User:SlimVirgin/project

Harassment is a form of bullying. It may be difficult to quantify, but we usually recognize it when we see it, especially when we're on the receiving end.

It may consist of repeated

WP:POINT

in relation to their work, ridiculing them, issuing threats, and repeatedly trying to draw other people's attention to the subject's shortcomings. Sometimes the dispute-resolution structure is used to harass users by filing inappropriate RfCs and RfArs against them.

Isolated instances of any of the above are not examples of harassment. That a user is being harassed will be seen from the pattern of behavior directed toward her. If you are on the receiving end of harassment, you may start to feel anxious whenever you log into Wikipedia, nauseous at the sight of a certain user name, embarassed by what they're saying about you, nervous about editing certain pages. You may find yourself removing pages from your watchlist to avoid a certain person. You may start to engage in revert wars that you'd normally avoid, or even launching personal attacks in a (misguided) effort to defend yourself. You may consider leaving Wikipedia because of it.

Among the behaviors unacceptable on Wikipedia is harassment.

Harassment is usually defined as a violation of

no personal attacks, but is properly both a subset and special case

of both.

Types of harassment

There is no way to spell out all the behaviors that can be considered harassment. One of the tendencies of harassers is to come up with new and inventive ways to plague their victims. However, in the past, harassment on Wikipedia has included:

Following an editor to another article to continue disruption (also known as wikistalking)

"The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor.

This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful.

Targeted personal attacks

Not all personal attacks are harassment, but when an editor engages in repeated personal attacks on a particular editor or group of editors, that's another matter.

Threats

Threatening another person is considered harassment. This may include threats to harm another person, to disrupt their work on Wikipedia, or to otherwise hurt them.

Legal threats are considered a special case, with their own settled policy. Making legal threats against another person or organization involved with Wikipedia may lead to being blocked on the basis of that policy.

Posting of personal information

Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information) is almost always harassment. This is because it places the other person at unjustfied and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media.

Blockable disruption not defined above

This sort of behavior is blockable on its own (for example, moving another user's User Talk page), but should be considered an aggravating factor for the purposes of the block. For example, behavior that would earn a 1 day ban might become a 1 week ban if the Administrator believes the behavior was for the purposes of harassment.

Precedents/examples of note

Personal attacks

There exists a list of Arbitration cases involving Personal Attacks that might be illuminating to those seeking further information at

Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Precedents#Personal attacks (and associated principles)

.

Wikistalking

Wikistalking has been a subject in at least two Arbitration Committee proceedings (and a peripheral matter in a third). In both of the below cases, the action of "following someone around" was not the only offense, but rather compounded the harm that the stalker was causing to the project.

The Recycling Troll (TRT)

The matter of The Recycling Troll (TRT) occured from February to March 2005. The incident involved an editor who was banned for an overall pattern of trolling, including stalking of one administrator. User:Jimbo Wales wrote in his final decision:

Because the Recycling Troll was making a pest of himself by harassing RickK and hammering the mailing list with facetious strawman arguments, I see no reason for us to make a big deal of it.

[Our policies] are in place to help us write the encyclopedia. Going around pestering RickK pointlessly and writing inane messages to the mailing list are clearly not attempts to help us do that, but are rather just someone disrupting wikipedia to illustrate a point. So I'm blocking User:The Recycling Troll indefinitely. He's been a very successful troll, he's caused a lot of trouble, and he's most likely a sock puppet anyway.

Also reported on Wikipedia Signpost.

Skyring

In the matter of Skyring — a separate case decided

Arbitration Committee

to have committed "wikistalking". The committee voted 5-0 that:

The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor. This is distinct from following a contributor in order to clear repeated errors.

On 13 June User:Skyring followed User:Jtdirl, editing a large set of articles that had recently been edited by Jtdirl (see contributions for 13 June). While it is not possible to fully assess intent, this action, and some of the edit summaries used, seem designed to provoke: "enfeebled minds", "Some professional standards, please!", "A common pattern for this editor to produce poor English", "Low quality of Irish editor"

Skyring banned for wikistalking -
User:Skyring is banned from Wikipedia for one year for wiki-stalking and acting in bad faith towards other contributors, as demonstrated in evidence.

Coolcat, Davenbelle, and Stereotek

In the matter of Cool Cat (talk · contribs) (aka User:Coolcat) — a case decided on October 5, 2005 — the ArbCom voted that wikistalking was unacceptable in the following circumstances:

It is not acceptable to stalk another editor who is editing in good faith. (Note that everyone is expected to

assume good faith

in the absence of definite evidence to the contrary.) Once an editor has given reason to suspect bad faith, monitoring is appropriate, but constantly nit-picking is always a violation of required courtesy.

There are hundreds of administrators available to monitor problem users. [1]

Davenbelle (talk · contribs), Stereotek (talk · contribs), and Fadix (talk · contribs) monitored Cool Cat (talk · contribs) with the view to bringing problems he caused to the attention of the community. However, this has tipped over into effectively "wikistalking" or "hounding" Cool Cat, and so disrupting Wikipedia and discouraging his positive contributions. [2]

Other

This user's story is an instructive example in the aggravating enhancing factor of harassment; the editor in question moved another user's talk page, which was disruption sufficient to get him blocked for 24 hours; however, as it was part of a pattern of harassment, the ban was extended indefinitely.