Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

Stalking, an attempt to clarify.

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

barberio at lineone

Jun 11, 2008, 6:44 AM

Post #1 of 9 (402 views)
Permalink

Stalking, an attempt to clarify.

This is an attempt to separate and clarify the subject of Stalking as
applied to Wikipedia.

1) The term "Wikistalking", which has generally referred to following
someone's contributions on wikipedia and then making petty edits or
reverts. This is, I think, a poor choice of word, it's not 'Stalking'
in the threatening sense, and really just an additional avenue of
common place harassment. Rolling so called 'wikistalking' up as a
'subset of stalking' is not useful, and may in-fact be damaging
towards attempts to confront threatening stalking. Perhaps it should
be renamed "Contribution harassment", as it's a pattern of harassment
following someone's contributions. There have been recent issues of
accusations of "Stalking" being misused as an attack in it's self, by
labelling honest attempts to improve articles or review a user's
behaviour as attempts to 'stalk'.

2) It should be important to note, that under US law, notable editors
of Wikipedia may become "limited purpose public figures". This does
mean that, for example, "outing" a notable editor's identity, is not
something they can take action against. The outside world would not,
therefore, consider it 'stalking' behaviour. The existence of
'Harassment Sites' is not something that Wikimedia can realistically
do anything about. Attempts to enforce restrictions on linking to, and
restrictions on editors found to be involved with such sites was
discussed in depth on en.wikipedia, and proposals to enforce these
failed. There is likely still a large issue in the need to offer
anonymity, the need to provide accountability, and the need to prevent
conflicts of interest. However, these issues should not be combined
with 'Stalking'.

3) Threats of harm, ranging from threats of 'beating you up' to 'rape
you and kill you' should and must be handled by the police. It's
beyond the scope of Wikimedia's abilities to do anything about these
threats beyond blocking editors. Problems with getting your local
police force to do something, is also sadly beyond Wikimedia's
abilities. If your local police office refuses to take action on
threats of assault, make a complaint and write to your government
authority.

Generally, the best and most Wikimedia can do are...
* Limit "contribution harassment" on it's projects.
* Enforce policies on civility and threats.
* Refer threats of violence to the authorities.
* Co-operate with the authorities in investigations into harassment
and stalking.
* Provide professional advice and guidance to victims of stalking.

I think that some of the actions that have been taken in the name of
'combating stalking' so far have proved counter productive. The
setting up of a private invitation only "Wikistalking Mailing List"
especially. While well intentioned, has lead to a large amount of
mistrust in that it is seen as a secret administrator cabal. It does
seem to have become an unfortunate knee jerk reaction that the
solution to problems on wikipedia can only be solved by a secret Jimbo
approved cabal.

- John

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

gerard.meijssen at gmail

Jun 11, 2008, 8:13 AM

Post #2 of 9 (390 views)
Permalink

Re: Stalking, an attempt to clarify. [In reply to]

Hoi,
Thank you for your attempt to clarify things. The problem is that you bring
not much clarification for me. The problem is that you assume things to be
true while it is not clear to me at all why you make your assumptions and
also I fail to understand the reasoning behind them.

There are in my opinion several issues at play. The most important one is
that actual stalking, behaviour with real life threads is an observable
phenomena and there are ample indications that the authorities fail to take
these things seriously. When people are REALLY insistent they get the
attention that is required. The notion to leave it all to the authorities
leaves our fellow wikimedians that are threatened in this way isolated and
threatened.

From this thread level down there is behaviour that can be euphemistically
called as problematic. They are the kind of behaviour where people actively
are involved in endangering the reputation of our fellow contributors. Some
indicators are people who have a conflict where one does have any or hardly
any content contributions and another with a rich history of positive
content contributions.

The issue is that there is a continuum from normal behaviour to stalking. We
do not have the experience to deal with this. We need a better understanding
in what triggers someone to move on this scale. With this better
understanding we should be able to more effectively deal with this type of
behaviour.

The notion that the English Wikipedia cannot make up its mind is not
surprising. The question is very much to what extend it matters. It does not
make the problems of the people that are stalked any less. It does not make
the responsibility that we have by ignoring this issue any less real. Denial
and procrastination add to the responsibility that we collectively face.

I would seriously doubt your assumption that under American law Wikipedians
can be assigned a label as "limited purpose public figures". What do you
base this on? Is this the fact that they have had controversies ? Would that
mean that it is exactly the people that have such a sad effect that make
people "limited purpose public figures" ???

Your suggestion though well intended, do not make any difference. It seems
to me to be a regurgitations of what has been sad before. In my opinion
calling the mailing list that deals with "wiki stalking" a cabal is a knee
jerk reaction. Why do people not understand that there is a need for mutual
advice and solace? I am not part of this "cabal" and there is no need for me
to be on this list to have an opinion, to inform me and to tell about what I
have learned even to express the opinion that this is more serious then how
it is generally appreciated.

I seriously think that we need help in dealing with this in a way that does
justice to the suffering that is caused and the effect it has on us all. Not
only victims need help, we all have to deal with the people that suffer from
stalking and the people that stalk or may stalk in the future. Learning to
recognise the signals of this type of unhealthy behaviour is what we need.

Thanks,
GerardM

On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 3:44 PM, John Barberio <barberio[at]lineone.net> wrote:

> This is an attempt to separate and clarify the subject of Stalking as
> applied to Wikipedia.
>
> 1) The term "Wikistalking", which has generally referred to following
> someone's contributions on wikipedia and then making petty edits or
> reverts. This is, I think, a poor choice of word, it's not 'Stalking'
> in the threatening sense, and really just an additional avenue of
> common place harassment. Rolling so called 'wikistalking' up as a
> 'subset of stalking' is not useful, and may in-fact be damaging
> towards attempts to confront threatening stalking. Perhaps it should
> be renamed "Contribution harassment", as it's a pattern of harassment
> following someone's contributions. There have been recent issues of
> accusations of "Stalking" being misused as an attack in it's self, by
> labelling honest attempts to improve articles or review a user's
> behaviour as attempts to 'stalk'.
>
> 2) It should be important to note, that under US law, notable editors
> of Wikipedia may become "limited purpose public figures". This does
> mean that, for example, "outing" a notable editor's identity, is not
> something they can take action against. The outside world would not,
> therefore, consider it 'stalking' behaviour. The existence of
> 'Harassment Sites' is not something that Wikimedia can realistically
> do anything about. Attempts to enforce restrictions on linking to, and
> restrictions on editors found to be involved with such sites was
> discussed in depth on en.wikipedia, and proposals to enforce these
> failed. There is likely still a large issue in the need to offer
> anonymity, the need to provide accountability, and the need to prevent
> conflicts of interest. However, these issues should not be combined
> with 'Stalking'.
>
> 3) Threats of harm, ranging from threats of 'beating you up' to 'rape
> you and kill you' should and must be handled by the police. It's
> beyond the scope of Wikimedia's abilities to do anything about these
> threats beyond blocking editors. Problems with getting your local
> police force to do something, is also sadly beyond Wikimedia's
> abilities. If your local police office refuses to take action on
> threats of assault, make a complaint and write to your government
> authority.
>
> Generally, the best and most Wikimedia can do are...
> * Limit "contribution harassment" on it's projects.
> * Enforce policies on civility and threats.
> * Refer threats of violence to the authorities.
> * Co-operate with the authorities in investigations into harassment
> and stalking.
> * Provide professional advice and guidance to victims of stalking.
>
> I think that some of the actions that have been taken in the name of
> 'combating stalking' so far have proved counter productive. The
> setting up of a private invitation only "Wikistalking Mailing List"
> especially. While well intentioned, has lead to a large amount of
> mistrust in that it is seen as a secret administrator cabal. It does
> seem to have become an unfortunate knee jerk reaction that the
> solution to problems on wikipedia can only be solved by a secret Jimbo
> approved cabal.
>
> - John
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

barberio at lineone

Jun 11, 2008, 8:41 AM

Post #3 of 9 (386 views)
Permalink

Stalking, an attempt to clarify. [In reply to]

gerard.meijssen at gmail.com wrote:
> There are in my opinion several issues at play. The most important
> one is
> that actual stalking, behaviour with real life threads is an
> observable
> phenomena and there are ample indications that the authorities fail
> to take
> these things seriously. When people are REALLY insistent they get the
> attention that is required. The notion to leave it all to the
> authorities
> leaves our fellow wikimedians that are threatened in this way
> isolated and
> threatened.

The police and the courts are the authorities to deal with real life
threats. Yes, this means it's up to the police to take things
seriously, and sometimes they don't. Unless you can think of some
other tangible action Wikimedia could possibly take, all they can do
is offer advice and support to victims of stalking, and co-operate
with the authorities in investigation of stalking.

It's hugely important to understand that the Wikimedia foundation has
no ability to take matters into it's own hands to deal with real life
threats. They have no policing powers. At best, they could back people
up when reporting things to the police or making a case for a
restraining order. Wikimedia can neither force the police to take
something seriously, or act as vigilantes and go after the stalkers
themselves.

I think this discussion has detached off into the "The Wiki is it's
own Country" fallacy. The Foundation is not a government, the wikis
are not city states, the 'real world' laws and authorities are still
in primacy. While Stalking and making threats of assault are indeed
problems, it's far beyond the scope of Wikimedia to enforce laws and
remedy's against it. These matters should and must be taken up with
the government authorities of the police and courts. Setting up "Anti-
Stalking Task Forces" and private mailing lists is not only useless,
it's counter productive. Effort should be directed at helping people
with support in contacting the police or getting a court order.

- John

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

gmaxwell at gmail

Jun 11, 2008, 8:54 AM

Post #4 of 9 (384 views)
Permalink

Re: Stalking, an attempt to clarify. [In reply to]

On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 11:41 AM, John Barberio <barberio[at]lineone.net> wrote:
[snip]
> It's hugely important to understand that the Wikimedia foundation has
> no ability to take matters into it's own hands to deal with real life
> threats. They have no policing powers. At best, they could back people
> up when reporting things to the police or making a case for a
> restraining order. Wikimedia can neither force the police to take
> something seriously, or act as vigilantes and go after the stalkers
> themselves.
[snip]

Thank you.

[snip]
> Setting up "Anti-
> Stalking Task Forces" and private mailing lists is not only useless,
> it's counter productive.

Again, Thank you.

> Effort should be directed at helping people
> with support in contacting the police or getting a court order.

...and perhaps advising users how to avoid becoming a target: There
are plenty of active and involved users busily doing both content and
administrative work who manage to touch controversy without becoming
embroiled in it.

An admission that we can each do things to avoid these problems *DOES
NOT* mean that the victim is at fault any more than advice against
walking through the bad part of town at night is a claim that mugging
victims are at fault. .... but at least I feel that if I point out
ways users can avoid these problems the current culture here would
torch me as a victim blamer. We need to get over that. It's time for
Wikipedians to get street smart.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

innocentkiller at gmail

Jun 11, 2008, 10:06 AM

Post #5 of 9 (386 views)
Permalink

Re: Stalking, an attempt to clarify. [In reply to]

On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 11:54 AM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell[at]gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 11:41 AM, John Barberio <barberio[at]lineone.net> wrote:
> [snip]
>> It's hugely important to understand that the Wikimedia foundation has
>> no ability to take matters into it's own hands to deal with real life
>> threats. They have no policing powers. At best, they could back people
>> up when reporting things to the police or making a case for a
>> restraining order. Wikimedia can neither force the police to take
>> something seriously, or act as vigilantes and go after the stalkers
>> themselves.
> [snip]
>
> Thank you.
>
> [snip]
>> Setting up "Anti-
>> Stalking Task Forces" and private mailing lists is not only useless,
>> it's counter productive.
>
> Again, Thank you.
>
>> Effort should be directed at helping people
>> with support in contacting the police or getting a court order.
>
> ...and perhaps advising users how to avoid becoming a target: There
> are plenty of active and involved users busily doing both content and
> administrative work who manage to touch controversy without becoming
> embroiled in it.
>
> An admission that we can each do things to avoid these problems *DOES
> NOT* mean that the victim is at fault any more than advice against
> walking through the bad part of town at night is a claim that mugging
> victims are at fault. .... but at least I feel that if I point out
> ways users can avoid these problems the current culture here would
> torch me as a victim blamer. We need to get over that. It's time for
> Wikipedians to get street smart.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

[snip]
> It's time for
> Wikipedians to get street smart.
[/snip]

That's the single best suggestion I've read on this list in ages.

-Chad

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

phoebe.wiki at gmail

Jun 11, 2008, 1:46 PM

Post #6 of 9 (376 views)
Permalink

Re: Stalking, an attempt to clarify. [In reply to]

On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 8:54 AM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell[at]gmail.com> wrote:

> ...and perhaps advising users how to avoid becoming a target: There
> are plenty of active and involved users busily doing both content and
> administrative work who manage to touch controversy without becoming
> embroiled in it.
>
> An admission that we can each do things to avoid these problems *DOES
> NOT* mean that the victim is at fault any more than advice against
> walking through the bad part of town at night is a claim that mugging
> victims are at fault. .... but at least I feel that if I point out
> ways users can avoid these problems the current culture here would
> torch me as a victim blamer. We need to get over that. It's time for
> Wikipedians to get street smart.

Strongly agreed, with an acknowledgment that everyone's experience is
different, due both to the scope of the project and to the fact that
you never really know what topics or actions are going to attract
someone who is crazy or deeply deluded and unstable or angry. There is
definitely no foolproof advice -- you can be the most street-smart
Wikipedian in the world and you still might, while doing some routine
action, stumble across tinfoil hat guy who takes a sudden interest in
you and wants to visit you at your place of work and post pictures of
your kids on the internet.

It's certainly possible to work for years on Wikipedia and never get
in a serious dispute or be seriously harassed, beyond the occasional
ranty email or talk page message (I've done it). It's also possible to
make about five edits on a controversial article and find yourself in
the middle of a raging argument between two irate IP addresses, both
accusing the other of stalking (I just watched this happen to some
poor newbie on a BLP article).

But there are probably strategies to mitigate the chances of drama and
harassment, and we can give advice for new contributors at the very
least. Things like: if you self identify as female, you might be
harassed for it. If you use your real name, people may well track you
down in real life. If you *don't* use your real name, some people will
see it as a challenge to track you down in real life. If you edit
controversial articles, you're going to have to deal with people who
take it as a personal challenge to shout down opposing views. If you
become an administrator, flame-proof armor is an advisory investment.
And so on and so forth.

Somewhere or other I say an essay page with tips for new contributors
choosing an account name/starting out that had similar pieces of
advice; does anyone know what I'm talking about? It'd be nice to see
if we could gather our collective wisdom on how to avoid harassment as
an established user, as well. Sometimes I think just a serious,
renewed commitment to *really* follow our core principles of civility
and assuming good faith -- and not tolerating dialog that strays from
this -- would help a fair amount with internal problems between
editors; but it's hard to legislate how people speak to one another,
on or off wiki.

-- phoebe

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

wikipedia.kawaii.neko at gmail

Jun 11, 2008, 2:54 PM

Post #7 of 9 (376 views)
Permalink

Re: Stalking, an attempt to clarify. [In reply to]

Okay, I'll illustrate this with an example

Say... For the sake of annoying you for his own pleasure someone decides to
wikistalk you. He can do this by..

... Voting oppose whenever you vote support and vote support when you vote
oppose (very infrequently votes inline with your votes to throw the system
off course)
... Taking a stance against articles you work on. This may include seeking
to delete them, redirectifying them or other methods of effectively removing
your work.
... Interfering with your other contribution such as attempts to dictate
your talk page or user page
... Pursing you to other wikis such as commons, meta, en.wikinews, or some
other wiki that you and your stalker can mutually understand.

Overall the intention of a wikistalker is to harass and annoy.

People are sometimes given medals for such conduct for the basic rationale
of "my enemies enemy is my friend" principle.

- White Cat

On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 6:13 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen[at]gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Thank you for your attempt to clarify things. The problem is that you bring
> not much clarification for me. The problem is that you assume things to be
> true while it is not clear to me at all why you make your assumptions and
> also I fail to understand the reasoning behind them.
>
> There are in my opinion several issues at play. The most important one is
> that actual stalking, behaviour with real life threads is an observable
> phenomena and there are ample indications that the authorities fail to take
> these things seriously. When people are REALLY insistent they get the
> attention that is required. The notion to leave it all to the authorities
> leaves our fellow wikimedians that are threatened in this way isolated and
> threatened.
>
> From this thread level down there is behaviour that can be euphemistically
> called as problematic. They are the kind of behaviour where people actively
> are involved in endangering the reputation of our fellow contributors. Some
> indicators are people who have a conflict where one does have any or hardly
> any content contributions and another with a rich history of positive
> content contributions.
>
> The issue is that there is a continuum from normal behaviour to stalking.
> We
> do not have the experience to deal with this. We need a better
> understanding
> in what triggers someone to move on this scale. With this better
> understanding we should be able to more effectively deal with this type of
> behaviour.
>
> The notion that the English Wikipedia cannot make up its mind is not
> surprising. The question is very much to what extend it matters. It does
> not
> make the problems of the people that are stalked any less. It does not make
> the responsibility that we have by ignoring this issue any less real.
> Denial
> and procrastination add to the responsibility that we collectively face.
>
> I would seriously doubt your assumption that under American law Wikipedians
> can be assigned a label as "limited purpose public figures". What do you
> base this on? Is this the fact that they have had controversies ? Would
> that
> mean that it is exactly the people that have such a sad effect that make
> people "limited purpose public figures" ???
>
> Your suggestion though well intended, do not make any difference. It seems
> to me to be a regurgitations of what has been sad before. In my opinion
> calling the mailing list that deals with "wiki stalking" a cabal is a knee
> jerk reaction. Why do people not understand that there is a need for mutual
> advice and solace? I am not part of this "cabal" and there is no need for
> me
> to be on this list to have an opinion, to inform me and to tell about what
> I
> have learned even to express the opinion that this is more serious then how
> it is generally appreciated.
>
> I seriously think that we need help in dealing with this in a way that does
> justice to the suffering that is caused and the effect it has on us all.
> Not
> only victims need help, we all have to deal with the people that suffer
> from
> stalking and the people that stalk or may stalk in the future. Learning to
> recognise the signals of this type of unhealthy behaviour is what we need.
>
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 3:44 PM, John Barberio <barberio[at]lineone.net>
> wrote:
>
> > This is an attempt to separate and clarify the subject of Stalking as
> > applied to Wikipedia.
> >
> > 1) The term "Wikistalking", which has generally referred to following
> > someone's contributions on wikipedia and then making petty edits or
> > reverts. This is, I think, a poor choice of word, it's not 'Stalking'
> > in the threatening sense, and really just an additional avenue of
> > common place harassment. Rolling so called 'wikistalking' up as a
> > 'subset of stalking' is not useful, and may in-fact be damaging
> > towards attempts to confront threatening stalking. Perhaps it should
> > be renamed "Contribution harassment", as it's a pattern of harassment
> > following someone's contributions. There have been recent issues of
> > accusations of "Stalking" being misused as an attack in it's self, by
> > labelling honest attempts to improve articles or review a user's
> > behaviour as attempts to 'stalk'.
> >
> > 2) It should be important to note, that under US law, notable editors
> > of Wikipedia may become "limited purpose public figures". This does
> > mean that, for example, "outing" a notable editor's identity, is not
> > something they can take action against. The outside world would not,
> > therefore, consider it 'stalking' behaviour. The existence of
> > 'Harassment Sites' is not something that Wikimedia can realistically
> > do anything about. Attempts to enforce restrictions on linking to, and
> > restrictions on editors found to be involved with such sites was
> > discussed in depth on en.wikipedia, and proposals to enforce these
> > failed. There is likely still a large issue in the need to offer
> > anonymity, the need to provide accountability, and the need to prevent
> > conflicts of interest. However, these issues should not be combined
> > with 'Stalking'.
> >
> > 3) Threats of harm, ranging from threats of 'beating you up' to 'rape
> > you and kill you' should and must be handled by the police. It's
> > beyond the scope of Wikimedia's abilities to do anything about these
> > threats beyond blocking editors. Problems with getting your local
> > police force to do something, is also sadly beyond Wikimedia's
> > abilities. If your local police office refuses to take action on
> > threats of assault, make a complaint and write to your government
> > authority.
> >
> > Generally, the best and most Wikimedia can do are...
> > * Limit "contribution harassment" on it's projects.
> > * Enforce policies on civility and threats.
> > * Refer threats of violence to the authorities.
> > * Co-operate with the authorities in investigations into
> harassment
> > and stalking.
> > * Provide professional advice and guidance to victims of stalking.
> >
> > I think that some of the actions that have been taken in the name of
> > 'combating stalking' so far have proved counter productive. The
> > setting up of a private invitation only "Wikistalking Mailing List"
> > especially. While well intentioned, has lead to a large amount of
> > mistrust in that it is seen as a secret administrator cabal. It does
> > seem to have become an unfortunate knee jerk reaction that the
> > solution to problems on wikipedia can only be solved by a secret Jimbo
> > approved cabal.
> >
> > - John
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

gerard.meijssen at gmail

Jun 11, 2008, 4:53 PM

Post #8 of 9 (376 views)
Permalink

Re: Stalking, an attempt to clarify. [In reply to]

Hoi,
What is "this" ??
Thanks,
GerardM

PS I should write threat with a t and not a d..

On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 11:54 PM, White Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko[at]gmail.com>
wrote:

> Okay, I'll illustrate this with an example
>
> Say... For the sake of annoying you for his own pleasure someone decides to
> wikistalk you. He can do this by..
>
> ... Voting oppose whenever you vote support and vote support when you vote
> oppose (very infrequently votes inline with your votes to throw the system
> off course)
> ... Taking a stance against articles you work on. This may include seeking
> to delete them, redirectifying them or other methods of effectively
> removing
> your work.
> ... Interfering with your other contribution such as attempts to dictate
> your talk page or user page
> ... Pursing you to other wikis such as commons, meta, en.wikinews, or some
> other wiki that you and your stalker can mutually understand.
>
> Overall the intention of a wikistalker is to harass and annoy.
>
> People are sometimes given medals for such conduct for the basic rationale
> of "my enemies enemy is my friend" principle.
>
> - White Cat
>
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 6:13 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijssen[at]gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Thank you for your attempt to clarify things. The problem is that you
> bring
> > not much clarification for me. The problem is that you assume things to
> be
> > true while it is not clear to me at all why you make your assumptions and
> > also I fail to understand the reasoning behind them.
> >
> > There are in my opinion several issues at play. The most important one is
> > that actual stalking, behaviour with real life threads is an observable
> > phenomena and there are ample indications that the authorities fail to
> take
> > these things seriously. When people are REALLY insistent they get the
> > attention that is required. The notion to leave it all to the authorities
> > leaves our fellow wikimedians that are threatened in this way isolated
> and
> > threatened.
> >
> > From this thread level down there is behaviour that can be
> euphemistically
> > called as problematic. They are the kind of behaviour where people
> actively
> > are involved in endangering the reputation of our fellow contributors.
> Some
> > indicators are people who have a conflict where one does have any or
> hardly
> > any content contributions and another with a rich history of positive
> > content contributions.
> >
> > The issue is that there is a continuum from normal behaviour to stalking.
> > We
> > do not have the experience to deal with this. We need a better
> > understanding
> > in what triggers someone to move on this scale. With this better
> > understanding we should be able to more effectively deal with this type
> of
> > behaviour.
> >
> > The notion that the English Wikipedia cannot make up its mind is not
> > surprising. The question is very much to what extend it matters. It does
> > not
> > make the problems of the people that are stalked any less. It does not
> make
> > the responsibility that we have by ignoring this issue any less real.
> > Denial
> > and procrastination add to the responsibility that we collectively face.
> >
> > I would seriously doubt your assumption that under American law
> Wikipedians
> > can be assigned a label as "limited purpose public figures". What do you
> > base this on? Is this the fact that they have had controversies ? Would
> > that
> > mean that it is exactly the people that have such a sad effect that make
> > people "limited purpose public figures" ???
> >
> > Your suggestion though well intended, do not make any difference. It
> seems
> > to me to be a regurgitations of what has been sad before. In my opinion
> > calling the mailing list that deals with "wiki stalking" a cabal is a
> knee
> > jerk reaction. Why do people not understand that there is a need for
> mutual
> > advice and solace? I am not part of this "cabal" and there is no need for
> > me
> > to be on this list to have an opinion, to inform me and to tell about
> what
> > I
> > have learned even to express the opinion that this is more serious then
> how
> > it is generally appreciated.
> >
> > I seriously think that we need help in dealing with this in a way that
> does
> > justice to the suffering that is caused and the effect it has on us all.
> > Not
> > only victims need help, we all have to deal with the people that suffer
> > from
> > stalking and the people that stalk or may stalk in the future. Learning
> to
> > recognise the signals of this type of unhealthy behaviour is what we
> need.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 3:44 PM, John Barberio <barberio[at]lineone.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > This is an attempt to separate and clarify the subject of Stalking as
> > > applied to Wikipedia.
> > >
> > > 1) The term "Wikistalking", which has generally referred to following
> > > someone's contributions on wikipedia and then making petty edits or
> > > reverts. This is, I think, a poor choice of word, it's not 'Stalking'
> > > in the threatening sense, and really just an additional avenue of
> > > common place harassment. Rolling so called 'wikistalking' up as a
> > > 'subset of stalking' is not useful, and may in-fact be damaging
> > > towards attempts to confront threatening stalking. Perhaps it should
> > > be renamed "Contribution harassment", as it's a pattern of harassment
> > > following someone's contributions. There have been recent issues of
> > > accusations of "Stalking" being misused as an attack in it's self, by
> > > labelling honest attempts to improve articles or review a user's
> > > behaviour as attempts to 'stalk'.
> > >
> > > 2) It should be important to note, that under US law, notable editors
> > > of Wikipedia may become "limited purpose public figures". This does
> > > mean that, for example, "outing" a notable editor's identity, is not
> > > something they can take action against. The outside world would not,
> > > therefore, consider it 'stalking' behaviour. The existence of
> > > 'Harassment Sites' is not something that Wikimedia can realistically
> > > do anything about. Attempts to enforce restrictions on linking to, and
> > > restrictions on editors found to be involved with such sites was
> > > discussed in depth on en.wikipedia, and proposals to enforce these
> > > failed. There is likely still a large issue in the need to offer
> > > anonymity, the need to provide accountability, and the need to prevent
> > > conflicts of interest. However, these issues should not be combined
> > > with 'Stalking'.
> > >
> > > 3) Threats of harm, ranging from threats of 'beating you up' to 'rape
> > > you and kill you' should and must be handled by the police. It's
> > > beyond the scope of Wikimedia's abilities to do anything about these
> > > threats beyond blocking editors. Problems with getting your local
> > > police force to do something, is also sadly beyond Wikimedia's
> > > abilities. If your local police office refuses to take action on
> > > threats of assault, make a complaint and write to your government
> > > authority.
> > >
> > > Generally, the best and most Wikimedia can do are...
> > > * Limit "contribution harassment" on it's projects.
> > > * Enforce policies on civility and threats.
> > > * Refer threats of violence to the authorities.
> > > * Co-operate with the authorities in investigations into
> > harassment
> > > and stalking.
> > > * Provide professional advice and guidance to victims of
> stalking.
> > >
> > > I think that some of the actions that have been taken in the name of
> > > 'combating stalking' so far have proved counter productive. The
> > > setting up of a private invitation only "Wikistalking Mailing List"
> > > especially. While well intentioned, has lead to a large amount of
> > > mistrust in that it is seen as a secret administrator cabal. It does
> > > seem to have become an unfortunate knee jerk reaction that the
> > > solution to problems on wikipedia can only be solved by a secret Jimbo
> > > approved cabal.
> > >
> > > - John
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

saintonge at telus

Jun 11, 2008, 6:12 PM

Post #9 of 9 (374 views)
Permalink

Re: Stalking, an attempt to clarify. [In reply to]

White Cat wrote:
> Okay, I'll illustrate this with an example
>
> Say... For the sake of annoying you for his own pleasure someone decides to
> wikistalk you. He can do this by..
>
> ... Voting oppose whenever you vote support and vote support when you vote
> oppose (very infrequently votes inline with your votes to throw the system
> off course)
> ... Taking a stance against articles you work on. This may include seeking
> to delete them, redirectifying them or other methods of effectively removing
> your work.
> ... Interfering with your other contribution such as attempts to dictate
> your talk page or user page
> ... Pursing you to other wikis such as commons, meta, en.wikinews, or some
> other wiki that you and your stalker can mutually understand.
>
> Overall the intention of a wikistalker is to harass and annoy.
>
> People are sometimes given medals for such conduct for the basic rationale
> of "my enemies enemy is my friend" principle.
Thank you very much for that contribution.

It precisely makes my point about the need for clear definitions!

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l[at]lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact lists@gossamer-threads.com