[Foundation-l] Release of squid log data

Thu Sep 20 17:33:18 UTC 2007

Brian McNeil wrote:
> 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.

Yes, stalking happens. It happens in situations such as that which you 
describe; this is certainly a problem and such incidents should 
certainly be taken seriously.

But it doesn't happen because someone was banned from a website.

Anyone can make a death threat online. Actually carrying out said threat 
is never in the mind of whoever makes it. Such threats are the product 
of the trolls who were blocked in the first place. This thread has 
turned into exactly the sort of over-the-top response they are trying to 
get.

Someone, please... tell me I'm not the only one who can see this?

Still enjoying life in the real world,

-Gurch

> -----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.