Wikipedia talk:Stalking

Ok, it's highly discouraged to follow someone, according to editing here?

Um, you know, user contributions is a page there for a reason, are folks making this page advocating it should be removed? In that case, shouldn't this be a request on our bug tracking software, and not a wikipedia page?

In any case, I don't understand, and this page doesn't really establish reasons why or why not. Please clarify! Kim Bruning 07:45, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

When I created this page I meant for it to refer to hostile stalking as in the type that users complain about on RFC's and RFA's but it needs to be clarified, I've been trying to figure out how to do this but so far have come up blank. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 08:42, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Well, my attempt at a "Bad Stalking" section is a start to that goal, if nothing else. Thanks,
Luc "Somethingorother" French 09:08, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I think you're going to have a hard time, because imvho wikistalking simply isn't ^^;; Maybe as you try to build this page you'll find out that this is the case as well. Let's hope so! :-) Kim Bruning 13:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

essay

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)
    • Oh dear. Maybe you should get a Third Opinion (tm). By the way if you two are serious about a Wikipage on stalking, I'd recommend listing it on Requests for comment to get community feedback. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean nobody else will :) Radiant_>|< 08:12, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't think Will read it, he just saw my chat to Rangerdude on his talk page. If will had read it then he would have seen that it does not mention him -- that's I think what he was worried about. ChoobWriter 14:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Definition - Wiki-stalking occurs when an editor abusively trails another editor around wikipedia by way of his or her user contributions page. It entails an evidenced distinctive editing pattern in which one user intentionally follows another editor around wikipedia for purposes that are not constructive to the encyclopedia's content or conducive to its collaborative environment. It occurs when one editor continuously and repeatedly follows another editor between multiple unrelated articles over an extended period of time and a wide variety of unrelated subjects for the purpose of making excessive "followup" changes to the original editor's work - often for the purpose of harassment, disruption, or deconstructing the stalked editor's work for reasons that are not in compliance with Wikipedia policies or guidelines.

Why it's a problem - Wiki-stalking is an abuse of the user contributions function on wikipedia. This is a tool that otherwise serves valuable purposes in combatting vandalism and problematic users, but like any tool it can be abused when used in excess or with malicious intent. Stalking is problematic because it exhibits incivility, subjects individual editors to unwarranted harassment, and violates the request that all wikipedians should Wikipedia:Assume good faith about other editors. Often times a stalker conducts himself with the intent of driving another editor away from Wikipedia through a series of harassing and hostile behavior. The most notorious case of wiki-stalking to date involved a user who consciously trailed another well established wikipedian's edits with daily "followup" work conducted to the same articles, most of it minor and unnecessary.[1] Even though the stalker edits were minor, the behavior was deemed to be harassing because it was done intentionally to harass the victimized editor. The case was settled by direct intervention from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, who permanently blocked the stalker for "making a pest of himself" and disrupting the encyclopedia.

How you can help

Stalking problems

1. If you are being stalked in a harassing manner by another user, the first thing you should do is politely approach him/her about it. Inform that editor of your concern and objections and ask him/her politely to stop.
2. If step 1 doesn't work, inform the stalker of the anti-stalking precedent cited above.
3. If the stalking continues make a log of it! Document the cases of stalking on your user page with sourced diffs to show its extent and problems.

Description of edits

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)

guideline tag

The guideline tag probably isn't appropriate for use yet since this has not been generally noticed nor has it been accepted by the community as a guideline. (when people quote it on RFA, RFC, and RFAr then you know the community has noticed it, for the moment it's probably best just to keep the tag off. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 07:54, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I generally agree that this article is something with potential to become a guideline in light of the fact that two strong precedents have effectively defined wiki-stalking's abusive forms and classified it as an offense with very stiff penalties. In accordance with the developments of the two noted precedent cases it is probably wise to update Wikipedia's guidelines to reflect them, and this can be done over time as awareness grows regarding the outcome of those cases. I concur that it is probably a little premature to add the formal guideline tag right now, though we are quickly approaching that stage and in the meantime an informal tag of some sort indicating that nature is appropriate. As an aside, it is also inappropriate that editors who have engaged in Wiki-stalking themselves (and thus have a conflict of interest in which they stand to lose as the Wikipedia community's awareness of this article grows) should be involved in "policing" the edits to this article as it develops. As noted above, this includes User:Willmcw who currently has wikistalking complaints pending against him and whose edits here thus far have been conducted for the purposes of removing content and/or diverting community attention away from this article as it develops. At minimum, any maintanence activities of the sort this and other conflicted editors have thus far been engaged in should be conducted by a more neutral party. Rangerdude 20:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Does the charge of potential conflict of interest also extend to you, as the person who is pursuing the "wikistalking" charge against User:Willmcw? · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:02, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Katefan - I have not engaged in the practice of wikistalking and therefore do not stand to gain by obstructing the development of this article as he does. As the article's provisions do not apply to an activity I have engaged in no comparable conflict of interest exists. Rangerdude 21:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Aha. That's interesting logic. Don't you think that anybody involved in a current case of "wikistalking" who is tinkering with a proposed policy on the phenomenon could reasonably be seen to have a conflict of interest? I don't see how being the perceived aggrieved party in this case makes it less of a conflict of interest for you. Some might suggest that a person in your situation might have a keen interest in seeing this policy developed in such a way as to help their case. I am not suggesting any nefarious motives necessarily on your part, only point out how it could reasonably be suggested that you might have a conflict of interest too. If there are two parties involved in a case that bears on this under-development policy, it would seem that both could equally be seen to be having a potential conflict of interest. As such, I'd expect both to recuse themselves. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:12, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

By your rationale, Katefan, any editor who has ever been harmed by personal attacks, legal threats, vandalism, 3RR, or any number of other similar problems that many editors encounter regularly on Wikipedia is also conflicted from contributing to the development of any policy or guideline regarding the same offenses. But that would be an absurd stipulation that ultimately inhibits the development of those policies since every editor encounters one or another sometime on wikipedia. Those editors contributing constructively to the development of the said policy or guideline gain nothing more than the cumulative outcome of its application to wikipedia in general as a preventative measure against future disruption. Policies and guidelines do not apply ex post facto, Katefan, so no - my case against Willmcw's past stalking does not "gain" as you suggest, and indeed the object of a guideline proposal such as this is entirely for future occurrences that violate what are now two well established precedents by the Arbcom and Jimbo Wales. Those editors who have engaged in the discouraged activity in the past, however, do stand to lose from a restriction being placed against a favored inappropriate pattern of behavior in the future because it makes their future abuses subject to repercussions if they continue. Rangerdude 21:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what purpose you think this pseudo-legalese serves; all I'm saying is that if you think one party to the dispute could have a conflict of interest, then logically the other party could as well. Nobody has ever "decided" this dispute in either editor's favor (your failed RFC notwithstanding), so to suggest that you should be able to develop the policy while Willmcw can't is proceeding from rather shaky ground. Either both of you can, or both of you can't, for the exact same reasons. Maybe we should try RFC and see what others think. · Katefan0^(scribble) 01:48, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

If it will help even things out I will bring a charge of wikistalking against user:Rangerude. ;) -Willmcw 22:56, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately for your cause, Will, that would be a WP:POINT disruption on your part, having arisen out of stated objections to your conflicted interest in the efforts to develop this article. Rangerdude 23:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your opinion. However the fact remains that we all have an equal right to edit this project page. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:18, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

You're free to edit, Will, but I'm just as free to point out that you are doing so with a substantial conflict of interest for having previously engaged in the same behavior that is the subject of this article and the Wales and Arbcom precedents. I'm also free to ask you to refrain from certain editing practices where that conflict of interest is apparant - particularly in avoiding procedural edits that modify the guideline proposal and its requests for input. Thanks. Rangerdude 00:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you are free to ask anything you like. However you are wrong that I have "engaged in the same behavior that is the subject of this article and the Wales and Arbcom precedents." Are you going to move straight from accusation to judgement to punishment, all on your own? Maybe this proposed guideline should have a section on false accusations. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:37, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

The evidence has been documented for anybody who wishes to see, Will, but that is a matter for other places than this page. This discussion is about developing an article on the subject of wiki-stalking per two applicable precedents that deem it a bannable offense. Good faith efforts are being made here to define the article's subject and accomodate the Arbcom's recent definition of it. The fact that it casts disfavor upon a behavior in which you regularly participate is not a basis to disrupt its development. Rangerdude 01:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Since I don't engage in harassing behavior, you are incorrect. But I certainly have been accused of wikistalking, most prominently by User:Thodin. (He also accused half of the admins of being my sock puppets - does that mean I can't participate in discussions of sock puppet policies too?) If it is a matter for other pages, then why do you keep bringing it up here? It is funny that you are participating in writing the (proposed) guideline at the same time as you are building an attack page accusing me of violating it. Doesn't the right hand know what the left hand is doing? Is this when you are going to tell me to assume good faith? -Willmcw 22:15, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Guideline proposal discussion

Greetings - I added a proposal tag to this guideline for the purpose of aiding in its development and to gather community assistance and input on its contents. For wikipedians who are unfamiliar or unaware with this article or its subject matter, it was created recently for the purpose of reflecting two recent Wikipedia dispute resolution precedents in which the Arbcom and Jimbo Wales determined that certain harassing forms of wiki-stalking are bannable disruptions carrying substantial penalties for abuse. The aim of this article is accordingly to explain and clarify the concept of wiki-stalking in light of these decisions. New contributers should take a moment to review these precedents, which are described and linked to here. Suggestions pertaining to this article's proposal tag and recommended changes should be discussed in the area located below this header, as should questions or comments regarding clarification and formatting. Thank you for your input! Rangerdude 21:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:How to create policy. It takes more than adding a "proposed" tag. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:59, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Will, the page you cite is just a guideline of methods on how to propose a policy. This is under consideration for a guideline, which is established by consensus, and is tagged accordingly as one of many ways to do so. The article itself, which "sprung up organically" from repeated precedents and developing consensus, is a sufficient and developing draft for the guideline and plenty of explanations for its need (e.g. the recent Arbcom decision) may be found here on the talk page. I've also added some links to it on the Village Pump for contributions by any interested editors. Rangerdude 23:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I've added a section at the Wikipedia talk:Village pump (policy) to explicitly notify the community of your proposal. The link you added did not mention that there was a guideline proposal, if I read it correctly. Oh, and Wikipedia:How to create policy also covers guidelines. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:29, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

It appears we were both working on the Village Pump posting at the same time. I put together a more detailed description of the issues & replaced your text with it. Since you are opposed to this article, Will, and are conflicted in it as the subject of pending wikistalking allegations against you, it is more appropriate that editors supporting the proposal make the applicable requests for input. Thanks. Rangerdude 23:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, per Wikipedia:How to create a policy "The following general principles were gathered together following the implementation of several policies across the encyclopedia. As you will see from the guidelines themselves, these points are guidelines, not rules. You know best what will work in your case." IOW, there's more than one way to do it and no strict procedure. Rangerdude 23:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinions, but I am neither "opposed to this article" nor "subject of pending wikistalking allegations". If you'd made the request when you said you had then I wouldn't have had to go add it myself. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:43, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Deny whatever you want, Will, but the fact that you've been specifically accused of harassment by wikistalking is recorded. Furthermore, if you'd wait more than two minutes between posting a demand and then taking it upon yourself to do it in absence of a response despite standing objections to your conflicted interest here, you might find other editors are much more accomodating to the initial demands than you think. Rangerdude 23:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Open to abuse

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)

User:KingOfAllPaperboys stalking of User:neutrality is another precedent

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)

highly subjective is highly problematic

Two cases, one by arbcom and one by Jimbo Wales. That should say something. The manhours of work this policy will generate will be massive. many editors tend to stick to a set of articles defined by their watchlist, which means overlap with other editors must occur. Then if a new article is linked to an existing article, many editors from the old article will move to the new one. Cries of "stalking" will be heard throughout the land. From a purely objective view, it will appear to be true. one editor started editing an article, and suddenly a number people he knows are editing it too. Sorting out the editor histories will be a pure effort of manual labor. There will be no other way to figure out any charge of "stalking". You can't just look at edit timestamps in contribution histories and compare, you've got to determine a pattern of edit-response, edit-response. You then have to determine that it isn't really bad edit-response, bad edit-response. And it comes down to a subjective interpretation. It will be extremely easy to accuse someone of wiki-stalking, the number of hours that people will have to put into determining it to be true or false will be huge. I keep hearing that arbcom is behind on its cases; this will make it worse. Even worse, the accusation is as difficult to disprove as it is to prove, which means that RFC's charging editors with "wiki-stalking" will be an excellent way to game the system, make an accusation that is impossible to disprove in any objective way, and get a bunch of allies to swamp the certification/endorsement section with signatures. Any policy that encourages cliquish behaviour and even rewards it is seriously asking for wikipedia trouble. Unless someone can convince me these issues are invalid, I strongly oppose this idea. FuelWagon 23:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

FW, I agree. It's a wholly impossible task. Beyond which, it would have to be extraordinarily carefully crafted in order to prevent people with a POV agenda or axe to grind to cry "wiki-stalking" when their edits get extra scrutiny from good faith editors, as SqueakBox mentioned above. · Katefan0^(scribble) 01:53, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

I suspect dropping the whole policy idea is the best way to deal with cyberstalking. The whole watchlist system and open contribs is to some people a licence for others others to stalk them, while for others these are a sign of our openness, and should not be abandoned in the name of cyberstalking. Did I mention the above mentioned stalking accuser in my example was using a sockpuppet, and therefore did not want any scrutiny of his acts, for this reason particularly. Do we want people to be able to hide what they are doing by demanding others don't get involved in the articles they are editing ("you can't edit this article, Englishperson, its about the States, and this is the proof that you are stalking me"). I fear this policy in anything like its current form will, if enacted, lead to disaster. There are other ways to stop negative cyberstalking than this one, hence the 2 successful arbcome cases already, which to me indicate we don't need a policy page on this. I can well imagine 9 out of 10 cases brought under this policy being false claims, esp as most genuine cyberstalkers break the rules in some other way, whereas the bad faith editor who has nothing to pin on a good faith editor will probably use this to latch onto, SqueakBox 02:17, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

SqueakBox - While your concerns with making a policy that is not prone to abuse are valid, simply omitting wikistalking from the realm of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is no longer a viable option now that both Jimbo Wales and the Arbcom have made very specific statements classifying it as a major breach of WP protocol and in the case of the Arbcom defining what it is. Both have effectively said of wikistalking "do this to another editor and you will be banned for a long time." It's great that the Arbcom and Wales have set these precedents, but they alone are not sufficient for the purpose of informing general wikipedia users of what's acceptable and what isn't. For starters, most wikipedians aren't even aware of these decisions and may not even know they're doing something wrong (or worse, some may know they are doing something wrong but continue to do it because they think they can get away with it since there's no written update in the rules to reflect these outcomes). Also simply saying that the arbitration process will take care of things is insufficient because arbitration is a long drawn out procedure that already has a huge backlog of cases. We can't honestly expect that every single case of genuine wikistalking that emerges should have to work its way through the arbitration process or personally get Jimbo Wales involved like these ones did. In that respect, having a guideline that editors could direct abusers to with a simple note to "knock it off" would probably avert 99 out of 100 wikistalking cases. Also please note that this is a proposed guideline that advises wikipedians how to behave and informs them of the consequences that have been imposed against abusive wikistalkers - not a policy that mandates that they conform to a spelled out code. It is also worded in such a way to explicitly exempt a wide range of properly following vandals and the sort from what constitutes a stalking violation, so it seems to me that concerns of such cases being labelled improper stalking are unfounded if you read the actual description of what is and isn't stalking. Rangerdude 03:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Given what you say I have started to edit the page, SqueakBox 04:37, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, if it were viable to ignore the issue I'd VFD this page right now, however since the arbcom and Jimbo have specifically mentioned stalking on the wiki and on the mailing list it is better to have a policy, albeit one that definately needs improvement then to not have one at all. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 04:41, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Just because arbcom and Jimbo mention wikistalking doesn't mean it needs to be codified into policy. WIkipedia is not following a "rule of law". It is a benevolent dictatorship at the head, and a rule of law for admins to enforce. If the admins can't handle something with objective policy enforcement, then the executive decisions and subjective interpretations should be kicked up to arbcom and/or jimbo. Making this a policy will make matters worse, not better. The fact that it will be almost impossible to clearly prove an accusation to be wrong should be red-flag enough. You accuse me of violating 3RR, I can easily prove it wrong. You accuse me of stalking, and show edits that happen on common pages, there is no straightforward way to prove it wasn't stalking, even if it really wasn't stalking. That is not good policy because it isn't straightforward and it doesn't have an objective application. Combine this with the user-enforced RFC system, and you've got problems. This will create more problems than it will solve. The number of false accusations, and the number of manhours needed to sort them all out, will far out-weigh the few real cases of wiki-stalking that can be handled by arbcom and Jimbo. Leave the executive decisions to them. FuelWagon 18:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

SqueakBox - looks good so far! I also added a couple sentences encouraging new users to politely contact other editors and try to figure out exactly why it is they're being followed before shouting at them with an allegation of "you're stalking me." I think anything that could be done to discourage or avert the frivolous stalking allegations while simultaneously making it clear that genuine ones carry a stiff penalty is an improvement to the article. Thanks again for the additions. Rangerdude 04:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

What stiff penalty? This is only proposed as a guideline. If penatlies are involved it should be cast as a policy. -Willmcw 07:18, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

The penalties have been applied by Wales and the Arbcom, not something prescribed by the guideline itself. One purpose of the guideline is to inform users that Wales and the Arbcom have applied stiff penalties for wikistalking. Rangerdude 17:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

This seems to be the core definition: "an evidenced distinctive editing pattern in which one editor continuously follows another editor over an extended period of time and a wide variety of unrelated articles for the purpose of making excessive "followup" changes to the original editor's work"; so tag teams (or the gang-bang) remain legal. nobs 15:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Description of edits

Edits I just made and their purposes:

1. I added links to specific Wikipedia policies that may apply under the "good" stalking section (e.g. Vandalism, NPOV) and sentence encouraging editors to familiarize themselves with these if they are following for that reason. The purpose of this is to augment and clarify the previous sentence "it is a good idea to have a justification for such activity."

2. I removed the phrase "POV pushing" from "bad stalking" section and replaced it with a reference to violations of "Wikipedia policies and guidelines." This includes the NPOV policy, which I believe to be the object here. My concern is that while WP:NPOV is spelled out as a policy, the term "POV pushing" is not and is subjectively applied. It concerns me that the addition of this term may have been to create a loophole by which an otherwise discouraged type of stalking could continue so long as the stalker simply declares "But you're a POV pusher" in his/her own judgment. A loophole of this type is very dangerous because it provides an easy out for otherwise abusive stalkers while in reality doing very little to enforce the real POV policy at WP:NPOV.

I'd just point out that this entire proposed guideline provides an easy out for anybody wishing to advance an agenda of any type, including vandalism. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:41, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

3. I restored another editor's deletion of disruption and deconstruction of work for reasons other than WP policies and guidelines as potential types of wikistalking. The Wales precedent explicitly named disruption as a type of stalking. Deconstruction is self evident and applies to the type of stalking in which a stalker goes through and reverts or deletes his subject's edits for reasons other than those permitted by WP policies and guidelines. Rangerdude 18:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Deconstruction is a literary phrase. It means, essentially, a type of literary criticism. I don't see how you can include "deconstructing" (i.e. criticizing) someone's edits in a definition of "bad stalking." Anybody is free to express an opinion, as long as it isn't a personal attack. But this can't be written into a guideline in the fashion in which you suggest; it's essentially meaningless. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:39, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

And "deconstructionism" is also a philosophical phrase, but in its most common usage "deconstruct" is a verb meaning simply "To break down into components; dismantle" (American Heritage Dictionary). In its literary/philosophical use the term is not commonly employed as a verb but rather as a school of thought called deconstructionism. If you prefer though, I'll gladly change the wording here to a synonym such as "dismantle" or "delete." Rangerdude 18:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

It already says vandalize, which is arguably what deleting would be. I'd prefer it just be removed. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:54, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Not all deletion and not all disruption is vandalism though, and deconstructing a stalked subject's work is a particularly stalker-prone area. Editors who go around dismantling somebody else's work for non-policy related reasons may not necessarily be adding content that is vandalism to an article and in fact may not even get noticed, especially if they do so a few minutes or hours after the contribution was made. Since wikipedia is "written to the masses" so to speak, I don't believe the risk of a deconstructionism/Derrida confusion with the more common usage definition of the verb "to deconstruct" is a particularly high risk - especially given that there is no link to deconstructionism here. Rangerdude 19:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

If someone's edits aren't vandalism or otherwise a violation of policy, then there's no problem, right? So if they are vandalism or otherwise a violation of policy, then punitive actions should be able to be pursued as a violation of that policy. I just don't see how a case can be made for this "guideline;" all it's doing is creating something with which bad faith editors can bludgeon someone else. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:08, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Vandalism is not the only type of disruption on Wikipedia. In fact the Wales precedent on stalking found that an editor's behavior was disruptive - even though that editor was only making minor changes such as wikilinking that would otherwise go unnoticed - because those changes were made specifically for the purpose of harassing another editor's work. Rangerdude 20:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

And those two isolated cases were dealt with appropriately, proving the current system works. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:16, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

That's a circular argument, comparable to citing the conviction of a single child molester as "proof" that child molestation is not a problem anymore. The standing precedent of Wales with The Recycling Troll obviously did not deter Skyring from stalking only a few months later. Instead we got a repeat of the same, and it required a drawn out arbitration process that occupied the time and attention of the already backlogged arbitration committee to effectively decide the exact same thing Jimbo Wales had already found to be a violation before. The entire point of a guideline is to inform Wikipedia editors that certain behavioral conventions exist on wikipedia, and that harassment of editors by stalking them is not tolerated here. This in itself is a deterrant to potential stalkers by way of providing information about its nature and consequences. IOW a stalker can no longer claim ignorance of two certain but relatively hard to locate precedents as a defense, and a potential stalking may be deterred from the offense if he or she is directed to the guideline in the early stages of the act before it becomes a problem requiring Arbcom intervention. Rangerdude 07:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Your arguments aren't parallel with mine. I never suggested that the current system means it's "not a problem anymore." (Personally I never felt it was a problem to begin with.) Regardless, I simply said that the current system is adequate for dealing with problems when they arise. There have only been two arbcom cases dealing with this pseudo-issue so far, and I don't see any great backlog of people crying for a new guideline preventing "wikistalking," so I'm inclined to think that what we have now isn't really broken enough to warrant this guideline, particularly when it's so problematic. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:53, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

When Wales or the Arbcom determine that "deconstructing" edits is against policy then we can add that here. -Willmcw 20:35, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

redundant policy

So, the proposal talks about the difference between good stalking and bad stalking. The proposal says it's ok to follow someone around and fix their bad edits. That's good stalking. This means that what's left is bad stalking. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that mean that the proposal is trying to make a policy that says it is against policy to follow someone around and break policy? The more I think about this, given the can of worms this "stalking" policy would open, I am more and more of the mind that existing policy should handle the problem editor. And problematic edge-cases should be left to arbcom and jimbo to make a command decision. FuelWagon 19:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Leaving aside the question of guidelines vs policy, there are many edits which, in isolation are unnecessary but either unobjectionable or only mildly objectionable, but if made repeatedly on articles that a particular User has edited become harrassment. The same goes for comments on Talk pages. If I see that a user has introduced a certain PoV, or a spelling or grammatical mistake, or a vanity link, or a style that goes against MoS, I might check her other edits to see if she's done it elsewhere; no problem. If someone irritates me and I go to every article that she's edited in order, for example, to change all her dashes to hyphens, or all her correctly formatted links to redirect-links, then there's a problem; doing that on one article would be an annoyance, but nothing to get steamed up about; doing so on all the articles edited by a certain person, and it becomes stalking. It may be that such behaviour wouldn't bother you, but it can be infuriating (for example, it means that when you check your watchlist, you find that every article on it has been edited. You can ignore them all, but then that means you no longer have a functional watchlist (and after all, you don't know what the edit was just before the stalker's...). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Frustration aside, functionally wouldn't that be handled under grievance policies dealing with vandalism? · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:02, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Mel - the example you describe is very similar to what happened in the case with "The Recycling Troll" (TRT) that caused Jimbo Wales to ban him. Essentially TRT was going around to virtually all the articles that the other editor he was stalking had made additions to. When TRT went to each he would then rearrange dashes, periods, wikilinks and the sort as a "followup" edit, knowing it would force the editor he was stalking to keep checking his watchlist pages and cause general annoyance. TRT's actions were NOT considered vandalism because the changes he was making - e.g. adding wikilinks - didn't damage the content of most of the pages themselves but rather simply harassed the guy he was stalking. That's the basis that Jimbo Wales decided the case on - TRT's edits were not a bannable offense because they vandalized something, but rather because they were disruptive in that he made them to intentionally pester another user. Rangerdude 07:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I hear you, Mel, but, if the articles are made better, then the editor who did it shouldn't be punished for "stalking". Really, the articles must get highest priority. And if the "stalker" goes around and makes the articles worse, then isn't that just more evidence to throw on an RFC? If someone is doing bad-faith edits, and if they're doing them all to one person just to harrass them, then it should quickly accumulate to enough bad-faith edits to get an RFC certified. And I get that this is something that an editor can "game", stalk someone and edit within policy in an attempt to annoy another editor, but I think creating a "no stalking" policy could be far more "gamable". I'm not saying that stalking couldn't be a problem, but I think a vague policy that is hard to define and hard to disprove just creates an easier way for a would-be stalker to harass an editor. Rather than stalk someone, accuse them of stalking you. Force them to spend hours and hours defending themselves in an RFC. All it takes it 2 to certify. Without the policy, a 'stalker' could harass someone if they can carefully follow them around and change their edits within wikipedia policy. That makes the stalker do a lot of work. With this policy, rather than stalk, all the guy has to do is accuse someoen of stalking, get one other editor/ally to certify, and the accused will spend hours defending themselves against the RFC trying to prove he isn't stalking and tryign to prove the other editor is filing a bad-faith RFC. It seems to me to make it harder for the bad-faith editor this proposal should NOT be adopted as a guideline or policy. That doesn't mean arbcom or Jimbo can't choose to give someone the boot for whatever reason they choose. But it keeps the subjective decisions out of the hands of bad-faith editors. FuelWagon 22:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

But there aren't only two possibilities: make better or make worse. There are countless edits that can be made that merely change things (differences in style, arrangement, etc.), without improving or detracting from what's there. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Mel, I know, but if it's a bad proposal with only two possibilities (make better/make worse), it will only be worse with all the real-world possibilities. It just makes it that much harder to disprove that you are innocent. That's the fundamental problem I see here. It makes it un-friggen-believably easy to accuse someone of stalking. I mean, I could just pick someone, start going to the articles that they edit, let them do what they do, and odds are that you'll find a point where it looks like there's a pattern where the other guy is responding to my edits. File an RFC, and it will be impossible to disprove in any easy way. That's what a lot of this policy crap comes down to: how much time will innocent poeple have to spend fighting a bad RFC? I think this will make it easy to file a bad-faith RFC, and it will make it damn difficult for an innocent editor to clearly disprove it without spending days combing through diffs and histories. FuelWagon 20:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. I think that checking the history of the articles would normally (at least) bring out what had really happened, though; one would just have to look to see which of the two had edited each article first. A pain, perhaps, but do-able.

As I'm being subjected to a minor bit of stalkking at the moment (by Coqsportif (talk · contribs)), I may be overly sympathetic to this proposal, I suppose. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

If I read the two precedents correctly, the key difference between bad stalking and good following is intent to harass. In both cases that intent was determined by first demonstrating a lack of good faith or useful contributions, and a presence of other trolling or abusive behavior. In neither case did they indicate that the simple behavior of following another's edits is, in and of itself, abusive without an overall intent to harass. -Willmcw 23:11, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Difference between Policies and Guidelines

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)

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)

Precedents

The "Precedents" section had a lot of POV interpretation so I have tried to make it NPOV by simply quoting the applicable decisions. The final guideline, if approved, probably should only footnote the precedents. Their place here is perhaps best considered as an aid to guideline-making. -Willmcw 23:03, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

I reverted your edits to the "precedents" section as I see nothing even remotely approaching POV in it. If anything, your chopped up edits to it simply made it hard to read and reprinted large segments of text that are better represented through a simple link and excerpts. If you wish to contend that there is a POV in this section, please state the specific examples of what you object to before declaring without specification that it has a "POV" and rewriting the entire thing absent consensus to do so. Rangerdude 07:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

All we need are the precednets, not any editor's interpretation of them. I didn't re-write the interpration, I removed it and left the simple language of the ArbCom and Wales. -Willmcw 07:19, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Wales and the Arbcom decisions are already extensively quoted and linked to in the text. The only "interpretation" given is to state the outcome of each case, e.g. that TRT was banned for good and Skyring was banned for a year. For the purposes of making a concise and readable guideline, that is more than sufficient. That's not to say that there isn't valuable knowledge to be gained in the Wales and Arbcom decisions - only that it isn't necessary to reprint those decisions in full in an article summarizing them when that article clearly links to where they may be found. Also, given that conflict of interest concerns have been raised about your contributions in this article, I will ask that you abstain from making major changes to the proposed text unilaterally as you have been doing recently. Deleting and completely rewriting large paragraphs of text and altering the meaning and application of existing provisions within the guideline proposal should be discussed here first, Will. In your recent edits you have not provided adequate descriptions of your rationale, evidence of your claims such as section POV, or sufficient discussion of the material where your changes are disputed on the talk page. This sort of behavior runs against Wikipedia's consensus-oriented and collaborative processes. Please take greater care to remedy these issues in your future edits. Rangerdude 07:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The only reason to include the "precedents" is to indicate exactly what the ArbCom and Wales said. Your spin on the material by, for example, makes it seem that both cases were solely about wiki-stalking, which skews the interpretation. In reality, wikistalking was only one component of the cases. Let me ask you, why do you feel it necessary to provide an interpretation of their clear text? The precedents are what they wrote, not what you say about them. If you like, we can have a section labeled, "Rangerdude's interpretation of the precedents". But if the section is going to be called "precedents", then let's limit it to precedents. -Willmcw 08:04, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Will - once again please describe the purposes of your major rewrite of the precedents section here before unilaterally doing so. Please do not revert to your own version when standing and stated objections to it exist and when explicit requests for you to discuss the issues surrounding it first have been posted. Doing so constitutes revert warring and is generally contrary to the principles of Wikipedia:Consensus. Rangerdude 07:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't re-write it, I removed the editor's opinions and stripped it down to the words of the sources. I've posted several explanations of that fact. As for revert warring, when are you going to explain the need for adding your own spin to what Wales has said? Are you smarter or more authoritative about what he thinks than he is? As I said befire you want to add a section clearly labelled as your opinion then I won't object. But please don't masquerade your own opinion as that of Wales or the ArbCom. Thanks, -Willmcw 08:04, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

You've given absolutely no examples or evidence of what you believe to be my "opinions" in the original version, Will, despite multiple requests to do so. You keep asserting that it contained POV and now call it "spin" yet you will not even be bothered to cite what you consider an example of either. You've also given no sufficient explanation of why a simple link to the rulings - which is more concise and makes for a better read - won't work. And most of all, you've conducted yourself in a manner that is highly uncooperative with the purpose of developing this guideline proposal - a proposal which you've indicated your opposition to, BTW, thus also raising the issue of whether it is even appropriate for you to be making major changes to it while the proposal remains. Please address the issues with your rewrite that I have stated below. Otherwise the POV tag remains and outside assistance will be requested regarding your revert warring and anti-consensus behavior. Rangerdude 08:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Section POV tag on precedents

Will - Please address the following issues with your proposed rewrite.

1. You have claimed that the existing section had "POV" problems yet you refuse to specify any. What are they?
2. Why is it necessary to reprint entire decisions when a simple link suffices for purposes of being concise?
3. Why is it innappropriate to state the outcomes of the two cases as they occurred, and how is doing so "interpretation" when the penalties are clearly stated?

Please address these concerns and please conduct yourself in a manner that is more conducive to Wikipedia's consensus policy. Rangerdude 07:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Please conduct yourself in a more civil manner too. That would really be appreciated.

As for the pov, there's a lot!

• Abusive forms of stalking on Wikipedia have been deemed inherently disruptive in the past

"Deemed inherently abusive"? Cite please. They've never deemed any such thing. What they actually deemed is in the original text.

• and have resulted in penalties against the editor engaged in stalking.

We need to mention that these editors were also engaged in other trolling or unhelpful behaviors.

• Wiki-stalking has been the subject of at least two major dispute resolution proceedings, both of which have resulted in severe penalties being applied against the stalker.

"Against the stalker"? So now we're calling them stalkers? Whatever happened to "users" or "editors"?

• The most notable case to date happened from February to March 2005.

Notable Aaccording to whom?

• The incident involved an editor named The Recycling Troll (TRT), who was banned for an extensive pattern of stalking against Wikipedia administrator RickK

He was banned for a variety of offenses.

• in which the former trailed the latter's edits on a daily basis, making subsequent and mostly minor changes to his work for the purpose of harassment. After a contentious arbitration dispute over the proper way to handle TRT's behavior, Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales intervened and permanently blocked TRT.[2] According to Wales' decision, "the Recycling Troll was making a pest of himself by harassing RickK."

Wales decision said much more than that. By cherry picking quotes a false impression of the case is being presented.

• The stalking edits were "clearly not attempts to help" in Wikipedia's mission of writing an encyclopedia. As such, stalking as it occured in this case constituted disrupting wikipedia to illustrate a point.

Wales himself says all of this in a much simpler, clearer, and more authoritative manner.

• In a similar case,

The cases were not similar at all. Who says they were similar?

• User:Skyring was penalized during Arbitraition by [[WP:ArbCom|Committee on August 12, 2005 for [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Skyring|wiki-stalking.

What's the idea of all the easter egg wikilinks? He was penalized fora variety of offenses.

• According to the decision adopted unanimously by the participating arbitrators, Skyring is "banned from Wikipedia for one year for wiki-stalking and acting in bad faith towards other contributors."

If we quote them here, why don't we just quote them all the way along? These are "precedents", not "interpretations".

In sum, there are so many problems with the interpretation text that it's just easier, and better, to simply list the actual words of the authorities, rather than Rangerdude's spin on them. Also, I agree that once (if) this is adopted then we should reduce the precednets down to links. Until then it is helpful to see the actual texts in order for the Wikipedia community to evaluate the material for themselves. -Willmcw 08:20, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

I've been sufficiently civil with you to date, Will, and asked only that you abide by consensus principles when engaging in a major rewrite. Regarding your claimed POV issues:

1.You complain ""Deemed inherently abusive"? Cite please." My citation is Jimbo Wales' ruling, which stated of TRT's behavior of following RickK constituted "disrupting wikipedia to illustrate a point."[3]

2. You object to "and have resulted in penalties against the editor engaged in stalking." This is a simple matter of fact, Will, not a POV. The stalking behavior of both users were specifically identified in the bannings and was a primary offense in both. Skyring was banned "for wiki-stalking and acting in bad faith towards other contributors" and TRT was banned for "Going around pestering RickK pointlessly and writing inane messages to the mailing list."

3. You assert that quoting the passage from Wales on TRT's stalking is "cherry-picking" and assert that "Wales decision said much more than that." The remainder of Wales' decision pertained to the ongoing dispute about the David Gerard block and the arbitration. There is no need to quote all that. If you wish to add that Wales also cited TRT for "writing inane messages to the mailing list" in addition to stalking why not simply add that quote? I would not object, and doing so would not unnecessarily reprint an entire decision that is easily found by a link as you seek.

4. You complain of the case's described similarity "The cases were not similar at all. Who says they were similar?" Now you're just being difficult, Will. Both cases involved a user who was stalking another user's edits, got taken to dispute resolution for that stalking, and got banned for that stalking - that is the similarity.

5. You say of Skyring "What's the idea of all the easter egg wikilinks? He was penalized fora variety of offenses." Actually, no Will. He wasn't. The final decision of the Arbcom against Skyring stated only two reasons for his banning - one specific one (wikistalking) and one about his behavior in general (acting in bad faith). That is not a "variety of offenses." The bad faith stipulation was also quoted in full in the original version. Rangerdude 08:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I will only respond by saying that in each and every case the answer lies on the source material, not in our own interpretations. Add more source material and add a separate section of your own interpretations, but do not remove the actual text or the precedents, or include your own spins without labelling them as such. Regarding the numbered points:

1. Wales never wrote the phrase "inherently disruptive". Who came up with that text? Regardless, anything that is abusive is disruptive, that's a tautology.

2. No, I complained of calling editors "stalkers". Sorry if I was unclear.

3. The point of giving a fuller Wales quote is to show the totality of TRT's situation. He was not banned solely for following an editor, and his other behavior was crucial in determing his bad faith and intent to disrupt the encyclopedia.

4. Saying they are similar is "spoonfeeding". Just list the two precedents.

5. Easter egg links are non-obvious links. Rather than simply listing the name of the decision, and linking it directly, it's confusing and misleading to link it under a different name :wiki-stalking. More spin. Let's just lay out the simple facts of the two cases and let other editors make up their minds.

6. Why do you keep mentioning a consensus for retaining your version? What consensus? The only consensus seems to tend toward dropping the entire proposal.

7. Have a nice day. -Willmcw 09:06, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Question: Being a newbie w/a dumbass question, am I reading this correctly [4], proposed finding states " While it is not possible to fully assess intent", yet action was taking against the editor. This policy proposal refers to "intent" several times, which may be a stricter standard than already in place. nobs 15:17, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, that's precisely the point. Edit logs are public record, so reading them and following users around can hardly be a problem. The issue is with systematically undoing that user's work, or insulting them, or being otherwise disruptive (which was the case with Recycling Troll and Skyring). Radiant_>|< 15:34, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

RfC on precedents

Question: Should the precedents section of this article summarize the two cases or reprint their rulings in full? Please post applicable comments here. Rangerdude 18:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

And if the material is not simply reprinted, how should it be summarized so that bias is not introduced? -Willmcw 19:20, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Has this actually been listed on RFC? Because I don't see it on the page anywhere. Nevermind. I see it on the surveys page. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:45, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Question to Willmcw re: previous opposition to a Wikipedia guideline on stalking

According to the following text by Willmcw posted on July 5th regarding the establishment of guideline provisions of the same purpose as this for wikistalking, he wrote:

A problem with this proposal is that it assumes bad faith on the part of the accused stalker. That seems entirely at odds with the overarching policy. It goes to the intent of the user, which is unknowable, rather than the value of the edits themselves. We already have a policy about personal attacks that covers incivility. If being simply being corrected is harassment then everybody on Wikipedia is continually harassed. If an editor is making substantive contributions in a civil manner it should not matter what articles are being edited. -Willmcw July 5, 2005 22:00 (UTC) [5]

As these sentiments convey a position of opposition to the establishment of an anti-stalking guideline to reflect the Wales and Arbcom decisions, as is the purpose here, and as Willmcw is actively editing this guideline proposal and, of recent, denying his opposition to it, he is requested to clarify the above comments from last month, indicate if he still believes in them and if so in what way, and state whether he supports or opposes the guideline proposal that is the object of this discussion. Thank you. Rangerdude 19:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

No, that text (why is it even here?) referred to your attempt to add wikistalking to an existing guideline, Wikipedia:assume good faith. Please stick to drafting and seeking approval for the current proposal, not a different proposal in a different place from a month ago. -Willmcw 20:08, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Will - I'm asking you specific questions to clarify your position regarding this guideline proposal based on your previous expressed opposition to similar proposals. The statement from you that I quoted above expresses open hostility to the idea of having a wiki-stalking guideline provision. Since you have been engaged in heavy editing of this article after the proposal was anounced and since you opposed its provisions previously, it is in the interest of this discussion's participants to know whether you support or oppose the current item on the table. If you support it you should state so openly. If you oppose it then you should refrain from making major revisions to the proposal as they could be seen as attempts to weaken it, vandalize its text, and obstruct its consideration by the Wikipedia community. You're free to comment on this proposal, Will, and make good faith contributions to it but you are not free to disrupt or vandalize it with bad faith edits done for the purpose of disrupting its consideration. So I'll ask you once again, Will. (1) Do you support or oppose this proposal? (2) Do you or do you not still agree with the position you took on this subject in July as quoted above? (3) If you still agree please clarify in what way, and if you have changed your mind please indicate the reasons why. Thanks in advance for answering. Rangerdude 22:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Not a good guideline

After reading over the guideline and this talk page in full, I have come to the conclusion that this is not a good guideline. The points that have been made about how effetively impossible it is to disprove mean that, while the concept may be relevant as further evidence of disruptive behavior, it is not sufficient to be a stand alone, seperate guideline. If the page was rewritten to specify a clearer way it could be disproven, then it might be valuable, but, until and unless that happens, I do not consider it a good guideline. JesseW 07:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• I concur. The ArbCom's definition of stalking is reasonable and rarely used. This guideline, however, seems to have the intent of discouraging people from reading other people's edit logs (which, after all, is what most accusations of 'stalking' are about). While following is not necessarily a nice thing to do, contrib logs are public for good reason. Radiant_>|< 13:44, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I take offense at this, I've been avoiding get involved in this conflict but I take offense at you unsuing that I started this in bad faith as your last statement appears to say. I started this because there was no policy on stalking on wikipedia and it appeared that since stalking was becoming more and more of an issue it might be appropriate to have one, I was wrong it seems but this has never been meant to be in bad faith and if you disagree with the policy nothing is stopping you from putting this up on VFD. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 18:52, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Straw poll time?

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)

• W00t! Trees are too sl0w to ke3p up with cyb3ring. Because everybody discussing this proposal seems to think it's a silly idea? Because eventualism doesn't work for policy proposals? Because slapping {{rejected}} on it will cause people to stop worrying while still allowing for debate? Because sentences should start with because? Because if not even three people can be found that think this is a good idea, then however will the consensus accept it? Radiant_>|< 15:49, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

Dangerous trollss

I would like to know why Rangerdude just wrote asking the sockpuppet and dangerous troll Agwiii (talk · contribs) to contribute. Agwiii is a sockpuppet of RexJudicata (talk · contribs) 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)

Cheers, much appreciated, SqueakBox 19:49, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

The parts of this guideline that are not redundant are harmful

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)

A poor direction for policy

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)

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 19:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)