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.
----
Have a look at this report. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/JB196 and the size of these categories http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_JB196
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_JB1...
Not only was the sheer volume of socking a monumental hassle in itself JB196 invented an insidious attack that could be applied to nearly any subject.
1. Create a bunch of socks. 2. Select unreferenced but verifiable articles where the sources are mostly found in dead trees, not online. This makes it slower to provide references. 3. Tag a bunch of articles for lack of verification, simultaneously. 4. While editors are busy referencing some of those articles, delete referenced sections from other articles. 5. Prod the tagged articles that aren't referenced yet. 6. AFD. 7. Wash, rinse, repeat.
One guy can do serious damage to the database that way, just by overwhelming a wikiproject. And since JB196 chose a lowbrow topic to attack, the volunteers there found it difficult to solicit help from anybody else.
JB196 played around for months, years. Good editors quit Wikipedia in frustration because of him.
SirFozzie is the main reason we put the damper on that guy.
SirFozzie went to Wikipedia Review to represent a Wikipedian perspective in their dialog with an aim of building bridges. Obviously, I disagree with his decision because I have never registered there. Yet I respect that as an act of conscience. I also respect SirFozzie's act of conscience when, for several months, he resigned from WR in protest over the Mantanmoreland malware issue.
It's best not to paint with too broad a brush.
-Durova
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com 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,
As you mention below, good admins go to questionable sites sometimes, oft. in order to do good. Are there cases where a current admin is heavily participating in the bad element of a website, assisting in stalking, outing users, etc?
This is the second time in this thread that doubt is being raised about admins/crats, without specifics which is annoying but understandable to a degree; I am concerned.
.... 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.
Have a look at this report. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/JB196
How does this relate to stalking? I don't see it mentioned on that page.
Not only was the sheer volume of socking a monumental hassle in itself JB196 invented an insidious attack that could be applied to nearly any subject.
The same can be said about many editors who make good faith edits to "fix" a perceived problem; the clued up people do this routinely while carefully avoiding appearing to be making a "point".
This is problem editing, and entirely the responsibility of the community.
SirFozzie went to Wikipedia Review to represent a Wikipedian perspective ...
I've only been there a few times, but I can understand people going there - many have the best of intentions.
-- John
Well, first off I'd like to thank Durova for defending me.
Ok, I've worked with SlimVirgin a couple times on issues on WP, most recently I warned a user who made a sarcastic comment about SV on an ANI discussion (for which she thanked me via email). I have no problem with her actions usually.
But I have to speak up. SV is taking a real issue (the one Durova wrote about, and the one that David Shankbone is living through), and twisting it to use as a club on other editors.
Unfortunately, it seems like to me like this is an attempt by SlimVirgin to get at the FOUNDATION level what she can't get at the en-wp level (there is a current Arbitration Committee case going on, involving SlimVirgin and other editors involved in the issues she describes here. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV )
There used to be a similar policy on english Wikipedia to what she wants, it was called BADSITES. It was claimed to be a policy to protect Wikipedia's users and admins from harm. Instead it was used as a club to silence others and to stifle discussion.
As for why Durova defended me, there's another issue on WP that I'm currently involved in (yes, English Wikipedia, more "issues" then a month worth of soap operas!) where I'm accused of opposing editors and being part of a group that is trying to take down WP, simply because I post on WR (usually ridiculing the folks over there who indeed go too far).
Combined with SV's call to de-admin/check user/steward/bureaucrat anyone who participates in a "stalking site", well, let's take two+two and get four here.
If there are individuals who are actually stalking someone, I'm all for bringing the heavy end of the hammer down on them. A friend of mine, an English Wikipedia Admin/Check User (who happens to post on WR herself!) was stalked by a banned user on Wikipedia, and her stalker was subsequently jailed for it (as a parole violation of a previous stalking conviction). (I'd link you to her story on Wikipedia Review, but it's in a member only section). So to say I support stalkers and harassers would be an untruth.
But let's make sure we are dealing with the stalkers and the harassers and them only, and not using too broad a brush here.
David Yellope wrote:
If there are individuals who are actually stalking someone, I'm all for bringing the heavy end of the hammer down on them. A friend of mine, an English Wikipedia Admin/Check User (who happens to post on WR herself!) was stalked by a banned user on Wikipedia, and her stalker was subsequently jailed for it (as a parole violation of a previous stalking conviction). (I'd link you to her story on Wikipedia Review, but it's in a member only section). So to say I support stalkers and harassers would be an untruth.
But let's make sure we are dealing with the stalkers and the harassers and them only, and not using too broad a brush here.
That's the crux of the problem. Most of us do not participate in these dramas so that by the time we get to hear of them there appears to be a presumption of guilt, and an absence of real evidence.
If the stalking behaviour happened on wiki it would be more convincing to have specific links to the precise place where the threats were made. Those that do such things can probably all do it in one or two sentences. They don't require long-winded explanations trying to explain why those couple sentences constitute stalking.
Off-wiki stalking is mostly beyond our control. If you can't even link to the offensive comments what are the rest of us to make of it when you can't provide evidence. My own appreciation of natural justice and fairness does not allow me to simply agree to the facts of an accusation just because someone has made the claim.
If you believe that you have a real case of off-wiki stalking regular law-enforcement and the courts may be your only option.
Ec
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 4:26 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
David Yellope wrote:
If there are individuals who are actually stalking someone, I'm all for bringing the heavy end of the hammer down on them. A friend of mine, an English Wikipedia Admin/Check User (who happens to post on WR herself!)
was
stalked by a banned user on Wikipedia, and her stalker was subsequently jailed for it (as a parole violation of a previous stalking conviction). (I'd link you to her story on Wikipedia Review, but it's in a member only section). So to say I support stalkers and harassers would be an untruth.
But let's make sure we are dealing with the stalkers and the harassers
and
them only, and not using too broad a brush here.
That's the crux of the problem. Most of us do not participate in these dramas so that by the time we get to hear of them there appears to be a presumption of guilt, and an absence of real evidence.
If the stalking behaviour happened on wiki it would be more convincing to have specific links to the precise place where the threats were made. Those that do such things can probably all do it in one or two sentences. They don't require long-winded explanations trying to explain why those couple sentences constitute stalking.
Off-wiki stalking is mostly beyond our control. If you can't even link to the offensive comments what are the rest of us to make of it when you can't provide evidence. My own appreciation of natural justice and fairness does not allow me to simply agree to the facts of an accusation just because someone has made the claim.
If you believe that you have a real case of off-wiki stalking regular law-enforcement and the courts may be your only option.
Ec
Durova's point is that in her case, law enforcement was unable and unwilling to help. Apathetic would be an understatement. Willfully negligent might be even more appropriate. I think her point is that we ought to consider what actions the foundation can take to assist individuals in cases where the courts and law enforcement aren't a recourse.
And I'll verify her statement about the particular stalker on Wikipedia Review and the checkuser he stalked (not that we don't all know who that might be), namely because he's got my personal information too and has threatened me as well.
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 4:26 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
If the stalking behaviour happened on wiki it would be more convincing to have specific links to the precise place where the threats were made. Those that do such things can probably all do it in one or two sentences. They don't require long-winded explanations trying to explain why those couple sentences constitute stalking.
Off-wiki stalking is mostly beyond our control. If you can't even link to the offensive comments what are the rest of us to make of it when you can't provide evidence. My own appreciation of natural justice and fairness does not allow me to simply agree to the facts of an accusation just because someone has made the claim.
Ec
Watch how it escalates when they know they can get away with it.
OTRS Ticket #2008030510018765 in which my stalker threatened to visit the Foundation's offices. In OTRS Ticket #2008022610014614 he threatens to stab OTRS members (directed at me).In OTRS Ticket #2008022510010951 he threatens to hunt members of the foundation down and kill them. He then sent me emails to my direct email, mentioning my address, threatening to tie me to a pole, rape my family in front of my eyes, torture them, slit their throats, pour their blood on me, and then stab me to death. Cheery. The guy has a prior felony conviction for stalking, by the way, and a record of domestic abuse.
Pretending that people like that don't exist and don't harass Wikipedians won't make it go away.
Dan Rosenthal wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 4:26 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote
David Yellope wrote:
If there are individuals who are actually stalking someone, I'm all for bringing the heavy end of the hammer down on them. A friend of mine, an English Wikipedia Admin/Check User (who happens to post on WR herself!) was
stalked by a banned user on Wikipedia, and her stalker was subsequently jailed for it (as a parole violation of a previous stalking conviction). (I'd link you to her story on Wikipedia Review, but it's in a member only section). So to say I support stalkers and harassers would be an untruth.
But let's make sure we are dealing with the stalkers and the harassers and
them only, and not using too broad a brush here.
That's the crux of the problem. Most of us do not participate in these dramas so that by the time we get to hear of them there appears to be a presumption of guilt, and an absence of real evidence.
If the stalking behaviour happened on wiki it would be more convincing to have specific links to the precise place where the threats were made. Those that do such things can probably all do it in one or two sentences. They don't require long-winded explanations trying to explain why those couple sentences constitute stalking.
Off-wiki stalking is mostly beyond our control. If you can't even link to the offensive comments what are the rest of us to make of it when you can't provide evidence. My own appreciation of natural justice and fairness does not allow me to simply agree to the facts of an accusation just because someone has made the claim.
If you believe that you have a real case of off-wiki stalking regular law-enforcement and the courts may be your only option.
Ec
Durova's point is that in her case, law enforcement was unable and unwilling to help. Apathetic would be an understatement. Willfully negligent might be even more appropriate. I think her point is that we ought to consider what actions the foundation can take to assist individuals in cases where the courts and law enforcement aren't a recourse.
Some of them might best be persuaded by having a couple of burly motorcyclists show up for a discrete discussion. ;-)
I agree that the Foundation should probably take a more proactive role in these circumstances, but that has to be measured and well considered. I can't be sure that there are many realistic steps that they can take.It's Most of us are fortunate not to have personal experience with these dangerous individuals. A lot of the speculative solutions that we see on the mailing list or on-wiki are probably not very helpful, and may only further antagonize the stalker.
And I'll verify her statement about the particular stalker on Wikipedia Review and the checkuser he stalked (not that we don't all know who that might be), namely because he's got my personal information too and has threatened me as well.
It's not a question of whether any specific set of events are to be doubted. If the facts are real a case can be pursued. This is just not the ideal environment for solving specific cases.
Ec
Hoi, The idea that all of us have to sit in judgement when someone is accused of stalking is ridiculous. I doubt very much this is what helps to resolve these type of situations.. peck and feathers are of a previous era. When we think that such behaviour of our best and brightest can be left only to the police, then you are not aware of the stories and the difficulties that arise when you have to convince some cop that this is an actual problem.
We have bodies like the arbitration committees that with some regularity handle such cases. When there is merit in going to the police, it is typically the appropriate thing to do. Stating that it is the individual that is to do this, negates the added weight that a Wikimedia Foundation, an Arbitration Committee has in convincing the police of the seriousness of such situations. It is not hard to argue that failing to do this means that victims of stalkers are left out to dry. Thanks, GerardM
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
David Yellope wrote:
If there are individuals who are actually stalking someone, I'm all for bringing the heavy end of the hammer down on them. A friend of mine, an English Wikipedia Admin/Check User (who happens to post on WR herself!)
was
stalked by a banned user on Wikipedia, and her stalker was subsequently jailed for it (as a parole violation of a previous stalking conviction). (I'd link you to her story on Wikipedia Review, but it's in a member only section). So to say I support stalkers and harassers would be an untruth.
But let's make sure we are dealing with the stalkers and the harassers
and
them only, and not using too broad a brush here.
That's the crux of the problem. Most of us do not participate in these dramas so that by the time we get to hear of them there appears to be a presumption of guilt, and an absence of real evidence.
If the stalking behaviour happened on wiki it would be more convincing to have specific links to the precise place where the threats were made. Those that do such things can probably all do it in one or two sentences. They don't require long-winded explanations trying to explain why those couple sentences constitute stalking.
Off-wiki stalking is mostly beyond our control. If you can't even link to the offensive comments what are the rest of us to make of it when you can't provide evidence. My own appreciation of natural justice and fairness does not allow me to simply agree to the facts of an accusation just because someone has made the claim.
If you believe that you have a real case of off-wiki stalking regular law-enforcement and the courts may be your only option.
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
In response to this whole thread, I have two sentiments.
First of all, stalking is bad.
Second of all, we need to be clear about what is stalking and what is not. Making fun of someone is not stalking. Pursuing someone and repeatedly harassing them is.
Mark
On 09/06/2008, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com 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,
As you mention below, good admins go to questionable sites sometimes, oft. in order to do good. Are there cases where a current admin is heavily participating in the bad element of a website, assisting in stalking, outing users, etc?
This is the second time in this thread that doubt is being raised about admins/crats, without specifics which is annoying but understandable to a degree; I am concerned.
.... 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.
Have a look at this report. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/JB196
How does this relate to stalking? I don't see it mentioned on that page.
Not only was the sheer volume of socking a monumental hassle in itself JB196 invented an insidious attack that could be applied to nearly any subject.
The same can be said about many editors who make good faith edits to "fix" a perceived problem; the clued up people do this routinely while carefully avoiding appearing to be making a "point".
This is problem editing, and entirely the responsibility of the community.
SirFozzie went to Wikipedia Review to represent a Wikipedian perspective ...
I've only been there a few times, but I can understand people going there - many have the best of intentions.
-- John
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Mark Williamson wrote:
In response to this whole thread, I have two sentiments.
First of all, stalking is bad.
Second of all, we need to be clear about what is stalking and what is not. Making fun of someone is not stalking. Pursuing someone and repeatedly harassing them is.
Sure, without a clear idea about what the offence really is we are only dealing with subjective interpretations.
Repeated harassment may sometimes be only in the eye of the person who sees himself harassed.
We have recently had one person try to get a bot authorised on every project that he could, and viewed anyone who would go around after him to oppose this as harassment.
Others will view any campaign to oppose all their AfD's as harassment.
Unless we can come to an agreement about what we mean this will get nowhere.
Ec
Ray, We are talking about people who on or off list threaten others to kill, maim and rape. We are talking about people associated with aggressive pov pushing and using any means whatsoever to establish their pov. There have been several examples given of this behaviour by credible people. Suggesting as you do that there is no idea that we are talking about it not where we are at.
When YOU do not know what is being discussed you either read up on it, do some research, talk to people involved or keep out of it. Suggesting that there is no clarity about such issues is exactly the kind of behaviour that makes this situation worse because it leads to more procrastination. What is needed is clarity to what extend the WMF is aware of this situation and what involvement it can have, research is needed about the extend this type of behaviour DOES affect our project and impacts the NPOV of controversial subjects. This research is needed because it will prevent people from ignoring or belittling this issue.
Thanks, GerardM
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 9:29 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
In response to this whole thread, I have two sentiments.
First of all, stalking is bad.
Second of all, we need to be clear about what is stalking and what is not. Making fun of someone is not stalking. Pursuing someone and repeatedly harassing them is.
Sure, without a clear idea about what the offence really is we are only dealing with subjective interpretations.
Repeated harassment may sometimes be only in the eye of the person who sees himself harassed.
We have recently had one person try to get a bot authorised on every project that he could, and viewed anyone who would go around after him to oppose this as harassment.
Others will view any campaign to oppose all their AfD's as harassment.
Unless we can come to an agreement about what we mean this will get nowhere.
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
"We" are talking about people who threaten to maim, kill, and rape? Perhaps YOU are, but some of the people on this thread have brought up examples that seem relatively tame in comparison to what you're suggesting.
Stalking on-wiki is one thing; threats to take it off-wiki and harass somebody in real life are, in my mind, when the line is crossed. Somebody's off-wiki life should never be brought up beyond anything they have personally revealed on-wiki. For example, I have no reason to be mad if somebody posts all over Wikipedia my last name, because I put it on Wikipedia in the first place, but if somebody posts my home address or telephone number, that is unacceptable because that is private information I have never disclosed on-wiki.
Threats of real physical harm are one thing; following somebody around the Wiki and shouting insults at them, while also unacceptable, is on a very different level.
Mark
On 10/06/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Ray, We are talking about people who on or off list threaten others to kill, maim and rape. We are talking about people associated with aggressive pov pushing and using any means whatsoever to establish their pov. There have been several examples given of this behaviour by credible people. Suggesting as you do that there is no idea that we are talking about it not where we are at.
When YOU do not know what is being discussed you either read up on it, do some research, talk to people involved or keep out of it. Suggesting that there is no clarity about such issues is exactly the kind of behaviour that makes this situation worse because it leads to more procrastination. What is needed is clarity to what extend the WMF is aware of this situation and what involvement it can have, research is needed about the extend this type of behaviour DOES affect our project and impacts the NPOV of controversial subjects. This research is needed because it will prevent people from ignoring or belittling this issue.
Thanks, GerardM
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 9:29 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
In response to this whole thread, I have two sentiments.
First of all, stalking is bad.
Second of all, we need to be clear about what is stalking and what is not. Making fun of someone is not stalking. Pursuing someone and repeatedly harassing them is.
Sure, without a clear idea about what the offence really is we are only dealing with subjective interpretations.
Repeated harassment may sometimes be only in the eye of the person who sees himself harassed.
We have recently had one person try to get a bot authorised on every project that he could, and viewed anyone who would go around after him to oppose this as harassment.
Others will view any campaign to oppose all their AfD's as harassment.
Unless we can come to an agreement about what we mean this will get nowhere.
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
Hoi, This is the type of behaviour that is happening.. People have gone to the police in the past, people went to jail as a result. These things do happen and they have driven away some of our finest. It is not that difficult to learn about these things. It is a clear and present danger, Thanks. GerardM
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
"We" are talking about people who threaten to maim, kill, and rape? Perhaps YOU are, but some of the people on this thread have brought up examples that seem relatively tame in comparison to what you're suggesting.
Stalking on-wiki is one thing; threats to take it off-wiki and harass somebody in real life are, in my mind, when the line is crossed. Somebody's off-wiki life should never be brought up beyond anything they have personally revealed on-wiki. For example, I have no reason to be mad if somebody posts all over Wikipedia my last name, because I put it on Wikipedia in the first place, but if somebody posts my home address or telephone number, that is unacceptable because that is private information I have never disclosed on-wiki.
Threats of real physical harm are one thing; following somebody around the Wiki and shouting insults at them, while also unacceptable, is on a very different level.
Mark
On 10/06/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Ray, We are talking about people who on or off list threaten others to kill,
maim
and rape. We are talking about people associated with aggressive pov
pushing
and using any means whatsoever to establish their pov. There have been several examples given of this behaviour by credible people. Suggesting
as
you do that there is no idea that we are talking about it not where we
are
at.
When YOU do not know what is being discussed you either read up on it, do some research, talk to people involved or keep out of it. Suggesting that there is no clarity about such issues is exactly the kind of behaviour
that
makes this situation worse because it leads to more procrastination. What
is
needed is clarity to what extend the WMF is aware of this situation and
what
involvement it can have, research is needed about the extend this type of behaviour DOES affect our project and impacts the NPOV of controversial subjects. This research is needed because it will prevent people from ignoring or belittling this issue.
Thanks, GerardM
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 9:29 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net
wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
In response to this whole thread, I have two sentiments.
First of all, stalking is bad.
Second of all, we need to be clear about what is stalking and what is not. Making fun of someone is not stalking. Pursuing someone and repeatedly harassing them is.
Sure, without a clear idea about what the offence really is we are only dealing with subjective interpretations.
Repeated harassment may sometimes be only in the eye of the person who sees himself harassed.
We have recently had one person try to get a bot authorised on every project that he could, and viewed anyone who would go around after him to oppose this as harassment.
Others will view any campaign to oppose all their AfD's as harassment.
Unless we can come to an agreement about what we mean this will get nowhere.
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
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2008/6/10 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Ray, We are talking about people who on or off list threaten others to kill, maim and rape. We are talking about people associated with aggressive pov pushing and using any means whatsoever to establish their pov. There have been several examples given of this behaviour by credible people. Suggesting as you do that there is no idea that we are talking about it not where we are at.
He is not suggesting that there is no idea what we are talking about, he is suggesting that it is not clearly defined. And I don't think it is either.
When YOU do not know what is being discussed you either read up on it, do some research, talk to people involved or keep out of it.
Isn't that exactly what he's doing, talking about people involved?
Suggesting that there is no clarity about such issues is exactly the kind of behaviour that makes this situation worse because it leads to more procrastination.
In other words, you suggest we do something about stalking without first deciding on what is stalking?
What is needed is clarity to what extend the WMF is aware of this situation and what involvement it can have, research is needed about the extend this type of behaviour DOES affect our project and impacts the NPOV of controversial subjects. This research is needed because it will prevent people from ignoring or belittling this issue.
It's hard to research the effects of something if you don't have definitions as to what it is and what it isn't. In my opinion, bringing up cases and deciding "Yes, this is stalking" and "No, that is not stalking because..." is more useful than shouting loud that we should do something about it and that everyone who is not agreeing with me is a problem.
--- On Tue, 6/10/08, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
From: Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Stalking Article To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Tuesday, June 10, 2008, 4:07 AM Ray, We are talking about people who on or off list threaten others to kill, maim and rape. We are talking about people associated with aggressive pov pushing and using any means whatsoever to establish their pov. There have been several examples given of this behaviour by credible people. Suggesting as you do that there is no idea that we are talking about it not where we are at.
I am a bit lost as to what this whole thread is about. Many people seem to be speaking with a great deal of allusion where I am not familar enough with the backgroun to dechiper it. So can someone clearly tell me if there are any current admins or crats on any wiki that are known to have "on or off list threaten others to kill, maim and rape"?
Birgitte SB
On 6/10/08, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Tue, 6/10/08, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
From: Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Stalking Article To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Date: Tuesday, June 10, 2008, 4:07 AM Ray, We are talking about people who on or off list threaten others to kill, maim and rape. We are talking about people associated with aggressive pov pushing and using any means whatsoever to establish their pov. There have been several examples given of this behaviour by credible people. Suggesting as you do that there is no idea that we are talking about it not where we are at.
I am a bit lost as to what this whole thread is about. Many people seem to be speaking with a great deal of allusion where I am not familar enough with the backgroun to dechiper it. So can someone clearly tell me if there are any current admins or crats on any wiki that are known to have "on or off list threaten others to kill, maim and rape"?
Birgitte SB
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I think you have it backwards. I think she meant that there are admins, and crats, who HAVE BEEN threatened (not doing the threatening) with murder, rape etc. I'm one such example, I've had a stalker through Wikipedia who has very graphically threatened to kill me, has sent mail to an old address of mine describing in detail how he intends to torture me while raping and killing my family. On the one hand, I'm not concerned about it personally -- I feel safe, I am able to protect myself, and harassment is a known risk of making my identity public as I have chosen to do. On the other hand, I'm concerned for others who may find themselves in a similar situation, who did not choose to make their identities public but were instead outed by malicious people and websites, who don't have that same level of protection, or perhaps are physically or emotionally frail and not in a position to be confident in their safety. That's a big concern, and I don't think it's something that can be ignored much long (nor should it), especially with as many longtime contributors that have been effected by it. We're getting to the point where if you are a contributor to the English Wikipedia (and in some cases other projects and languages), and you are a visible administrator or bureaucrat, and have been around for a decent amount of time, chances are high you will have been the subject of an attempted outing attempt or harassment.That's very very bad, and we need to start thinking of ways that we can mitigate that risk. It's certainly something that weighs heavily on my mind, and makes me wish that I was more intelligent that I could snap my fingers and have a solution ready.
i remember when i get the email's i did not sleep for day's. but the local policy say's the person who edit or email's that thing's get a block for one day. i think that must global change.
2008/6/10, Dan Rosenthal drosenthal@wikimedia.org:
On 6/10/08, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Tue, 6/10/08, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
From: Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Stalking Article To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Date: Tuesday, June 10, 2008, 4:07 AM Ray, We are talking about people who on or off list threaten others to kill, maim and rape. We are talking about people associated with aggressive pov pushing and using any means whatsoever to establish their pov. There have been several examples given of this behaviour by credible people. Suggesting as you do that there is no idea that we are talking about it not where we are at.
I am a bit lost as to what this whole thread is about. Many people seem to be speaking with a great deal of allusion where I am not familar enough with the backgroun to dechiper it. So can someone clearly tell me if there are any current admins or crats on any wiki that are known to have "on or off list threaten others to kill, maim and rape"?
Birgitte SB
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I think you have it backwards. I think she meant that there are admins, and crats, who HAVE BEEN threatened (not doing the threatening) with murder, rape etc. I'm one such example, I've had a stalker through Wikipedia who has very graphically threatened to kill me, has sent mail to an old address of mine describing in detail how he intends to torture me while raping and killing my family. On the one hand, I'm not concerned about it personally -- I feel safe, I am able to protect myself, and harassment is a known risk of making my identity public as I have chosen to do. On the other hand, I'm concerned for others who may find themselves in a similar situation, who did not choose to make their identities public but were instead outed by malicious people and websites, who don't have that same level of protection, or perhaps are physically or emotionally frail and not in a position to be confident in their safety. That's a big concern, and I don't think it's something that can be ignored much long (nor should it), especially with as many longtime contributors that have been effected by it. We're getting to the point where if you are a contributor to the English Wikipedia (and in some cases other projects and languages), and you are a visible administrator or bureaucrat, and have been around for a decent amount of time, chances are high you will have been the subject of an attempted outing attempt or harassment.That's very very bad, and we need to start thinking of ways that we can mitigate that risk. It's certainly something that weighs heavily on my mind, and makes me wish that I was more intelligent that I could snap my fingers and have a solution ready.
-- Dan Rosenthal _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, There are people including administrators and bureaucrats that have been threatened in this way. It is not an exception, it is not localised to just one language or project. There are in my opinion two things that have to happen concurrently.
- Any and all threads that is of such a close, personal and brutal nature needs to get the attention that it deserved. - We need to understand what it is that triggers these attacks. What it is that we can do to be less of an easy target as a project and as a wikiMedian
Particularly the second question may get us suggestions that are not obvious and even counter intuitive. It takes people who understand these issues, people that have experience in dealing with such things that are best placed to help us. They are likely to be professional psychologists or specialists of a similar ilk. It is for these reasons that it is important to learn if and to what extend the Wikimedia Foundation is willing and able to play a role in this.
As we find that stalkers are a fact of life, we have to know how to deal with them. Being in denial of what is happening is the worst service we do to ourself and to those that are victimised. Thanks, GerardM
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Tue, 6/10/08, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
From: Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Stalking Article To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Date: Tuesday, June 10, 2008, 4:07 AM Ray, We are talking about people who on or off list threaten others to kill, maim and rape. We are talking about people associated with aggressive pov pushing and using any means whatsoever to establish their pov. There have been several examples given of this behaviour by credible people. Suggesting as you do that there is no idea that we are talking about it not where we are at.
I am a bit lost as to what this whole thread is about. Many people seem to be speaking with a great deal of allusion where I am not familar enough with the backgroun to dechiper it. So can someone clearly tell me if there are any current admins or crats on any wiki that are known to have "on or off list threaten others to kill, maim and rape"?
Birgitte SB
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
We are talking about people who on or off list threaten others to kill, maim and rape.
If that's what you mean that's how you define it, and stick to that definition.
We are talking about people associated with aggressive pov pushing and using any means whatsoever to establish their pov.
Some will do that without going quite so far as death and rape threats. That may still be unacceptable, but it's a different issue.
There have been several examples given of this behaviour by credible people. Suggesting as you do that there is no idea that we are talking about it not where we are at.
I can't do anything about your willful misreading
When YOU do not know what is being discussed you either read up on it, do some research, talk to people involved or keep out of it.
The issue is a general one about stalking. I don't need to wade through multiple pages of endless drama to understand that. My objectivity will not be helped by a one-sided listening to only those who believe they have been stalked. I will not be intimidated out of the conversation just because you don't like what I am saying.
Suggesting that there is no clarity about such issues is exactly the kind of behaviour that makes this situation worse because it leads to more procrastination.
Quite the contrary. The kind of muddle-headedness that is incapable of bringing a problem into clear focus is a lot more to the point.
What is needed is clarity to what extend the WMF is aware of this situation and what involvement it can have, research is needed about the extend this type of behaviour DOES affect our project and impacts the NPOV of controversial subjects. This research is needed because it will prevent people from ignoring or belittling this issue.
If you can't say whom you are accusing of belittling the issue, withdraw your accusation.
I'm sure that the WMF is well aware of the situation. Research can be an effective tool for procrastination. What, if anything, the Foundation can do about threatened editors is more relevant. You seem to be more concerned with the impact on NPOV than on the personal safety of those who have received real threats.
Ec
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 9:29 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote
Mark Williamson wrote:
In response to this whole thread, I have two sentiments.
First of all, stalking is bad.
Second of all, we need to be clear about what is stalking and what is not. Making fun of someone is not stalking. Pursuing someone and repeatedly harassing them is.
Sure, without a clear idea about what the offence really is we are only dealing with subjective interpretations.
Repeated harassment may sometimes be only in the eye of the person who sees himself harassed.
We have recently had one person try to get a bot authorised on every project that he could, and viewed anyone who would go around after him to oppose this as harassment.
Others will view any campaign to oppose all their AfD's as harassment.
Unless we can come to an agreement about what we mean this will get nowhere.
Ec
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org