[Foundation-l] Stalking Article

Tue Jun 10 20:58:40 UTC 2008

Off wiki stalking is one thing e have limited control over. It is very easy
to manupilate the inner workings with an external site to destroy any person
you dislike - or at least so it appears on my screen. People should not care
much about these sites.

On-wiki stalking is something we have actual control but we hardly even try
to do something about it.

     - White Cat

On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 2:03 AM, SlimVirgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 5:41 PM, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > You're preaching to the choir here with me Sarah. I fully support that
> > principle being applied, and not ignored. I was just pointing out that
> > there's a policy based reason that allows us to say "You know what,
> > lets quit blathering about this and do something about it", if we can
> > grab our collective balls and do it.
> >
> > -Dan
>
> Dan, I feel we've almost left it too late. We currently have a
> situation where several of those involved in some of the stalking
> sites have been promoted to admins, and many more are regular editors
> who routinely pursue editors they don't like -- via wikistalking,
> RfCs, RfArs, and reports on AN/I -- in order to make their time on
> Wikipedia miserable. Shortly after people were shocked that
> NewYorkBrad was outed and left the project, one of the three people
> who was instrumental in trying to out me in 2006 was promoted to
> bureaucrat on another WMF project, with the support of FloNight of the
> ArbCom. What kind of message does that send?
>
> Good editors are leaving because of this kind of thing. It's one thing
> not to be actively supported by the Foundation, but it's a real kick
> in the teeth when we see members of the ArbCom support any of these
> people, and board members (I'm thinking here of Erik when he was on
> the board) remove their sites from the spam blacklist.
>
> It seems that people have short memories if they haven't been targeted
> themselves.
>
> Sarah
>
>
>
> > On Jun 9, 2008, at 4:46 PM, SlimVirgin wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>> I believe on English Wikipedia we have an arbitration finding to
> >>> that effect
> >>> (MONGO 1), that says that we should support victims of harassment
> >>> (which
> >>> stalking certainly qualifies as).
> >>>
> >>> -Dan
> >>
> >> We do have that ruling, but it's consistently ignored, including by
> >> ArbCom members. We allow people to use Wikipedia (posts to articles,
> >> to talk pages, to AN/I, RfCs, and RfArs) to harass others; and then we
> >> allow the harassment to be discussed; and then the discussions are
> >> discussed, all of which creates more harassment for the target --
> >> which is often the intent. It's a situation that has been going on for
> >> a couple of years and is only getting worse; it's the reason the
> >> cyberstalking list was started, but despite a lot of talk, there has
> >> been no fundamental change. The bottom line is that we have to stop
> >> giving people who have engaged in harassment a platform in the name of
> >> free speech and AGF.
> >>
> >> Sarah
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SlimVirgin
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>