Stalking Article

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
143 messages Options
1234 ... 8
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Stalking Article

Geoffrey Plourde
All;

http://digg.com/security/Stalkers_Haunt_Wikipedia_s_Volunteers

This article has been posted to digg and is rapidly getting hits. I am asking that anyone with a digg account (easy to create, free of charge) go ahead and digg this article. Cyberstalking is a real issue. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the victim's ideology, this can not be allowed to continue. RickK left because his family was threatened. By acting we can stop this menace beofre someone is hurt.


     
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Stalking Article

Gregory Maxwell
On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 11:54 PM, Geoffrey Plourde <[hidden email]> wrote:
[snip]
> RickK left because his family was threatened.

Not to belittle your concern about Cyberstalking... but ... RickK
'left' after being blocked for 3RR in a dispute with SPUI of all
people.  (A tangent, I know but I've found that uncorrected statements
have a terrible tendency of becoming 'the truth'. ... )

At the end of the day no one on Wikipedia or at Wikimedia is empowered
to stop real staking (can we drop the 'cyber'? It makes it sound like
a video game.  If you're being stalked does it matter how it got
started?)... Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vigilante posse, not
law enforcement.

Stalking which is serious and real..  rather than an extended online
pissing match... stuff that endangers people can't be improved by
anointing a few more users as holy emperors of the Wiki.  Take a look
at DavidShankbone's comments on Digg:  David's a nice guy and I have a
lot of sympathy for what he's gone through...   But he writes:  "The
Wikimedia Foundation needs to publicly support the creation of a group
of Wikipedia volunteers who have the authority to define harassment
and stalking and take action against it. They will advise the Stewards
of cases that require a full block across all projects of an IP
range."  ... Now seriously,  if your problems can be actually resolved
by smacking the enemy with a ZOMG WMF WIDE BAN, thats not stalking...
it's an internet pissing match between people who are taking Wikipedia
far too seriously.

Is it a problem that so many good contributors have a problem avoiding
Internet Drama?  Sure...   But to call random internet drama stalking
is akin to yelling "rape" every time you get some unwanted flirtation.
  Overuse of the a serious word diminishes its importance and makes it
insufficiently expressive when we really need it.

In fairness, there are a lot of people on English Wikipedia who have
been stalked, attacked, and otherwise mistreated in serious ways. Yet,
many of those people have also been among those calling for more
impressive ban hammers.  I don't think that just because someone is
asking for an internet-drama solution doesn't mean they don't haven't
been harmed in a serious way.

But the ZOMG WMF WIDE BAN can't actually solve their real problems...
but the real stalking is always intermixed with regular Internet
drama, so I guess that internet drama solutions are what get called
for because actually addressing the stalking is much harder, if not
sometimes impossible, and perhaps when you're looking for revenge
you'll take what you can get... ::shrugs:: I can only guess.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Stalking Article

Geoffrey Plourde
In reply to this post by Geoffrey Plourde
Greg;

Thanks for your concerns. I believe that the Foundation should take the step of affirming that they will not stand for stalking of users, not necessaily a huge banhammer. The group of users would be more productive in hunting down and bringing justice to the stalkers.

As a side digression, there is a measure in Congress, HR 6123, that would outlaw stalking over the internet.


----- Original Message ----
From: Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sunday, June 8, 2008 10:19:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Stalking Article

On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 11:54 PM, Geoffrey Plourde <[hidden email]> wrote:
[snip]
> RickK left because his family was threatened.

Not to belittle your concern about Cyberstalking... but ... RickK
'left' after being blocked for 3RR in a dispute with SPUI of all
people.  (A tangent, I know but I've found that uncorrected statements
have a terrible tendency of becoming 'the truth'. ... )

At the end of the day no one on Wikipedia or at Wikimedia is empowered
to stop real staking (can we drop the 'cyber'? It makes it sound like
a video game.  If you're being stalked does it matter how it got
started?)... Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vigilante posse, not
law enforcement.

Stalking which is serious and real..  rather than an extended online
pissing match... stuff that endangers people can't be improved by
anointing a few more users as holy emperors of the Wiki.  Take a look
at DavidShankbone's comments on Digg:  David's a nice guy and I have a
lot of sympathy for what he's gone through...   But he writes:  "The
Wikimedia Foundation needs to publicly support the creation of a group
of Wikipedia volunteers who have the authority to define harassment
and stalking and take action against it. They will advise the Stewards
of cases that require a full block across all projects of an IP
range."  ... Now seriously,  if your problems can be actually resolved
by smacking the enemy with a ZOMG WMF WIDE BAN, thats not stalking...
it's an internet pissing match between people who are taking Wikipedia
far too seriously.

Is it a problem that so many good contributors have a problem avoiding
Internet Drama?  Sure...   But to call random internet drama stalking
is akin to yelling "rape" every time you get some unwanted flirtation.
  Overuse of the a serious word diminishes its importance and makes it
insufficiently expressive when we really need it.

In fairness, there are a lot of people on English Wikipedia who have
been stalked, attacked, and otherwise mistreated in serious ways. Yet,
many of those people have also been among those calling for more
impressive ban hammers.  I don't think that just because someone is
asking for an internet-drama solution doesn't mean they don't haven't
been harmed in a serious way.

But the ZOMG WMF WIDE BAN can't actually solve their real problems...
but the real stalking is always intermixed with regular Internet
drama, so I guess that internet drama solutions are what get called
for because actually addressing the stalking is much harder, if not
sometimes impossible, and perhaps when you're looking for revenge
you'll take what you can get... ::shrugs:: I can only guess.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l



     
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Stalking Article

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Gregory Maxwell
Hoi,
I think you should take a closer look.. It is way beyond a pissing contest.
Belittling it as "people taking it way to serious" negates the real chilling
effect it has.

There are good people, some of the very best in my book, that are leaving
and have left our projects because they feel threatened, because they do not
want to be the next road kill, the next statistic. If anything, once people
start leaving our project because of stalkers, when you can force your way
by this type of behaviour, there is no longer a NPOV Wikipedia.

When you suggest that it is part of a tit for tat game, you may be right but
it does not matter. This type of behaviour is not acceptable and the most
important part that we can to address it is to deal with it in a
professional way. This means serious attention of the issues from within our
organisation and it may include contacting the appropriate police
organisation and following up / monitoring the further evolution of this
behaviour.

Suggesting murder, rape, the disfigurement with sulphuric acid is not
acceptable either on wiki or off wiki. It is not only a threat to the person
involved, it is a threat to us all. This is not a figure of speech, this is
not freedom of expression, this is the stuff where we have to defend
*our *freedom
of expression. My and your freedom is limited by where the freedom of
someone else starts and so is the freedom of the hoodlums who behave in this
way.

Thanks,
     GerardM

On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 7:19 AM, Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 11:54 PM, Geoffrey Plourde <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> [snip]
> > RickK left because his family was threatened.
>
> Not to belittle your concern about Cyberstalking... but ... RickK
> 'left' after being blocked for 3RR in a dispute with SPUI of all
> people.  (A tangent, I know but I've found that uncorrected statements
> have a terrible tendency of becoming 'the truth'. ... )
>
> At the end of the day no one on Wikipedia or at Wikimedia is empowered
> to stop real staking (can we drop the 'cyber'? It makes it sound like
> a video game.  If you're being stalked does it matter how it got
> started?)... Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vigilante posse, not
> law enforcement.
>
> Stalking which is serious and real..  rather than an extended online
> pissing match... stuff that endangers people can't be improved by
> anointing a few more users as holy emperors of the Wiki.  Take a look
> at DavidShankbone's comments on Digg:  David's a nice guy and I have a
> lot of sympathy for what he's gone through...   But he writes:  "The
> Wikimedia Foundation needs to publicly support the creation of a group
> of Wikipedia volunteers who have the authority to define harassment
> and stalking and take action against it. They will advise the Stewards
> of cases that require a full block across all projects of an IP
> range."  ... Now seriously,  if your problems can be actually resolved
> by smacking the enemy with a ZOMG WMF WIDE BAN, thats not stalking...
> it's an internet pissing match between people who are taking Wikipedia
> far too seriously.
>
> Is it a problem that so many good contributors have a problem avoiding
> Internet Drama?  Sure...   But to call random internet drama stalking
> is akin to yelling "rape" every time you get some unwanted flirtation.
>  Overuse of the a serious word diminishes its importance and makes it
> insufficiently expressive when we really need it.
>
> In fairness, there are a lot of people on English Wikipedia who have
> been stalked, attacked, and otherwise mistreated in serious ways. Yet,
> many of those people have also been among those calling for more
> impressive ban hammers.  I don't think that just because someone is
> asking for an internet-drama solution doesn't mean they don't haven't
> been harmed in a serious way.
>
> But the ZOMG WMF WIDE BAN can't actually solve their real problems...
> but the real stalking is always intermixed with regular Internet
> drama, so I guess that internet drama solutions are what get called
> for because actually addressing the stalking is much harder, if not
> sometimes impossible, and perhaps when you're looking for revenge
> you'll take what you can get... ::shrugs:: I can only guess.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Stalking Article

Dan Rosenthal
I have to agree with both Gerard and Greg. While there isn't much that  
the WMF can do to actively and immediately stop stalking, we can take  
measures to make it less palatable to stalkers. The threat of  
foundation-wide bans for stalkers discourages some (and any reduction  
is a good one). The foundation can make a strong public statement  
against stalking. We certainly won't be able to completely stop it, or  
stop it immediately; but to stand by and do nothing while good  
contributors are being threatened, harassed, driven from the project,  
and having their lives put into shambles is unacceptable customer  
service in my book.

-Dan
On Jun 9, 2008, at 1:40 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:

> Hoi,
> I think you should take a closer look.. It is way beyond a pissing  
> contest.
> Belittling it as "people taking it way to serious" negates the real  
> chilling
> effect it has.
>
> There are good people, some of the very best in my book, that are  
> leaving
> and have left our projects because they feel threatened, because  
> they do not
> want to be the next road kill, the next statistic. If anything, once  
> people
> start leaving our project because of stalkers, when you can force  
> your way
> by this type of behaviour, there is no longer a NPOV Wikipedia.
>
> When you suggest that it is part of a tit for tat game, you may be  
> right but
> it does not matter. This type of behaviour is not acceptable and the  
> most
> important part that we can to address it is to deal with it in a
> professional way. This means serious attention of the issues from  
> within our
> organisation and it may include contacting the appropriate police
> organisation and following up / monitoring the further evolution of  
> this
> behaviour.
>
> Suggesting murder, rape, the disfigurement with sulphuric acid is not
> acceptable either on wiki or off wiki. It is not only a threat to  
> the person
> involved, it is a threat to us all. This is not a figure of speech,  
> this is
> not freedom of expression, this is the stuff where we have to defend
> *our *freedom
> of expression. My and your freedom is limited by where the freedom of
> someone else starts and so is the freedom of the hoodlums who behave  
> in this
> way.
>
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
> On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 7:19 AM, Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]>  
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 11:54 PM, Geoffrey Plourde  
>> <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> RickK left because his family was threatened.
>>
>> Not to belittle your concern about Cyberstalking... but ... RickK
>> 'left' after being blocked for 3RR in a dispute with SPUI of all
>> people.  (A tangent, I know but I've found that uncorrected  
>> statements
>> have a terrible tendency of becoming 'the truth'. ... )
>>
>> At the end of the day no one on Wikipedia or at Wikimedia is  
>> empowered
>> to stop real staking (can we drop the 'cyber'? It makes it sound like
>> a video game.  If you're being stalked does it matter how it got
>> started?)... Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vigilante posse, not
>> law enforcement.
>>
>> Stalking which is serious and real..  rather than an extended online
>> pissing match... stuff that endangers people can't be improved by
>> anointing a few more users as holy emperors of the Wiki.  Take a look
>> at DavidShankbone's comments on Digg:  David's a nice guy and I  
>> have a
>> lot of sympathy for what he's gone through...   But he writes:  "The
>> Wikimedia Foundation needs to publicly support the creation of a  
>> group
>> of Wikipedia volunteers who have the authority to define harassment
>> and stalking and take action against it. They will advise the  
>> Stewards
>> of cases that require a full block across all projects of an IP
>> range."  ... Now seriously,  if your problems can be actually  
>> resolved
>> by smacking the enemy with a ZOMG WMF WIDE BAN, thats not stalking...
>> it's an internet pissing match between people who are taking  
>> Wikipedia
>> far too seriously.
>>
>> Is it a problem that so many good contributors have a problem  
>> avoiding
>> Internet Drama?  Sure...   But to call random internet drama stalking
>> is akin to yelling "rape" every time you get some unwanted  
>> flirtation.
>> Overuse of the a serious word diminishes its importance and makes it
>> insufficiently expressive when we really need it.
>>
>> In fairness, there are a lot of people on English Wikipedia who have
>> been stalked, attacked, and otherwise mistreated in serious ways.  
>> Yet,
>> many of those people have also been among those calling for more
>> impressive ban hammers.  I don't think that just because someone is
>> asking for an internet-drama solution doesn't mean they don't haven't
>> been harmed in a serious way.
>>
>> But the ZOMG WMF WIDE BAN can't actually solve their real problems...
>> but the real stalking is always intermixed with regular Internet
>> drama, so I guess that internet drama solutions are what get called
>> for because actually addressing the stalking is much harder, if not
>> sometimes impossible, and perhaps when you're looking for revenge
>> you'll take what you can get... ::shrugs:: I can only guess.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ 
>> foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Stalking Article

Geoffrey Plourde
In reply to this post by Geoffrey Plourde
I think greg was attacking "drama hounds"


----- Original Message ----
From: Dan Rosenthal <[hidden email]>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sunday, June 8, 2008 10:48:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Stalking Article

I have to agree with both Gerard and Greg. While there isn't much that  
the WMF can do to actively and immediately stop stalking, we can take  
measures to make it less palatable to stalkers. The threat of  
foundation-wide bans for stalkers discourages some (and any reduction  
is a good one). The foundation can make a strong public statement  
against stalking. We certainly won't be able to completely stop it, or  
stop it immediately; but to stand by and do nothing while good  
contributors are being threatened, harassed, driven from the project,  
and having their lives put into shambles is unacceptable customer  
service in my book.

-Dan
On Jun 9, 2008, at 1:40 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:

> Hoi,
> I think you should take a closer look.. It is way beyond a pissing  
> contest.
> Belittling it as "people taking it way to serious" negates the real  
> chilling
> effect it has.
>
> There are good people, some of the very best in my book, that are  
> leaving
> and have left our projects because they feel threatened, because  
> they do not
> want to be the next road kill, the next statistic. If anything, once  
> people
> start leaving our project because of stalkers, when you can force  
> your way
> by this type of behaviour, there is no longer a NPOV Wikipedia.
>
> When you suggest that it is part of a tit for tat game, you may be  
> right but
> it does not matter. This type of behaviour is not acceptable and the  
> most
> important part that we can to address it is to deal with it in a
> professional way. This means serious attention of the issues from  
> within our
> organisation and it may include contacting the appropriate police
> organisation and following up / monitoring the further evolution of  
> this
> behaviour.
>
> Suggesting murder, rape, the disfigurement with sulphuric acid is not
> acceptable either on wiki or off wiki. It is not only a threat to  
> the person
> involved, it is a threat to us all. This is not a figure of speech,  
> this is
> not freedom of expression, this is the stuff where we have to defend
> *our *freedom
> of expression. My and your freedom is limited by where the freedom of
> someone else starts and so is the freedom of the hoodlums who behave  
> in this
> way.
>
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
> On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 7:19 AM, Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]>  
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 11:54 PM, Geoffrey Plourde  
>> <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> RickK left because his family was threatened.
>>
>> Not to belittle your concern about Cyberstalking... but ... RickK
>> 'left' after being blocked for 3RR in a dispute with SPUI of all
>> people.  (A tangent, I know but I've found that uncorrected  
>> statements
>> have a terrible tendency of becoming 'the truth'. ... )
>>
>> At the end of the day no one on Wikipedia or at Wikimedia is  
>> empowered
>> to stop real staking (can we drop the 'cyber'? It makes it sound like
>> a video game.  If you're being stalked does it matter how it got
>> started?)... Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vigilante posse, not
>> law enforcement.
>>
>> Stalking which is serious and real..  rather than an extended online
>> pissing match... stuff that endangers people can't be improved by
>> anointing a few more users as holy emperors of the Wiki.  Take a look
>> at DavidShankbone's comments on Digg:  David's a nice guy and I  
>> have a
>> lot of sympathy for what he's gone through...   But he writes:  "The
>> Wikimedia Foundation needs to publicly support the creation of a  
>> group
>> of Wikipedia volunteers who have the authority to define harassment
>> and stalking and take action against it. They will advise the  
>> Stewards
>> of cases that require a full block across all projects of an IP
>> range."  ... Now seriously,  if your problems can be actually  
>> resolved
>> by smacking the enemy with a ZOMG WMF WIDE BAN, thats not stalking...
>> it's an internet pissing match between people who are taking  
>> Wikipedia
>> far too seriously.
>>
>> Is it a problem that so many good contributors have a problem  
>> avoiding
>> Internet Drama?  Sure...   But to call random internet drama stalking
>> is akin to yelling "rape" every time you get some unwanted  
>> flirtation.
>> Overuse of the a serious word diminishes its importance and makes it
>> insufficiently expressive when we really need it.
>>
>> In fairness, there are a lot of people on English Wikipedia who have
>> been stalked, attacked, and otherwise mistreated in serious ways.  
>> Yet,
>> many of those people have also been among those calling for more
>> impressive ban hammers.  I don't think that just because someone is
>> asking for an internet-drama solution doesn't mean they don't haven't
>> been harmed in a serious way.
>>
>> But the ZOMG WMF WIDE BAN can't actually solve their real problems...
>> but the real stalking is always intermixed with regular Internet
>> drama, so I guess that internet drama solutions are what get called
>> for because actually addressing the stalking is much harder, if not
>> sometimes impossible, and perhaps when you're looking for revenge
>> you'll take what you can get... ::shrugs:: I can only guess.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/ 
>> foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l



     
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Stalking Article

Harel Cain
In reply to this post by Dan Rosenthal
I agree with others here that there is a distinction to be made
between a wiki-war gone out of control (where the warring parties
would be long time users, in most cases) and the really nasty cases of
stalking, threats, libelous publications and the like, usually
directed by recently arrived (banned?) users at long time users,
mainly those who blocked them.

I can think of a famous case in hewiki where a very well-known admin
got into a fight with a certain extremist political group and they
posted the most horribly, shockingly defamatory video about him in
response, on Youtube, where I think it exists to that day (mainly
because apparently Youtube admins don't speak Hebrew and disregarded
the dozens of complaints about the video).

I don't think the Foundation can do anything practical to handle this
second type of cases, which are clearly in the legal sphere between
victim, victimizer (and state persecution), and I agree that taking
wiki actions against these cases just downplays them into the wiki
drama (which is too inflated anyway, and which we have to abate, not
encourage). But there has to be a very clear signal coming from the
Foundation that these issues are taken very seriously and will not be
tolerated. It's all on the declaratory sphere, not the practical one.

Harel

On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Dan Rosenthal <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I have to agree with both Gerard and Greg. While there isn't much that
> the WMF can do to actively and immediately stop stalking, we can take
> measures to make it less palatable to stalkers. The threat of
> foundation-wide bans for stalkers discourages some (and any reduction
> is a good one). The foundation can make a strong public statement
> against stalking. We certainly won't be able to completely stop it, or
> stop it immediately; but to stand by and do nothing while good
> contributors are being threatened, harassed, driven from the project,
> and having their lives put into shambles is unacceptable customer
> service in my book.
>
> -Dan
> On Jun 9, 2008, at 1:40 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>
>> Hoi,
>> I think you should take a closer look.. It is way beyond a pissing
>> contest.
>> Belittling it as "people taking it way to serious" negates the real
>> chilling
>> effect it has.
>>
>> There are good people, some of the very best in my book, that are
>> leaving
>> and have left our projects because they feel threatened, because
>> they do not
>> want to be the next road kill, the next statistic. If anything, once
>> people
>> start leaving our project because of stalkers, when you can force
>> your way
>> by this type of behaviour, there is no longer a NPOV Wikipedia.
>>
>> When you suggest that it is part of a tit for tat game, you may be
>> right but
>> it does not matter. This type of behaviour is not acceptable and the
>> most
>> important part that we can to address it is to deal with it in a
>> professional way. This means serious attention of the issues from
>> within our
>> organisation and it may include contacting the appropriate police
>> organisation and following up / monitoring the further evolution of
>> this
>> behaviour.
>>
>> Suggesting murder, rape, the disfigurement with sulphuric acid is not
>> acceptable either on wiki or off wiki. It is not only a threat to
>> the person
>> involved, it is a threat to us all. This is not a figure of speech,
>> this is
>> not freedom of expression, this is the stuff where we have to defend
>> *our *freedom
>> of expression. My and your freedom is limited by where the freedom of
>> someone else starts and so is the freedom of the hoodlums who behave
>> in this
>> way.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>     GerardM
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 7:19 AM, Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 11:54 PM, Geoffrey Plourde
>>> <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>> RickK left because his family was threatened.
>>>
>>> Not to belittle your concern about Cyberstalking... but ... RickK
>>> 'left' after being blocked for 3RR in a dispute with SPUI of all
>>> people.  (A tangent, I know but I've found that uncorrected
>>> statements
>>> have a terrible tendency of becoming 'the truth'. ... )
>>>
>>> At the end of the day no one on Wikipedia or at Wikimedia is
>>> empowered
>>> to stop real staking (can we drop the 'cyber'? It makes it sound like
>>> a video game.  If you're being stalked does it matter how it got
>>> started?)... Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vigilante posse, not
>>> law enforcement.
>>>
>>> Stalking which is serious and real..  rather than an extended online
>>> pissing match... stuff that endangers people can't be improved by
>>> anointing a few more users as holy emperors of the Wiki.  Take a look
>>> at DavidShankbone's comments on Digg:  David's a nice guy and I
>>> have a
>>> lot of sympathy for what he's gone through...   But he writes:  "The
>>> Wikimedia Foundation needs to publicly support the creation of a
>>> group
>>> of Wikipedia volunteers who have the authority to define harassment
>>> and stalking and take action against it. They will advise the
>>> Stewards
>>> of cases that require a full block across all projects of an IP
>>> range."  ... Now seriously,  if your problems can be actually
>>> resolved
>>> by smacking the enemy with a ZOMG WMF WIDE BAN, thats not stalking...
>>> it's an internet pissing match between people who are taking
>>> Wikipedia
>>> far too seriously.
>>>
>>> Is it a problem that so many good contributors have a problem
>>> avoiding
>>> Internet Drama?  Sure...   But to call random internet drama stalking
>>> is akin to yelling "rape" every time you get some unwanted
>>> flirtation.
>>> Overuse of the a serious word diminishes its importance and makes it
>>> insufficiently expressive when we really need it.
>>>
>>> In fairness, there are a lot of people on English Wikipedia who have
>>> been stalked, attacked, and otherwise mistreated in serious ways.
>>> Yet,
>>> many of those people have also been among those calling for more
>>> impressive ban hammers.  I don't think that just because someone is
>>> asking for an internet-drama solution doesn't mean they don't haven't
>>> been harmed in a serious way.
>>>
>>> But the ZOMG WMF WIDE BAN can't actually solve their real problems...
>>> but the real stalking is always intermixed with regular Internet
>>> drama, so I guess that internet drama solutions are what get called
>>> for because actually addressing the stalking is much harder, if not
>>> sometimes impossible, and perhaps when you're looking for revenge
>>> you'll take what you can get... ::shrugs:: I can only guess.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/
>>> foundation-l
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Stalking Article

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
I am not aware of the WMF being practically involved in these kind of
issues. As I understand it, the WMF is severely undermanned and
underfinanced and consequently does not get involved in these issues.  When
there would be a strategy on how to deal with issues like the Youtube video,
I expect it can be hightly effective. Because the WMF is a 500 pound gorilla
in its own right :)

The issue is that as time goes by, it becomes more expensive to become
effective at fighting this behaviour that is clearly illegal under many
laws. Once you start to do something about it, there wil be a nearly
constant need for some attention. What I can imagine is that with a tiered
system including arbitration boards involvement it could be manageable.

In my mind there is a need for both action and the containment of that same
action. Involvement of the WMF itself needs to be carefully and judicially
applied.

Thanks,
     GerardM

On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 8:14 AM, Harel Cain <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I agree with others here that there is a distinction to be made
> between a wiki-war gone out of control (where the warring parties
> would be long time users, in most cases) and the really nasty cases of
> stalking, threats, libelous publications and the like, usually
> directed by recently arrived (banned?) users at long time users,
> mainly those who blocked them.
>
> I can think of a famous case in hewiki where a very well-known admin
> got into a fight with a certain extremist political group and they
> posted the most horribly, shockingly defamatory video about him in
> response, on Youtube, where I think it exists to that day (mainly
> because apparently Youtube admins don't speak Hebrew and disregarded
> the dozens of complaints about the video).
>
> I don't think the Foundation can do anything practical to handle this
> second type of cases, which are clearly in the legal sphere between
> victim, victimizer (and state persecution), and I agree that taking
> wiki actions against these cases just downplays them into the wiki
> drama (which is too inflated anyway, and which we have to abate, not
> encourage). But there has to be a very clear signal coming from the
> Foundation that these issues are taken very seriously and will not be
> tolerated. It's all on the declaratory sphere, not the practical one.
>
> Harel
>
> On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Dan Rosenthal <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > I have to agree with both Gerard and Greg. While there isn't much that
> > the WMF can do to actively and immediately stop stalking, we can take
> > measures to make it less palatable to stalkers. The threat of
> > foundation-wide bans for stalkers discourages some (and any reduction
> > is a good one). The foundation can make a strong public statement
> > against stalking. We certainly won't be able to completely stop it, or
> > stop it immediately; but to stand by and do nothing while good
> > contributors are being threatened, harassed, driven from the project,
> > and having their lives put into shambles is unacceptable customer
> > service in my book.
> >
> > -Dan
> > On Jun 9, 2008, at 1:40 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> >
> >> Hoi,
> >> I think you should take a closer look.. It is way beyond a pissing
> >> contest.
> >> Belittling it as "people taking it way to serious" negates the real
> >> chilling
> >> effect it has.
> >>
> >> There are good people, some of the very best in my book, that are
> >> leaving
> >> and have left our projects because they feel threatened, because
> >> they do not
> >> want to be the next road kill, the next statistic. If anything, once
> >> people
> >> start leaving our project because of stalkers, when you can force
> >> your way
> >> by this type of behaviour, there is no longer a NPOV Wikipedia.
> >>
> >> When you suggest that it is part of a tit for tat game, you may be
> >> right but
> >> it does not matter. This type of behaviour is not acceptable and the
> >> most
> >> important part that we can to address it is to deal with it in a
> >> professional way. This means serious attention of the issues from
> >> within our
> >> organisation and it may include contacting the appropriate police
> >> organisation and following up / monitoring the further evolution of
> >> this
> >> behaviour.
> >>
> >> Suggesting murder, rape, the disfigurement with sulphuric acid is not
> >> acceptable either on wiki or off wiki. It is not only a threat to
> >> the person
> >> involved, it is a threat to us all. This is not a figure of speech,
> >> this is
> >> not freedom of expression, this is the stuff where we have to defend
> >> *our *freedom
> >> of expression. My and your freedom is limited by where the freedom of
> >> someone else starts and so is the freedom of the hoodlums who behave
> >> in this
> >> way.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>     GerardM
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 7:19 AM, Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 11:54 PM, Geoffrey Plourde
> >>> <[hidden email]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> [snip]
> >>>> RickK left because his family was threatened.
> >>>
> >>> Not to belittle your concern about Cyberstalking... but ... RickK
> >>> 'left' after being blocked for 3RR in a dispute with SPUI of all
> >>> people.  (A tangent, I know but I've found that uncorrected
> >>> statements
> >>> have a terrible tendency of becoming 'the truth'. ... )
> >>>
> >>> At the end of the day no one on Wikipedia or at Wikimedia is
> >>> empowered
> >>> to stop real staking (can we drop the 'cyber'? It makes it sound like
> >>> a video game.  If you're being stalked does it matter how it got
> >>> started?)... Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vigilante posse, not
> >>> law enforcement.
> >>>
> >>> Stalking which is serious and real..  rather than an extended online
> >>> pissing match... stuff that endangers people can't be improved by
> >>> anointing a few more users as holy emperors of the Wiki.  Take a look
> >>> at DavidShankbone's comments on Digg:  David's a nice guy and I
> >>> have a
> >>> lot of sympathy for what he's gone through...   But he writes:  "The
> >>> Wikimedia Foundation needs to publicly support the creation of a
> >>> group
> >>> of Wikipedia volunteers who have the authority to define harassment
> >>> and stalking and take action against it. They will advise the
> >>> Stewards
> >>> of cases that require a full block across all projects of an IP
> >>> range."  ... Now seriously,  if your problems can be actually
> >>> resolved
> >>> by smacking the enemy with a ZOMG WMF WIDE BAN, thats not stalking...
> >>> it's an internet pissing match between people who are taking
> >>> Wikipedia
> >>> far too seriously.
> >>>
> >>> Is it a problem that so many good contributors have a problem
> >>> avoiding
> >>> Internet Drama?  Sure...   But to call random internet drama stalking
> >>> is akin to yelling "rape" every time you get some unwanted
> >>> flirtation.
> >>> Overuse of the a serious word diminishes its importance and makes it
> >>> insufficiently expressive when we really need it.
> >>>
> >>> In fairness, there are a lot of people on English Wikipedia who have
> >>> been stalked, attacked, and otherwise mistreated in serious ways.
> >>> Yet,
> >>> many of those people have also been among those calling for more
> >>> impressive ban hammers.  I don't think that just because someone is
> >>> asking for an internet-drama solution doesn't mean they don't haven't
> >>> been harmed in a serious way.
> >>>
> >>> But the ZOMG WMF WIDE BAN can't actually solve their real problems...
> >>> but the real stalking is always intermixed with regular Internet
> >>> drama, so I guess that internet drama solutions are what get called
> >>> for because actually addressing the stalking is much harder, if not
> >>> sometimes impossible, and perhaps when you're looking for revenge
> >>> you'll take what you can get... ::shrugs:: I can only guess.
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> foundation-l mailing list
> >>> [hidden email]
> >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/
> >>> foundation-l
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> foundation-l mailing list
> >> [hidden email]
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Stalking Article

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Harel Cain
Harel Cain wrote:
> I agree with others here that there is a distinction to be made
> between a wiki-war gone out of control (where the warring parties
> would be long time users, in most cases) and the really nasty cases of
> stalking, threats, libelous publications and the like, usually
> directed by recently arrived (banned?) users at long time users,
> mainly those who blocked them.
>  
It is important then that whatever policy is adopted need to include a
clear definition of what we mean by stalking.  Without that there are
too many individuals who will treat any kind of opposition to their
views as stalking, and proceed to make a big public show of their
accusations.
> I don't think the Foundation can do anything practical to handle this
> second type of cases, which are clearly in the legal sphere between
> victim, victimizer (and state persecution), and I agree that taking
> wiki actions against these cases just downplays them into the wiki
> drama (which is too inflated anyway, and which we have to abate, not
> encourage). But there has to be a very clear signal coming from the
> Foundation that these issues are taken very seriously and will not be
> tolerated. It's all on the declaratory sphere, not the practical one.
>  
I definitely agree that bringing offsite nastiness on wiki only tends to
inflame an already bad situation.  Where the offsite threats are legally
actionable, our continued discussion of the problem could even weaken
the legal case against the trouble-maker.

While it does not justify stalking, I wonder how many of these
individuals could have been kept if they had not had to deal with zealots.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Stalking Article

Lars Aronsson
In reply to this post by Geoffrey Plourde
Geoffrey Plourde wrote:

> Greg;
>
> Thanks for your concerns. I believe that the Foundation should
> take the step of affirming that they will not stand for stalking
> of users, not necessaily a huge banhammer. The group of users
> would be more productive in hunting down and bringing justice to
> the stalkers.


I'm not sure what exactly you mean with "will not stand for". But
as I think Greg implied, it is a problem if the WMF opens up to
abuse of any such protection.  When people "cry wolf", how do we
know if that is a real case of stalking or not?  Is there a way?  
Who is an expert on how to deal with stalking?  Can they write
down some useful guidelines?  Can we teach admins and stewards on
this?  Or is [[Wikipedia:Harassment]] fine already, with its
recommendation that the harassed user should act calmly?

The article [[stalking]] begins with five message boxes requesting
neutrality, improvement and input from experts.


--
  Lars Aronsson ([hidden email])
  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Stalking Article

Sarah-128
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 2:39 AM, Lars Aronsson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> When people "cry wolf", how do we
> know if that is a real case of stalking or not?  Is there a way?
> Who is an expert on how to deal with stalking?  Can they write
> down some useful guidelines?  Can we teach admins and stewards on
> this?  Or is [[Wikipedia:Harassment]] fine already, with its
> recommendation that the harassed user should act calmly?
>
I believe the Foundation has hired the stalking expert Gavin de Becker
to advise them on this issue. Can someone from the Foundation report
on what kinds of things he has helped with so far?

Sarah

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Stalking Article

Robert Rohde
In reply to this post by Lars Aronsson
When we talk about real out-of-wiki harassment, we should also keep in mind
that the experts here are really the police.  We should be encouraging
victims to reach out to the authorities for help, and not pretend that a
community of volunteer editors can really solve these problems.

I assume the Foundation already has a policy of assisting the police in such
investigations as necessary.
-Robert Rohde


On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 12:39 AM, Lars Aronsson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
>
> > Greg;
> >
> > Thanks for your concerns. I believe that the Foundation should
> > take the step of affirming that they will not stand for stalking
> > of users, not necessaily a huge banhammer. The group of users
> > would be more productive in hunting down and bringing justice to
> > the stalkers.
>
>
> I'm not sure what exactly you mean with "will not stand for". But
> as I think Greg implied, it is a problem if the WMF opens up to
> abuse of any such protection.  When people "cry wolf", how do we
> know if that is a real case of stalking or not?  Is there a way?
> Who is an expert on how to deal with stalking?  Can they write
> down some useful guidelines?  Can we teach admins and stewards on
> this?  Or is [[Wikipedia:Harassment]] fine already, with its
> recommendation that the harassed user should act calmly?
>
> The article [[stalking]] begins with five message boxes requesting
> neutrality, improvement and input from experts.
>
>
> --
>  Lars Aronsson ([hidden email])
>  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Stalking Article

Sarah-128
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 3:26 AM, Robert Rohde <[hidden email]> wrote:
> When we talk about real out-of-wiki harassment, we should also keep in mind
> that the experts here are really the police.  We should be encouraging
> victims to reach out to the authorities for help, and not pretend that a
> community of volunteer editors can really solve these problems.

The police will only deal with the most serious of cases. They're not
going to get involved in a case where people are speculating on
websites as to whether a woman wants to be raped, what kind of
underwear she wears, and how many people she had to sleep with to get
a job. This kind of talk has led to me receiving threats of violence,
and even death, by e-mail, but they're from throwaway accounts, and
there's no telling whether there's serious intent; in fact, there
almost certainly isn't, but who knows whether there will be one day.
The police need to see something solid before they can act.

In the meantime, it would help enormously if the Foundation would
prevent wikiprojects from actually *helping* the people who are
targeting volunteers -- for example, by promoting them to bureaucrat
on other projects, or to admin on Wikipedia; by making sure their
websites aren't on the spam list; by allowing their harassment to be
discussed and linked to on Wikipedia -- which is what's currently
happening.

Sarah

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Stalking Article

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Robert Rohde
Hoi,
I agree that it is the police that has to deal with these types of
instances. The police is however not always as repsonsive as you would hope.
There is anecdotal evidence that they typically do not want to get involved
in these cases.

I do agree that getting the attention of the authorities is the best way to
get some solution. How to get this attention is achieved best when there is
a dossier about the case and the quality of such a dossier is enhanced when
other people who know how to build such a dossier testify to the veracity of
the claims.

I would love to learn that there is indeed a policy of the Foundation for
such cases.. I would not presume either way that such a policy exists. Such
a policy is problematic given our privacy rules... It is not obvious that
the police should always get what it wants. For this reason it helps when
there is a policy that deals with stalking cases because this can be made a
clarification to the privacy rules that explains what data can be shared
with law enforcement organisations...

NB Keep in your mind that we are not talking about US police alone..
Thanks,
     GerardM

On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 10:26 AM, Robert Rohde <[hidden email]> wrote:

> When we talk about real out-of-wiki harassment, we should also keep in mind
> that the experts here are really the police.  We should be encouraging
> victims to reach out to the authorities for help, and not pretend that a
> community of volunteer editors can really solve these problems.
>
> I assume the Foundation already has a policy of assisting the police in
> such
> investigations as necessary.
> -Robert Rohde
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 12:39 AM, Lars Aronsson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> >
> > > Greg;
> > >
> > > Thanks for your concerns. I believe that the Foundation should
> > > take the step of affirming that they will not stand for stalking
> > > of users, not necessaily a huge banhammer. The group of users
> > > would be more productive in hunting down and bringing justice to
> > > the stalkers.
> >
> >
> > I'm not sure what exactly you mean with "will not stand for". But
> > as I think Greg implied, it is a problem if the WMF opens up to
> > abuse of any such protection.  When people "cry wolf", how do we
> > know if that is a real case of stalking or not?  Is there a way?
> > Who is an expert on how to deal with stalking?  Can they write
> > down some useful guidelines?  Can we teach admins and stewards on
> > this?  Or is [[Wikipedia:Harassment]] fine already, with its
> > recommendation that the harassed user should act calmly?
> >
> > The article [[stalking]] begins with five message boxes requesting
> > neutrality, improvement and input from experts.
> >
> >
> > --
> >  Lars Aronsson ([hidden email])
> >  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Stalking Article

KIZU Naoko
In reply to this post by Robert Rohde
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 5:26 PM, Robert Rohde <[hidden email]> wrote:
> When we talk about real out-of-wiki harassment, we should also keep in mind
> that the experts here are really the police.  We should be encouraging
> victims to reach out to the authorities for help, and not pretend that a
> community of volunteer editors can really solve these problems.

In some countries, the authority might be a real help. In others,
unfortunately their reply may be "you could stop using the Internet
not to see those nasty words" & "you could hire a lawyer and complain
them". It is a sort of gambit.

The authorities are not always almighty either.


> I assume the Foundation already has a policy of assisting the police in such
> investigations as necessary.
> -Robert Rohde
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 12:39 AM, Lars Aronsson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
>>
>> > Greg;
>> >
>> > Thanks for your concerns. I believe that the Foundation should
>> > take the step of affirming that they will not stand for stalking
>> > of users, not necessaily a huge banhammer. The group of users
>> > would be more productive in hunting down and bringing justice to
>> > the stalkers.
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure what exactly you mean with "will not stand for". But
>> as I think Greg implied, it is a problem if the WMF opens up to
>> abuse of any such protection.  When people "cry wolf", how do we
>> know if that is a real case of stalking or not?  Is there a way?
>> Who is an expert on how to deal with stalking?  Can they write
>> down some useful guidelines?  Can we teach admins and stewards on
>> this?  Or is [[Wikipedia:Harassment]] fine already, with its
>> recommendation that the harassed user should act calmly?
>>
>> The article [[stalking]] begins with five message boxes requesting
>> neutrality, improvement and input from experts.
>>
>>
>> --
>>  Lars Aronsson ([hidden email])
>>  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
KIZU Naoko
http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese)
Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Stalking Article

Joe Szilagyi
In reply to this post by Sarah-128
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 1:02 AM, SlimVirgin <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I believe the Foundation has hired the stalking expert Gavin de Becker
> to advise them on this issue. Can someone from the Foundation report
> on what kinds of things he has helped with so far?
>

When was this announced? I don't recall seeing that and couldn't find it on
a search of Foundation-l?

- Joe
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Stalking Article

Dan Rosenthal
I believe it was actually Jimmy hiring him personally, rather than the
foundation. At least, that's my understanding. Since I cannot remember where
it was announced, I would rather not expound on it.

-Dan

On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Joe Szilagyi <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 1:02 AM, SlimVirgin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I believe the Foundation has hired the stalking expert Gavin de Becker
> > to advise them on this issue. Can someone from the Foundation report
> > on what kinds of things he has helped with so far?
> >
>
> When was this announced? I don't recall seeing that and couldn't find it on
> a search of Foundation-l?
>
> - Joe
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
Dan Rosenthal
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Stalking Article

Dennis During
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
WMF can assist law enforcement not by making complaints, which are
abundant, but by making it easy for law enforcement to investigate and
prosecute. It should be obvious that this risks violating the
community's attitudes and preferences about privacy. Privacy often
conflicts with responsibility. Finding ways of managing the conflict
is a serious challenge. The biggest roles this list can perform are to
call for action, to reflect community opinion, and to lead community
opinion. IMHO.

Unfortunately a change in policy will only occur following a change in
attitudes, which will probably only follow from instances of actual
real-world stalking or recognized cyber-crime.  Perhaps we can delay
the day when some draconian measures will be taken by supporting
modest preventive actions now that are consistent with moderate
(realistic) views of privacy and the trade-offs with responsibility.


On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 4:39 AM, Gerard Meijssen
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hoi,
> I agree that it is the police that has to deal with these types of
> instances. The police is however not always as repsonsive as you would hope.
> There is anecdotal evidence that they typically do not want to get involved
> in these cases.
>
> I do agree that getting the attention of the authorities is the best way to
> get some solution. How to get this attention is achieved best when there is
> a dossier about the case and the quality of such a dossier is enhanced when
> other people who know how to build such a dossier testify to the veracity of
> the claims.
>
> I would love to learn that there is indeed a policy of the Foundation for
> such cases.. I would not presume either way that such a policy exists. Such
> a policy is problematic given our privacy rules... It is not obvious that
> the police should always get what it wants. For this reason it helps when
> there is a policy that deals with stalking cases because this can be made a
> clarification to the privacy rules that explains what data can be shared
> with law enforcement organisations...
>
> NB Keep in your mind that we are not talking about US police alone..
> Thanks,
>     GerardM



--
Dennis C. During

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Stalking Article

Jimmy Wales
I have not personally hired Gavin de Becker or any similar firm.

It would be best if peopel not repeat rumors, particularly when people's
personal safety may be at stake.

--Jimbo

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Stalking Article

Mike Godwin-3
In reply to this post by Geoffrey Plourde

SlimVirgin writes:

> I believe the Foundation has hired the stalking expert Gavin de Becker
> to advise them on this issue. Can someone from the Foundation report
> on what kinds of things he has helped with so far?

We consulted Gavin de Becker's firm primarily to develop security  
measures and routines relating to our new office space.  Their mission  
was to help us avoid physical security problems, not cyberstalking or  
online security problems.  They've made some recommendations for us  
that mostly don't have to do with how the projects are operated, but  
instead are centered on physical security measures at our office, plus  
appropriate procedures for handling (or avoiding handling) difficult  
physical encounters.


--Mike





_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
1234 ... 8