[Foundation-l] Stalking Article

[Ray Saintonge]

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