New subject: [Foundation-l] (offlist) Re: Release of squid log data

21 Sep 2007

On 9/20/07, Gregory Maxwell &lt;gmaxwell(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
...
  On 9/20/07, David Gerard &lt;dgerard(a)gmail.com&gt;
wrote:
  Um, in the case of Wikipedia you're factually
incorrect. The hard
 stalking work of Judd Bagley of overstock.com is a counterexample.
 Stalking on a corporate budget no less! 
 When did investigation and fact based criticism become synonymous with
 stalking?  I missed that memo.

 Or is it only stalking when it's someone "we" dislike investigating
 someone "we" like, and protected free speech the other way around?
 (like the extensive research that some of the "anti-stalkers" put into
 Daniel Brandt these last few years)

 I'm not saying that I agree with the allegations, but to call it
 stalking when someone investigates something which they reasonably
 believe to be misconduct just seems wrong to me.

 Wow, Greg.

That person is a stalker, not a critic. Speaking only of what he's
done to me, he has threatened anonymously to "remove" me unless I
speak to him about doing what he wants; has published nonsense about
me in an effort to humiliate me; has sent complaint after complaint
about me to Jimbo or the ArbCom, over a period of 13 months; alleges
that I'm being paid to edit Wikipedia; is contacting other people he
thinks might help him harass me; has sent me e-mails containing
spyware hoping I'd download it onto my computer; and has been making
enquiries about me in an effort to obtain my name and location.

It has reached the point where I'm considering going to the police.

That's just what he's done to me. He has also pursued at least three
other people on Wikipedia that I know of (he's the one who posts links
to his website on people's talk pages disguised as links to Wikipedia
articles, so he can get their IP addresses). He's also done it in the
past to journalists. One woman journalist lost her job because of him.

He's a nasty piece of work, not a legitimate critic.

Sarah