs and coders get to be criticized, even if they build a utility like the Internet.

As for any "money trail" from my site "sprinkled with Google ads," plug my site address into any metrics analyzer like Alexa, and you will find that I am a minor, low-traffic blog and any income from Google amounts to very small amounts per year.

The notion that legitimate criticism is a "flame war" is one held by people who cannot accept free expression and debate on the Internet.

Here we go again with my entry being vandalized and libelous statements made about me in an attempt to silence my criticism of hackers and the radical open source movement.

Re: Fitzpatrick has been accused by dozens of writers, journalists, activists, Second Life residents, and technology workers of harassment, libel, and bullying. [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]She has been banned from numerous Second Life fora. [23]

I haven't been accused of any such thing and there are no "dozens" of anybody making this claim; there's one "journalist", a freelancer for a local shopper who said he was a reformed and former member of a racist griefing group called the Patriotic Nigras, Joshua McCracken, who later died of AIDS. Much of the insanity around my entry in Wikipedia has to do with the false claims by and about this individual who was banned from the virtual world of Second Life for his group's racist, misogynous and antigay harassment and was abuse reported by many people, including me. I can think of about two permanently banned former members of Second Life associated with Woodbury University's digital arts department who made this false claim, but it's not "bullying" or "libel" to report accurately on griefing and hacking. There's also claims of harassment from one Benjamin Duranske, a lawyer with a very long-held grudge and a permanent "Google Bomb" hate page put up to attempt to discredit me.

Here is my "Advice to Google Witch-hunter" in which I rebut some of these false claims by this 2 or 3 individuals who grudges who evidently are behind continued efforts to attempt to vandalize this page:

http://3dblogger.typepad.com/wired_state/google_witch_hunters.html

I have not been "banned from numerous Second Life fora"; I've been banned from *one*, SLUniverse.com, which was for reporting accurately on the misdeeds of griefers and hackers in the Anonymous movement. I am a member in good standing of the official Second Life forum and other fora related to virtual worlds. One other site, where I was banned after I stood up to a frequent heckler of me who himself was banned no longer exists. In addition, I am banned from Terra Nova, a site of left-leaning professors about gaming and virtual worlds who publish favourable articles about Anonymous and other hacker groups and who don't like to face criticism from outsiders. That's all.

Re: Following President Barack Obama's reelection in November, 2012, Fitzpatrick alleged that Republican challenger Mitt Romney's campaign's digital operation had failed because the company responsible for much of its online and digital strategy had employed African-American programmers, who Fitzpatrick said were "96% likely Obama voters" and could not be trusted. [24] [25] [26]

I've made no such statement, as in fact an accurate reading of the footnoted blog entries will establish. Romney's campaign failed for many reasons, including the failure of the GOP to attract women, young people, and minorities. There is a separate question of Romney's digital operation which was by no means the sole reason for his campaign's failure, but contributed to the failure. I made the completely accurate point that just as Obama didn't hire Republicans and people who were going to vote against him, so Romney shouldn't have hired Democrats and people who wouldn't vote for him. Obama hired a bunch of white geeks from Silicon Valley and put minorities in lesser roles in his digital department, which was indicative of Silicon Valley's failure to promote blacks and other minorities. Romney outsourced a lot of his work, and indeed used both Al Gore's digital director and Obama's 2008 digital director. My point is not about racism or advocating racist practices, as in fact the GOP needs to attract more minorities and will have a hard time doing so. My point is that people who aren't going to vote for you will not put their heart and soul into your digital work.

This attempt to smear me with the brand of "racism" is merely the usual Anonymous hack work and leftist bullying. It's what discredits Wikipedia.

http://3dblogger.typepad.com/wired_state/2013/02/refuting-the-smear-of-racism.html

Regarding these footnotes, all involving a handful of individuals in the virtual world of Second Life with axes to grind:

^ "Regarding Prokofy Neva". Benjamin Duranske. Retrieved February 12, 2013. ^ lists.stanford.edu/msg00011.html/ "liberationtech". Shava Nerod. Retrieved February 12, 2013. ^ "Generic Response to Prokofy Neva". Dale Innis. Retrieved February 12, 2013. ^ "Cyber Bullied". Mission Home. Retrieved February 12, 2013. ^ "Prokofy Neva". Urban Dictionary. Retrieved February 12, 2013. ^ "Response from journalist accused about lying about AIDS diagnosis". YouTube. Retrieved February 12, 2013. ^ [Prokofy Neva banned from the Linden Blog/ "Prokofy Neva banned from the Linden blog"]. Jeremy. Retrieved February 12, 2013.

1. After he got a real-life job, Benjamin Duranske removed his hate page but it persists on some sites that replicated it and in the Internet Archive. My refutation: ^ "Regarding Prokofy Neva". Benjamin Duranske. Retrieved February 12, 2013.

^ lists.stanford.edu/msg00011.html/ "liberationtech". Shava Nerod. Retrieved February 12, 2013. This post was removed by the list moderator as hate speech.

^ "Generic Response to Prokofy Neva". Dale Innis. Retrieved February 12, 2013. This is an IBM employee who disliked my critique of open source software and disputes on the bug-tracker in Second Life. My retuation: http://secondthoughts.typepad.com/second_thoughts/2009/06/dale-innis-ibm-pjira-vandalizer.html

^ "Cyber Bullied". Mission Home. Retrieved February 12, 2013. This person has removed their hate page. It is an avatar named "Troy Vogel" who was once involved in a simulation of Frank Lloyd Wright homes and who profited from his replicas on a nonprofit sim. I wrote an article questioning both the favouritism for this simulation by the platform providers and whether FLW's estate had approved it. FLW's estate subsequently removed their endorsement of this simulator and it was deleted. My refuation: http://secondthoughts.typepad.com/second_thoughts/2009/07/this-is-apparently-the-future-gift-shop-though-not-marked-as-such-nor-are-there-any-cards-here-explaining-this-part-th.html

^ "Prokofy Neva". Urban Dictionary. Retrieved February 12, 2013. This is an entry from Second Life members of 4chan.

^ "Response from journalist accused about lying about AIDS diagnosis". YouTube. Retrieved February 12, 2013.

^ [Prokofy Neva banned from the Linden Blog/ "Prokofy Neva banned from the Linden blog"]. Jeremy. Retrieved February 12, 2013. I was restored to this blog subsequently and in fact the employee who banned me left the company.

Now, as you can see from all these footnotes, they involve the relatively obscure disputes of a now-minor Internet community of Second Life. They involve individuals with various grudges who disliked my critical blogging about them, particularly my critique of the open source software movement, and have tried to settle scores first by making a Wikipedia entry of me in the first place, although I am only a minor public figure, then perpetuating this entry, constantly embellishing it and fighting over it, and then vandalizing it repeatedly as a method of attempting to silence my blog.

Wikipedia's entry on Second Life, virtual worlds, and related topics doesn't cover any of these disputes or issues (although it might be interesting if they did) precisely because they are too minor to waste a Wikipedia entry on.

Catfitz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.68.191 (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Amidst multiple references to your blogs in this latest entry, I see four outright links to them. Thank you for underlining my clickbaiting theory so promptly and effectively. Cathy, your contribution to this article is valued regardless of who wrote it, but please familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia guidelines on external link spamming, particularly with regard to source solicitation, non peer-reviewed material and citation spamming located here. Device Unplugged (talk) 04:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what "clickbaiting theory" is, but I hardly think the way to attract anyone to one's blog is to put links in the talk section of a dispute Wikipedia entry that hardly anyone will bother to look at, so so much for your "theory". The links are placed here merely to avoid pasting in lots of text in rebuttal to false claims made about me in the entry. As for "non-peer-reviewed material," good Lord, the people who wrote this entry in the first place chocked it full of links to my blog (!) and various NGO publications which are not peer-reviewed, so that sounds all pretty fake. In short, yet another example of griefers weaponizing Wikipedia, which easily lends itself to such misuse by its arcane rules and lack of common sense and good faith. Catfitz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.68.191 (talk) 05:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Catherine A. Fitzpatrick is a well known personality in the field of human rights, Eurasian affairs, as a translator from Russian and as a critic of Woodbury University. Random Unsung (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Arctic, for repairing those disappointing edits. I would remind Cathy that if what she wants is a censored and unbalanced piece of propaganda masquerading as a biography, she may be more comfortable on Facebook or similar sites that allow a user to publish facts and/or "facts" selectively. Wikipedia however, tries to set the bar a little higher. Device Unplugged (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Here we go again with further vandalism of my entry, which itself from the beginning was an act of vandalism which I have never edited. "Random Unsung" is the name of one of my main avatars in the virtual world of Second Life, and some other person has hijacked this name and is misusing it here, as anyone can see from checking IP addresses. I am not a well-known personality. But indeed I am a recognized expert in the field of Eurasian news and human rights and the editors who claimed I have no recent publications haven't checked those just these last few months for example at naturalgaseurope.com or freedomhouse.org. I also refuse to list all the places where I am employed because I have been doxed and severely harassed by Anonymous and I don't wish to draw more harassment at my workplaces.

Once again, there has been a ridiculous claim that I am a "racist" by making up a quote that I supposedly think Romney failed because he hired African-American programmers (!). I've said no such thing and the links to my blog clearly explain that my statement is about Romney's hiring of *Democrats* who worked for Al Gore or Obama in the past, and the problem of how those who supported and voted for Obama could not be expected to put their heart into making his website and apps in a political campaign. The anonymous and unaccountable "Device Unplugged" is some Second Life griefer or Anonymous operative who is merely heckling me by misuing Wikipedia which itself easily lends itself to such harassment by claiming that I am "propagandizing" my own biography, when I have no objective need to do so, did not start this entry, did not contribute it, and merely seek to have some good-faith correction of it. The recent introduction of the poultry farming is an absurdity; having artificially-intelligent pets in a virtual world doesn't make me an expert on anything at all, it's merely a reference to the manner in which these griefers used to come and "kill" these chickens by kicking them off-world. There is also a screenshot claiming that I am "posing" in SL as if to "recreate" a Wired magazine photo of me, but that's not me, that's an effigy of me made by a griefer in Second Life. I am waiting for someone more sensible in Wikipedia to come along and clean up this entry filled with insane and irrelevant interpolations from a bunch of vandals. Catfitz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.68.191 (talk) 07:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution Cathy, but if I had any association with the Anonymous group or these mysterious "griefers" that apparently follow you throughout life dedicated to bringing you down, you'd have to say that having made precisely zero edits to your article (though I can see a few that need to be made when time permits), and having made only a couple of additions to this talk page outlining your usual Modus Operandi (which you seem to be living up to quite accurately without my assistance by the way), a person would have to conclude that I wasn't very good at my job. But this is all irrelevant. Back over here back in reality this is all the usual lowbrow trolling and faux-controversy, consequently your bait here is insufficient for me to bite and follow you back to your ad-sponsored blogs. No sale I'm afraid. My interest here remains in the accuracy of the article, not your wallet. Device Unplugged (talk) 15:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The journalist I visited the Perm labour camp from wasn't Andrew Rosenthal, but Andrew's father, A.M. Rosenthal, once the editor of the New York Times. Catfitz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.68.191 (talk) 07:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not the daughter of any poultry farmer, this is just vandalism based on Second Life griefing memes. I am the daughter of John Fitzpatrick, a ceramics engineer. The name of the journalist I translated is Albats, it is mispelled here. Catfitz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.68.191 (talk) 07:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

As the Shava Nerad (not Nerod as cited on the page footnote and above, and I've corrected the page)I have to say the hate speech thing was due to me reporting her previous record as a troll in prior communities of my experience, only after she had launched ad hominems at persons in the liberation tech community -- at which point she asked that my post be taken down although the posts where she made ad hominems against others are still available I believe, and although I've never asked any speech of Catherine's to be taken down, and I might speculate although of course could not know, that she asks for speech against her to be taken down to bolster her arguments for talk pages such as this.

In another venue, since, I blocked her as the first and only person I've ever blocked in social media. As the founding executive director of the Tor Project, that's not a trivial decision on my part.

Being accused of hate speech was a special experience for me on libtech, I can tell you. I am a nonviolence educator, but also a crone in my communities. The rain falls on the just and the unjust. We make moderation tools available to people to defend from strong personal speech of whatever kind, valid or not, and the moderator thought it wise to keep the peace by taking a post down upon request. It would be indiscreet to forward his apology to me from private email. I believe he put us both on cool down notice, fwiw. Shava23 (talk) 08:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)shava23

I'm not the daughter of any poultry farmer, nor do I write "prolifically" about "online poultry games," nor do I have the largest artificially-intelligent poultry farm in Second Life -- there are no citations for these false claims and indeed they are false. Belarus is a homestead simulator which holds only a few chickens.

As for Shava Nerad, she is misrepresenting a story easily checked with the moderators of Libtech -- unless of course they are lying to her in email. I never asked for any post to removed ever -- the mod removed her post in fact because it was so wild. Her notion of "ad hominems" in the tech community are in fact examples of legitimate criticism of people who evidently feel they are beyond criticism. I have never in my life asked for "speech against me to be taken down" unless it has falsehoods, i.e. like the "poultry farming" but I've never asked for anything to be removed from LibTech. It's precisely because I criticized the weaknesses of the Tor project that this founding ED of Tor has taken to vilifying me on social media in the most bizarre ways as I've documented on my blog. Bots take note: I will not be joining, signing, participating in any function of Wikipedia editing as it is a corrupt system. Catfitz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.68.191 (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and hey, by what "just notion" of Wikipedia is the anonymous and unaccountable "Device Unplugged" who has no WikiPedia biography page not having his IP address exposed, but I have mine exposed merely because I refuse to join Wikipedia as an "editor" or "account" in any way, but merely sign my name here which anyone is welcome to check directly with me by Twitter or email. Catfitz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.68.191 (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I found the email of Yosem Companys, moderator of LiberationTech, addressed to both of us, which indicates that *he* moderated her response to my critique of the controversial figure Jacob Appelbaum which in fact remained, as did Appelbaum's reply, but them my reply to his false claims was not let through. Shava objected to my critique of Appelbaum and Tor, and fired off a screed accusing me of having too much cortisol (!), and her response was pulled by the moderator, who sent a reprimand to both of us to make it appear "even handed". E-mail posted here: http://3dblogger.typepad.com/wired_state/2013/03/the-tor-crone-at-it-again.html Now, if you don't like hearing critiques of Tor or Appelbaum from me and think me linking my blog posts in the Talk section is "verboten," then Google it, you will find the same from others. Catfitz96.246.68.191 (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Yosem Campys of LibTech confirms that he does not recall me ever asking for any post about me to be removed. https://twitter.com/LTReplies/status/310888984043720704 In fact, any one who checked all the other "facts" in my much-vandalized entry, inexusably longer than actual scientists and real famous people with multiple commercial or academic publications (!), they'd find they are not true or are distorted. Catfitz 96.246.68.191 (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Standard agitating aside, Cathy makes a reasonable point about the virtual poultry farming references being poor. Would the editors closest to this subject material consider improving them and/or removing the weaker material? Device Unplugged (talk) 11:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup tags

I fear I may have waded into a potential minefield here looking at this page, but after looking at the article and its sources, it's clear to me that this article needs a lot of work. I've started by removing a number of unsourced claims and peacock terms, and tagged claims which need outside sourcing and proof of notability. I'm not 100% convinced of the notability of the article as a whole, however it seems those questions are better answered with a better article. HOT WUK (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Catherine A. Fitzpatrick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928113128/http://www.ilhr.org/ilhr/reports/proxy/index.html to http://www.ilhr.org/ilhr/reports/proxy/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130216225405/http://www.civilsoc.org/info/whoswho.htm to http://www.civilsoc.org/info/whoswho.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Not a blog

Looking at the expansive text above, it appears that somebody thinks this talk page is their personal blog. Can somebody clean it up please? Yevad (talk) 11:17, 28 January 2019 (UTC)