What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
$52 and Up—Airlines Slash Fares On Peak Holiday Flights. view!
travelzoo.com - This year, waiting until the last minute is NOT the best strategy. See why.
94 Comments
- Durova, on 06/09/2008, -1/+17This is an important article. The problem has been talked about quietly for a long time. David made a brave decision to step forward. The individual who targeted him is still unidentified and still at large.
- alapoet, on 06/09/2008, -0/+8As Durova (thanks for posting the article) said, this is important.
It's really sad when things come to this... The Internet is about knowledge and the free exchange of ideas, not about stalking and assaulting those with whom you disagree.
Thank you, David, for coming forward. Nothing will change until people who have been the victims of cyberstalking are willing to speak out. - SWATJester, on 06/09/2008, -0/+6David, I agree with you. One of the problems is that the principle in the MONGO 1 arbitration case, which states that any harassment is blockable by any administrator (even the target), and that administrators should support anyone who is harassed; that rule is not followed well enough. I've been stalked by two separate stalkers through Wikimedia. And I've always been public with my identity. Imagine if I was a privacy seeking individual. It'd be even worse for them. That's one of the reasons that I am running for the board this election, because I am sickened by what happened to you, and I'm sickened by what happened to Newyorkbrad, and I'm sickened by what happened to Gator1, and I'm sickened by what happened to Katefan0, and I'm sickened by what happened to every other person who has been stalked and harassed through Wikimedia. It is a solid plank in my candidacy that I will work to stop such harassment on the board.
- igorthetroll, on 06/09/2008, -3/+9I requested Durova to start this discussion being that she is the one who Dugg this story. The issue of Wikipedia and how Wikipeda editors are treated is very important not just to Wikipedians but to the whole Internet Global Village.
- johnleemk, on 06/09/2008, -0/+5A lot of people don't know about how normal people who happen to edit Wikipedia are harassed. Regardless of what you think of their politics or them personally, there is no excuse for making people go through living hell. If they've libeled you, sue them. If they've made inaccurate edits, get someone else to correct them. Making it personal is ultimately pointless, and just ruins someone else's life.
- Durova, on 06/09/2008, -0/+4There are two ways of approaching this issue: protect oneself or fix the problem? David and I are choosing the second route. It's a decision I've weighed for months. We respect others who choose differently and we accept the risks of the path we're taking.
- Durova, on 06/09/2008, -0/+4So what's behind this? Some of Wikipedia's systems are seriously flawed and we've got negative feedback loops. That doesn't cause the problem but it makes it worse. Wikipedia is counterintuitive in a lot of ways, but it's counterintuitive in more ways than it needs to be. And in the long run it does not help us that our blocking and banning policies are constructed in the way the presently are.
Because it's flawed we get uneven results. Obviously uneven results. We leave people in a poorly defined limbo between indefinite blocking and banning. Often we block first, then decide whether to ban them, and shut the person out of the discussion. Our usual template (the unblock request) implicitly encourages people to say they've done nothing wrong at all, when obviously there have been problems, and sets up a binary discussion when an open-ended one would be more appropriate. And some of our best contributors have been so frustrated and overworked that they've gotten rude. It's one thing to show a person the door, which is sometimes necessary. It's another thing to kick them on the way out.
None of this justifies the stalking David endures or the harassment I face. Yet it contributes to poisonous atmosphere that makes our problems happen. Those factors (and a few others) leave people who might otherwise accept a lengthy hiatus frustrated and angry. It defies elementary expectations of justice and fair play. It is easy to construe that situation as bullying or corrupt, from the point of view of the person on the outs. And unfortunately the site's regulars fail to appreciate that in sufficient numbers. We also need a clear path back to good standing for banned users. Not for ones who threaten violence, but for most of the people who get banned—the situations that just didn’t work out. I have volunteered for over a year and a half to work toward a better system in those areas.
So what that means is the pool of people who have been ejected from the site is angrier than it needs to be, which encourages them to network. Some of them might adjust to site standards, more wouldn't, and a minority are really deviant people. When a person who cannot think rationally gets shown the door politely, that person may go quietly. But the chances of a quiet departure are significantly diminished if a Google search quickly turns up a series of sites that complain about the individual who showed that person the door. Whether those complaints are sound or baseless, it's very tempting to a person in that position to believe the complaints are true. - Durova, on 06/09/2008, -0/+4That's good of you to say, alapoet. It helps to see people care.
- brexians, on 06/09/2008, -0/+4thanks posting the article it was very usefull...
- seicer, on 06/09/2008, -2/+6An accurate portrayal of cyberstalking at its finest. An issue that is still in its infancy, in terms of dialogue, cyberstalking has affected numerous administrators and long-standing editors at Wikipedia with little to no resolve, with the Foundation doing little to nothing to help combat the issue. Being the seventh most-visited web-site with resources that extend quite deep, you would think that the Foundation could have a little leverage. After all, they do practically beg for money at every turn, and it's not without its fair share of controversy.
The best bet is to stop contributing if you feel that your life is in threat, or if cyberstalking becomes an issue. The web-site is simply not worth it. - HuskyPuzzle, on 06/09/2008, -0/+4Crazy...this is the first I've heard of this..
- ilid, on 06/09/2008, -0/+3I've encountered a few unusual things at Wikipedia, but this one I couldn't have guessed. How sad to hear this huge organization is so negligent of its largest asset - its users. Thank you for sharing this
- igorthetroll, on 06/10/2008, -0/+3Here is another example of Cyber Stalking being perpetrated on Vlad Zablotskyy http://tinyurl.com/6k7289 And the sad part is ePerks a real estate marketing firm has launched a law suit against the man based on him being Cyber Stalked ePerks http://tinyurl.com/4nx5d7
It is horrible how destructive is Cyber Stalking is to people!
Barry Schwartz form Search Engine Round Table is being Cyber Stalked by a user on Face Book claiming he is an employee of Barry's company in his Face Book company profile. When Barry contacted FB they told him they cannot do anything.
Are we going to let Cyber Stalkers destroy our lives? Or are we going to stand up to them as a community to prevent them abusing our members?
You decide, because you maybe the next victim of a Cyber Stalking attack! When you are where will you go for help? Who will you ask for help?
Let's help each other to stop Cyber Stalking! - geoplrd, on 06/09/2008, -0/+3The cyberstalking issue is real. I myself would love to hear from the stalker or stalkers, but i have a feeling that won't happen. I understand people criticise that which they disagree with, but when they threaten someone or their family surely you must agree they are out of line.
- Filll, on 06/09/2008, -0/+3I think Durova is correct. There are probably some simple things we could do to improve the situation.
- igorthetroll, on 06/09/2008, -0/+3There is a lot we can do to improve the situation! I am so proud of Durova, she is a Saint!
- Durova, on 06/09/2008, -0/+3Yes, this is the first time it's been published. It's been talked about among Wikipedians for a long time. It's the most productive and dedicated volunteers who get targeted.
- kayres, on 06/09/2008, -0/+3I used to edit Wikipedia but this is one of the big reasons I left. I worked on lots of articles (and was never blocked) but the threat of harassment became too much for me to continue. The most discouraging thing is that the Wikipedia leadership will do nothing about it. They sometimes make noises and pretend to care but never actually do anything. To Jimmy Wales we're all expendable drones. Other people on Wikipedia will blame the victim or accuse them of lying.
- igorthetroll, on 06/09/2008, -0/+2Durova, I think to help David, he needs to come out and talk about it with impartial people. I sensed tension within him and that tension needs to be released before healing begins.
The only way to release is to examine all the possibilities why it happened to him. You cannot look at the problem just from one angle.
I hope David is open to communication. - igorthetroll, on 06/09/2008, -0/+2How sad but true. But I think it is more neoconservatist and special interest groups doing the hacking on Wikipedia. CIA has been caught many times social engineering Wikipedia for their alternative agenda.
CIA - Central Intelligence Agency of United States of America.
BBC NEWS | Technology | Wikipedia ’shows CIA page edits’
http://tinyurl.com/ys2ddt - Qong, on 06/09/2008, -0/+2What is going on with these comments here?
If this guy was being stalked then he should have contacted the proper authorities. There is plenty that can be done about real, actual stalking. Harassment on the internet doesn't really apply though, "cyberstalking" is questionable at best; the sad fact is that many people see the internet as a place that they can act like idiots, as there are little to no consequences for their actions; and I don't see that changing without the freedoms that all of us here on the internet enjoy being destroyed.
Just take solace in the idea that it is very likely some fat slob harassing you from his parents' basement. - MarkF102, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2Igor, It's not true that Wikipedia detractors are all persons who've been pushed from the project. Many are, and among those many have legitimate gripes. Others continue to belong, but see serious issues that aren't being addressed - not everyone critical of Wikipedia was rejected. Wikipedia has serious problems. Talking about them isn't allowed on Wikipedia - it's a very strange situation. With Durova, the problem isn't a need to communicate with out-group persons. The problem is that she acts quite bizarre and is frankly "never wrong" and also lies quite a bit. She was forced to leave her position for harassing a user, and there'd been many before him. There was a huge scandal over it. Now she dares to go on a podcast and try to paint herself as a harassment victim. That's not a communication problem. That's either a psychological problem -a person's ability to deal with reality, or it's a problem of a compulsive liar, intentional or not - who cares? I suggest you avoid discussing it with her, but if you do, proceed at your own risk. She's one of the most salient of the Wikipedia abusers. It's weird she went online to make a show like this - but it's sort of the kind of things she does a lot. Does she have credibility on Wikipedia? No, not really. But new people come along and don't realize what a mes she's made of things - you did! She seems to be in some sort of state of denial. This podcast being evidence of that. - M
- Durova, on 06/09/2008, -0/+2Beautiful, until I read this line:
"I firmly believe it is our “reactions” that determine or prompt any further action or harassment from anyone or anything."
Our reactions have some influence, but not as much as that, and certain people are so irrational that even a perfect reaction doesn't stop the problem.
The really dangerous thing about an absolutist interpretation is that it puts the target in a double bind. This reasoning becomes an excuse for other people and the law to do nothing, with the rationale that the victim simply needs to be "better." A perpetrator tests boundaries and discovers that there are none, because everyone assumes that the problem will cease on its own if only the victim were "better." Eventually, the fact that the problem still exists at all gets construed as evidence that the victim must have handled it badly. And when a victim who has been saintly up to that point finally wails at the insanity of the situation, it becomes "proof" that the victim must have been egging the problem all along. - AronadoHumantic, on 06/09/2008, -0/+2I do apologize, my response is more about David as an individual and how individuals respond to stimuli really, in any circumstance. However, I strongly agree that there must be some system of protections so that we may all move forward in our work to improve the world in any capacity.
David,
While reading your story this verse popped into my head,
“Don’t be shocked when people die, be surprised your still alive” by Flyleaf song Cassie.
A bit touching huh?
Of course, easy for me to say but, you are accepting or internalizing this “harassment” to the degree that you have let “it” control you and thus your behavior. I AM NOT CONDONING YOUR STALKERS BEHAVIOR. Clearly, this person has “threatened” you and should have to suffer the consequences which, of course this is a very grey area.
Sounds like you have been through some heavy ***** and have done some amazing things. My hat is off to you. But, don’t ***** quit now my friend. You are there! You control your reactions through death threats, accidents, love, failure, heartbreak, and success.
To be GREAT you must overcome your ego and learn when not to react and when to go to battle. You will only go to battle when you have the ability to know, understand, and think as your enemy does. (yes, I read The Art of War)
You stated:
“Free speech rights allow wide latitude to say almost anything to express disagreement with people.”
How are we to truly discern what is real and what is not? I firmly believe it is our “reactions” that determine or prompt any further action or harassment from anyone or anything.
*Back to your point, what can be done to stop this type of online abuse where identities are easily masked?
Solutions?
Aronado@bitchybetty.Org - AronadoHumantic, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1thank you I appreciate and respect your response.
But, to be fair (and I am reacting here:)
I did not state the "best" or "most appropriate" action would ELIMINATE the problem.
I'll bet you if we were to go back through the dialog of David and his (enemy) we would be able to identify some re-actions that may (or may not) have altered responses or reactions from either party.
You said: "and certain people are so irrational that even a perfect reaction doesn't stop the problem."
I certainly agree, unfortunately, it has been that way since the beginning of time and probably "evil" will always exist no? - Durova, on 06/10/2008, -1/+2He did contact the proper authorities. It doesn't always stop the problem.
- AronadoHumantic, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1All good points, and I agree with "What I want to see is parity: it's slow, bureaucratic, and irritating to have a car stolen, but society and the law handle the problem in a businesslike manner without placing extraordinary."
For sure, let me play devils advocate and argue, is it reasonable that one evil will replace it's self so long as we continue to build and enhance the very mediums which are used for it's existence? - igorthetroll, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1David I same like Aronado would like to help you and offer solutions. I know maybe we got off on the wrong foot, but I hope you can see my intention is to help Wikipedia and no selfishness what so ever. I would like to offer you help as well.
me@igorthetroll.com
I promise not to bore you! lol - Durova, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1Theft has existed since the beginning of time, but society and the law have figured out what to do about that. We don't answer, "If you'd locked up your car better you'd still have it."
In 1990 California enacted a law for stalking, and other jurisdictions followed. The law hasn't caught up to the reality yet and the culture hasn't caught up even as far as the law is. That includes the professionals whose job is to make sure stalking laws are enforced.
Today it is possible to put someone in jail for that type of behavior, but not easy. What I want to see is parity: it's slow, bureaucratic, and irritating to have a car stolen, but society and the law handle the problem in a businesslike manner without placing extraordinary expectations on the victim. - igorthetroll, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1yabba26, there are problems with talking about Wikipedia and what is wrong with it. When I wrote an essay about Social Engineering Internet WP:SEI an admin who has been Wkistalking me made sure the essay was MfD. He eventually succeeded in indef blocking me because I outed a notorious Troll and sock code name Chudov.
http://www.cyberussr.com/hcunn/usenet/palm-chudov. ...
This admin who got me indef blocked is canvasing the community not to have me come back even though the ANI agreement was to have me go through informal mediation with another admin.
Hey, I am only here because Durova is my friend and she asked me to help with her harassment problem.
Dude, I have a life, I have a business, and I am very active in Social Media community.
Maybe Wikipedians need to get off the project once in the while and talk to the public and see what they think. Remember Wikipedia was not set up for Wikipedian editors, but for people to reference knowledge. - lordewoks, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1Oh no! Quick, everyone out of the inter-tubes!
- thekohser, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1Show me one piece of underwear with Durova's image on it. Show me one shred of fabric that meets that bogus description, and prove that I had anything to do with its manufacture, and I will write you a $500 check.
Prove that I am Urban Dictionary user "redmanalishi" who started the "Durova" entry on Jan 2, 2008, and I will write you another $500 check.
As for "following" someone on blogs, or talking to reporters that they have talked to -- I'd say that this is pretty much a mandatory obligation these days (unfortunately), when disgruntled busy-bodies intend to libel you all across the Internet, without legal consequence.
So, "Connie Latvas", could you prove to any of us that you are a real person with that real name? Why is it that I have to put my credentials on the line and be accountable, but until last year "Durova" enjoyed hiding behind a pseudonym while she struck out at various people who had no expectation of having to deal with her busy-body assaults on character and reputation? - thekohser, on 06/15/2008, -1/+2Durova, you could go a long way toward having more allies and fewer detractors if you weren't so conniving in your interaction with people whom you have maligned in the past. For example, when you offer that you'll take down an offensive blog post that questions the fathering skills of one of your detractors, when the other party does everything in his power to comply with your request, it's rather a "dick move" to adjust the goal posts about a mile down the road and say, "Sorry, I withdraw my offer." No wonder a Google search on either your nickname or your real name returns so many sites filled with vitriol against you.
- webapp, on 09/25/2008, -0/+1Al this is very sweet and very nice, that is that Wikipedia admins want to protect their own admins and major editors from stalking.
But how about Wikipedia own admins stalking others?
Here is a fresh example from WP admin, A._B. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:A._B.#Admin ...
Despite several attempts by WebAPP fans to request discussing A._B. admin tools abuse (all which were blocked and had their discussions deleted) A._B. is STILL stalking our sites:
As you can see with his repeated bans logs (all which are provided with a warning):
http://www.roger-moore.com/images/uploads/wikipedi ...
http://www.roger-moore.com/images/uploads/wikipedi ...
http://www.roger-moore.com/images/uploads/wikipedi ...
http://www.roger-moore.com/images/uploads/wikipedi ...
From his static IP at: 67.166.201.11
Which I am sure some of the WP admins visiting here could confirm.
It is a disgrace for Wikipedia having such admins (stalkers) supervising in Wikipedia. I sincerely mean that Wikipedia should start cleaning its own system before going complaining against its editors and rivals. - thekohser, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1Whoops, yabba26 has violated the Digg.com Terms of Service now. Those nasty, abusive comments should be removed sometime soon.
- igorthetroll, on 06/09/2008, -2/+3ilid, I welcome your objectivity. I just receive a very sincere and touching email from Durova that almost making me cry. Durova is a saint and she cares very much about Wikipedia. I would like to share this email with you guys, that expresses th true problem with Wikipedia, but I will not violate her trust with me. I came to Wikipedia and edited it form 9 months because of here and I am trying to bring attentions to Wikipedia problems because Durova asked for my help. I did not come here out of the blue flaming David and other editors. I came here with objectivity and no bias what so ever. My bias if there is any is to help Wikipedia and save its knowledge for posterity.
I requested Dorova to post the email that she just sent to me, and I hope she will do this. If she does that, she will be going on the limb, because there will be a lot of animosity against her on Wikipedia. She is a very brave lady and this is not the first time she is advocating for Wikipedia and all its editors.
- thekohser, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1It's amazing how high and mighty pseudonymous critics from Kentucky can so utterly fail to comprehend CafePress.com, and how an entire "store" of merchandise can be virtually created in about 9 minutes, but how that doesn't mean factories in China are churning out thong underwear at the click of a button.
If you question my care for my wife and my daughter, you're welcome to attend my church one Sunday and visit with us after service. You may ask them what they think of my duty of care as a father and husband. You might have to rephrase the question for my not-yet-5-year-old daughter, but I think her answer will be clear enough. The only thing that sidetracks me from giving the full level of attention to her is defending against malicious, defamatory, pseudonymous attacks on my character on the Internet. Ironic, isn't it, "yabba26"?
Was it easy for you to defame me here, even though you've never even met me or spoken with me? Was it enjoyable for you? Did you get the revenge you were seeking? I hope that it has made you a more complete person, this experience of interacting with me. - webapp, on 09/27/2008, -0/+1Please disregard this unfortunate comment from me above. Its my mistake and misunderstanding. A._B. is doing a good job and I mean WP needs him.
- thekohser, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1Didn't mean for it to be hurtful. Durova has handled live rattlesnakes, illicitly traversed between East and West Berlin, fought for our country on a service vessel, gotten someone fired from their job because of editing Wikipedia in a conflicted way, and has had multiple "restraining order" style run-ins with various perps. That's not run-of-the-mill "normal" for 99% of humans. Shankbone has traveled the world, meeting and interviewing famous people that 99% haven't even dreamt of meeting. That's not "normal".
- Karb, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1Very well said. A lot of truth, intelligence, humility, and fairness there. Thank you for taking the time to write that.
- thekohser, on 06/17/2008, -0/+1Yabba26, I would be more likely to heed your advice if I had any inkling whatsoever that there is a real Connie Latvas (yabba26), a 68-year-old belle from Lexington, KY. Strange, the User:Essjay who was also over his head with Wikipedia and fabricated a web of lies to cope with it, was also from Kentucky.
People have hobbies and habits. Some collect coins. Others watch a ton of movies and buy the DVDs. Still others chew up their health and budget with drinking and smoking. I have Wikipedia as my hobby. I don't see it as self-destructive, either. I have a long-term vision for "fixing" Wikipedia, which would be to the vast benefit of itself and to humanity. If people are willing to listen to that vision, great. Those, like you, who are not are probably more interested in maintaining their multi-player revenge platform game as it currently stands.
Let us know who you really are, "Connie". - igorthetroll, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1Good words!
- thekohser, on 06/15/2008, -0/+1While you have a point, it is also decidedly true that Durova and Shankbone are absolutely NOT "normal people".
-
Show 51 - 100 of 109 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
