the nice thing about law is that there a far behind with the cyberstuf.
i went to the police. you may threat a person if you put it in a quistion. the did not en anything.
but if the mail function is used. is it than on wiki or off wiki?
huib
2008/6/10, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com:
Off wiki stalking is one thing e have limited control over. It is very easy to manupilate the inner workings with an external site to destroy any person you dislike - or at least so it appears on my screen. People should not care much about these sites.
On-wiki stalking is something we have actual control but we hardly even try to do something about it.
- White Cat
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 2:03 AM, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 5:41 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
You're preaching to the choir here with me Sarah. I fully support that principle being applied, and not ignored. I was just pointing out that there's a policy based reason that allows us to say "You know what, lets quit blathering about this and do something about it", if we can grab our collective balls and do it.
-Dan
Dan, I feel we've almost left it too late. We currently have a situation where several of those involved in some of the stalking sites have been promoted to admins, and many more are regular editors who routinely pursue editors they don't like -- via wikistalking, RfCs, RfArs, and reports on AN/I -- in order to make their time on Wikipedia miserable. Shortly after people were shocked that NewYorkBrad was outed and left the project, one of the three people who was instrumental in trying to out me in 2006 was promoted to bureaucrat on another WMF project, with the support of FloNight of the ArbCom. What kind of message does that send?
Good editors are leaving because of this kind of thing. It's one thing not to be actively supported by the Foundation, but it's a real kick in the teeth when we see members of the ArbCom support any of these people, and board members (I'm thinking here of Erik when he was on the board) remove their sites from the spam blacklist.
It seems that people have short memories if they haven't been targeted themselves.
Sarah
On Jun 9, 2008, at 4:46 PM, SlimVirgin wrote:
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
I believe on English Wikipedia we have an arbitration finding to that effect (MONGO 1), that says that we should support victims of harassment (which stalking certainly qualifies as).
-Dan
We do have that ruling, but it's consistently ignored, including by ArbCom members. We allow people to use Wikipedia (posts to articles, to talk pages, to AN/I, RfCs, and RfArs) to harass others; and then we allow the harassment to be discussed; and then the discussions are discussed, all of which creates more harassment for the target -- which is often the intent. It's a situation that has been going on for a couple of years and is only getting worse; it's the reason the cyberstalking list was started, but despite a lot of talk, there has been no fundamental change. The bottom line is that we have to stop giving people who have engaged in harassment a platform in the name of free speech and AGF.
Sarah
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SlimVirgin
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l