Wikipedia talk:Stalking

message: I'm moving this essay here from the main page. This is one editor's view. -Willmcw 19:23, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
*While I don't disagree with that, please note that the entire page is one editor's view (or a few editor's views, at any rate) and that there is no policy or guideline (or even an official definition) regarding Wikistalking. Radiant_>|< 23:53, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
**Greetings - The paragraph in question here was authored by me for my user page. Another user informed me of this article's existence and his desire to use the material, which I am supportive of if he and others agree. In the interest of full disclosure however, it should be noted that User:Willmcw, the editor who removed this paragraph, is currently involved in a contentious dispute with myself (presently in the mediation stage) over the subject of this article. He has engaged in extensive wikistalking of both the "good" and "bad" types here. As such, I believe his edits should be considered a conflict of interest and would accordingly ask that a more collaborative approach be taken in deciding the placement or use of this material than the objections of a single user whose motivation for removing it is directly tied to his own partaking in the same behavior described there. Rangerdude 07:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  essay 

message: I reformatted and added to the article to improve its organization. Since the recent Arbcom definition of wiki-stalking is probably the most substantive definition of this term, so I moved it to the top under a "Definition" header. I also reorganized the subsequent descriptions of stalking both from this page and the material that's from my user page into a general header on Wikipedian viewpoints about stalking to differentiate them from the official Arbcom ruling. I also copyedited the article in general to give it a better flow and add clarifications. Rangerdude 18:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Description of edits

message: Having been seriously harrassed by a user who accused me of cyberstalking him because I used his contribs to check his edits given the extreme POV nature of his edits (eg sticking paternity rights all over the opening paragraph of abortion). I think the page in it's present form is wide open to abuse by people who have good reasons not to want their edits scrutinised, eg POV warriors etc. Not enough attention is given to this and I fear it will be another tool whereby bad users can harrass good ones, SqueakBox 23:47, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
:Squeakbox - Thanks for the comments. Do you have any suggestions on how to resolve this potential problem? I am of the belief that providing better clarification between legitimate forms of following other users and the type of harassment that has led to Wales' and the Arbcom bannings of abusive wikistalkers could actually reduce the number of bad editors who harass good ones over stalking allegations. The Arbcom's definition of wikistalking is IMO the best starting point for this and seems to be a neutral basis for a guideline definition. Rangerdude 23:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Open to abuse

message: Is there any way of figuring out the status of that account BTW?  It is under a permanent block without an arbcom decision?--Silverback 23:53, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
:That looks more like a case of a block due to ordinary harrassment, rather then WikiStalking per se, AFAICT. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 23:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:KingOfAllPaperboys]] stalking of [[User:neutrality]] is another precedent 

message: Since there continues to be confusion over this matter with some editors, please see Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines
*A policy is something that "has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow."
*A guideline is something that "illustrates standards or conduct that are generally accepted by consensus to apply in many cases."
*Policies are not guidelines and guidelines are not policies. Policies are an official set of rules that editors are required to comply with. Guidelines are an officially recognized set of editing conventions that editors should be aware of and try to abide by at all possible times, but are not enforced upon editors as a rule would be.
*This particular article is being proposed as a guideline, not a policy.
Thanks. Rangerdude 20:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Even as a guideline, I think this creates the same problems of making it easy for bad-faith editors to make false accusations and making it hard for innocent people to disprove them. FuelWagon 22:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Difference between Policies and Guidelines

message: I believe it's time to put an end to this discussion, as it's not going anywhere. Like the earlier "Wikiblower protection" and "Forbid infobox standardization" proposals, it is something that is vehemently pushed by one editor, and perceived as a patently bad idea by just about everybody else. But since polls are evil, let's make it a bit simpler. Within the next couple of days, I'd like to see three signatures here of users who think this proposal is, in principle and possibly with objections to the current wording, a good idea. If such people cannot be found, this proposal will be summarily rejected. Radiant_>|< 14:01, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
: Hoooooom, why so hasty, little one? We can leave this page to be discussed in the entmoot for a long,long time, and perhaps something shall yet come of it, who knows? Kim Bruning 15:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Radiant - I strongly disagree. The proposal tag has been up for less than a week and new editors are making contributions to the article on an almost daily basis. Far from going stale, there have already been good edits to it made today. The request for input was posted to facilitate the development and improvement of the article with community input, not to slap a poll on it three days later and round up a band of trolls, usual suspects, and habitual naysayers to kill the thing before most people have even had a chance to review it. Give it time and exercise a little patience. Rangerdude 18:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I'd say that this is a good (or at least decent) idea, since wikistalking is now a bannable offense. I can't speak to the current version of this being a good representation of that idea, though. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 16:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw poll time? 

message: I would like to know why Rangerdude just wrote asking the sockpuppet and dangerous troll  to contribute.  Agwiii is a sockpuppet of  who hjas been permanently blocked for making death thjreats. By inviting bad faith users to participate in this page we will end with a bad faith page, SqueakBox 19:33, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
He says he didn't know anything about Agwiii, and I have asked him to remove it, SqueakBox 19:42, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
:SqueakBox - I just removed the note to Agwiii. It was a generic message inviting editor input on this page. His page appeared on the hits when I searched for editors and I did not read into his background before adding the note. Rangerdude 19:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dangerous trollss

message: Following someone's edits and making useful changes to every article they changed is a good thing. I like the fact that I can create seeds, come back after a while and read new and interesting things about subjects I care about. There are already guidelines that say not to making changes that are bad changes or pointless changes. Further, one person's "bad" change is another person's "good" change and throwing around yet another wiki-personal-insult (stalking) doesn't help sort out which POV was most NPOV. (you're stalkimg me. YOU'RE INSULTING ME. stop yelling - that breaks the civility rule. stop wiki-lawyering. that's just your POV.) WAS 4.250 19:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with this.  I don't think the reason why someone makes edits should matter; it's only the individual content of the edits themselves that's important.  If someone follows me to every single page I touch on Wikipedia, ruthlessly editing my every word as their brutal revenge for murdering their father or whatever, I would see them as doing me a favor as long as their edits are good--and if the edits aren't good (in other words, if they're disruptive) then they're already blockworthy under existing Wikipedia policy.  There is no need to make a specific policy to fight stalking, because the only time when stalking is a problem is when it violates policies that we already have in place. Aquillion 04:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

text: UninvitedCo - please take a moment to review the actual text of the proposal. You will find that virtually all of the problems you describe above are accounted for in the proposal, which distinguishes between valid following as you describe and the type intended strictly for harassment - which is bannable per the Arbcom. Rangerdude 19:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would not presume to comment upon the merits of a proposal I have not read.  :-)  Let's consider this phrase: "Following editors who don't have track records of vandalism or other editing in violation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines could be viewed as an inappropriate or disproportionate response to their actions."  It's overbroad.  I follow around editors who make well-meaning, good faith edits.  I do this all the time and encourage others to do the same.  To draw a corollary from WAS 4.250's comment above, those parts of the policy that are not harmful are redundant.  I don't believe that there is any activity that we actually wish to curtail that is covered by this policy but not covered elsewhere.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the sentence you quote, are you following editors for purposes of correcting problems with Wikipedia policies and guidelines? If so then that would be covered. Spelling errors, grammar, vandalism and most of the examples you give are parts of Wikipedia policies and guidelines and as a result would fall under this stipulation. If they are not though, then some of what you do might constitute harassment in the eyes of the Arbcom - especially if it is unwanted and hostile. Also - stating "but I do it all the time" is not a defense against inappropriate stalking any more than it's a defense for personal attacks or bank robbery for that matter. If you object to that sentence though let's consider examining its wording or coming up with an alternative. The purpose of this proposal is to update Wikipedia guidelines to reflect two recent cases where the Arbcom and Jimbo Wales both deemed that wikistalking was a major bannable offense. If this were being proposed out of the blue and without those precedents some of what you say about this proposal's need would be true. But now that the Arbcom and Wales have both weighed in and even given a definition of what wikistaling is and is not it has become increasingly difficult to simply ignore it and simply refer everything to the already backlogged Arbcom. The purpose of having a guideline noting what is and is not "wikistalking" is to sort out the frivolous cases from the genuine abuse. Right now absent a guideline, frivolous allegations of wikistalking are made unimpeded while the genuine ones have to through a lengthy arbitration process that's having to be repeated each time a case arises. Rangerdude 20:43, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

text:  I read through the TRT and Skyring cases you mention.  In Jimbo's comments on TRT, he goes to some length to make it clear that it is the totality of TRT's behavior and TRT's lack of constructive edits that led to the block.  In the case of Skyring, there was clearly problematic behavior other than "Wikistalking," and the very brief decision the arbitrators approved when the case was reopened should not be taken as an attempt to make policy.   These are textbook examples of good cases that set bad precedent, because absent the aggravating factors, neither of these users would have been disciplined for Wikistalking alone.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Uninvited Co - The Arbcom decision in the Skyring case was explicit that wikistalking was the main charge, entitling their remedy "Skyring banned for wikistalking." The statement of that remedy similarly read "User:Skyring is banned from Wikipedia for one year for wiki-stalking and acting in bad faith towards other contributors, as demonstrated in evidence. Any attempt at sockpuppetry shall, as per policy, result in this ban being reset." This final ruling stated no other charges.  Wales' case is similarly explicit that it was proper to ban TRT because he was "pestering RickK pointlessly and writing inane messages to the mailing list" and "was making a pest of himself by harassing RickK and hammering the mailing list." These statements both refer to the wikistalking harassment as one of the two charges against TRT, and Wales details no other besides them. To suggest that either of these cases were not directly about wikistalking is misleading, and in both the alleged other "aggravating factors" were secondary at best - particularly the Arbcom's which stated wikistalking by name in its final ruling as the main reason for the ban. Far from being good cases setting bad precedents, the two are actually reaffirmations of the same thing: wikistalking conducted for the purpose of harassment is a bannable offense. Rangerdude 21:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The parts of this guideline that are not redundant are harmful

message: Reviewing another editor's contributions only becomes problematic when the ensuing changes are in and of themselves problematic.  The examples cited above all involve other violations of Wikiquitte, notably WP:NPA and WP:FAITH.  I believe we should enforce those policies rather than creating this one.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with reviewing another editor's contributions and correcting them when a pattern of errors exists.  This is done all the time by people who find that a particular contributor:
* is making edits that are biased rather than NPOV
* has a history of making valid edits that lack proper wikimarkup
* often makes mechanical errors (spelling, grammar)
* is engaging in link spam
Some problems such as link spam and bias may seem innocuous when viewed one article at a time but present a much different picture when viewed in the context of an editor's overall contributions.
Having a policy against reviewing another contributor's edits would be a gift to trolls and POV pushers, who would happily take it as a means to amplify their usual chorus of compliants against The WikiManagement.  By means of a concrete example, would draw everyone's attention to the matter of User:Wikinerd's contributions and the careful work User:Texture and I have done to review them and remove link spam.  Wikinerd, upset by our work, responded with the usual barrage of withering criticism: an RFC, a mailing list post, a request for mediation, &c &c &c.  I am absolutely sure that User:Texture and I would have been accused of Wikistalking if we had a policy forbidding it.
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: UninvitedCo - please take a moment to review the actual text of the proposal. You will find that virtually all of the problems you describe above are accounted for in the proposal, which distinguishes between valid following as you describe and the type intended strictly for harassment - which is bannable per the Arbcom. Rangerdude 19:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would not presume to comment upon the merits of a proposal I have not read.  :-)  Let's consider this phrase: "Following editors who don't have track records of vandalism or other editing in violation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines could be viewed as an inappropriate or disproportionate response to their actions."  It's overbroad.  I follow around editors who make well-meaning, good faith edits.  I do this all the time and encourage others to do the same.  To draw a corollary from WAS 4.250's comment above, those parts of the policy that are not harmful are redundant.  I don't believe that there is any activity that we actually wish to curtail that is covered by this policy but not covered elsewhere.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the sentence you quote, are you following editors for purposes of correcting problems with Wikipedia policies and guidelines? If so then that would be covered. Spelling errors, grammar, vandalism and most of the examples you give are parts of Wikipedia policies and guidelines and as a result would fall under this stipulation. If they are not though, then some of what you do might constitute harassment in the eyes of the Arbcom - especially if it is unwanted and hostile. Also - stating "but I do it all the time" is not a defense against inappropriate stalking any more than it's a defense for personal attacks or bank robbery for that matter. If you object to that sentence though let's consider examining its wording or coming up with an alternative. The purpose of this proposal is to update Wikipedia guidelines to reflect two recent cases where the Arbcom and Jimbo Wales both deemed that wikistalking was a major bannable offense. If this were being proposed out of the blue and without those precedents some of what you say about this proposal's need would be true. But now that the Arbcom and Wales have both weighed in and even given a definition of what wikistaling is and is not it has become increasingly difficult to simply ignore it and simply refer everything to the already backlogged Arbcom. The purpose of having a guideline noting what is and is not "wikistalking" is to sort out the frivolous cases from the genuine abuse. Right now absent a guideline, frivolous allegations of wikistalking are made unimpeded while the genuine ones have to through a lengthy arbitration process that's having to be repeated each time a case arises. Rangerdude 20:43, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

text:  I read through the TRT and Skyring cases you mention.  In Jimbo's comments on TRT, he goes to some length to make it clear that it is the totality of TRT's behavior and TRT's lack of constructive edits that led to the block.  In the case of Skyring, there was clearly problematic behavior other than "Wikistalking," and the very brief decision the arbitrators approved when the case was reopened should not be taken as an attempt to make policy.   These are textbook examples of good cases that set bad precedent, because absent the aggravating factors, neither of these users would have been disciplined for Wikistalking alone.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Uninvited Co - The Arbcom decision in the Skyring case was explicit that wikistalking was the main charge, entitling their remedy "Skyring banned for wikistalking." The statement of that remedy similarly read "User:Skyring is banned from Wikipedia for one year for wiki-stalking and acting in bad faith towards other contributors, as demonstrated in evidence. Any attempt at sockpuppetry shall, as per policy, result in this ban being reset." This final ruling stated no other charges.  Wales' case is similarly explicit that it was proper to ban TRT because he was "pestering RickK pointlessly and writing inane messages to the mailing list" and "was making a pest of himself by harassing RickK and hammering the mailing list." These statements both refer to the wikistalking harassment as one of the two charges against TRT, and Wales details no other besides them. To suggest that either of these cases were not directly about wikistalking is misleading, and in both the alleged other "aggravating factors" were secondary at best - particularly the Arbcom's which stated wikistalking by name in its final ruling as the main reason for the ban. Far from being good cases setting bad precedents, the two are actually reaffirmations of the same thing: wikistalking conducted for the purpose of harassment is a bannable offense. Rangerdude 21:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A poor direction for policy 

message: This request is for editors who object to particular parts of this article as it is currently phrased. Please state the sentence or sentences you disagree with in numbered quotations as well as a summary of reasons and what you changes you would prefer for purposes of discussion. I believe that doing so would provide greater clarity as to what further changes, if any, can and should be made to bring this proposal closer to a level of obtaining consensus. Editors are also asked to place their numbered sentences in a subheader (three equal signs) and to sign their comments with 4 tildes. Thanks. Rangerdude 22:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Requests for amendments to existing text

message: This poll shall last for a week (i.e. until 23:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Other users afterwards were apologetic about not raising the issue sooner. But then the first user to draw attention to what was going on was then themselves stalked (until he got tired of trying to stalk two people simultaneously) and harrassed, with abuse about her being written on an off-wiki site. The whole issue highlights how the ArbComm have too much on their plate. The user was so difficult to deal with on other issues that others did their best to avoid him like the plague. It took the intervention of Jimbo, who imposed a temporary ban to give the ArbComm to review the case (they had just finished one case against him!) and ban him for a year. BTW since my first vote a series of sockpuppets suspiciously like Skyring appeared and again targeted pages I had edited (and no other pages). (And while I was typing this the asshole appeared again under an IP!!!) FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Further up to date evidence: User:Skyring has used at least 6 sockpuppets on this page. Most were caught and reverted instantly so their contributions aren't on the page but User:Halfinch and User:Lackaday-oh and User:FamousRay are strongly suspected of being his too. So far tonight I came across 14 of his sockpuppets, all targeting stuff I had edited, adding in claims about me here and elsewhere, and other such antics. A whole series of users have had to devote hours dealing with the asshole!!! FearÉIREANN\(caint) 02:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reject or Support

message: #Aquillion 05:49, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Who rejects this proposal?

message: #Rangerdude 23:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Other users afterwards were apologetic about not raising the issue sooner. But then the first user to draw attention to what was going on was then themselves stalked (until he got tired of trying to stalk two people simultaneously) and harrassed, with abuse about her being written on an off-wiki site. The whole issue highlights how the ArbComm have too much on their plate. The user was so difficult to deal with on other issues that others did their best to avoid him like the plague. It took the intervention of Jimbo, who imposed a temporary ban to give the ArbComm to review the case (they had just finished one case against him!) and ban him for a year. BTW since my first vote a series of sockpuppets suspiciously like Skyring appeared and again targeted pages I had edited (and no other pages). (And while I was typing this the asshole appeared again under an IP!!!) FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Further up to date evidence: User:Skyring has used at least 6 sockpuppets on this page. Most were caught and reverted instantly so their contributions aren't on the page but User:Halfinch and User:Lackaday-oh and User:FamousRay are strongly suspected of being his too. So far tonight I came across 14 of his sockpuppets, all targeting stuff I had edited, adding in claims about me here and elsewhere, and other such antics. A whole series of users have had to devote hours dealing with the asshole!!! FearÉIREANN\(caint) 02:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Who supports this proposal?

message: TEMPLATE FOR ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS
===Proposal by Username===
{Add sentences, summary, and/or links to revisions here}
:#
:#
(sign with ~~~~) 
===Proposal by Rangerdude===
{Add sentences, summary, and/or links to revisions here}
:#Proposed revision to start anew. See Wikipedia_talk:Stalking/Revision1
Description - The revision at the above link is a "bare-bones" version of a proposed wikistalking guideline. It contains only the official definition of wikistalking agreed to by the Arbcom and links to the two wikistalking precedents. I posted this to form the basis of building the guideline from the grounds up in light of stated objections to the current text and interpretations within it on this proposal. Comments and additions to it are welcome by clicking the above link, or may be discussed here. Rangerdude 23:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternatives

message: {Add sentences, summary, and/or links to revisions here}
:#Proposed revision to start anew. See Wikipedia_talk:Stalking/Revision1
Description - The revision at the above link is a "bare-bones" version of a proposed wikistalking guideline. It contains only the official definition of wikistalking agreed to by the Arbcom and links to the two wikistalking precedents. I posted this to form the basis of building the guideline from the grounds up in light of stated objections to the current text and interpretations within it on this proposal. Comments and additions to it are welcome by clicking the above link, or may be discussed here. Rangerdude 23:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal by Rangerdude

message: There are several editors with whom I share interests in various topic areas and whose work I am generally interested in a postive way (editors who focus on Canadian politics for instance). I will, from time to time when looking for things to contribute to, check out their user contributions and edit some of the articles they've been editing (or particularly new articles they've begun). I rarely reverse their edits, usuaally I'll do simple copy editing or make the odd correction if I notice an error in factt, and generally I will add information to the articles if I can (most often I just read the article for my own interest). No one has ever complained about my doing this, indeed, from time to time one of these editors will put a message on my talk page asking me to review an article they've written and, from time to time I'll do the same for them. My point is we have to be careful when talking about "Stalking" to make the point that checking "User contributions" can be a tool in collaborative editing amongst those editors who have similar interests - of course the crucial matter is whether or not one is acting in "good faith".  Homey 00:43, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: I added a real life example for following vs. stalking.  I'm really depressed about a something personal and I don't know if it came out right.  Can someone provide another example?  I won't edit again for a while  ChoobWriter 17:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Following vs. Stalking 

message: Remember that message at the bottom of the edit box? If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it.
If one user follows another and their edits do not diminish the quality of Wikipedia or extend a problem further or intentionally create more disputes with the user being followed [such as by indiscriminant reversion of their changes], then on what basis are the edits a problem?  A person followed may be annoyed by minor changes to their work which might not seem to be either an improvement or a diminishment, but this does not mean they should be considered an abuse.
If a user is making abusive or useless edits, then it is primarily the quality of Wikipedia that they are hurting, and the quality of all other contributions -- not just that of the person who happened to be the most recent editor to the article.  The following is just a possible modus operandi of the kind of abuse that should already be in violation of other policies, and need not be a specific breach of policy just by itself -- although it is true that following may exacerbate a situation, if a dispute has already arisen between a user and a follower.   
I think these may be circumstances which can only really be dealt with fairly on a case-by-case basis, and the primary offense is the abuse, and ruining of the other user's work if that is what is happening, not the actual following. --Mysidia (talk) 01:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Mysidia's carefully written critique.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:56, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Not a problem in and of itself?

message: Though many changes made in this revision are good, a couple have some problems and take the guideline down a path that I do not believe it should go.
1. The opening paragraph added to viewpoints on stalking should be substantially revised to make it more neutral and informative or removed entirely - "The presence of the "User Contributions" page for each user was, at the time of its introduction, unique to Wikipedia 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." The paragraph appears to be simply one editor's POV on the virtues of the user contributions page and promoting it as the defining essence of wikipedia. I don't see what place this has in an article on wikistalking. 
2. The sentence "even though the practice of monitoring user contributions has proven vital in maintaining a quality encyclopedia" is problematic for similar reasons. It's one thing to tell editors that they can follow a user contribution page when they aren't doing it for harassment, it's an entirely different thing to be an advertisement to promote the following of user contributions. We should inform editors that they can indeed use the user contributions feature, but we shouldn't be running around promoting it as if it were some end-all "defining" and "vital" tool when that's just the opinion of an editor who likes it as a tool.
3. The change of describing the user contributions feature as a "tool that otherwise serves valuable purposes" to "a tool that most often serves valuable purposes" again seems to introduce a strong POV favoring the user contributions feature. A more neutral wording may be in order that neither promotes nor discourages its value, e.g. "a tool that can serve valuable purposes"
4. A strong interpretive sentence was added to the "precedents" section, changing it from a neutral "Wiki-stalking has been a part of at least two Arbitration Committee proceedings" to "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." It was urged at the time that this section's description was changed to quoting the precedents directly that doing so would allow the reader to come to this judgment about what the cases entailed him or herself. UninvitedCo's addition indirectly takes a position with phrases such as "many non-stalking elements," which are debatable contentions in themselves. This is particularly the case for the Skyring decision in which the Arbcom was explicit in stating its remedy that wikistalking, which the Arbcom also defined, was the main offense: "Skyring banned for wikistalking." A more neutral way of approaching this would probably be to restore the previous version that makes no attempt at interpretation if this is the way we're going to approach the precedents section. Otherwise the stated purpose of quoting the cases in full rather than simply summarizing is defeated. Rangerdude 04:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Revision at 02:50 by Uninvited Company

message: My chief concern here, which I started to bring up with RangerDude, is that someone might try to change the definition of "stalking" so that it includes legitimate attempts by sysops and others to prevent systematic damage to this project.
Particularly, they might get people to say "stalking" as a synonym for "reviewing my contribs". 
This already happened with "POV" being used as synonym for "bias" or "biased" - which is really harmful and disruptive to the project. Because people automatically assume that "POV" is the opposite of NPOV and hence "obviously bad for articles". The result is that people often completely ignore Jimbo's idea that a balanced, neutral article SHOULD INCLUDE MULTIPLE POINTS OF VIEW. 
I beg you all to review Wikipedia:POV and see that "POV" is not bad. The controversial subjects must include multiple POV's. So please stop using "POV" to label sections of text you want left out, deleted or censored. Say "biased" instead, and try to make suggestions on how we can correct bias by attribuiting POV to its advocate.
Likewise, I beg you not to create yet another buzzword that makes it harder for Admins to identify patterns of disruption. Please do not let "stalking" get redefined so that systematically correcting another contributor's edits becomes grounds for RFC'ing or RFArb'ing someone.
This is worse than feeding trolls. It's growing the food for them!! Uncle Ed 02:19, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
*I entirely agree. Radiant_>|< 07:57, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
*Agreed, also. JesseW 23:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Gaming the system

message: In light of the mounting criticism for a guideline that, at first sight, seems perfectly rational, I propose we merge this page with Wikipedia:Harassment to set the proper tone. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 02:28, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
*Yes, please merge it. The aim of that page seems to be the same as this one, and there's no point in repeating the arguments here once more. Radiant_>|< 07:57, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
*I agree that it should be merged. Jtkiefer T | @ | C  ----- 21:23, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
*Yes, lets merge Wikipedia:Harassment into this page until the discussion here is more complete. JesseW 23:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  In light of the mounting criticism...