No subject

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
>