Even if you know who it is, even if you know where they are, if they
haven't crossed the line into clearly criminal conduct then getting
law enforcement to stop them may be difficult or impossible. You can
try a restraining order in some cases, or suing them, but that's not
always useful either.
----
Oh, it goes beyond that. Even if the behavior has clearly crossed the line
into criminal conduct then getting law enforcement to stop them is difficult
to impossible. In my lifetime I have stood in front of police officers,
restraining order in hand, and pointed to the precise lines that the perp
(who was standing ten feet away) was violating at that very moment before
the officers' eyes, and the officers refused to take the perp into custody.
That happened not once but repeatedly with different officers. And their
chain of command supported them. I have witnessed police refuse to take a
report for a direct death threat even when a restraining order was already
in place. And after I did get police reports, the police misplaced physical
evidence repeatedly. When I went to court with an armful of physical
evidence, the prosecutor himself showed up at court having left the entire
case file behind on his desk, and cut a sweetheart deal with the defense
attorney while shutting me out. I asked to speak to the prosecutor
repeatedly, but was denied the opportunity until after the judge had already
ruled, at which point the prosecutor told me all my evidence was past
history and might as well be thrown away.
I did get that fellow behind bars, though. And I did some things to make
sure that prosecutor's office never handled another case that sloppily again
(when it changes endorsements in the mayor's race they change their tune).
In short, I'm no noob and I'm no fool. These last few months several people
have been telling me who Gavin de Becker is, as if I hadn't already read
"The Gift of Fear" years before I joined Wikipedia. I don't entirely agree
with Mr. de Becker. I see where he's coming from, but he and I have
philosophical differences. I also think Wikipedia is different enough from
the world of his usual clients that his approach requires modification.
-Durova
--
http://durova.blogspot.com/
SlimVirgin writes:
> I believe the Foundation has hired the stalking expert Gavin de Becker
> to advise them on this issue. Can someone from the Foundation report
> on what kinds of things he has helped with so far?
We consulted Gavin de Becker's firm primarily to develop security
measures and routines relating to our new office space. Their mission
was to help us avoid physical security problems, not cyberstalking or
online security problems. They've made some recommendations for us
that mostly don't have to do with how the projects are operated, but
instead are centered on physical security measures at our office, plus
appropriate procedures for handling (or avoiding handling) difficult
physical encounters.
--Mike
per request
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Herby <herbythyme(a)fmail.co.uk>
Date: Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 10:00 AM
Subject: Fwd: Re: [Wikimediameta-l] [Foundation-l] Wikimedia mouvement
To: foundation-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
My posting bounced to the foundation one - for completeness of the
thread it possible should be sent
Thanks
Herby
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 08:53:18 +0100, "Herby" <herbythyme(a)fmail.co.uk>
said:
> On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 09:36:03 +0200, "Guillaume Paumier"
> <guillom.pom(a)gmail.com> said:
> > Hello,
> >
> > [CCing to wikimediameta-l]
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 8:06 AM, Florence Devouard <Anthere9(a)yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Given that I was the one who originally suggested that it would be a
> > > good idea to open wmf editing thanks to flaggued revisions, I am not
> > > going to say it is a bad idea.
> > >
> > > However, considering wmf site as the official hosting of information
> > > regarding all of our organization would be a huge mistake.
> > >
> > > WMF needs to control its editorial content as it is a corporate website.
> >
> > I concur ; wikimediafoundation.org is the website of the Foundation,
> > and that's all.
> >
> > > Could this be hosted on meta ?
> > >
> > > Yes, certainly. At least for a while.
> > > But again, the role of that new site would be different from the role of
> > > meta and this might enter in conflict, in particular with regards to the
> > > main page.
> >
> > In my opinion, meta-wiki already is the wiki of the wikimedia movement
> > / community / <insert your preferred word here> ; it's the wiki where
> > people from various Wikimedia communities, chapters, and foundation
> > all gather.
> >
> > Wikimedia projets tend to have two main pages : one main page for
> > content (e.g. [[Main Page]]) and one main page for the community (e.g.
> > [[Project:Community portal]]). We could use this system on meta to
> > have two landing pages, one for PR and one for internal stuff (just
> > like on other Wikimedia projects).
> >
> > I agree that meta tends to be a mess and it should be cleaned up. It's
> > not a new idea (see
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:MetaProject_to_Overhaul_Meta ) but
> > the project was abandoned. Some months ago I was thinking about
> > creating a new namespace (say Historical:) to archive all the old
> > stuff and clean up the wiki a bit.
> >
> > In a word, we shouldn't open a brand new community wiki just because
> > we're too lazy to clean up the one we've already got for years.
> >
> > --
> > Guillaume Paumier
> > [[m:User:guillom]]
> > "Scribitur ad narrandum, non ad probandum." Quintilian
> >
>
> I certainly agree with much of what Guillaume says here.
>
> The idea of the new namespace (& I agree Historical:) would be very good
> indeed. Most new people to Meta find rather strange pages which they
> tag for deletion only to be told that they are "historical" - I may have
> been one of them :).
>
> A problem with Meta is that quite a few people find it, some edit a bit
> but few stay & work there. I know we all have limited time and have to
> decide where we can best/most rewardingly allocate it however Meta
> really could do with less visitors & more workers. I do not see how
> creating what appears to be a new meta (in the true sense of the word)
> site is going to help. Those who deal with meta aspects will then move
> or whatever & Meta as a whole could be tagged as "historical"?
>
> If I can I would certainly help with a clear up of Meta - most of my
> time there has been devoted to the blacklist & we now finally have
> rather more people committed to that than in the past. It would be good
> if this topic continued to be posted to the Meta list as well as
> foundation for the benefit of those of us who are not currently
> subscribers to foundation.
>
> Thanks
> --
> Herby
> herbythyme(a)fmail.co.uk
>
> --
> http://www.fastmail.fm - Same, same, but different…
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimediameta-l mailing list
> Wikimediameta-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediameta-l
--
Herby
herbythyme(a)fmail.co.uk
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - Or how I learned to stop worrying and
love email again
--
Michael Bimmler
mbimmler(a)gmail.com
Hello.
Well, I tried, I really did. I read the wikipedia entries. In English
*and* in French. But I still don't understand the Schulze method. I
mean, I kind of understand that it's good (TM) and that it probably
will end up choosing the best person for the position. But I don't
understand the implications of what I vote and how I vote for some
things.
I am hoping that someone can make this clearer to me.
So here are my questions:
The explanation says (and I quote): "You may give the same preference
to more than one candidate and may keep candidates unranked. It is
presumed that you prefer all ranked candidates to all not ranked
candidates and that you are indifferent between all not ranked
candidates."
#Question 1
Does "you may give the same preference to more than one candidate"
mean that I can rank three candidates with rank 1, three with rank 2 ,
one with rank 3 and five with rank 4 (and so forth)?
#Question 2
Can I actually rank one candidate with rank 1, three candidates with
rank 2 and 5 candidates with rank 15? That is, does the rank (1, 2, 3
etc.) actually matter in the overall results, or is rank always
relative? (ie. If I rank 2 people with rank 1 and 10 with rank 15, the
10 will be counted as being my second choice, not as being "of rank
15")
#Question 3
What's the best way to go about making sure that a candidate is ranked
as low as possible? Rank them at the lowest possible rank (this will
of course depend on answers to question 2)? Or not rank them at all?
I am not sure that my questions are clear. I hope so :-)
Thank you for your help.
Delphine
--
~notafish
NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. For Wikimedia
related correspondence, use my dmenard(at)wikimedia(point)org address.
http://blog.notanendive.org
Some time ago I proposed that policy [1] at Meta and announced at
foundation-l. I was thinking that foundaiton-l announcing is enough.
This morning (in my time zone) we had discussion with one en.wp admin
who really doesn't like this idea. There is six days more for
discussion (before voting), but it seems that Wikimedians from en.wp
are not introduced well in this issue; which means that it is possible
that we will need more time for discussion.
So, please, go to mentioned page at meta and its talk page and
discuss. Some Wikipedians started talk about en.wp local policy which
is in relation with global permissions [2]. So, you should go there
and discuss, too.
The main issue regarding AVFs is that they would have rights
technically (like stewards have), but they would not be allowed to use
them if it is not according to the local policy. Every AVF who doesn't
follow those rules would lose their rights immediately. And you are
making your local policy. Please read both policy proposals carefully.
(Email is CC'd to foundaiton-l for keeping people there up to date.)
[1] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Anti-vandal_fighter
[2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Global_rights_usage
i think this one thing..
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kim Bruning <kim(a)bruning.xs4all.nl>
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 13:13:47 +0200
Subject: [Foundation-l] Global sysop? Re: Global policy proposal:
Anti-vandal fighters (for en.wp list)
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Don't you mean Global sysop?
read you soon,
Kim Bruning
--
[Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment]
gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key FEF9DD72
5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A 01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I think greg was attacking "drama hounds"
----- Original Message ----
From: Dan Rosenthal <swatjester(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 8, 2008 10:48:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Stalking Article
I have to agree with both Gerard and Greg. While there isn't much that
the WMF can do to actively and immediately stop stalking, we can take
measures to make it less palatable to stalkers. The threat of
foundation-wide bans for stalkers discourages some (and any reduction
is a good one). The foundation can make a strong public statement
against stalking. We certainly won't be able to completely stop it, or
stop it immediately; but to stand by and do nothing while good
contributors are being threatened, harassed, driven from the project,
and having their lives put into shambles is unacceptable customer
service in my book.
-Dan
On Jun 9, 2008, at 1:40 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> I think you should take a closer look.. It is way beyond a pissing
> contest.
> Belittling it as "people taking it way to serious" negates the real
> chilling
> effect it has.
>
> There are good people, some of the very best in my book, that are
> leaving
> and have left our projects because they feel threatened, because
> they do not
> want to be the next road kill, the next statistic. If anything, once
> people
> start leaving our project because of stalkers, when you can force
> your way
> by this type of behaviour, there is no longer a NPOV Wikipedia.
>
> When you suggest that it is part of a tit for tat game, you may be
> right but
> it does not matter. This type of behaviour is not acceptable and the
> most
> important part that we can to address it is to deal with it in a
> professional way. This means serious attention of the issues from
> within our
> organisation and it may include contacting the appropriate police
> organisation and following up / monitoring the further evolution of
> this
> behaviour.
>
> Suggesting murder, rape, the disfigurement with sulphuric acid is not
> acceptable either on wiki or off wiki. It is not only a threat to
> the person
> involved, it is a threat to us all. This is not a figure of speech,
> this is
> not freedom of expression, this is the stuff where we have to defend
> *our *freedom
> of expression. My and your freedom is limited by where the freedom of
> someone else starts and so is the freedom of the hoodlums who behave
> in this
> way.
>
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 7:19 AM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 11:54 PM, Geoffrey Plourde
>> <geo.plrd(a)yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> RickK left because his family was threatened.
>>
>> Not to belittle your concern about Cyberstalking... but ... RickK
>> 'left' after being blocked for 3RR in a dispute with SPUI of all
>> people. (A tangent, I know but I've found that uncorrected
>> statements
>> have a terrible tendency of becoming 'the truth'. ... )
>>
>> At the end of the day no one on Wikipedia or at Wikimedia is
>> empowered
>> to stop real staking (can we drop the 'cyber'? It makes it sound like
>> a video game. If you're being stalked does it matter how it got
>> started?)... Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vigilante posse, not
>> law enforcement.
>>
>> Stalking which is serious and real.. rather than an extended online
>> pissing match... stuff that endangers people can't be improved by
>> anointing a few more users as holy emperors of the Wiki. Take a look
>> at DavidShankbone's comments on Digg: David's a nice guy and I
>> have a
>> lot of sympathy for what he's gone through... But he writes: "The
>> Wikimedia Foundation needs to publicly support the creation of a
>> group
>> of Wikipedia volunteers who have the authority to define harassment
>> and stalking and take action against it. They will advise the
>> Stewards
>> of cases that require a full block across all projects of an IP
>> range." ... Now seriously, if your problems can be actually
>> resolved
>> by smacking the enemy with a ZOMG WMF WIDE BAN, thats not stalking...
>> it's an internet pissing match between people who are taking
>> Wikipedia
>> far too seriously.
>>
>> Is it a problem that so many good contributors have a problem
>> avoiding
>> Internet Drama? Sure... But to call random internet drama stalking
>> is akin to yelling "rape" every time you get some unwanted
>> flirtation.
>> Overuse of the a serious word diminishes its importance and makes it
>> insufficiently expressive when we really need it.
>>
>> In fairness, there are a lot of people on English Wikipedia who have
>> been stalked, attacked, and otherwise mistreated in serious ways.
>> Yet,
>> many of those people have also been among those calling for more
>> impressive ban hammers. I don't think that just because someone is
>> asking for an internet-drama solution doesn't mean they don't haven't
>> been harmed in a serious way.
>>
>> But the ZOMG WMF WIDE BAN can't actually solve their real problems...
>> but the real stalking is always intermixed with regular Internet
>> drama, so I guess that internet drama solutions are what get called
>> for because actually addressing the stalking is much harder, if not
>> sometimes impossible, and perhaps when you're looking for revenge
>> you'll take what you can get... ::shrugs:: I can only guess.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/
>> foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
So would this be a sort of global Esperanza that has a purpose?
----- Original Message ----
From: Florence Devouard <Anthere9(a)yahoo.com>
To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Sunday, June 8, 2008 9:57:05 AM
Subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia mouvement
I posted a proposition regarding the Wikimedia Mouvement here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Www.wikimedia.org_template
The general idea is to create a website which would report on our global
mouvement. Main benefits would be
* to present ourselves as a loose but nevertheless coordinated body of
some sort (public face)
* share practices and experiences between chapters and wmf
Situation right now is not satisfactory and I believe it likely to
create either more tension or more separation in the future. Generally,
information regarding wikimedia mouvement is hosted on
* internalwiki (private wiki shared between some chapters members and wmf),
* on meta (access to information is very confusing since it is mostly a
work-wiki and a wiki shared by many),
* on Foundationwiki (eg
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_room/Media_Contact_2008)
* on each association website (eg http://wikimedia.de/)
Can we discuss that ? If you are supportive, please mention it on the
wiki page
Thanks
Ant
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
hi,
at the chapters meeting in nijmegen we disucussed communication
problems within the chapters. what do you think about:
* creating a mailing list for all chapter board members
* or open up internal mailing list to include all chapter board members
to better exchange information?
rupert.
Hi all,
although not such a huge mile stone, it is nice to mention that
nlwikipedia is working relatively hard on spoken articles. It has
currently 735 spoken articles, which is more then enwiki with 728!
Finally, we've beaten them with something ;-) Just to let you know :)
Best regards,
Lodewijk