[Lorento]

Google for "Lisa Wilberg esc" (just like what a stalker might do to narrow it down to the correct uni) and you get the robots.txt file itself in 3rd place. The author isn't doing any more harm than Google already is. It's already easily searchable.

[ohitsdom]

The author is bringing more unwanted attention to a victim. Why not contact the school and let them know of their error, or change the woman's name? Reprinting her name and the institution name accomplishes nothing good.

[userbinator]

According to the date it would be almost 2 years ago, not exactly a current event...

There's plenty of others with the same name as her (58k according to Google), that file is now 404, and archive.org doesn't have it (due to its mention in the robots.txt), so whatever information in it that could've been useful for a stalker is long gone.

[MrJackSpade]

Signed up real quick to post this...

Her name shows up in a news letter, inc middle name, published and indexed by the school in 2012. It lists her occupation (a very public one) and even where you can find her works. This alone would be enough to get in touch with her.

It was pure morbid curiosity that lead me to search for it, but its totally still relevant if you were looking for her. Unfortunately, given her occupation, its unlikely that anything short of the stalker giving up or getting arrested will grant her any sort of reprieve.

[ohitsdom]

Does it matter that the event was 2 years ago? I'm sure the victim wants to move on and put this well behind her.

[jacquesm]

I've had a stalker track me for well over 2 years.

That said, he only reveals that she was stalked which I presume the stalker and her are quite aware of, but no more than that. A better way to report the finding would have been to keep her name and the name of the institution out of it.

[felipeerias]

You also get this one and other online discussions about the article. The author has shown his lack of empathy and judgement by putting somebody on the spotlight for no good reason whatsoever.

[JadeNB]

I can't comment on the particulars, because the document doesn't mention this name (maybe it changed since it was originally posted?), but, whatever you feel about the justification for the original article, it seems clear that nothing is served by your re-posting the information.

At the moment, for me, your post is the only hit on Google for the query you suggest.

[im3w1l]

When I do that I get four relevant results. First is the robots.txt. Esc could presumably fix that were they told of their error. The second is the article, the third is your comment, and the fourth is a reddit post. The reddit one has recently been redacted (but is still in google cache).