| Revision as of 00:12, 21 August 2005 editMysidia (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers4,175 editsm →"Following" does not necessarily mean "stalking": fix link← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:50, 21 August 2005 edit undoUninvitedCompany (talk | contribs)Bureaucrats, Administrators11,115 edits edit tone to reflect the mainstream Misplaced Pages view on thisNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| According to a recent decision of the Misplaced Pages ] | According to a recent decision of the Misplaced Pages ] | ||
| :"The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor. This is distinct from following a contributor in order to clear repeated errors." | :"The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor. This is distinct from following a contributor in order to clear repeated errors." | ||
| Since the arbitration committee interprets the will and policies of the Misplaced Pages community with regard to a particular case, its definition is not binding on the community. | |||
| '''(however, in the text below, 'stalking' is used to refer to simply reading other people's contribution logs. This dichotomy will need resolving)''' | '''(however, in the text below, 'stalking' is used to refer to simply reading other people's contribution logs. This dichotomy will need resolving)''' | ||
| Line 13: | Line 15: | ||
| ===Wikipedian viewpoints on stalking=== | ===Wikipedian viewpoints on stalking=== | ||
| The presence of the "User Contributions" page for each user was, at the time of its introduction, unique to Misplaced Pages and not used by other wikis then extant. Together with the watchlist feature, it set the stage for what has become the world's largest wiki. The easy ability of any user to review the contributions of any other user was among the defining features of the project, making it distinct from other wikis. | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | Despite this. the practice of wikistalking is considered very objectionable to some editors, even though the practice of monitoring user contributions has proven vital in maintaining a quality encyclopedia. Critics of wikistalking often distinguish the practice, which is conducted for the purpose of harassment, from normal editor monitoring for constructive purposes such as improving articles, removing vandalism, or correcting errors. | ||
| ⚫ | While wikistalking can be very annoying, every editor gets followed from time to time. Editors may expect unusually frequent amounts of "stalking" or following when they are the subject of a nomination for ] or promotion to a similar position of authority. While being followed it might be wise to have impeccable behaviour, |
||
| ⚫ | While wikistalking can be very annoying, every editor gets followed from time to time. Editors may expect unusually frequent amounts of "stalking" or following when they are the subject of a nomination for ] or promotion to a similar position of authority. While being followed it might be wise to have impeccable behaviour, rather than expecting the usual give-and-take inherent in collaborative editing. | ||
| ===="Following" does not necessarily mean "stalking"==== | ===="Following" does not necessarily mean "stalking"==== | ||
| The practice of following the contributions of other editors should in no way be categorically rejected. Although it is highly discouraged to follow a contributor |
The practice of following the contributions of other editors should in no way be categorically rejected. Although it is highly discouraged to follow a contributor for the purposes of pushing your own POV, or for purposes of harassment, trailing a public nuisance to Misplaced Pages is considered by many contributers as a commendable sign of dedication. For example, following an anonymous ] so that (s)he understands that vandalizing or degrading Misplaced Pages is a fruitless hobby is not considered to be "stalking". There are many such vandals, so editors often find a need to systematically follow them. There are many legitimate reasons for following the work of another editor, but it is a good idea to have a reasonable justification in mind when doing so. Editors on either side of this situation are encouraged to review ], ], ], ], and other applicable policies. Following another editor who has similar interests for the purpose of finding articles of interest to improve is another laudable use of "following." | ||
| ===="Bad" stalking==== | ===="Bad" stalking==== | ||
| Wiki-stalking occurs when an editor abusively trails another editor around Misplaced Pages. The stalked editor is usually tracked by his or her contributions page, which is open to everyone to read as a part of wikipedia's open nature. Wiki-stalking entails an editing pattern in which one editor uses these contributions to continuously follow another editor over an extended period of time and over a wide variety of articles for the purpose of |
Wiki-stalking occurs when an editor abusively trails another editor around Misplaced Pages. The stalked editor is usually tracked by his or her contributions page, which is open to everyone to read as a part of wikipedia's open nature. Wiki-stalking entails an editing pattern in which one editor uses these contributions to continuously follow another editor over an extended period of time and over a wide variety of articles for the purpose of violating policy, such as ] or ]. These changes are done solely for the purposes of harassment of the stalked editor. Recent wiki-stalking precedents have established that even minor "followup" changes of this type can be considered stalking when part of a pattern that includes policy violations. | ||
| It is argued by some that wiki-stalking is an abuse of the user-contributions function on Misplaced Pages. This is a tool that |
It is argued by some that wiki-stalking is an abuse of the user-contributions function on Misplaced Pages. This is a tool that most often serves valuable purposes in combatting vandalism and problematic users, and in ensuring the openness of the wikipedia community but like any tool it can be abused when used with malicious intent. Stalking can be problematic to the stalked person and to wikipedia because it can exhibit incivility, subject individual, innocent editors to unwarranted harassment, and violate the request that all wikipedians should assume good faith about other editors. Sometimes an editor conducts himself with the intent of driving another editor away from Misplaced Pages through a pattern of policy violations. This practice is considered bad stalking. | ||
| ====False accusations of stalking==== | ====False accusations of stalking==== | ||
| There may be a number of reasons why someone wrongly claims another person is cyberstalking them. Some new users are not aware of the watchlist, or of the easy access all readers have to the contributions of all users. They feel the act of being watched is bad cyberstalking even though this is not the case in most cases. |
There may be a number of reasons why someone wrongly claims another person is cyberstalking them. Some new users are not aware of the watchlist, or of the easy access all readers have to the contributions of all users. They feel the act of being watched is bad cyberstalking even though this is not the case in most cases. Some users who are frustrated because their edits have been subject to corrections claim that "stalking" has occured simply because they do not understand either the Wiki model or project norms. | ||
| New users who believe they are being followed should be aware that the project is collaborative and that editors frequently check each other's work. In the event that a user believes he or she is being unduly followed, that user should |
New users who believe they are being followed should be aware that the project is collaborative and that editors frequently check each other's work. In the event that a user believes he or she is being unduly followed, that user should assume good faith until it becomes clear that the "stalker" is making edits primarily to violate policy. Often times a simple case of misunderstanding may exist that can be resolved by discussion. | ||
| ==Wiki-stalking precedents== | ==Wiki-stalking precedents== | ||
| Wiki-stalking has been |
Wiki-stalking has been mentioned in at least two Arbitration Committee proceedings. The degree to which this establishes any meaningful precedent is disputed, because both cases had many non-stalking elements. | ||
| ===The Recycling Troll (TRT)=== | ===The Recycling Troll (TRT)=== | ||
| Line 42: | Line 46: | ||
| Also reported on here: ] | Also reported on here: ] | ||
| It is notable that TRT had no useful contributions and made many edits in violation of ]. | |||
| ===Skyring=== | ===Skyring=== | ||
| In a separate case decided ], ], ], a user was found by the ] to have committed "wikistalking". The committee voted 5-0 that: | In a separate case decided ], ], ], a user was found by the ] to have committed "wikistalking". The committee voted 5-0 that: | ||
| <blockquote>The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor. This is distinct from following a contributor in order to clear repeated errors.</blockquote> | <blockquote>The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor. This is distinct from following a contributor in order to clear repeated errors.</blockquote> | ||
| Line 52: | Line 58: | ||
| <blockquote>] is banned from Misplaced Pages for one year for wiki-stalking and acting in bad faith towards other contributors, as demonstrated in evidence. | <blockquote>] is banned from Misplaced Pages for one year for wiki-stalking and acting in bad faith towards other contributors, as demonstrated in evidence. | ||
| </blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
| The original Skyring case was unrelated to stalking, instead being chiefly related to POV-driven edit wars on a number of related pages. The edit summaries cited above are also clearly violations of ] and ]. | |||
| ==Dealing with Wiki-Stalking== | ==Dealing with Wiki-Stalking== | ||
| # If you are being stalked in a harassing manner by another user, the first thing you should do is |
# If you are being stalked in a harassing manner by another user, the first thing you should do is assume good faith until it is clear that the other user is not making a good-faith effort to improve articles. Keep in mind that the other editor may have a genuine reason for reviewing your work or it could be a simple matter of misunderstanding. | ||
| # If step 1 doesn't work and you still believe that the editor is engaged in stalking of the "bad" type, |
# If step 1 doesn't work and you still believe that the editor is engaged in stalking of the "bad" type, you may wish to draw attention to ], ], or other relevant policies. | ||
| ==See also== | ==See also== | ||
Revision as of 02:50, 21 August 2005
 | The following is a proposed Misplaced Pages policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. |
- This particular article is being proposed as a guideline, not a policy.
The term wikistalking or wiki-stalking describes a pattern of editing behavior in which one contributor intentionally follows and makes changes to the edits of another solely for the purpose of harassment or disruption.
Definition
According to a recent decision of the Misplaced Pages Arbitration Committee
- "The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor. This is distinct from following a contributor in order to clear repeated errors."
Since the arbitration committee interprets the will and policies of the Misplaced Pages community with regard to a particular case, its definition is not binding on the community.
(however, in the text below, 'stalking' is used to refer to simply reading other people's contribution logs. This dichotomy will need resolving)
Wikipedian viewpoints on stalking
The presence of the "User Contributions" page for each user was, at the time of its introduction, unique to Misplaced Pages and not used by other wikis then extant. Together with the watchlist feature, it set the stage for what has become the world's largest wiki. The easy ability of any user to review the contributions of any other user was among the defining features of the project, making it distinct from other wikis.
Despite this. the practice of wikistalking is considered very objectionable to some editors, even though the practice of monitoring user contributions has proven vital in maintaining a quality encyclopedia. Critics of wikistalking often distinguish the practice, which is conducted for the purpose of harassment, from normal editor monitoring for constructive purposes such as improving articles, removing vandalism, or correcting errors.
While wikistalking can be very annoying, every editor gets followed from time to time. Editors may expect unusually frequent amounts of "stalking" or following when they are the subject of a nomination for Adminship or promotion to a similar position of authority. While being followed it might be wise to have impeccable behaviour, rather than expecting the usual give-and-take inherent in collaborative editing.
"Following" does not necessarily mean "stalking"
The practice of following the contributions of other editors should in no way be categorically rejected. Although it is highly discouraged to follow a contributor for the purposes of pushing your own POV, or for purposes of harassment, trailing a public nuisance to Misplaced Pages is considered by many contributers as a commendable sign of dedication. For example, following an anonymous vandal so that (s)he understands that vandalizing or degrading Misplaced Pages is a fruitless hobby is not considered to be "stalking". There are many such vandals, so editors often find a need to systematically follow them. There are many legitimate reasons for following the work of another editor, but it is a good idea to have a reasonable justification in mind when doing so. Editors on either side of this situation are encouraged to review Misplaced Pages:Vandalism, Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks, Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not, and other applicable policies. Following another editor who has similar interests for the purpose of finding articles of interest to improve is another laudable use of "following."
"Bad" stalking
Wiki-stalking occurs when an editor abusively trails another editor around Misplaced Pages. The stalked editor is usually tracked by his or her contributions page, which is open to everyone to read as a part of wikipedia's open nature. Wiki-stalking entails an editing pattern in which one editor uses these contributions to continuously follow another editor over an extended period of time and over a wide variety of articles for the purpose of violating policy, such as WP:NPOV or WP:NPA. These changes are done solely for the purposes of harassment of the stalked editor. Recent wiki-stalking precedents have established that even minor "followup" changes of this type can be considered stalking when part of a pattern that includes policy violations.
It is argued by some that wiki-stalking is an abuse of the user-contributions function on Misplaced Pages. This is a tool that most often serves valuable purposes in combatting vandalism and problematic users, and in ensuring the openness of the wikipedia community but like any tool it can be abused when used with malicious intent. Stalking can be problematic to the stalked person and to wikipedia because it can exhibit incivility, subject individual, innocent editors to unwarranted harassment, and violate the request that all wikipedians should assume good faith about other editors. Sometimes an editor conducts himself with the intent of driving another editor away from Misplaced Pages through a pattern of policy violations. This practice is considered bad stalking.
False accusations of stalking
There may be a number of reasons why someone wrongly claims another person is cyberstalking them. Some new users are not aware of the watchlist, or of the easy access all readers have to the contributions of all users. They feel the act of being watched is bad cyberstalking even though this is not the case in most cases. Some users who are frustrated because their edits have been subject to corrections claim that "stalking" has occured simply because they do not understand either the Wiki model or project norms.
New users who believe they are being followed should be aware that the project is collaborative and that editors frequently check each other's work. In the event that a user believes he or she is being unduly followed, that user should assume good faith until it becomes clear that the "stalker" is making edits primarily to violate policy. Often times a simple case of misunderstanding may exist that can be resolved by discussion.
Wiki-stalking precedents
Wiki-stalking has been mentioned in at least two Arbitration Committee proceedings. The degree to which this establishes any meaningful precedent is disputed, because both cases had many non-stalking elements.
The Recycling Troll (TRT)
The The Recycling Troll (TRT) matter occured from February to March 2005. The incident involved an editor who was banned for an overall pattern of trolling including stalking of one administrator. User:Jimbo Wales wrote in his final decision, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/David Gerard, Neutrality, Cyrius,
Because the Recycling Troll was making a pest of himself by harassing RickK and hammering the mailing list with facetious strawman arguments, I see no reason for us to make a big deal of it.
are in place to help us write the encyclopedia. Going around pestering RickK pointlessly and writing inane messages to the mailing list are clearly not attempts to help us do that, but are rather just someone disrupting wikipedia to illustrate a point. So I'm blocking User:The Recycling Troll indefinitely. He's been a very successful troll, he's caused a lot of trouble, and he's most likely a sock puppet anyway.
Also reported on here: Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2005-03-14/Recycling Troll
It is notable that TRT had no useful contributions and made many edits in violation of WP:NPA.
Skyring
In a separate case decided August 12, 2005, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Skyring, a user was found by the WP:ArbCom to have committed "wikistalking". The committee voted 5-0 that:
The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor. This is distinct from following a contributor in order to clear repeated errors.
On 13 June User:Skyring followed User:Jtdirl, editing a large set of articles that had recently been edited by Jtdirl (see contributions for 13 June). While it is not possible to fully assess intent, this action, and some of the edit summaries used, seem designed to provoke: "enfeebled minds", "Some professional standards, please!", "A common pattern for this editor to produce poor English", "Low quality of Irish editor"
User:Skyring is banned from Misplaced Pages for one year for wiki-stalking and acting in bad faith towards other contributors, as demonstrated in evidence.
The original Skyring case was unrelated to stalking, instead being chiefly related to POV-driven edit wars on a number of related pages. The edit summaries cited above are also clearly violations of WP:FAITH and WP:NPA.
Dealing with Wiki-Stalking
- If you are being stalked in a harassing manner by another user, the first thing you should do is assume good faith until it is clear that the other user is not making a good-faith effort to improve articles. Keep in mind that the other editor may have a genuine reason for reviewing your work or it could be a simple matter of misunderstanding.
- If step 1 doesn't work and you still believe that the editor is engaged in stalking of the "bad" type, you may wish to draw attention to WP:NPA, WP:NPOV, or other relevant policies.