[Foundation-l] Release of squid log data

[Brian McNeil]

Stalkers are not a nice thing to deal with and I think you're underplaying
the seriousness of the issue. They may be no serious risk of physical threat
and thus your comments about bodyguards are appropriate. However, you're not
taking into account what it is like when you get death threats by email and
snail-mail.

About 6 years ago I had to deal with the divorce of my current partner when
she left her husband after he assaulted her. I was made aware through a
third party that he had obtained a shotgun and was looking for me. In the
end - thanks to me employing good legal representation and hiding my
location - he decided to turn the aforementioned weapon on himself.

Don't joke about stalking, it happens.


Brian.

-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Matthew
Britton
Sent: 20 September 2007 16:27
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Release of squid log data

Am I dreaming, or have I wandered into some alternate
universe, or has the whole world gone insane, or what?

You're talking about a bunch of nerds who edit text on some
website here, not judges, police, soldiers... please for
god's sake have some sense of perspective.

Being an administrator is not "dangerous". There are more
than enough people volunteering to help (if you don't think
so, stop turning down RfAs for stupid reasons). If
someone's too chicken to issue a block, well whoopee-do,
that's their problem. Chances are the block wasn't
warranted anyway.

Administrators do not need body guards, alarm systems in
their house or indeed anything other than the common sense
not to post their credit card details online. Nobody has
ever been murdered in their sleep because they banned
someone on the Star Wars forum they moderate. We're talking
about the same kind of thing here.

Having a lovely time back in reality,

-Gurch

--- Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:

> On 9/20/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On 20/09/2007, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
> > > There are plenty of admins that happily make their
> real identity
> > > public knowledge and apparently aren't so afraid of
> "stalkers" that
> > > they're unwilling to block people.  There's probably
> at least one of
> > > them online 24 hours a day.  Get one of them to make
> the block.
> >
> > I agree, that ought to be enough in most situations. It
> would be good
> > to have something to fall back on if we end up needing
> to block
> > someone known to be dangerous, though.
> >
> If someone is known to be dangerous, shouldn't we be
> calling the
> police?  How would having a pool account help matters? 
> The dangerous
> person would just go after everyone in the pool, or
> whoever set up the
> pool, or Jimbo, or the board members (many of whose home
> addresses are
> easily found).
> 
> Maybe Jimbo would be willing to make the block in those
> high profile
> cases.  I doubt his doing so would bring him any more
> attention from
> stalkers than he already has.
> 
> > > If there are some gaps in that 24 hour coverage, hire
> someone to fill
> > > in those gaps.  Pay them enough that they can buy a
> PO box, an alarm
> > > system for their house, etc.  How does society handle
> having judges
> > > and police and presidents and soldiers and other
> figures who have to
> > > make and enforce decisions that rile up a few
> nutters?  Not by making
> > > them unaccountable for their actions.  If Wikipedia
> is a serious
> > > project creating a real benefit to society, why
> shouldn't it do the
> > > same thing?  Being part of the wikipolice is surely
> less dangerous
> > > than being part of the real police.
> >
> > Presidents have bodyguards. Judges generally have
> police escorts if
> > they need them. Police and soldiers are trained and
> equipped to defend
> > themselves. Giving Wikipedia admins personal protection
> would be
> > taking things a little too far, IMHO ;).
> >
> For volunteers, yes.  But if being an admin is so
> dangerous that
> enough people aren't volunteering, hiring one or two
> people to
> essentially be paid admins would be a possibility. 
> Creating a world
> in which every single person can share freely in the sum
> of human
> knowledge is a big real world task which has costs and
> risks involved
> in it.
> 
> Personally I think there are probably enough volunteers
> right now to
> cover the task, and hiring someone would be overkill. 
> The solution is
> as I said it a month or so ago.  If you're not willing to
> deal with
> stalkers, don't be an admin, or at least don't be an
> admin that
> performs controversial actions.  But if the choice is
> between taking
> away admin accountability (as suggested by Sarah) and
> hiring a few
> body guards, I think the latter is a much better choice.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> 


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l