Talk:Cyberstalking

Scholarly Consumers Interested in Cyberstalking Should Consult Link to Old Draft by 67.129.121.254

Okay. So the administrative gangbangers have "zone defensed" on the main page through targeted editor banning, reversion, and disabling of edit functionality, what they believe reflects a consensus on cyberstalking. Now that they have taken this measure, would it not be prudent use of a discussion page to entertain those elements that they have marginalized? In other words, isn't this an appropriate place to discuss the unabridged or expanded body of verifiable facts about cyberstalking.

I believe it is. Administrators who "zone defense" embattled article Alt.usenet.kooks justify their defense of this article by referring to the fact that the article itself is not defaming individuals identified in Usenet as kooks, but simply reporting the rumors in Usenet. If we accept this explanation, then it follows that we should accept that it is appropriate to retain, at least in this discussion page if not in the main page, the broader facts about cyberstalking on the basis that in doing so, we are simply reporting what has been written by a number of witnesses about cyberstalking. Now some might argue that Alt.usenet.kooks is different in that the individuals identified as kooks have been identified as kooks by a consensus. But this is not true. Kookhunters in Usenet are challenged by a great many people.

But beyond this, many of the facts in the original article are verifiable. The paragraph about the personal information search engines, for example, is nothing but facts. If what we demand of our encyclopedia is nothing but the facts, i.e. fact, smoking gun, axiom, self-evident truth, mathematical proof, or object visible to the naked eye, there are many elements in the 67.129.121.254 draft that meet this standard of interrater reliability. This is a strong draft. By contrast, the stub on which minimalists Karada, Will Bebeck, & Jossi insist is dreadfully inadequate (i.e. barren) & also less precise in its wordsmithing.

For a vastly improved version of this article removed by social psychologically illiterate admins (Jimmy Wales would shun such an exhibition of anti-intellectualism and proprietary), click here for the classic draft. It was composed by a social psychologist and student of cyberstalking. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.148.16.65 (talk • contribs)./—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Curt Jurgens (talk • contribs).

Wow! Imagine the repression involved in editing that original content not only out of the main page, but in also editing any mention of the old draft in a sideline discussion page. Karada, Jossi, and Will Bebeck have disgraced this body of work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Curt Jurgens (talk • contribs) .

Love the original, especially the section on GoDaddy, the Stalker's ISP of choice, which really hits the nail on the head. Why are the Admins so interested in protecting GoDaddy's repuation on this point? Pleasantville 20:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Pleasantville - isn't that the draft which you wrote? We welcome all neutral information which is verifiable from reliable sources. This article isn't about GoDaddy in particular, so I'm not sure why a lengthy, improperly sourced treatment of that company here is necessary. -Will Beback · † · 02:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, this wasn't Pleasantville's draft. -Will Beback · † · 03:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Because THE TRUTH^TM (defined as gossip, opinion, irrelevancy, conspiracy theories, etc.) must be told! ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 02:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Is Will Bebeck A Stalker?

Apparently, there are others beside me who regard this fellow as a bit of a stalker / vandal. Bebeck is actually an alias. He operated under a previous incarnation and gutted this encyclopedia of substantive content. He continues to vandalize this page and he refuses to enter into a substantive discussion.

If vandals keep deleting it, then I have to keep restoring it. As of this morning, there was no hint of this text anywhere because people using various Web resources like Usenet & Google & the personal information search engines to cyberstalk have a vested interest in keeping the substance of a cyberstalking article out of the public eye. If you wish to delete it elsewhere, fine, I won't complain as long as it remains here.

Karada's Way

Karada, I am at a loss to explain why you would delete the information I provided. The information has been restored with enhancement to flow and readability. I cannot think of a more appropriate and scholarly contribution for this particular article (cyberstalking) than the information I provided about the abuse of Web-based resources (i.e. search engines, domain registrars, Usenet) not only by individual cyberstalkers, but by groups of cyberstalkers whose gang-like activity is made uniquely possible by the characteristics of the Internet (e.g. anonymity, cybersleuthing, and lack of geographic distance makes cooperative networking simple). It's not only verifiable facts, but the facts are also stable over time. The phenomenon I document is an enduring trait of the Internet and not an attempt to call attention to a single stalker or flame war.

For you to designate such a contribution as "kookery" is abusive and unscholarly and turns reality on its head. The term kookery itself is "kooky" in that it is meaningless, serving only an expressive (i.e. valuative) function. All the facts in this article are empirical and verifiable, and none of the facts are presented in an irrational or incomprehensible manner. I do concede however that this article may become a magnet for tin foil conspiracy theorists and others with bizarre unverifiable ideas about stalking (but let's leave that to future monitoring).

The reference to a particular news group, the only aspect of the report I consider even remotely disputable, is clearly marked as illustrative, and all readers are aware the group is being used as both (a) an example to give concrete form to cold facts and abstract concepts and (b) a reference (if you examine the group, here is an example of the facts).

I suspect your problem is really not with the merits of the content itself but with the periphera (i.e. tenor, motive, venue). If you have a problem with what you think is my motivation, I do not think it is material. Regardless of what my motives were for writing this piece (and these motives are not endemic to the text), the material is factual and verifiable and it is not offered as opinion. More importantly, this information is socially conscientious, civically responsible, and capable of preventing many cases of cyberstalking.

So please cease and desist your following me around Wikipedia. I am not trying to spam Wikipedia with this content. I think you'll find that if you simply give it its due place (and you can decide whether it should be here in Cyberstalking or in Stalking), that I will stop reviving it. I keep putting it in various places ONLY BECAUSE you have been deleting it and then attempting to pass me off as a spammer or vandal. I think your motives / emotions are more transparent than mine.

Moreover, efforts to improve this content may include qualification, editing, and sidebar discussion, but wholesale deletion and redirection to empty shells is simply extreme, inappropriate, and thus "vandalizing."

Accuracy

I question this opening phrase: "Since a cyberstalker cannot present a direct physical threat to their victim . . ."

If a cyberstalker knew the victim's name, address, etc., could he not be just as dangerous as someone stalking by phone or postal mail? He could arrive at any time and pose a direct physical threat. Someone could even email from their cell phone, saying "I'm right on your front porch with a shotgun."

Would a man using the Internet to stalk his ex-wife via internet be considered a cyber-stalker? What is really the difference between this type of stalking and regular stalking? No doubt it's true 19:41, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I believe the article should address cyberstalking as a means to an end, for instance, advocates of Scientology have been known to cyberstalk their critics, and it is often just the first step towards learning real information about their critics, so they can get them into court, or have their "agents" show up at a critic's door. See Scientology versus The Internet. A cyberstalker can (eventaully) pose a very real direct physical threat to their victim, if they're persistent enough. func(talk) 03:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Cyberstalking puts the victim in real fear without an overt threat

I have been the victim of online harassment with very nasty things stated along with my personal information - the threat is not necessarily from those posting these items but any disturbed person who reads it. I have had no direct physical threats from my harassers but I do feel threatened in that manner.

Dee Dee Warren

removal of link

this link - *http://www.haltabuse.org/ Working to Halt Online Abuse

was removed as a "fraudulent organization"

I would like to see proof of this. As a victim of online harassment they were helpful to me

Dee Dee Warren

And they stitched me up. This was there doing. It is my email address and the IP of one of their staff who was given it by them and then used it to pretend to be me. You are not alone in experiencing cyberstalking, but I had the misfortune to experience it at the hands of one of their staff, and mostly here. Please take a look at my user page for more details, SqueakBox July 6, 2005 14:44 (UTC)

I woulde also point out that said staff member, having been blocked for a week for sockpuppetry, was blocked indefinitely on June 21 by an admin for death threats. So, yes, I am willing to stand by my claim that this is a fraudulent organisation, SqueakBox July 6, 2005 15:30 (UTC)

I would say that with one of you having a positive experience, and one a negative, this is quite an impasse. I would suggest that you both look for outside references to clear this up. Have they ever been investigated because of bad practice? Have they ever been commended for their good works? Have they ever been mentioned in outside press at all? If the answer to the last is "no", then I would question whether they are prominent enough to list here anyway. I'm sure you can work together to decide what is best here. -- sannse (talk) 6 July 2005 16:03 (UTC)

Good idea. I will research them, probably later today, SqueakBox July 6, 2005 16:08 (UTC)

This had not been updated since the last posted comments. I readded the link to haltabuse.org for the following reasons:
1. They are listed as a recommended cyber stalking resource by the United States Department of Justice Cyber Stalking Page
2. Jayne Hitchcock, their president, is a published author on cyberstalking and is a recognized expert. In a quick search I even found copies of the transcripts when she testified before congress. Read the CNN story
3. Even if there was an abuse by a member, that doesn't mean the organization is fraudulent. The military and police do not become fraudulent organizations just because an individual abuses someone.
Aces & Eights 04:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

69.69.120.83 18:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

can you please add, refresnhing a "deviant art page" and being on 5 live journal communities as another person also counts as peverted sicko stalking. I am being accused of stalking artists, by stalking I mean I look at their deviant art blogs, accounts and the visable activity they allow anyone to see. YOu should mention some people want to be "cyber stalked" just so they have somethng to cry about, with that comes Munchusen's syndrom. They like it, otherwise they wound not give out their adresses publicly and demand gifts from people.69.69.120.83 18:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Halt Abuse

I performed a search today and found nothing negative about them and found they are recommended on other cyber-stalking abuse sites. As I said an attorney who specializes in cyber-stalking from a prestiguous firm allows his name to be used by them. I looked at your page Squeak and cannot make heads or tails out of what you are claiming - in short it seems like you found a bad apple somewhere, but that does not make a group fraudulent. Cyber-Angels is very well known, would you like me to inquire with them about Halt Abuse? It seems that no one else has a problem with the link so far (or please correct me if I am wrong) but you so far. One person having a bad experience (I have had a few horrible experiences with Google and a webhosting company that is/was enabling my harasser) but I would not call both entities fraudulent. I am sorry you had a bad experience Squeak, that is very unfortunate. If it were widespread I think these stories would be everywhere. I am not doubting you, I am suggesting perhaps it was an aberration. My sympathy is with you - it is very frustrating at how trivial others think cyber-stalking is. My harasser(s) followed me here as well. If you find some other reports let me know because I currently use their banner on my personal site and would like to know if this is a widespread thing.

Dee Dee Warren July 7, 2005 12:05 (UTC)

I agree cyberstalking is an important issue, but unfortunately services like Halt Abuse offer false hope for relief. I have been in communication with representatives of these Web sites, which make it seem as if something can be done to stop cyberstalking. But these communications, and history itself, has shown that legislation like section 230 of the Communications Decency Act facilitates cyberstalking by giving Google and Wikipedia immunity from lawsuits.

Google and Wikipedia are not public utilities or charities as we pretend they are (I'd like to see if Wiki eventually raises more donations than the Red Cross). The distinction between a service / conduit and a secondary publisher is arbitrary and political and is designed for purposes that have nothing to do with libel or privacy. But I can envision legislation that limits cyberstalking without limiting basic freedoms, legislation that increases accountability and customer service for companies (e.g. Google) whose products are so large they lack the resources for civic responsibility, customer service, and quality assurance. But they profit nonetheless, all while putting individual reputation, safety, privacy, and employment at risk. So why not legally prohibit search engines from allowing searches on digit strings that resemble IP addresses? Why not make it easier for individuals to opt out messages that identify them on the Internet? Why not criminalize the business of personal information search engines like Zabasearch.com? Why not criminalize Usenet in its current form (i.e. supporting not only aliases but anonymity of the untraceable variety)? If Usenet cannot be criminalized, why not require moderation of all forums or require that it be inaccessible by the Internet (as it used to be only available to hacker types via telephone lines)? And why not make local law enforcement accountable when they decide they're too lazy to enforce cyberstalking laws?

But make no mistake. There is no relief. And I have found Halt Abuse, and many others like, to be faux resources. They'll comfort with a "there. there. you're not alone," but that's it.

I also realized that none of the criticism of the Patriot Act or wiretapping can ever gain a head of steam because it would seem hypocritical of our nation, which declared "personal information search" an "industry" and which will not tolerate criticism of Google to complain about invasion of privacy.

--Tai Streets

I am the president of WHOA (Working to Halt Online Abuse) and am very upset by the allegations by this so-called victim. If she received no help from us or was unhappy, she should have contacted me directly instead of slandering our name. A simple email to us would have ansered all your questions on this page. I am very upset about this and ask that this person's slanderous comments about our organization be removed. We are a legitimate and well-repected organization. - Jayne Hitchcock, whoa@haltabuse.org —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.198.57.125 (talk • contribs) .

I don't think Tai's point is that WHOA is illegitimate, only that it is ineffective. People are safer if they are aware of the lack of support rather than if they are allowed to assume that in the end someone is going to step in and make the harassment go away. No one can do that short of a felony. Law enforcement has shown a remarkable capacity to ignore misdemeanor harassment if it occurs via a computer. In the vast majority of cases, law enforcement does not respect threats of this nature and they will tell you that they lack the manpower, money, skills, and mandate to address the threats. WHOA can best serve the victim population by lobbying legislators and raising public awareness proactively. As long as some token laws and provisions of broader legislation are created in a vaccuum without funding and without a social movement, online abuses like those you see originating from Usenet's news groups will continue to grow. But I suspect, and this is no slight to WHOA, that WHOA just doesn't have the clout to command much attention from legislators. Providing psychological support to victims, which is not to be underestimated, is probably the limit of what WHOA could do, at least for now. Currently, the culture supports cyberstalking. Look at the tepid response from the public about the NSA wiretapping and the fact the government's legislation helped Google to grow its content without having to grow a customer service, complaint, or quality assurance staff / mission to match. Right now the culture is all about absolute freedom, and if that means sacrificing our own privacy, and that of our neighbor, then so be it. I don't like it one bit, but it does present an insurmountable obstacle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.129.121.254 (talk • contribs) aka User:Tai Streets aka User:Wyatt Ehrenfels 20:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I politely disagree with your statements. We help resolve over 60% of the cases that come to us and we do it all legally. We work with law enforcement on cases and I personally train law enforcement worldwide. I have seen a huge jump in police taking cyberstalking much more seriously than they have in the past - I have seen it myself. WHOA already does lobby for better laws - as a matter of fact, I am working on three different types of legislation involving protecting kids online, online dating and getting the final five states to pass cyberstalking laws. You really should do your homework before making statements about us. Please visit our site at www.haltabuse.org and haltabusektd.org or feel free to email me with any questions at whoa@haltabuse.org.

Squeak

I, of all people, know the trauma of online harassment. While I have a good opinion of that group (and will read anything you find that I should know), I can see that this is causing you to have to deal once again with a traumatic event. A Wiki page is not worth that - I will withdraw my objection to your edit. The link remains on the discussion page and anyone reading it will see your warnings and can make their own decision. I apologize if this opened a wound for you, I know how that feels. Even in the state I live in with pretty strict cyberstalking laws, it pretty much boils down to requiring a direct physical threat - just like Theresa Saldana who could do nothing about her "real world" stalker until he stabbed in broad daylight in the street. I will concede to your very strong feelings. I wish you all the best to put any bad experiences behind you - I just wanted to note that they helped me much. Blessings Squeak.

Dee Dee Warren July 7, 2005 13:02 (UTC)

Much appreciated, SqueakBox July 7, 2005 14:13 (UTC)

So please can we assure it remains deleted, SqueakBox 14:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Material from deleted article

While attempting to include in pleno the material from the deleted article gang stalking, is a no-go, some of the material may be salvageable. I would encourage editors to rather than attempt to re-add the complete article (that will be obviously deleted) to instead find any material that is well referenced and not orginal research and include that. Slow and steady, please, to give a chance for other editors to check references, etc. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd encourge editors to not add such material in the first place, as it has been deleted several times from Wikipedia, including by user:Jimbo Wales. Only those parts which are well-sourced and written with a neutral, encyclopedic should be added. Big text dumps will be removed. -Will Beback 23:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

That was exactly my point. Only parts that are well referenced and not original research are welcomed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that's someone impersonating Wales. There are Usenet-based cyberstalkers monitoring the activity of the three persons who've contributed to this page. Impersonation and identity theft is their modus operandi as they have often impersonated me in messages to the Internet and have not only impersonated a supporter in writing a spurious negative review of my book in Amazon.com, but have illicitly procured his credit card number for the purpose of "authenticating" that bogus review. These cyberstalkers have a vested interest in reducing the fund of public knowledge about cyberstalking to a veritable husk -- what you call a "stub" -- and some of you here have been their unwitting handmaidens by refusing to accede to verifiable facts about what is a pervasive and enduring trait of the Internet (I am glancing in your direction there Bebeck). Besides, I have spoken to Wales by phone on another matter and I think I got a sense of the man, and hyperactive censorship of the kind exercised here is not his style. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tai Streets (talk • contribs) .

Until you Wiki admins adopt a comparable approach to cultural articles like alt.usenet.kooks and Daniel Brandt, you have no "standard" to claim.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tai Streets (talk • contribs) .

The material is now at User:Tai Streets/Gang stalking, where it can be edited and sourced. -Will Beback 18:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

3RR warning

To all editors: Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Scholarship would be advanced ten-fold if the same policy applied to Jossi and Will Bebeck.

FYI, I have no interest in this article beyond asseting my duties as a sysop of Wikipedia. Reverting repeated aditions of material that was marked for deletion under a previous WP:AfD are within my duties. Any user that is actively editing this article, will be blocked if the the three revert rule is violated. For more info read WP:3RR ≈ jossi ≈ t • @

Recent edits

Little if any of the information on this article was cited, but I've retained most of it and added sources that will support what was there. I've also expanded on a lot of points. Because of material that has been added, I reorganized the article to make for a more logical flow. Info that was deleted was simply redundant information, completely incorrect, or too garbled to revise for clarity. The US Dept. of Justice info is 'still in the article, but has been absorbed into other paragraphs and cited like the other sources.

Plans: I want to expand on the law enforcement section as forensics, or lack there of, is a fascinating part of the problem. Also, I think the "False accusations" section should be removed and the info split--the allegations as form of abuse being placed at the top where behaviors are defined, the problems with the law going under the "Cyberstaling legislation" section. Aine63 22:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the section on false accusations as it is incorrect, and uncited, anyway. Cyberstalking is covered by the law, so orgs don't come up with their "own" definitions. Aine63 06:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

A) How was it incorrect, B, it was cited, and various edits removed the citation. Are you going to claim that there are no false accusations with cyberstalking? That somehow cyberstalking doesn't have either TYPE I or TYPE II errors associated with it? No, I state your removal of the section on false accusations constitutes malicious POV edits pertaining to some hidden agenda of yours that makes you an article stalker. Buzz off troll.

Content of article must be NPOV

That an editor may have had a "traumatic experience" with a particular organization is not sufficient for it's removal from the "External links" list. Frankly, this goes against everything that Wikipedia is about. WHOA is a legitimate organization that provides a very good source of information to the public. Their information is used in the article content here, and is cited, and probably will provide more content. Any further removals will be viewed as vandalism. Aine63 21:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Please read our policy on vandalism, what it is and what it isnt. To me the link has all the qualities of spam and removing spam is not considered vandalism by reasonble users. Indeed only one link on US law and the internet was not spam and so all the other links have been removerd as spam. Wikipedia is not a web directory, if people want links to cyberstalking sites they can go elsewhere to find them. Any links should be about cyberstalking and not from organizations promoting anti the,selves as anti cyberstalking, SqueakBox 21:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Links to sources of information do not constitute spam,. Most articles on Wiki have them within an "External links" sectin at the bottom. I added the links to WHOA, and have no affiliation with them at all.

I'm very sorry about your personal experience with WHOA, however, this is not enough to warrant the deletion of any link, or reference, let alone an entire section with links to organizations with good information on the topic of cyberstalking. Aine63 22:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

That was the past, what annoyed me was using my personal info on a wikipedia page pretending to be me nbut that has nothing to do with my current actions. The reason the links need to go is they are a classic example of spam and in order to maintain NPOV we should only have articles about cyberstalking, we should not have articles promoting cyberstalking-help by visiting their sites type sites, thus I have checked every site on the list and removed those that according to wikipedia policy are clearly spam. We still have plenty of genuine informative information in the reduced external links section. Perhaps a Request for comment might be in order to give other opinions but the general sense throughout wikipedia is to remove sites like the ones I have done on the grounds that they are spam. I mkight add the whole external links section is still heavily US biased and yet cyberstalking is not only an issue in the US, SqueakBox 00:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

"External links" sections are for sites that contain information about a topic. They are not advertisements for services.

A "classic example of spam" is junk mail. That "External links" sections are spam is your personal opinion. Since virtually every article on Wikipedia has an "External links" section, your argument as it stands is weak, and best taken up in a proposal to the administration. If the Wiki administration crafts a policy forbidding "External links" sections deeming them as encouraging spam, then this article should comply.

I respect your frustration with the efficiency of organizations like WHOA. A lot of the problem is that the forensics of cyberstalking is very lacking because it's still a new crime. However, even the National Center for the Victims of Crime recommends WHOA as a reliable source for cyberstalking information, and most of the others on the sites on the list. It would be best for you to explore your frustrations with Cyberstalking organizations within an article about "Cyberstalking organizations", say one that discusses their strengths and weaknesses. As long as what you write uses reliable sources, and presents all sides of the issue, that would be a good sub-topic for the article.Aine63 00:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. It is not for you to decide which sites should stay or go from the links list. It is not for you to decide what is or isn't legitimate info. This should be left up to the editors to decide. In the meantime, the content will stay as it is. Aine63 00:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I am an editor here, the fact that you reverted my work wholesale shows bad faith as does your claim I am not an editor here. It is not for you to act like God and decide which content stays and then claim I am not an editor here. Your whole attitude has been deliberately provocative since the start. This should not be a link farm for spam, for your personal site (Whoa) or to remove any attempts to rid the article of its US centrism. It was not me but 220.253.85.240 who first removed this link, ie it hasn't been me who decided this single handedly but the consensus right now to remove it. I note another article you are wotrking with, [[1]] has one external link. So why can that article be in good condition and this one a link farm? SqueakBox 14:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I have not said that you are not an editor. I said that the decision for the links to be deleted is not your decision, but a decision for the editors who work on this article. The decision to remove the link earlier was based soley on your "personal trauma," with WHOA and completely against Wiki policy. I added the WHOA link many, many weeks ago, and no one but you has protested. Since this discussion, no one has jumped in to back your argument up.

Again, I respect your opinion about "External links" sections on articles, but this is something to address with the Wikipedia administration.

I've replace the deleted links, and kept your new addtions. Thank you for those suggestions. :)

I agree with you that a lot of the info so far in the article comes from U.S. sources, however, there are sources from non-English speaking countries (for example, Rokkers is Dutch) as well. Plus, the article is still growing. Please feel free to add more content that comes from other non-English speaking countries as this will help improve the scope of the article.

BTW, the article you mentioned with only one link was created ONLY yesterday. The links list has not been built up yet, as the focus so far has been on building the content. There will be additional links there soon. Aine63 18:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Squeakbox, how about a compromise? Since WHOA is already cited in the article (and will probably be again) I'll go with leaving them out of the "External links" list. (For most of the articles I work on, I don't have links to sites in the list if they are already used as sources in the article, but that is just me.) However, the "External links" list needs to include sources to cyberstalking information, and support organizations can have the best information because it's the victims who are most in need of the information. As long as the information on the sites is respected and reliable, and not from a .com source (mostly, though this can be debatable), then even web sites from support orgs should be included, the personal experience of one person doesn't change this. And, of course, sites from all over the world should be included. Aine63 18:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, SqueakBox 18:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

What about the Worldview?

{{worldview}} should probably be used more conservatively than {{fact}} tags, seeing what they hav to say about what kind of facts are welcome here (aren't they all welcome here, somewhere?). It seems that law in English speaking countries is more relevant here than in articles about koi, but I think a specific personal case might be too much, so I tagged it for snippage. Anybody willing to second the motion? Brewhaha@edmc.net 08:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to merge with Stalking

Cyber stalking is just another form of stalking, and is not a unique form of abuse unto itself. The motives are the same, and most stalkers use both the Internet and "real world" forms of stalking at the same time. Blueshirt2 00:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Aren't there specific laws against cyberstalking, independent of regular stalking? And while a real world stalker may include cyberstalking, aren't there instances where people are cyberstalked but not stalked in real life? Is there a specific reason to merge the articles? There doesn't appear to be much duplication, and the sources for tihs article are specific to cyberstalking. -Will Beback · † · 00:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I've got to agree with Will that a merge seems a poor idea. Each article is of reasonable length and could no doubt be expanded. JChap2007 18:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, is a separate issue and thus merits its own article, SqueakBox 16:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Interesting article deserves it's own. It's a different field anyway, nothing conventional. Whilding87 18:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose since cyberstalking involves a number of complex technological issues.

Removed "This term is used interchangeably with 'online harassment' and 'online abuse' "

Those terms ("online harassment" and "online abuse") weren't linked, and stalking can exist in the absence of harassment and abuse, and harassment and abuse can occur without stalking. Calling someone a name online does not constitute stalking.

The terms are not interchangeable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottyFLL (talk • contribs) 12:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

IP Addresses

One reason why cyberstalking is the hardest to prosecute - changing IP (internet provider) addresses. Not all IP addresses remain the same; this also holds true for free e-mail providers (e.g. GMail, Yahoo, Hotmail) where multiple e-mail accounts are likely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.138.68 (talk) 08:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources

I have removed the badly sourced factoid that User:Wyatt Ehrenfels's sockpuppet tried to enter, given that it's, at best, an unsourced reprint on someone else's website. --Calton | Talk 05:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)