From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Internet culture  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Stalking Technologies[edit]

  • Compromised cellphones. Since, modern cellphones are increasingly similar to general purpose computer, these cellphones are vulnerable to the same cyber-collect attacks as computer systems, and are vulnerable to leak extremely sensitive conversational and location information to attackers.[1] Leaking of cellphone GPS location and conversational information to an attacker has been reported in a number of recent cyber stalking cases where the attacker was able to use the victim's GPS location to call nearby businesses and police authorities to make false allegations against the victim depending on his location, this can range from telling the restaurant staffing information to tease the victim, or making false witness against the victim. For instance if the victim were parked in large parking lot the attackers may call and state that they saw drug or violence activity going on with a description of the victim and directions to their GPS location.



Since wikipedia is an international site, it should be made clear as to the legality. Simply assuming that all page visitors are American is naive, at the very least. Currently the page states that it is simply "illegal", not that it is illegal in XYZ countries. Currently there are many countries which have fuzzy legality surrounding the subject, an example being that the person being stalked is being actively harrassed by the stalker thereby coming under anti-harrassment laws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that the article should be very careful in specifying what constitutes a crime in this context. The author states that "Cyberstalking is a criminal offense under state anti-stalking, slander, and harassment laws." With regard to slander (false and defamatory oral statements), or the related tort of libel (false and defamatory written statements), it is extremely rare that anyone is criminally prosecuted because in the vast majority of states in the US, slander and libel are not crimes, and in the states that still have criminal defamation laws, the laws are rarely enforced. When crimes occur, the behavior has gone well beyond slander and libel (e.g., merely posting false and defamatory statements on the internet). The author correctly points out that defamation could be (and in fact usually is) an ELEMENT of cyberstalking but it would be a serious error if any reader thought he or she might be committing a crime simply by making defamatory statements online which might later turn out to be false. Even if false, no crime has been committed by mere publication of the statement. Many people are quite cowardly about what they say because they fear repurcussions, whereas in fact the only repercussion would be a lawsuit, which is extremely unlikely to occur. If you know your defamatory statement is false, of course, then you certainly shouldn't make it--but you shouldn't worry about the police banging on your door. (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC) (talk) 18:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC) (talk) 19:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Scholarly Consumers Interested in Cyberstalking Should Consult Link to Old Draft by[edit]

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 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 (talkcontribs)./—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Curt Jurgens (talkcontribs).

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 TRUTHTM (defined as gossip, opinion, irrelevancy, conspiracy theories, etc.) must be told! ObiterDicta ( pleadingserrataappeals ) 02:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Is Will Bebeck A Stalker?[edit]

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[edit]

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."


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[edit]

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

Yes, exactly. The threat begins to develop into a faceless feeling of discomfort with a very legitimate reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

removal of link[edit]

this link - * 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 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) 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. 18:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Halt Abuse[edit]

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 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, The preceding unsigned comment was added by (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 (talkcontribs) aka User:Tai Streets aka User:Wyatt Ehrenfels 20:52, 23 January 2006

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 and or feel free to email me with any questions at


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[edit]

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, 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 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?[edit]

{{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? 08:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to merge with Stalking[edit]

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' "[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 12:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

IP Addresses[edit]

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 (talk) 08:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


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)

Acts of Cyberstalking[edit]

When it occurs through the internet, e.g. electronic stalking or cyberstalking, the acts include unsolicited email, negative messages in live chat rooms, hostile Internet postings, spreading of vicious rumuors, leaving abusive messages on site guestbooks, impersonating a person online and saying negative things, and electronic sabotage(sending viruses, spaming etc.)[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rscott17 (talkcontribs) 22:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


  1. ^ Boon, Julian, Lorraine, Sheridan. Stalking and Psychosexual Obsession: Psychological Perspectives for Prevention Policing and Treatment. Great Britain: British Library Cataloguing, 2002.

merge idea[edit]

I suggest merging this with online predator, or vice versa. Solar Flute (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This article belongs to a Law subject[edit]

..and hence should be categorized as such, and inserted in the Portal:Criminal justice. Also, it would be very interestig if it had an "Outstanding legal cases" section, with full descriptions about verdicts and sentences. Which kind of crime are we dealing with? How are these crimes or felonies being treated by the Law? Are they covered by state laws, federal laws, or international laws? What about prevention, or deterrents? Who is in charge of policing? Questions and more questions. --AVM (talk) 04:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Cyberstalking of adults by adults[edit]

The subject discussed will have a strong opinion from adult women, whom sometimes feel the need to protect their online identity and privacy. This also fits in the definitation "online predator", yet the term is more about the sexual victimization of children and teens over the internet. Online safety activist groups, the FBI, the US Marshall and law authorities worldwide have long warned all adult women, as well children and teenagers to be on a lookout for cyber-stalkers, online predators and "grooming" schemes to meet off-line. + (talk) 09:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


I made some modifications to the lead in an attempt to make the prose a bit smoother; please suggest other improvements. This is a subject that interests me.--Zujine (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Please add link[edit]

This is the spanish version of this article in wikipedia: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Internetsinacoso (talkcontribs) 18:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I've done it (as an inter-wiki link; we don't do these as external links). --Tryptofish (talk) 18:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Policy on Wikihounding: Should be Added to the Article[edit]

Here is Wikipedia's policy on Wikihounding-- (talk) 07:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Consequences for Wikihounding--

"Incidents of wikihounding generally receive a warning. If wikihounding persists after a warning, escalating blocks are often used, beginning with 24 hours." (talk) 08:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikihounding could be relevant to mention in this article as an example of cyberstalking, if, and only if, reliable sources exist which make this connection. Otherwise, Wikipedia in-community policies or guidelines related to cyberstalking, by whatever name (such as "wikihounding), are no less appropriate to mention than the relevant guidelines and policies of any other Internet community. __meco (talk) 08:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "No less", as you wrote, implies equal. Wikipedia policies are not therefore cite-able?

The article on "Wikipedia policy" is not a regular Wikipedia article either, but is Wikipedia's officially stated policy. Isn't that cite-able? (talk) 20:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not a reliable source. GDallimore (Talk) 20:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Why not stick it in the related articles part then, or embed a link in some of the text? —Zujine|talk 13:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
If usefulness was the only acting principle here that would be a good idea, I'm sure. However, adding links to project pages from the main namespace is not allowed. There are a few exceptions to this, but I do not think the current case would be one of them. I cannot find a relevant policy page on this at the moment though. __meco (talk) 13:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
You might be thinking of WP:SELF. GDallimore (Talk) 15:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Always impressive to come across an omnibus of Wikipedia lore. —Zujine|talk 23:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Merger Proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was merge since no opposition posted in 2 months. There wasnt much to merge but if any one wants to add any referenced material from the source article by all means go ahead. -- Ottawa4ever (talk) 08:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we merge and re-direct Facebook stalking into this article for the time being. The article is largely Original research and with this removed essentiatlly is covered by this article. Input would be appreciated thanks Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Support. Absolutely yes. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - its the same thing. - eo (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - What is cyberstalking if Facebook isn't included? Nothing. Mikeaschneider (talk) 06:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Agreed. I can't see a reason not to. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Since there are no objections i should be getting to this tommorrow; However when you sort out the non refrenced original sourced material there isnt much left beyond a referenced description of what facebook is and that people stalk on facebook as “It makes [them] feel like Nancy Drew”. If any user is upset with what ill merge in here, please feel free to expand as such, if someone would rather handle the merge by all means go ahead.... Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This article needs help[edit]

I've just made a bunch of changes to this article --mostly adding new information on types of cyberstalking that haven't been detailed here, and citations for it-- but this article really needs more help than I've been able to give it. Like a lot of our high-level topic articles, it's weak -- it doesn't provide a really good digestible summary of the topic area. I think that particularly it represents an outdated view of cyberstalking. Experts used to believe that the biggest cyberstalking problems were likely to be adults sexually soliciting children, but time and research have shown that's not the case. This article could benefit from a review by an expert in the subject-matter, and from the inclusion of additional recent academic research. Sue Gardner (talk) 08:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

On Types: Of intimate partners the phrase "They may also use the internet to research and compile personal information about the victim, to use in order to harass her." should be changed to "...them" (talk) 12:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Article tag[edit]

this article does not require an expert. it is well referenced and true, please cease tagging the page Theamazingspiderman20 (talk) 22:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Please read the comments from Sue Gardner, directly above, about the reasons that a tag was placed here originally. At this point, two additional editors, myself and another, have reverted your removal of the tag, so please understand that there is consensus that the tag is serving a useful purpose. Please note also that I recently changed the tag from "Expert-verify" to "Expert-subject" (per the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 August 14#Template:Expert-verify). The effect of the template used now is merely to put this article on a list of pages where WP:WikiProject Psychology is asked to take a look at the page and try to improve it. I realize (and am sympathetic to) the concern that Wikipedia's current system of conspicuous templates at the tops of some articles is an unattractive one, but that's a discussion for another day, and the tag is not intended to cast aspersions on the edits that have been done so far. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
oh, sorry. I didnt read that, lol. Theamazingspiderman20 (talk) 04:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi I'm new to editing Wikipedia so forgive me if this is the wrong method of contacting you all but: I have an expert. She and her staff have written some articles up (I have links as well) for this page but we're not sure how to get them on here. Would love some advice Sarahtherebel (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Sarahtherebel, 3 October 2011[edit]

In response to “expert needed to add info” that was posted in August of 2011

Alexis Moore has written 9 articles about the subject on if you would like to reference any of them.

Content to add with sources: Philippines cyberstalk legislation [the intro to this book might be good as a paragraph here] popular mechanics story on cyberstalking

I would not mind writing things up if you all would like me to, I just have no experience writing for wikipedia articles. But people need to be able to find the most updated information, and Alexis Moore is just the expert you are requesting.

Sarahtherebel (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm traveling today, so my editing time is a bit brief, but I would welcome adding sourcing such as this, I think. I need to read the proposed sources first, which I haven't yet had time to do, but I will in a few days. One thing you can certainly do is to write a draft of the proposed content, and put it here on the talk page, and editors with autoconfirmed accounts can then look at it, and, if we agree, move it to the page for you. Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

EDIT REQUEST - offer my services to update and add researched attributable and accurate information on the subject, of which I am an expert. I am also a certified data forensics examiner[edit]

I would like to offer my expert services to this page and subject materials. I have over 30 years experience in the Technology Sector, Am currently Certified as a Data Forensics Examiner and am a recognized expert on this as well as other Cyber-Security Topics. This article that ran recently on the front page of 8 Bay-Area Newspapers talks about a case I am currently working which deals with the biggest cyber-stalking, cyber terrorism perpetrated on an individual in memory:

Cheers! Digital Sleuth 22:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello! I've also replied at your user talk, but please feel free to WP:BEBOLD and edit the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Digital Sleuth 20:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank You Tryptofish. I will be slow to add and or edit content because I want to be meticulous concerning references and proper footnoting. I am pleased to add quality content to this collective effort, which so far has escaped the results of Cyberstalking itself through a good admin structure. Coincidentally , and relevant to the subject matter of this page, the current case I am working is a 6 year long international story of cyberstalking and terrorism of an individual, Leandra Ramm involving law enforcement agencies From the FBI and United_States_Secret_Service ECTF and International Police like the Singapore Police Force & Hong Kong Police Force. The case is ongoing and new developments are eminent. Cheers!


Victims not knowing[edit]

A sentence was recently deleted from the page, about it being possible for victims of cyberstalking to not know that they were being stalked. I understand the reasoning for deleting the sentence, and I'm really just asking a question, not finding fault with the edits, but couldn't that, in fact, be possible, at least for a limited amount of time? Is there any reliable sourcing about situations where someone follows online information about another person, with malicious intent, but without revealing that it is taking place? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Facebook Stalking[edit]

As Facebook stalking is redirected to this page, shouldn't that subject be specifically addressed on it? The Facebook stalking page mentioned that the phrase is used colloquially to describe acts that do not constitute illegal stalking, and a quick search on shows multiple entries for this use of the phrase. It is a social networking phenomenon that is surely worthy of mention and recognition on Wikipedia, even though literal Facebook stalking is the same as cyberstalking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sambob2 (talkcontribs) 11:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


The last paragraph of the first section begins "cyberstalking is a criminal offenses". Could someone please correct it i.e. "cyberstalking is a criminal offense". I'd do it but the page is protected.Thanks. (talk) 17:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. Minor CE request only. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

hi, I have to copy edit the cyberstalking page for a class and I'm supposed to post in the talk page to explain what I'm doing and that I'm opened to suggestion. Carmyd (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Cyberstalking in Canada[edit]

--Ibilyk (talk) 07:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed there is no information about Cyberstalking in Canada. Maybe that can be changed at some point in the future? Below, I've provided some information I could find

Cyberstalking in Canada

In Canada, according to the 2009 UCR Survey, police services reported that intimidation and harassment represented 23% out of all cybercrime incidents reported that year (Perreault, 2011). The data collected also shows that most victims of police-reported intimidation on the Internet were female, at about 7 in 10 victims (67%), and 72% of accused persons in 2009 were adult males. The median age of those accused of cyber-intimidation was 21, and 80% of them knew the victim prior to the online stalking (Perreault, 2011).

When it comes to cyber-stalking of adults in Canada, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia have the highest percentage of reported victimizations at 8% each (Perreault, 2011). Next come Ontario and Prince Edward Island at 7% , followed by Manitoba and New Brunswick (6%), and Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec at 5% each (Perreault, 2011).

With regards to online harassment in major metropolitan areas in Canada, the breakdown is as follows: Kitchener-Cambridge-Waterloo 11%; Calgary 10%; Vancouver and Regina 9% each; Edmonton, Saskatoon and Halifax at 8% each; Hamilton, Toronto and Ottawa-Gatineau at 7% each; 6% each for St. John's, Quebec and Montreal; 5% for Winnipeg, and 4% for Victoria (Perreault, 2011)

In Canada, cyber stalkers can be charged under s. 264(1) of the Criminal Code for criminal harassment (Smyth, 2010, p. 118). This section prohibits actions and communications which will make a reasonable person fear for their safety, or the safety of others (Smyth, 2010, p. 111).


Perreault, S. (2011). Self-reported Internet victimization in Canada, 2009 (Catalogue No. 85-

002-X). Retrieved from Canadian Clearinghouse on Cyberstalking website:

Smyth, S.M. (2010). Cybercrime in Canadian criminal law. Toronto: Thomson Reuters.

Edit Request 2013.2.5[edit]

Please delete category 'Computer crimes'. Cat Computer crimes should not have any cybercrimes (since Cat cybercrime is a subcat of that). (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Cyberbullying Wikipedia page[edit]


I found this article today and noticed I am mentioned as a victim of cyber stalking in Texas. While this was something I experienced in my life, I am not comfortable being named on this Wikipedia page as a victim. If you could please remove any identifying information pertaining to me I'd really appreciate it. (i.e. Changing "Anna Combrink; raped, cyberstalked: Texas" to "Texas rape victim; raped, cyerstalked: Texas")

Thank you,

Anna Combrink (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

As the mention was entirely unsourced, it should not have been listed on this page (per Wikipedia policies of WP:RS and WP:BLP). As a result, I have removed the mention. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 00:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request, 22 November 2013[edit]

===Poland=== Stalking is illegal since 2011.[1] (talk) 14:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


Gamergate. Dec 24, 2014[edit]

Gamergate is prominent enough to be part of this article. Its link to cyberstalking has been reported in almost all major media. I realize Gamergate is a very controversial topic, which is why its Wikipedia page is locked. I'd be happy to do it - but feel it should be left to a more senior editor / mod who is more familiar w/ Gamergate's relationship with WP. I don't want to accidentally cross a line on a sensitive topic about living people PumpkinKitten (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2015[edit]

Please add dab hatnote {{redirect|Cyberstalker|the Lifetime TV film|Cyberstalker (film)}}. (talk) 11:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Bazj (talk) 12:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cyberstalking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

References - Invalid/Broken Links.[edit]

Hello. I am a new user and am learning about Wikipedia, including how to offer suggestions. In reviewing this page, I determined the following Reference links are invalid or broken links:

  1. 12 – Violence & Domestic Abuse – Stalking. The referenced link to The Women’s Center regarding attempts to gather information about the victim, is no longer available.
  2. 22 – No link? The reference lists the name of a study, but there is no link to the study.
  3. 24 – Link leads to a page requiring a username/password. Other link not working.
  4. 27 – Invalid link. Error establishing a database connection.
  5. 30 – Invalid link. Links to the truTv website, but not to the referenced article.
  6. 31 – Invalid link. Site has malware.
  7. 34 – Invalid link. Article no longer on website.
  8. 35 – “the original” link invalid.
  9. 37 – invalid link. Domain is for sale.
  10. 38 – Invalid link. Page no longer exists.
  11. 39 – “the original” link invalid.
  12. 41 – Link leads to a password protected site.
  13. 47 – Invalid link.
  14. 49 – “the original” link has a problem with website’s security certificate.
  15. 57 – Invalid link.
  16. 58 – Box pops up asking for username/password.

Under “External Links”: United States Law and the Internet: Georgia State University College of Law Cyberstalking: A New Challenge for Law Enforcement and Industry – not working. Blogs, stories – Surviving the Extinct Marsuplial – not working Cautionary tale of online romance and revenge - not working.

Should information on the page that is directly related to invalid links be updated/removed?

HDub31178 (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cyberstalking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)