Would this be a issue for a Wikicouncil or a specialized working group?
----- Original Message ---- From: Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, June 9, 2008 4:27:44 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Stalking Article
Hoi, It would be one of the issues for a project / volunteer council.. Having a platform to get these issues trashed out makes sense. Having the Foundation involved can be a bad idea on many levels. However, not addressing this is bad in and of itself.
Sure the projects are not monolithic, and there has been many examples of people who did not do too good on one project to be perfectly at home in another project. When stalking is perpetrated by admins, when the policies are clear how stalking can be dealt with, make sure that these admins get blocked first and de-adminned second.. Not doing this is giving in to the dark side.
What I would like to know from people like Mike, Erik or Sue is what room they have to get involved in this issue. When this is better understood, it gives a clue to those opposed to stalkers what more and what else needs to be done.
Thanks, GerardM
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 1:12 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
SlimVirgin wrote:
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?
The message it sends is that projects are not administrated as a monolith, and rules vary from project to project while generally not taking into account the history of a user on other projects. You've mentioned "other project" actions several times - perhaps the next stage to approach would be developing a way to handle these serious conduct issues in a cross-wiki way. What I think the Foundation has been trying to stay away from is getting deeply involved in the user administration aspects of operating Wikimedia projects. There are various good reasons for this, reasons that make attempting other mechanisms worthwhile before involving the WMF directly.
Nathan _______________________________________________ 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
Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
Would this be a issue for a Wikicouncil or a specialized working group?
This would require a lot more experience in this kind of thing than is available in a Wikicouncil. Jumping into the middle of such a difficult and contentious problem would do little to build the Wikicouncil credibility. In due course I could see it recommending rules to deal with this, but we just aren't there yet.
Ec
hello,
i can only speak for the dutch wiki that is the only place where i am confrontid with it. the local policy is very bad. if someone attack me and keep doing that i have to proof he now's i don't like that.
maybe is a global policy a idea? and that a person also lose his rights at al wiki's (global block)
greatzz, huib nl:gebruiker:sterkebak
2008/6/10, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
Would this be a issue for a Wikicouncil or a specialized working group?
This would require a lot more experience in this kind of thing than is available in a Wikicouncil. Jumping into the middle of such a difficult and contentious problem would do little to build the Wikicouncil credibility. In due course I could see it recommending rules to deal with this, but we just aren't there yet.
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, There is no Wikicouncil so it is a non-issue. When a wiki council is not willing or able to consider the issues as they present themselves, what good would it do ?
It would also hardly be the only thing a wiki council would involve itself in. It is exactly when a Wiki council is seen to take on the issues that have been neglected in the past that it would build the authority it needs to function. Thanks, GerardM
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:12 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
Would this be a issue for a Wikicouncil or a specialized working group?
This would require a lot more experience in this kind of thing than is available in a Wikicouncil. Jumping into the middle of such a difficult and contentious problem would do little to build the Wikicouncil credibility. In due course I could see it recommending rules to deal with this, but we just aren't there yet.
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
gerard,
i have write a article on the dutch wiki with the name church of satan. and some other articles with satanism.
the article and my userpage where almost every day the target of vandals. i had to disable my emailfunction for people hoe make a account send a threat. en never work on the wiki again. i scared the most of two death threat via de dutch otrs.
so i don't now where you are talking about? if you don't like me in this discussion i will stop.
greatzz
huib
2008/6/10, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, There is no Wikicouncil so it is a non-issue. When a wiki council is not willing or able to consider the issues as they present themselves, what good would it do ?
It would also hardly be the only thing a wiki council would involve itself in. It is exactly when a Wiki council is seen to take on the issues that have been neglected in the past that it would build the authority it needs to function. Thanks, GerardM
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:12 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
Would this be a issue for a Wikicouncil or a specialized working group?
This would require a lot more experience in this kind of thing than is available in a Wikicouncil. Jumping into the middle of such a difficult and contentious problem would do little to build the Wikicouncil credibility. In due course I could see it recommending rules to deal with this, but we just aren't there yet.
Ec
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
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, There is no Wikicouncil so it is a non-issue. When a wiki council is not willing or able to consider the issues as they present themselves, what good would it do ?
It would also hardly be the only thing a wiki council would involve itself in. It is exactly when a Wiki council is seen to take on the issues that have been neglected in the past that it would build the authority it needs to function.
Taking on neglected issues does not mean suicidally jumping into every problem that people have previously been unable or unwilling to tackle. Building authority does not equate to building a reputation of being authoritarian.
Ec
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:12 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote
Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
Would this be a issue for a Wikicouncil or a specialized working group?
This would require a lot more experience in this kind of thing than is available in a Wikicouncil. Jumping into the middle of such a difficult and contentious problem would do little to build the Wikicouncil credibility. In due course I could see it recommending rules to deal with this, but we just aren't there yet.
Ec
Many, many people who "stalk" do not do so with any intention of meeting you in real life. Their aim is to make you leave the project, or in their "wet dream scenario", have a stress-related mental breakdown and become irrational.
I know this, but not from trolls on-wiki. I spent weeks in hospital because I became so paranoid that I thought people were following me everywhere. What prompted this was dealing with my current partner's divorce case. Her estranged husband was unable to locate where I was, but was able to make sure I found out he had managed to obtain a firearm. As rumour and innuendo, the local police did not take this seriously and I started seeing shadows everywhere. When I got really irrational, my partner was able to convince me that the ambulance crew that had arrived were, "the angels come to save me". I spent six weeks in hospital; I'm lucky I'm in Belgium, for people in the U.S. an experience like that could be financially crippling.
Most of the people commenting on this issue have not experienced anything like this, or are significantly more stress-resistant than myself. The same is most definitely not true for all people. Call us "delicate" if you like, but do not dismiss this as an inability to deal with trolling. I've fought my corner on Usenet and issued serious flammage, I'd actually recommend anyone who wants to learn how to deal with online communication spend some time using the medium. To be honest, one of my pet peeves with Wikipedia is there isn't enough "nuke 'em till they glow" with unrepentant trolls and the like.
So, I'm all for some measures to size up and deal with on-wiki harassment and stalking. I don't know what is needed, but threats to out, outings, and indications of the possibility of a physical confrontation are unacceptable.
Brian McNeil
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Ray Saintonge Sent: 10 June 2008 20:17 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Stalking Article
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, There is no Wikicouncil so it is a non-issue. When a wiki council is not willing or able to consider the issues as they present themselves, what
good
would it do ?
It would also hardly be the only thing a wiki council would involve itself in. It is exactly when a Wiki council is seen to take on the issues that have been neglected in the past that it would build the authority it needs to function.
Taking on neglected issues does not mean suicidally jumping into every problem that people have previously been unable or unwilling to tackle. Building authority does not equate to building a reputation of being authoritarian.
Ec
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:12 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote
Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
Would this be a issue for a Wikicouncil or a specialized working group?
This would require a lot more experience in this kind of thing than is available in a Wikicouncil. Jumping into the middle of such a difficult and contentious problem would do little to build the Wikicouncil credibility. In due course I could see it recommending rules to deal with this, but we just aren't there yet.
Ec
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Brian McNeil wrote:
Most of the people commenting on this issue have not experienced anything like this, or are significantly more stress-resistant than myself. The same is most definitely not true for all people. Call us "delicate" if you like,
First, I'm not calling you delicate.
However, this is a situation where, if all I say is "poor you" and *hug*, then I will be viewed as sympathetic, but if I start to analyze the problem and ask questions, then I will be perceived as cold-hearted and doubting your personal story and whatever. Trying to *solve* a problem like this is very unrewarding. It's a lot easier to utter empty phrases. So, are we here to utter empty phrases, or are we here to seek a solution to the problem?
When it is said that the Foundation has to act, this implies that no-one else can act, and absolutely nothing else can be done against the problem. I refuse to believe that this is true. A troll who just wants to stall the finding of a solution could in fact say exactly that. In everything we do, the Foundation is going to be a bottleneck with limited resources. Every salaried hour, we need to cover with more donations. It doesn't scale.
So, I'm all for some measures to size up and deal with on-wiki harassment and stalking. I don't know what is needed,
So apparently we need to get some idea of what can be done, not only centrally by the Foundation but by the local community, such as the language community or national chapter. There has to be some "expert" or current best practices on how to deal with stalking (not just an expert on how to stalk) out there, that we can verify through sources.
In addition to dealing with stalking, we also need a way to determine what is stalking and what is a false alarm or trolling. This is not because Brian's or David Shankbone's stories are false, but because false stories could have sounded exactly the same. How do we tell the difference? The anonymity culture of Wikipedia means a completely anonymous username can claim to have been stalked and still refuse to reveal their identity to anybody. I just don't know how such a case can be handled.
Hoi, Lars you are absolutely right when you state that the WMF has limited resources. It is exactly for this reason that I have repeatedly asked if and to what extend the WMF is able and willing to play a part. Not asking this question, not allowing for a reasonable period of time for any type of response is in my opinion counter productive as in my opinion some of the best responses of verified cases of stalking will involve speaking for the WMF or a chapter when talking to authorities.
When I say "verified" cases, I mean a group of people that can be trusted with these type of issues who have been learned sufficient to acknowledge the seriousness of a particular case. In order to be trusted, some qualifications need to be met. Being able to keep confidences is one. Having experience with such issues either by schooling or experience is an important factor.
I agree with you that we have to get a set of best practices. Given how stalking is currently dealt with, there are no best practices yet. And I am not sure that we have strategy that is even near to optimal. I think we have to struggle with the issues as they occur and we need to learn from wherever we can. I would not be surprised if some of the measures that have the most effect are counter intuitive.. This is exactly why we need expert help to get our best practices. Thanks, GerardM
YES we need to be really analytical, we need to observe well, and we need to learn from experience.. we need to learn this as a community, not only as individuals. All this is really hard to do
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 12:21 AM, Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se wrote:
Brian McNeil wrote:
Most of the people commenting on this issue have not experienced anything like this, or are significantly more stress-resistant than myself. The same is most definitely not true for all people. Call us "delicate" if you like,
First, I'm not calling you delicate.
However, this is a situation where, if all I say is "poor you" and *hug*, then I will be viewed as sympathetic, but if I start to analyze the problem and ask questions, then I will be perceived as cold-hearted and doubting your personal story and whatever. Trying to *solve* a problem like this is very unrewarding. It's a lot easier to utter empty phrases. So, are we here to utter empty phrases, or are we here to seek a solution to the problem?
When it is said that the Foundation has to act, this implies that no-one else can act, and absolutely nothing else can be done against the problem. I refuse to believe that this is true. A troll who just wants to stall the finding of a solution could in fact say exactly that. In everything we do, the Foundation is going to be a bottleneck with limited resources. Every salaried hour, we need to cover with more donations. It doesn't scale.
So, I'm all for some measures to size up and deal with on-wiki harassment and stalking. I don't know what is needed,
So apparently we need to get some idea of what can be done, not only centrally by the Foundation but by the local community, such as the language community or national chapter. There has to be some "expert" or current best practices on how to deal with stalking (not just an expert on how to stalk) out there, that we can verify through sources.
In addition to dealing with stalking, we also need a way to determine what is stalking and what is a false alarm or trolling. This is not because Brian's or David Shankbone's stories are false, but because false stories could have sounded exactly the same. How do we tell the difference? The anonymity culture of Wikipedia means a completely anonymous username can claim to have been stalked and still refuse to reveal their identity to anybody. I just don't know how such a case can be handled.
-- Lars Aronsson (lars@aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
With all due respect to its participants, I think this discussion has reached a plateau of usefulness. We've established that there are varying uses of the word "stalking" with similarly varying definitions. We've established what serious stalking looks like, and the effects it can have on our editors and our community. We've established that we are not dealing with this problem effectively, because of limitations in what we can with the tools available to us. The Foundation has been asked what resources it can lend to assist in this area - perhaps silence is the answer we can expect for the moment.
In order to prevent the traditional devolution of Foundation-l discussions into irrelevancies, the next step ought to be concrete suggestions regarding what we can actually do (if anything). If the Foundation can't establish procedures for handling serious events of stalking, can the community do so in its stead? What would these procedures look like? Is there enough community experience and interest for a Wikimedia Stalking Action Group? Clearly the dispersed and disorganized attempts to deal with stalking in the past have been inadequate - can that be overcome with increased centralisation and organization?
Questions that need to be answered, I think, in order to move this discussion forward.
Nathan
Because I am late to the discussion and the list, I may be stating the obvious. Please forgive me if I am.
1. One useful thing that WMF can do that no individual project can is to provide some kind of authentication for any criminal threat conveyed using any wiki function. That would mean a personal contact (name, e-mail, phone #) for a law-enforcement agency to contact to verify that a person saying they were threatened was actually threatened.
2. If the threat is made on-wiki I believe that WMF has to provide any assistance possible to locate the person making the threat.
3. If the threat is off-wiki WMF ought to be able to provide information useful to connecting the actual criminal threat made to on-wiki behavior, if there is any connection.
4. I am not sure at what point in this last case, WMF would have an obligation to help locate the person making the threat.
5. Finally, it might be nice if WMF could put together a webpage of information, including links, about on-wiki and off-wiki criminality to help any victims or potential victims of criminal behavior or even just those who feel threatened though there is no overt illegal behavior.
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 7:49 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
With all due respect to its participants, I think this discussion has reached a plateau of usefulness. We've established that there are varying uses of the word "stalking" with similarly varying definitions. We've established what serious stalking looks like, and the effects it can have on our editors and our community. We've established that we are not dealing with this problem effectively, because of limitations in what we can with the tools available to us. The Foundation has been asked what resources it can lend to assist in this area - perhaps silence is the answer we can expect for the moment.
In order to prevent the traditional devolution of Foundation-l discussions into irrelevancies, the next step ought to be concrete suggestions regarding what we can actually do (if anything). If the Foundation can't establish procedures for handling serious events of stalking, can the community do so in its stead? What would these procedures look like? Is there enough community experience and interest for a Wikimedia Stalking Action Group? Clearly the dispersed and disorganized attempts to deal with stalking in the past have been inadequate - can that be overcome with increased centralisation and organization?
Questions that need to be answered, I think, in order to move this discussion forward.
Nathan _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 7:49 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
In order to prevent the traditional devolution of Foundation-l discussions into irrelevancies, the next step ought to be concrete suggestions regarding what we can actually do (if anything). If the Foundation can't establish procedures for handling serious events of stalking, can the community do so in its stead?
I don't think the Foundation or the community can do anything directly. Asking the Foundation or the community to stop stalking would be like asking Facebook or Myspace (or their communities) to stop child abuse.
Indirectly, I think there's a catch-22. Wikimedia projects rely on people sitting on their computers for hours upon hours working for free. That attracts weird people.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org