[Foundation-l] Stalking, an attempt to clarify.

Wed Jun 11 23:53:55 UTC 2008

Hoi,
What is "this" ??
Thanks,
     GerardM

PS  I should write threat with a t and not a d..

On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 11:54 PM, White Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Okay, I'll illustrate this with an example
>
> Say... For the sake of annoying you for his own pleasure someone decides to
> wikistalk you. He can do this by..
>
> ...  Voting oppose whenever you vote support and vote support when you vote
> oppose (very infrequently votes inline with your votes to throw the system
> off course)
> ... Taking a stance against articles you work on. This may include seeking
> to delete them, redirectifying them or other methods of effectively
> removing
> your work.
> ... Interfering with your other contribution such as attempts to dictate
> your talk page or user page
> ... Pursing you to other wikis such as commons, meta, en.wikinews, or some
> other wiki that you and your stalker can mutually understand.
>
> Overall the intention of a wikistalker is to harass and annoy.
>
> People are sometimes given medals for such conduct for the basic rationale
> of "my enemies enemy is my friend" principle.
>
>   - White Cat
>
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 6:13 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Thank you for your attempt to clarify things. The problem is that you
> bring
> > not much clarification for me. The problem is that you assume things to
> be
> > true while it is not clear to me at all why you make your assumptions and
> > also I fail to understand the reasoning behind them.
> >
> > There are in my opinion several issues at play. The most important one is
> > that actual stalking, behaviour with real life threads is an observable
> > phenomena and there are ample indications that the authorities fail to
> take
> > these things seriously. When people are REALLY insistent they get the
> > attention that is required. The notion to leave it all to the authorities
> > leaves our fellow wikimedians that are threatened in this way isolated
> and
> > threatened.
> >
> > From this thread level down there is behaviour that can be
> euphemistically
> > called as problematic. They are the kind of behaviour where people
> actively
> > are involved in endangering the reputation of our fellow contributors.
> Some
> > indicators are people who have a conflict where one does have any or
> hardly
> > any content contributions and another with a rich history of positive
> > content contributions.
> >
> > The issue is that there is a continuum from normal behaviour to stalking.
> > We
> > do not have the experience to deal with this. We need a better
> > understanding
> > in what triggers someone to move on this scale. With this better
> > understanding we should be able to more effectively deal with this type
> of
> > behaviour.
> >
> > The notion that the English Wikipedia cannot make up its mind is not
> > surprising. The question is very much to what extend it matters. It does
> > not
> > make the problems of the people that are stalked any less. It does not
> make
> > the responsibility that we have by ignoring this issue any less real.
> > Denial
> > and procrastination add to the responsibility that we collectively face.
> >
> > I would seriously doubt your assumption that under American law
> Wikipedians
> > can be assigned a label as "limited purpose public figures". What do you
> > base this on? Is this the fact that they have had controversies ? Would
> > that
> > mean that it is exactly the people that have such a sad effect that make
> > people "limited purpose public figures" ???
> >
> > Your suggestion though well intended, do not make any difference. It
> seems
> > to me to be a regurgitations of what has been sad before. In my opinion
> > calling the mailing list that deals with "wiki stalking" a cabal is a
> knee
> > jerk reaction. Why do people not understand that there is a need for
> mutual
> > advice and solace? I am not part of this "cabal" and there is no need for
> > me
> > to be on this list to have an opinion, to inform me and to tell about
> what
> > I
> > have learned even to express the opinion that this is more serious then
> how
> > it is generally appreciated.
> >
> > I seriously think that we need help in dealing with this in a way that
> does
> > justice to the suffering that is caused and the effect it has on us all.
> > Not
> > only victims need help, we all have to deal with the people that suffer
> > from
> > stalking and the people that stalk or may stalk in the future. Learning
> to
> > recognise the signals of this type of unhealthy behaviour is what we
> need.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >      GerardM
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 3:44 PM, John Barberio <barberio at lineone.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > This is an attempt to separate and clarify the subject of Stalking as
> > > applied to Wikipedia.
> > >
> > > 1) The term "Wikistalking", which has generally referred to following
> > > someone's contributions on wikipedia and then making petty edits or
> > > reverts. This is, I think, a poor choice of word, it's not 'Stalking'
> > > in the threatening sense, and really just an additional avenue of
> > > common place harassment. Rolling so called 'wikistalking' up as a
> > > 'subset of stalking' is not useful, and may in-fact be damaging
> > > towards attempts to confront threatening stalking. Perhaps it should
> > > be renamed "Contribution harassment", as it's a pattern of harassment
> > > following someone's contributions. There have been recent issues of
> > > accusations of "Stalking" being misused as an attack in it's self, by
> > > labelling honest attempts to improve articles or review a user's
> > > behaviour as attempts to 'stalk'.
> > >
> > > 2) It should be important to note, that under US law, notable editors
> > > of Wikipedia may become "limited purpose public figures". This does
> > > mean that, for example, "outing" a notable editor's identity, is not
> > > something they can take action against. The outside world would not,
> > > therefore, consider it 'stalking' behaviour. The existence of
> > > 'Harassment Sites'  is not something that Wikimedia can realistically
> > > do anything about. Attempts to enforce restrictions on linking to, and
> > > restrictions on editors found to be involved with such sites was
> > > discussed in depth on en.wikipedia, and proposals to enforce these
> > > failed. There is likely still a large issue in the need to offer
> > > anonymity, the need to provide accountability, and the need to prevent
> > > conflicts of interest. However, these issues should not be combined
> > > with 'Stalking'.
> > >
> > > 3) Threats of harm, ranging from threats of 'beating you up' to 'rape
> > > you and kill you' should and must be handled by the police. It's
> > > beyond the scope of Wikimedia's abilities to do anything about these
> > > threats beyond blocking editors. Problems with getting your local
> > > police force to do something, is also sadly beyond Wikimedia's
> > > abilities. If your local police office refuses to take action on
> > > threats of assault, make a complaint and write to your government
> > > authority.
> > >
> > > Generally, the best and most Wikimedia can do are...
> > >        * Limit "contribution harassment" on it's projects.
> > >        * Enforce policies on civility and threats.
> > >        * Refer threats of violence to the authorities.
> > >        * Co-operate with the authorities in investigations into
> > harassment
> > > and stalking.
> > >        * Provide professional advice and guidance to victims of
> stalking.
> > >
> > > I think that some of the actions that have been taken in the name of
> > > 'combating stalking' so far have proved counter productive. The
> > > setting up of a private invitation only "Wikistalking Mailing List"
> > > especially. While well intentioned, has lead to a large amount of
> > > mistrust in that it is seen as a secret administrator cabal. It does
> > > seem to have become an unfortunate knee jerk reaction that the
> > > solution to problems on wikipedia can only be solved by a secret Jimbo
> > > approved cabal.
> > >
> > >   - John
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>