Wikipedia talk:Harassment/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

• Older discussion can be found here.

What about the false accusation of a threat? Or of bullying? wikinerd and lifeisunfair have each accused Admins of "bullying" or "threatening" because the admins were attempting to enforce project rules. I think that these accusations constitute harassment. Should an RFC be made? Uncle Ed 01:19, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, go ahead and make the RFC's against them. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I just stumbled upon the above post. For the record, this is discussion to which Ed referred. As is patently obvious, he was attempting to enforce nonexistent project rules, and was threatening to block another user (Wikinerd) for perceived violations thereof. I merely noted this fact (and Wikinerd agreed). Evidently, Ed believes that questioning the judgement of a "senior admin" constitutes harassment. —Lifeisunfair 00:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

underwhelmed

I am underwhelmed. FuelWagon 04:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Following an editor to another article

Also known (in extreme cases) as Wiki-Stalking

"Wikistalking" will be an easy accusation to make and an almost impossible thing to easily defend yourself against, even if you're innocent. There is no objective, straightforward way to disprove you aren't "stalking" someone just because you edited the same pages as he did. FuelWagon 04:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Targeted personal attacks

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

Say what? How is this different than "personal attacks"? FuelWagon 04:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Threats

Including Legal threats.

Isn't this already covered by policy? FuelWagon 04:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Posting of personal information

Sure, fine. Call that the "No Personal Information" policy, not harrassment. FuelWagon 04:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Other disruption

This is the main source of my underwhelming response. This is so vague as to be useless to real editors and a dangerous weapon to people looking to game the system. FuelWagon 04:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Just another way for editors to, ironically, harass one another. There's a set of editors who do see each other on the same pages. Now, if one of them's an admin, you get your arse banned for disagreeing with them on more than one page. More instruction creep. More empowerment for those who prefer being a mini copper to being a useful editor. -- Grace Note

Not again please

Please merge this with Wikipedia:Stalking so that we don't have to repeat the discussion again. To reiterate, stalking is usually used as a synonym for reading through other people's contribution logs, and there is nothing wrong with that. If you don't want people to read your contribs, don't make any. If you don't want people to criticize you, don't make mistakes. Radiant_>|< 07:55, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Right. This is like the attempt to redefine "threatening" so that it includes analyzing a user's contributions and considering whether to block them for violating policy. The trick is that the one following and enforcing policy is cast as making an even worse violation! (Because "threats" are an absolute, clear-cut violation: grounds for an instant, permanent ban.)

So I oppose any re-definition of Wikipedia's civility policy (see Wikipedia:Civility) which undermines the ability of sysops to enforce Wikipedia policy.

This is supposed to be a project to produce a free encyclopedia. Everyone is supposed to be donating text - with no strings attached. All you get for your donation is a one-line acknowledgement in the article history. After that, you do not own your contribution. It is the mutual property of everyone in the world. You have no more or less rights over it than anyone else: to copy, modify, or distribute it (for "free as in beer" or for profit).

That is the only business of Wikipedia and of its policy pages. Now, if someone is violating our civility policies, creating a hostile atmosphere which discourages contributions of free text, then such a person should be made to stop their violations. Polite encouragement to adhere to policy has proven to work best, but in extreme cases they need to be excluded from the project (for a time, perhaps, but sometimes indefinitely).

Some people, however, are into "Wikipedia:gaming the system". They try to use complex rules and procedures to defeat the very purpose for which Wikipedia exists. They even claim a "right" to do this!!

They have no such right.

Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. Only those who continue to demonstrate that they are contributing to the fulfillment of project goals are permitted to remain users of this web site. And that goal is rather simple and quite easy to grasp: the organization and presentation of the world's knowledge.

Anyone who opposes or undermines this goal MUST be shown to the door. Uncle Ed 13:25, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with every word above by Radiant and Ed. Except better than merge, let's be bold and delete both proposals;) WAS 4.250 17:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Do what you like

To people considering adding to this: Go nuts; do whatever you feel is appropriate. Just so long as you can point to solid policy concerns or precedents, and Assume good faith. Thanks,
Luc "Somethingorother" French 06:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

User:KingOfAllPaperboys

One of the important items I'd like to have here is cites in the precedents section; thus, my naming of KOAP, so that other users can see his behavior. If there exists a better refrence page to explain his ban then his user talk page, please, let me know. The case is, after all, an excelent illustration how harassment can be an aggravating factor, and only used as such. Thanks,
Luc "Somethingorother" French 03:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I've rephrased things slightly, but left in a link to KOAP's talk page. If you feel it nessisary to remove him from the main article, at least leave a link in the comments so that those who don't know the history of the case can study the situation in question. Thanks,
Luc "Somethingorother" French 03:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Sultan_of_smoov

So, perhaps I have another example of this. Yesterday I reverted edits by this user to the Case Western Reserve University page and left a vandalism warning on his talk page. Then he came back and made edits like this ([1]) and this (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tanggula_Mountain_Pass&oldid=21758663) to pages that I had just written about on my user page. He was introducing inaccurate information into those pages. I suspect he was following me to pages I had recently written about editing, and harrassing me in retaliation for his vandalism warning.

What is the procedure I would follow to assert that he is Wikistalking me, according to this proposal? (I realize that this is still in development.) Mamawrites 04:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Every contribution this person made that I looked at [2] was vandalism. Ignore the "stalking" assertion, and deal with the vandalism. WAS 4.250 05:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree. Every edit in the user history looks like vandalism. When you see vandalism, report it here. (clicking that may take a second or two to get you there) FuelWagon 01:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I did that (on the current alerts: RU: low page) at 04:28, 25 August 2005. Because the user who tagged his talk page for vandalism after me didn't give the 4th warning, he didn't actually get blocked, though. He hasn't been back (yet). Mamawrites 04:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Sensitive information

I am new to this discussion, but does anyone know if the topic of posting sensitive information has been covered? Simply editing the article will not do, as the information exists in the history. Who can delete history entries? I am talking about something that is internal discussion, or perhaps someone who knows way* too much info about a person and has an ulterior motive. Gchriss 04:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

There has been some discussion of that topic at wikipedia:no personal attacks. It could be stated more clearly in the policy, so I wasked about it. I believe the consensus was that revealing truly private information may be a personal attack, particularly if done with intent to harass. For some editors the it could become almost like blackmail, and very hard to remedy without drawing attention to the very information which is private. As a counter-example, I should note that we had one subject/editor who loudly insisted that we were publishing private information even though it came from his own, publicly-accessible website. Regardless of occasional false alarms, it is a serious issue and I hope that the language in the "No Personal Attacks" policy is strengthened. -Willmcw 05:27, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

To answer your page histories question - only a devleoper can delete individual versions from the history. While an administrator can delete *all* of them [by deleting the article] only a developer can delete particular versions. And it's a huge pain for them to do it, and they are reluctant to do it because it involves mucking around with sql. →Raul654 05:49, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Can't admins delete the page, then just undelete all but that edit? --Phroziac ^(talk) 23:16, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

No. When undeleting, admins restore all previous edits. →Raul654 03:56, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Here's my question - this article gives no suggestion of what to do to deal with harassment, which is generally okay since most of the issues raised in the article are covered under WP:NPA and can be dealt with accordingly. But what about revealing personally identifying information with the intent to harass or intimidate? Since this has to be dealt with by an admin, shouldn't there be some sort of procedure for reporting this sort of behavior in place where people can find it and use it? I had a user repeatedly posting my full name and text and full headers of emails I'd sent to members-only lists, which is certainly NOT available on the web, and I had a hell of a time figuring out what to do about it since I was (still am) a new Wikipedian and it didn't seem to me like the action itself was technically in violation of any policy. How can we make it easier to get this sort of thing deleted, right away? - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 06:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

various revisions

I see this project is being edited in different directions. Two quick points about some version that's in play:

• Wikistalking is disruptive when it is used to cause annoyance or distress to another contributor and this is against the rules.

"Against the rules" seems like a unnecessarily definite judgement for a project that does not have "rules".

• Stalk puppets are multiple internet identities that stay separate from each other, but that the person behind them acts different on.

"Stalk puppets" is a term that I've never heard of and that gets no Goggle hits. Is this a neologism? -Willmcw 23:34, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Given that the editor who created the "stalk puppets" passage also linked to and created the article Power Word: IRL Name (a phrase which gets only 3 google hits) in the same version, I'd say "Yes, it is a neologism". Thanks,
Luc "Somethingorother" French 00:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Harassment as ad hominem ad nauseam

A thought: In many ways, WikiNature is opposed to any emphasis of contributor egos or personalities. We do not sign our contributions to articles. There is no byline on Wikipedia articles or Wikinews stories. Unlike Everything2, we do not keep score of how many people like a particular editor's contributions. We tend to eschew the development of idiosyncratic writing styles; editors are encouraged to regularize others' writing to fit the Manual of Style.

There are relatively few spaces in which we emphasize individual views and personalities. The one rare positive way we systematically and procedurally single out editors is the adminship system, where we vote for those people whom we trust to have greater technical powers. We generally reject the idea that this means they are more worthy contributors of encyclopedia material -- rather, we take adminship to usually mean that we trust that they are not going to do something stupid or destructive with those powers. Usually, we single people out when there are negative reasons for doing so, such as an RfC or RfAr.

In other words, in many senses the "ideal Wikipedia" would be one wherein everyone agreed to contribute in as egoless a fashion as possible. This is perhaps only a slight exaggeration of what we mean by NPOV. The NPOV policy means that while we are free to focus our attentions on articles and topics that interest us, we agree to set aside our personal preferences or opinions and contribute text that enhances a neutral description of each subject.

The kinds of behavior that we typify as abusive and harassing are almost always ones which focus upon the personalities and persons of editors themselves. The most general example of this is the no personal attacks policy: when we disapprove of a contribution, we're supposed to direct our disapproval at the text, not at the person. Personal attacks are ad hominem -- literally, against the person.

The kind of conduct which we call harassment is nothing but an exaggeration (almost to the point of self-parody) of ad hominem attack. It goes beyond remarking upon another's personality, to the point of attempting to provoke or harm that person themselves. Harassment is the logical end of the conduct which is (so badly!) described as "POV-pushing". It is the logical opposite of WikiNature.

Thus, perhaps we can deter harassment by deëmphasizing ego and personality throughout Wikipedia. We should perhaps refocus some of the administrative actions so that rather than labeling people as problems, they lock down and address problems with articles. We could discourage the formation of "interest groups", such as WikIProjects which focus upon pushing a particular view about sex or inclusionism or whatever. We could spread out administrative powers more, and discourage the present "thin blue line" attitude in which administrators are sometimes given undue assumption of correctness when in conflict with others.

In short, I suspect that anything we can do to promote a more relaxed and less egotistical WikiNature here, will do a great deal to deter harassment. --FOo 01:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Chilling effects of an anti-stalking rule?

"A atom-blaster is a good weapon, but it can point both ways." I think we need to be careful in the creation of rules which may inhibit useful techniques in removing spam, POV pushing, and vandalism. In the past when I've been editing or RC patroling and run into a clearly bad edit, I usually check the submitters history and clean up all simmlar instances. There have been multiple times where I've encountered longstanding vandalism where a review of the submitters has shown that someone removed the same vandalism performed on a popular article but didn't bother to check the submitters history and clean up the rest. So contribution checking is something we should encourage. Then we come around to SPAM... if someone adds a external of low quality to an article, it is nearly impossible to tell in that one edit if the user is attempting to advertise via Wikipedia or if they just missed the fact that Wikipedia is not a link directory, only by reviewing their contributions can you find that they've submitted 20 externals to the same site to as many articles, and from that point the only sane course of action is to remove all of them.

So, of course, none of these activities would be against a rule which only forbed wikistalking when the individual edits made as a result of the wikistalking are within the rules... But that would make the wikistalking rule pointless, since we would only need such a rule to make forbidden acts which alone would be acceptable.

The problem here is that what we need is a rule that says "wikistalking is permitted unless it is in bad-faith", since there is no simple pattern of edits which would be acceptable alone but are not acceptable togeather. I think that because of this there is no way to create a working anti-stalking rule, because there is no wait to codify the determination of good vs bad faith. As a result the use of such rule will always require good judgement and consideration on the part of Wikipedia editors. ... Which is what we already have without a special rule. The users of Wikipedia always reserve the right to impose sanctions on anyone who we determine as acted against the interest of the project, rules broken or not.

If there is a percieved need for some kind of anti-stalking rule, then perhaps what is really needed is some cleanup and fleshing out of material in Wikipedia:Harassment so that there a nice soundbite for people to wikilink to when they are chastising another user for wikistalking. --Gmaxwell 19:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. You have a lot of good points there.

In the two cited cases, the Arbitration Committee has expressed the view that the act of "following someone around" or checking user contributions is not by itself any sort of problem. Indeed, as you note, checking user contributions is an excellent way to follow up on a revert of spam, vanity, or vandalism.

Following only becomes stalking when it's done with ill intent toward the person followed. In Wikipedia terms, I think this means that some other policy violation needs to be involved: personal attacks, vandalism, threats, revert warring, or whatever. The following then becomes an aggravating circumstance.

(As an analogy: Holding a knife in your hand is not a crime; indeed, it's frequently a useful thing to do, for instance to cut food or shrubberies. But if you're holding a knife in your hand while you threaten to attack someone, that can escalate the offense from simple assault to assault with a deadly weapon.)

The stalking element aggravates the basic offense because it represents both a greater disruption to the project, and a greater likelihood that the offender is going to keep disrupting the project. A person who makes one-off personal attacks once in a while is generating less disruption than a person who follows someone around and posts nasty comments about them wherever they edit. Likewise, the former person shows intermittent lapses of judgment, while the latter shows a determined tendency to disrupt: it is likely thus that the latter person will do more damage in the future.

Any person who steers clear of other Wikipedia wrongdoings -- personal attacks, edit warring, and the like -- should not be "chilled" by a rule or policy against stalking. There's a big difference -- and I think any administrator or ArbCom member would agree -- between checking user contributions a few times to revert spam, and following a person around over a course of days to mess with them. --FOo 22:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

What I feel about what this policy should achieve.

1. Discourage people "policing" wikipedia against users who they feel exist to "wreck" the project. (Aka assuming bad faith)
2. Discourage people alienating a potentialy good user by making their wiki experience miserable.
3. Promote community spirit rather than individual "poice" units who fells they know best. Not even Jimbo Wales himself makes such desicions even though he is entitled to do so. If there is a problematic user a concensius should be established for him to be pursued.
4. All policing (reverting bad users edits) should be taken by a number of users (not sockpuppets of course), preferably by admins as admins are expected to know wikipedia policy.
   • Revert waring against that user on multiple articles for instance is unacceptable esspecialy if you had no edits prior (pointless too since he will come back and revert).
   • I see the recent revert wars I was involved in Southeastern Anatolia Project, Kurdish people as Harassment.
5. People can and check anothers edit contribs but I feel this should be left to admins. There are over 500 admins, you can msg one and point out a "bad" user. The admin can process this and prompt community action or warn the bad user. If an admin goes evil, he can always be deadmined but odds of that happening are neglegable.

--Cool Cat ^Talk 15:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Good edits or wiki-stalking?

(This was originally posted to the main page; I have moved it here, since it appears to have nothing to do with the proposed policy per se. Thanks,
Luc "Somethingorother" French 21:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC))

Thank you. I thought I was on the talk page. WAS 4.250 22:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

From [3] "# 16:15, 16 September 2005 (hist) (diff) Pornography in Japan (-verify tag) (top)

1. 16:10, 16 September 2005 (hist) (diff) m European pornography (top)
2. 16:09, 16 September 2005 (hist) (diff) m Freedom of speech in the United States (Reverted edits by WAS 4.250 to last version by DESiegel) (top)
3. 16:09, 16 September 2005 (hist) (diff) m Atatürk Dam (Reverted edits by WAS 4.250 to last version by Darwinek) (top)
4. 16:07, 16 September 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:WAS 4.250 (Genetics) (top)
5. 16:04, 16 September 2005 (hist) (diff) m Transcription (genetics) (Reverted edits by WAS 4.250 to last version by 62.209.237.4) (top)
6. 16:02, 16 September 2005 (hist) (diff) m Operon (Reverted edits by WAS 4.250 to last version by FlaBot) (top)"

Each edit is removing a verify (reference) flag I placed there. This follows his spamming my talk page (I spammed him back) after he deleted a contribution I made that removed part of a contribution by FeloniousMonk to Fine-tuned universe. FeloniousMonk and I have had differences. (See the page where people voted to make FeloniousMonk an admin.) WAS 4.250 21:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

The template you are using means you dispute the data. We do not tag every article without referances. --Cool Cat ^Talk 16:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Wrong. The issue the flag deals with is VERIFY-ABLILITY not accuracy. Adding the flag causes two things to happen:

1. The article appears at Category:Articles which lack sources which states Wikipedia articles that are missing citations belong in this category.
2. This statement is placed where the flag occurs: This article does not cite its references or sources. You can help Wikipedia by including appropriate citations. WAS 4.250 20:11, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Mention that following an editor to correct policy violations is OK, too.

I believe that if this policy goes into effect, the #1 most common invocation of this policy will be by editors who feel the urgent need to insert POV edits into political articles. Let's call them bad editors. These editors will insert POV in such an inappropriate way that other editors — let's call them good editors — will feel compelled to check the edit history to see if similar damage has been done to other political articles. Then, as soon as a good editor removes POV edits from more than one article by the bad editor, the bad editor will cry out "I am being stalked by a liberal/conservative/green/radical/reactionary editor who is persecuting me for my political beliefs" and run to the court to plea for relief under "Harassment".

This harassment policy should state explicitly that the above corrective conduct is OK and is not harassment. It's reasonable to assume you're going to be watched like a hawk (as distasteful as it is to be corrected by people with other political views than you) if you make bad POV edits.

Anyway, this can be made explicit and not implicit by inserting "or violations of Wikipedia policy" in the last line of the wikistalking definition, viz:

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

I think this will cut down on 'harassment' complaints by 50%.

That said, I'm not happy with the fact that "disruption" isn't defined here, since it's highlighted as the important part of the policy against wikistalking. Can we have a definition? Tempshill 23:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Adding the proposed "or violations of Wikipedia policy" sounds good to me. Go for it. Rangerdude 00:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Done. Tempshill 22:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Stalking and Assume Good Faith

this section was retrieved from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 16:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

A recent Arbitration Committee decision adopted as a principle a proposal on stalking. I have added it to Assume Good Faith, as the formulation relates to that guideline, with a view to adopting it as good practice. Future arbitration cases are likely to revisit this principle. Please review and comment, and modify if required. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 13:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe this needs reconsidering:

• WP:STALK is now one of the three shortcuts to wikipedia:Assume good faith
• wikipedia:stalking redirects to Wikipedia:Harassment (presently only one shortcut: WP:HA)
• There is a "wikistalking" section in WP:HA, see Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikistalking
• That section lists two "prior" cases involving stalking, so if a third case is mentioned, I'd only do it there (and only if this still learns something new compared to the two mentioned cases)
• Could we move on promoting WP:HA from "proposed" to "effective" guideline, I suppose the prior cases suggest the guideline is enforcable?
• further, re-redirect WP:STALK to Wikipedia:Harassment, adapting the "shortcut" template on both the "assume good faith" and "harassment" guidelines.
• And make links in a "see also" section from WP:FAITH to WP:HA, and the other way around, thus showing the guidelines are related (instead of mentioning "one" of the three stalking cases in WP:FAITH...).

? good idea? --Francis Schonken 14:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't seen WP:HA before. It could do with trimming for readability, but it seems very workmanlike, summarising good precedents. I think the text belongs there and there should probably be a "See also" on WP:FAITH to WP:HA. That the latest principle is an outgrowth of WP:FAITH and WP:CIVIL should also be mentioned at WP:HA. I think most of WP:HA is uncontroversial enough that it would probably be made policy soon. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 14:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Gave partial execution to the points above (while someone had already erased the "Stalk" connections from WP:AGF), please check whether I did a good job! --Francis Schonken 12:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Missing info

Is it just me, or is this page missing any suggestions on what to do in case of harrassment? --InShaneee 00:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not just you. This page should definitely have instructions for victims of harassment, especially that Template:Pinfo4 warns that those violating the harassment policy can and should be immediately blocked. We need to put our money where our mouth is here. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 08:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge

I strongly feel harrasment should be considered as a type of personal attack given one pursuing another is as personal as an attack can get :/ --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 13:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It is possible to harrass without actually engaging in personal attacks. Our personal attack policy (IMHO) is primarily about content: "You're an idiot", "Nazi!", and so on. Harrasment is not, at heart, about content, but rather about a pattern of behavior. The difference is subtle, but very very important. Inclusion of harrasment material in WP:NPA. As it would change the focus of both pages (this page on behavior, NPA on content), I would oppose such a merger. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 01:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Lubaf. It's certainly possible to harass without engaging in personal attacks. Any action taken for the purpose of making it unpleasant for someone to contribute could be harassment. For instance, following someone around and reverting perfectly good contributions would likely be harassment as well as an abuse of reverting. I don't want to enumerate a whole bunch of types of harassment because I don't want to teach abusers how to stick beans up their noses. But if you think about it there are lots of ways of bugging the hell out of someone besides calling them a jerk-off Nazi buttface. --FOo 02:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon maintained that no one of his criticisms of SlimVirgin was a personal attack. That may be true, but his pattern was harassment. This policy should not be merged. It is needed. Robert McClenon 19:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Another Precedent

The case of FuelWagon should be added to the list of precedents involving harassment. FuelWagon's pattern of criticism of SlimVirgin for several months after a series of edit wars resulted in a six-month ban. While any one of FuelWagon's criticisms of SlimVirgin might not have been considered a personal attack, the overall pattern was one of harassment. Robert McClenon 19:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Is there consensus (except by FuelWagon, who has expressed disagreement to me by email) that his conduct should be listed as an example of harassment? Robert McClenon 21:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection, Robert. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Very harmful policy

What's not to say that for fear of being accused of stalking, people are effectively scared away from discussion pages where "opponents" are "hanging out" (whose subjects not coincidentally often happens to be part of that person's interests)? Either this policy is redundant in light of other policies and therefore not necessary or opens up a new avenue of Kafkaesque situations (dare I say abuse?) where whoever happens to be the most respected at the moment "wins". The definition of "wiki-stalking" in particular takes the cake in this regard:

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

So now we're down to looking in somebody's head to determine whether somebody is "intending of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor"? Unless it's even worse and we simply go by the "feelings" of the "plaintiff"! I already accepted that Wikipedia can be a harsh place at some times (see in that regard Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot) and I welcome any proposal that can make this place have a more friendly atmosphere, but I'm not interested in submitting to a tyranny of crybabies at the expense of NPOV considerations, because that's what a person whose only argument is "wiki-stalking", is, a crybaby.

And I don't recall this ever being put up to a consensus vote. It seems more that it's simply "case law" as the result of Arbitration Committee rulings. -- Dissident (Talk) 01:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Harassment definition requirements

Before you change the definition of Harassment, consider the following:

1. The definition must exclude honest anti-troll work.
2. The definition needs a mens rea requirement.
3. The definition must be as clear as possible.

I can explain the reasoning behind each of these, if somebody cares to ask. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 02:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you expand on the limits of "honest anti-troll work"? There are a lot of forms of harassment that would still be unacceptable even if someone thought they were doing them to oppose a troll. --FOo 03:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Defining the exact line between "honest anti-troll work" and "harassment" is tricky, because the difference is a matter of focus, rather then any one definite act or even set of acts. If the focus ceases to be about the troll's misdeeds, and becomes more about driving out the troll, then the line from "honest anti-troll work" to "harassment" has probably been crossed. Note that I count seeking a ban of the troll once all other options have been exhausted as still remaining on the "honest" side of the line. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 03:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

And how do you establish mens rea from behind the computer? -- Dissident (Talk) 04:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The same way a prosecutor usually establishes "purposefully" under mens rea: circumstantial evidence (and please, read the article I've linked to before you complain that this is a lowering of the burden of proof). ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 04:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This demonstrates further the folly of this policy. Wikipedia policy doesn't exist to punish people for a "crime", it exists simply to ensure a proper editing conduct. So bringing over typical criminal law concepts like the mental capacity to "stand trial" makes no sense, as it's about the edits people make and nothing more. Someone's mental state itself doesn't change Wikipedia articles. -- Dissident (Talk) 05:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The mens rea requirement isn't intended to do anything but prevent good faith efforts from being called harassment. Fair enough? ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 05:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, my position is clear. The whole accusation of "harassment" has got to go as policies against personal attacks and disruption suffice just fine. -- Dissident (Talk) 06:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Intentions

Lubaf restored the reference to intentions, saying he had explained on talk, but there is no explanation here, so I have deleted it again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You see the section right above this one? That's where I listed my objections. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 04:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you've written. Can you say precisely how my edit makes anti-troll work difficult, and how including a reference to intentions makes it easier? We can never know someone's intentions. And please stop deleting what I've written. Discuss here and we can find compromise wording. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is the edit you object to: "Harassment is defined as a pattern of disruptive behavior that appears to have the purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person or persons, or in a secondary target audience, usually (but not always) for the purpose of intimidating the primary target. The purpose could be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to encourage them to stop editing entirely."

Which part of that makes anti-troll work harder? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

"Appears to": WHO does it appear to? The subject? If so, almost any troll can claim to have been "harassed". What is the meaning of "in a secondary target audience"? The definition needs to be simple, clear, and concise. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 04:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Lubaf, please stop deleting things and discuss. It's like if there's something on the page even for five minutes that you disagree with, you won't sleep tonight. ;-)

I agree about the importance of not saying anything that might strengthen trolls, but bear in mind that trolls do most of the harassing, so we have to get the balance right. "Appears to" would be "appears to any reasonable person." The "secondary target audience" needs to be worded better: what I meant was that often it is other people who are the secondary targets or target audience e.g. the pursuer is trying to make the primary target look bad in other people's eyes and doesn't really care how the harassment makes the primary target feel. If you can make that clearer, I'd appreciate it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I included "appears to a reasonable, objective observer". As to "secondary audience", please, before you try to reinclude such language, find a better, clearer way to write it. (I would suggest ceasing to try to modify the current sentence to include this sort of behavior, and starting a new one with "An alternate form of harassment...") ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 16:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

What is stalking?

I believe this issue is already well addressed by the page, but there does appear to be some disagreement here. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Blocked_User:Mccready_for_Wikistalking for discussion of whether or not this edit should be considered stalking. Friday (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

A single edit can never be stalking. It is a pattern of activity whose goal or outcome is to harass or intimidate another user. -Will Beback 20:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I haven't understood Friday's point in this regard. How could one edit ever be called stalking? Stalking could only ever be identified by a pattern of behavior. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand either; it has already been explained to Friday that wikistalking is a pattern of behavior. No-one is claiming that that specific edit alone should be considered "stalking"; that, in fact, is a strawman argument. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Strawman? The block message left on the user talk page was very clear. The edit above was called wikistalking, and wikistalking was given as the reason for the block. Friday (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

But, of course, that particular edit was just the last in a long series of edits. No-one is or has suggested that editors be blocked for making just one edit in isolation; that, in fact, is a transparent strawman argument. Rather, people have correctly pointed out that that edit was the culmination of a long campaign of wikistalking and harassment. Also, please desist from bringing up the "decent edit" claim; that, in fact, is a transparent red herring, since the issue is not the quality of the edit itself, but rather the circumstances surrounding it. In fact, in general, please desist from further misrepresenting this situation in any way; it is quite unfair and unpleasantly dishonest. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

We disagree. This doesn't mean I'm being dishonest. I've been very honest about my opinions on this matter. Friday (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Claiming that Mccready was banned for making "just one edit" is dishonest. Characterizing this as being about the quality of that particular edit is dishonest.

Let's look at another situation for a moment; let's say an editor was put on probation by the Arbitration Committee, and banned from editing a specific article. If that editor then went and made an "innocuous" spelling error correction to the article in question, would you be arguing that the person had not violated his probation because the edit itself was "decent"?

How about another situation; let's say a court had put a restraining order on a battering husband, insisting he was not allowed within 200 feet of his wife. Now, let's say he deliberately went within 10 feet of his wife, but did not do anything threatening to her, or even interact with her in any way; she merely saw that he was there (as he intended). Would you be defending him in court, saying that while he had technically violated his restraining order, he shouldn't be punished in any way, because he hadn't actually done anything specifically bad?

Please use common sense, Friday. Think of the effect on the victim, and stop defending the battering husband. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Good argument. Acts that look quite innocent in isolation can look very different in certain contexts, which is why it's important to be familiar with the context before judging. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I've just stumbled on this sad little tale again. No one ever provided evidence of the claim that I in any way harassed anyone. This was simply and edit war with Slim Virgin refusing to discuss her edits then being backed up by the block from her friend. QED. Mccready 07:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

What is Wikistalking NOT?

For instance, if I detect what appears to be a POV vandal who is going around editing any article which refers to public figure x to call that public figure a name or misrepresent public figure x's views, is it wikistalking for me to use that vandal's contribs page to quickly find and revert all these vandalisms (as long as I do so within the limits of 3RR)? Kasreyn 18:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The contributions link exists for a reason. Using it is fine. That said, let's not confused a vandal with a biased editor- they're not the same thing. 3RR does not apply to reverting vandalism. Friday (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikistalking is following an editor with the intent to harass. Good faith editing is not harassment. -Will Beback 20:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Question and a plea for help

A user or group of users has repeatedly pasted the contents of my userpage to various articles. I consider this a personal attack since it targets me directly and would seem to "us[e] [my] affiliations [viz Mexican American ethnicity] as a means of dismissing or discrediting [my] views", but the action described does not seem to fit any of the categories of personal attacks, and so seemed to be better classified as harassment. The edits in question are the following: [4] by 64.12.116.70, [5] by 64.12.116.6, [6] by 64.12.117.11. There may be more that I haven't discovered.

Similar vandalism was made to my userpage by 205.188.116.195.

So the question is, does this qualify as harassment? If so, where do I report it? And what can be done about it? Most of the vandals are AOL IPs. Is there positively no way to block them for more than 15 minutes? This is causing me some wiki-stress, and any help would be greatly appreciated.--Rockero 18:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion: Go to WP:ANI. They should be better able to sort through this than people who just read a policy Talk page. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 05:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Dyslexic Agnostic

Hi, I'm an user with a stalker bothering me. The user has:

• insulted me (and continues to do so),
• vandalized my page 6 times (one recent),
• keeps posting in my page even though several times I rerequested him not to do so as I don't post in his,
• he reverts or at least edit every single page I edit,
• he already admitted ignorance on several topics I edit and he after me (about 30 minutes after I edit each),
• he already admitted monitoring me

He has at least touched (most time uncalled for) every single article I create while I refuse to follow him and do the same to him. I want him out of wikipedia. Where should I go, What should I do. Is there a format to present the evidence in a way to show there is no doubt he is stalking me in the same fashion of users previously banned for the same reason? --T-man, the wise 04:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Here you have a brief example, out of 11 contribs I made last 20 hours, he followed me to 9. He broke the 3 reverts rule twice, and it's not the first. Everyday is like that to me.

• another reason to ban DA, here is him causing trouble instead of reconciling, something a real “bud” would do
• we have nevver edit here before yesterday. I put a typo to demosntrate how he follows me everywhere,

he followed me here, a page where we both have never been before yesterday

• broke the 3 rv rule
• broke the 3 rv rule

• [7]
• [8]

--T-man, the wise 02:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

emotions

Question, it says Harassment is defined as a pattern of disruptive behavior that appears to a reasonable and objective observer to have the purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person or persons

Well, what if I have no emotional response to harassment like behaviour but it still distracts me? Say I am a Vulcan and do not feel emotions, yet the behavior is still disruptive to me, does it still meet the definition of harassment? Not trying to disprupt things to make a point, just wondering. HighInBC 17:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this policy

As part of an overall effort to simplify and streamline policy, I've boldly replaced the policy tag with a guideline tag. There are several reasons.

The policy tag was added less than a year ago without a clear consensus.

This page is disjointed and is more of an essay than a statement of policy. Much of the reason it is disjointed is that there isn't any real consistent policy on harassment. The AC cases that are identified in the page were the sort of cases that produce unclear precedent because there were so many problems being addressed at once. The most serious problems of harassment we have had are not mentioned here; they have involved sexual innuendo, threats of physical violence, and deliberate disclosure of personal information. That this sort of behavior is inappropriate at Wikipedia is so clear that no policy is necessary.

I note that several attempts to generate consenus for a "wikistalking" policy have failed to gain much support.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I will re-read the page and related pages and come back either supporting or opposing this decision. Congradulations on being bold. HighInBC 20:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

After a very short re-read I have determined that it is indeed a disjointed series of ideas mostly covered in other areas. The section on wikistalking seems to be the only unique information here, but following people around can be either constructive or disruptive. In the case of constructive following(such as following a vandal or spammer) this is acceptable behavior, in other cases I beleive that other policies cover it. I support you decision to turn this page into a guideline. HighInBC 20:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

After re-reading the page, I also support your action. Thanks for doing this. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikistalking?

When I looked at a user's contributions page, I saw several articles (about Italian models, if you want to know) that had a couple of minor formatting and capitalisation errors, so I went to those articles and fixed them. Would that be considered Wikistalking, though not harmful? --Gray Porpoise 19:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I consider such things to be more giving someone a hand rather than stalking. True wikistalking would be if you were to check their contributions on a daily basis and edited most of their changes. LinaMishima 15:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Query

I have had questions about the identity of a particular user and whether or not he is a person about whom a Wikipedia article is written. When I asked this question, he told me I had to remove it as it represented a form of harassment. I don't think that the policy states that it is a form of harassment to ask the question whether a particular user is actually the subject of an article, especially if that user is editting that article (and then there is question of violation of WP:AUTO). Please see the related discussion on my talkpage and give me some guidance. --ScienceApologist 19:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Read the note at the top of the page. This talk page is for discussing the policy; complaints about actual harassment go on e.g. the village pump. (Radiant) 15:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Harassment

A few people have been harassing me after I made a change to Treaty of Nöteborg. First some guy shows up claiming I'm some other user and posting things on my page. Then another guy shows up threatening me with blockage and stalking me half way across Wikipedia (undoing something that doesn't make any sense). I then took to see who this person and undid one of his edits (something that didn't make any sense to me). Then he comes back calling me names, claiming I should be blocked for stalking him (HE WAS THE ONE STALKING ME!). I left a message on this guys page telling him not to stalk me, but he removed the message saying "plonk".

Why am I being harassed and how come no one is doing something about it?

Atabata 12:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Read the note at the top of the page. This talk page is for discussing the policy; complaints about actual harassment go on e.g. the village pump. (Radiant) 15:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

And WP:STALK

Copied from WP:COI If this has already been covered, please direct me to the relevant conversation, but: doesn't this policy conflict a bit with user's right to privacy? In other words, it is it possible to suggest to someone that they are violating this policy without yourself violating the policy, in particluar "Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself." IronDuke 20:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• I don't understand what you're trying to say. It's quite possible to point out that someone is posting personal information without repeating that personal information. (Radiant) 09:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, wasn't clear. It's like this: let's say I edit the Bill Gates article and change the lead to read "Bill Gates is the smartest human who has ever lived." After looking at some of my other edits to Microsoft, etc., you get suspcious. So you come to my talk page and you say, "IronDuke, you aren't by any chance Bill Gates, are you?" Well, if it turns out I am, aren't you violating my privacy? And yet, am I not violating COI by editing the Bill Gates in a hagiographic manner? IronDuke 14:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• If someone asks whether you're Bill Gates, they're not violating your privacy (they are likely incivil and incorrect, though). If he posts Bill Gates's home address and telephone number, that would be violating privacy. (Radiant) 15:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

But it says "legal name" above. Thus, if you post that I am Bill Gates, you are violating that part of WP:STALK, no? IronDuke 15:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• If asked out of the blue, yes. If this could reasonably be implied from your on-wiki activities, then no. For instance, if John Doe is the founder of DoeCorp, and the article on DoeCorp is suffering WP:OWN issues from User:JDSomeone, it is not unreasonable to conclude that JDSomeone might be John Doe. In effect, the user has exposed himself. (Radiant) 15:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, he's exposed himself to being exposed, yes? If you, intrepid editor, are the only person who puts it together, it can stay secret of you keep it secret. But this gets back to my question... when may one essentially violate WP:STALK. I'm going to paste this conversation over there and see what people think. IronDuke 15:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

And WP:STALK, part 2

This is similar to the situation above. We have an articles on a company and its owner/CEO. Over time there have been several registered users and IPs who have identified themselves as the owner or officers of the company. Overall, they appear to be just one editor. One account was banned for legal threats but several of them posted threatening or intimidating language. The editor engaged in various edits which represented conflicts of interest, such as promoting the company in other articles, removing information from the articles of competitors, and trying to settle scores. In addition to violating WP:COI and WP:NLT, the editor has repeatedly violated other policies and guidelines, such as WP:POINT, WP:COPYVIO, etc.

A new account claims to have no relation to the company or its owner. However his editing patterns, spelling mistakes, interests, etc, clearly show it to be the same editor as before. Outside information, such as the content of a MySpace account, further supports the theory that the new editor is the owner of the company. Proving the connection to the owner serves to prove that the editor has a conflict of interest and that he is the same editor as previous usernames. So, to recap, is it legitimate to reveal a user's probable real name in interest of enforcing wikipedia rules? -Will Beback · † · 00:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

(Cross posted to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard due to lack of response). -Will Beback · † · 07:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Harassment?

Since Wikipedia has pages on many real life people, places, and even businesses, what is it considered when people bring real life conflicts and start placing them onto Wikipedia? For example: an argument between two people, at least one of whom has a Wikipedia article about them, or also, a business that has an article and an employee/ex-employee that is angry at the business.

I have seen a specific instance of the latter where an employee from a company has gone onto the Wikipedia article of the company and posted various defamatory statements about real people that work at the company. Is this vandalism, harassment, or perhaps something else?

This brings to mind a second problem. What happens when sensitive information is posted onto a Wikipedia article? Due to the way the Wiki system works, any content that is posted is technically there forever. It may not be on the official page, but it will exist in the pages history indefinity as far as I know. What if, say, someone at KFC decided to post the complete KFC chicken seasoning recipe, or maybe every last piece of personal data they could find about the CEO? I suppose information of that nature would not be verifiable, but it should probably be removed somehow from the history. Sahuagin 01:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• This talk page is for discussing our guidelines against harassment, not for reporting actual cases of harassment. I'd suggest you bring this up on the village pump, because you're more likely to get a response there. >Radiant< 13:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I had a feeling you'd say that. I am not reporting a case of harassment, I'm asking questions regarding Wikipedia policy, specifically about vandalism and/or harassment. Sahuagin 15:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Okay okay, from your wording it was obvious you had a specific case in mind. Yes, it's inappropriate to bring real-life conflicts to Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is not a good place for whistleblowing about your ex-employer, because such statements tend to be unsourced (however, if you whistleblow to a newspaper and it becomes a media scandal, we'd certainly write about it). Sensitive information, well, that depends. If you mean "something that is true and verifiable but that the subject of the article doesn't like", well, tough luck. If a celeb goes to prison for embezzlement, our article will report that, regardless of whether the celeb likes that. If you mean "personal contact information", we delete it from the history. If you mean "a secret recipe", likewise. The admin deletion button allows us to do that. >Radiant< 10:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Artaxiad violating WP:Stalk

I would like to report a case of harassment by User:Artaxiad. He has been following my edits, to identify myself with certain other physical identity without any proofs at hand. My creation and editing of this page [9] of a poet who lived in early 20th century, served as a faulty ground for User:Artaxiad to claim my identity based on false name associations and some information he found on Internet about a certain individual in California. His first case of intimidation was here [10]. User:Artaxiad further pursued harassment, trying to associate again User:Atabek with someone else and use an article on Internet as a basis for claiming that someone else as friend of another Wikipedia contributor User:AdilBaguirov right here [11]. I will not add extra evidence on User:Artaxiad following my edits to pursue revert warring, all of this evidence is well summarized at [12], [13], [14]. I am just wondering when negligence of disruptive behavior of this user is going to end. While being an experienced user, he walks away free with confirmed sockpuppets [15], gets involved in heavy revert warring, which is presented in ArbCom case [16], clear attempt to remove all of the images related to a certain country admitted here [17], accusing others of "lying" [18], and now clear case of harassment and stalking. How long this is going to go on? Atabek 11:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Shortcut

The most common shortcut reference to this page seems to be WP:STALK. I see that a couple people (including myself) have tried adding it to the top of the page, but someone else keeps removing it saying it's unneeded. It's so commonly-used though, I think it's worth including. Anyone else have an opinion? --Elonka 20:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is good to have. I had seen people referring to "wikistalking" and was looking for mention of this on a policy page yesterday and had trouble finding this page because the shortcut was not there. Abridged 21:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

First, the point of the shortcut box is not to list every single incoming redirect; that's what Special:Whatlinkshere is for. The point of the shortcut box is to list a select few handy mnemonics for the page, generally related to the page name (e.g. HAR -> Harassment). Second, "stalking" is a needlessly nasty term and should arguably not be used for that reason (for the same reason that the term "COI" is preferred to "vanity"). Third, the term "stalking" is frequently used to mean "reading people's contrib logs". While it is not infrequently argued that reading people's contrib logs is a form of harassment, we should not be giving the impression that there is merit to this argument. So adding that redirect is (1) not necessary and (2) gives people the wrong impression. >Radiant< 09:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"Stalking" vandals

The following text was deleted:

"Stalking" vandals: It should be needless to add that, once a consistent pattern of vandalism has been detected — particularly the furtive vandalism that in isolation might appear to be reasonable and accurate — it is important to vet the vandal user's previous contributions for further instances of editing designed to undermine Wikipedia's credibility. This is not considered "wikistalking".

It was unimaginable to me, inserting this note, that this familiar point could be controversial, yet an editor suppressed this text— under the edit summary of making a "suggestion." Whether or not a few second-rate editors speciously accuse one another of "vandalism' in edit wars, this is not a sensible motivation for forbidding a guideline that concerns pursuing authentic vandals. On rare occasions I have been accused by vandals of "stalking" them. Surely this distinction needs to be made clear somewhere at Wikipedia, and this is the natural page. --Wetman 14:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• It's a bit of a false dichotomy. Reading contrib logs isn't stalking period. What makes it stalking is acting upon those logs in a disruptive way. If, for instance, a long-standing editor makes a lot of tyops, it's perfectly reasonable to check their contrib logs for similar tyops and fixing them. >Radiant< 14:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Posting addresses of sites which give personal details about editors is harassment

I have edited the section about posting editors' personal details, following discussion here and here. It needs to be very clear that posting addresses of websites that publish or speculate on editors' real names is forbidden per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Outing_sites_as_attack_sites (and per common sense). ElinorD (talk) 08:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Legal threats

Lately I've noticed something of an increase in legal threats. To make sure the implications of such threats are clear I changed the language "may be blocked" to the stronger "will typically be blocked" that appears in WP:NLT. It's a word-for-word copy from WP:NLT so I assume it's uncontroversial, but am mentioning it here in case anyone objects. Raymond Arritt 12:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• One could make a good case for simply merging NLT into this page. >Radiant< 13:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal security practices

Requesting comments on a proposal for a guideline on Wikipedia:Personal security practices that I've been working on, mainly out of the discussion on this thread at Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks#Part_two. Any comments or concerns would be appreciated. Thanks,—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 00:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Some more teeth needs to be put into this

In light of the very sad situation regarding User:H, there needs to be more teeth not only in this policy, but WP:NPA#Off-wiki personal attacks to ensure there isn't a next time for this outrage. It's simple common sense--we have every expectation to be safe editing here. Blueboy96 13:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking - Following an editor to another article to continue disruption

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

This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. Using the edit history of users to correct related problems on multiple articles is part of the recommended practices both for Recent changes patrol (RCP) and WikiProject Spam. The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful. Wikistalking is the act of following another user around in order to harass them.

An editor should not be constantly followed by a single editor "to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy". If someone is repetitively violating wikipedia policies, the person should be either blocked (to prevent further disruption), or the issue should be brought to community attention (if it isn't a clearcut case). If the person is really being disruptive, community would agree with it. Following an allegedly disruptive user for months is particularly unhelpful.

People stalking had been using "violations of Wikipedia policy" as a justification of causing distress by interpreting means to stalk from a policies/guidelines.

-- Cat ^chi? 08:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree and given the issues being discussed at WP:ANI it seems this guideline might as well not exist. I don't see a need to sift through a users contribs in order to fix anything apart from vandalism. → AA ^(talk) — 14:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking clarification

I think there needs to be more clarity in the definition of Wikistalking. People are being indef-banned based primarily on accusations of stalking, and it seems to me that there is significant gray area as to what it is and what it isn't. The current definition makes it clear that following another user's contribs "to fix errors or violations of WP policy" is okay, while doing it "with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor" is is stalking. But intent is hard to prove, especially when the actions involved are reverting edits and disputing on talk pages, rather than explicit PAs. Hypothetically, what if I come to the conclusion that another editor holds certain views that I believe erroneous, and I think it would be good for WP if I look for other places where that editor has advanced those views so that I can oppose them? Is this stalking? Does particular misbehavior need to be demonstrated, or is it always wrong to revert an edit or participate in a discussion that you found through someone's contribs page? I can see an argument for either side, and it seems to me that some people are confused as to just what is acceptable. Perhaps such situations need to be addressed specifically in the policy. --BlueMoonlet 06:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say that if one follows a user contributions because one disagrees with the contents of his contributions then stalking is taking place. In other words, if the edits would have been judged "constructive" by general consensus (i.e. not vandalism, disruptive) then one should assume that the user is genuinely attempting to improve the encyclopedia and not hunt down his edits to revert/contest them.

I would expect a very good rule of thumb is if the actions done following a user's contribs would have triggered 3RR or been considered otherwise edit warring if they had occurred on the same article, they are almost certainly stalking. (Not that undoing a vandal would not fall under that criterion given that reverting vandals is never 3RR). — Coren ^(talk) 02:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. If an editor has serious POV issues then looking at the editors recent contribs is reasonable and reverting problematic ones is not stalking. The truth is that stalking is very hard to define and is used generally when people already don't like an editor but can't pin anything concrete on the editor. For this reason, I'm generally very uninclined to claim someone is stalking unless there is very clear evidence. JoshuaZ 03:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"People are being indef-banned based primarily on accusations of stalking" - can you provide some examples of this? How many people have been banned? Eiler7 00:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather keep the discussion here in the general case. You can follow my contribs — seriously, I don't mind :) — if you care to do so. My main question is whether stalking should be considered an offense in an of itself, in the absence of PAs or other incivility. And if so, what differentiates stalking from acceptable consultations of another user's contribs page. --BlueMoonlet 17:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed change to WP:STALK

As I mentioned before, the WP:STALK policy is rather vague around the middle ground between researching a user's contribs to judge their RfA or to hunt down a vandal (obviously okay) and following them around to make personal attacks (obviously not okay). What I'm trying to address are accusations of this form (exaggerated somewhat to make the point): "This guy has opposed me on other topics, and he never edited on this new topic until I did. That's stalking and he should be banned!" The following is how I would write the policy if it were up to me, but what is really important to me is that the vague area be addressed in some form.

Current version:

Wikistalking refers to the act of following an editor to another article to continue disruption.

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

This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. Using the edit history of users to correct related problems on multiple articles is part of the recommended practices both for Recent changes patrol (RCP) and WikiProject Spam. The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful. Wikistalking is the act of following another user around in order to harass them.

Proposed version:

Wikistalking refers to the act of following an editor to another article to continue disruption.

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

Reading another user's contribution log is not in itself harassment; those logs are public for good reason. In particular, proper use of a user's edit history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles (in fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol (RCP) and WikiProject Spam). The important part is the disruption — disruption is considered harmful. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter.

Comments? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a better approach and you've hit it on the head with "Wikipedia:Tendentious editing" and "personal attacks". I would also suggest that unless it's vandalism patrol per WP:VANDAL, editors should be restricted to 1RR (or maybe even 0RR) as a way to measure WP:TE. → AA ^(talk) — 15:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

As no one has objected, I have made the change. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

A curious question: Outing public personae

Would "outing people without their consent" be defined as harassment? Say Hillary Clinton comes on to Wikipedia and edits as User:HillaryClinton. She goes on all the consumer rights pages and makes edits that she feels are NPOV. She edits articles related to the Senate and health care, et. al. She adds quotes and links to her own websites and published work. She makes some edits to the Rudolph Giuliani articles. Then she decides she wants to be known as User:HRCL because people keep bringing up she is Hillary Clinton and she doesn't like that. She'd prefer to edit without that bugaboo hanging over her. Then Rudolph Giuliani catches on and mentions on his website that Hillary Clinton is editing his articles as User:HRCL. When we have public figures, who espouse their views publicly in all sorts of venues, come on to Wikipedia, is it "outing them"? Are there any considerations for COI and POV to not mention that User:HRCL is Hillary Clinton? The ultimate question is: is RudolphGiuliani.com "outing a person without their consent" as defined in the guidelines as they are being drawn? If a person operates publicly saying the same things they say on Wikipedia, is it "outing" them? This question needs to be taken into consideration, since our influence has increased to a point where influential people edit us. --David Shankbone 18:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information:

Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself. This is because it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media. This applies whether or not the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Wikipedia editor. It also applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old signatures can still be found in archives. --User:THF

That was not the question. In fact, it highlights the question that you point out the reasoning is harm in "the real world" or other media because the question revolves around the person already exists in the media saying the same things. The policy was designed, seemingly, for people who are not public figures and may suffer repercussions for their edits. A police officer giving cited criticism of a city's mayor, for instance. But if it's Hillary Clinton criticizing Rudolph Giuliani? What real life harm comes if a known person is editing, and making edits that are the same statements they make in real life on television and in newspapers? What harm would befall them that they would require the protection of anonymity? Or, what harm would they be at risk for that the other public venues where they assert their knowledge and opinions wouldn't put them at risk? What makes Wikipedia different than CBS News in this regard? --David Shankbone 19:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Making Wikipedia Better

Cross posted from Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Workshop

The ultimate fate of Durova an myself are trivial questions. The larger concern is how will Wikipedia handle cyberstalking and harassment. We have one group of editors who use this site for trolling. Another group has formed to hunt the trolls. Unfortunately, this leads to vigilante style justice, with mistakes like the one that happened with Durova and !!. Troll hunting also creates a caustic, non-collegial environment.

The most direct solution for this problem is to route significant cyberstalking and harassment problems to the Foundation Office where they can be investigated and dealt with by volunteers under strict supervision of competent legal staff.

The advantages of this solution include:

1. No longer can a group of trolls reinforce and protect each other by stacking consensus. Office operates on the legal definition of what is allowed and what isn't. There's no voting.
2. Office investigations are private and legally compliant (amateur sleuthing may not be).
3. If harassment arises to the level of being a legal problem, Office is better prepared to deal with the appropriate authorities.
4. Amateur sleuths can instead focus their efforts on editorial problems, like conflict of interest, pseudoscience, fringe theories and POV pushing. These are important problems where we need to apply more effort as encyclopedia editors.
5. The secret mailing lists can be reconstituted under strict Office control for accountability.
6. Harassment reports filed with Office will be completely separate from editing disputes handled by Arbcom. I have personally experienced the very uneasy feeling of filing a harassment report with Arbcom, only to have that report used against me in another incident. That should never happen to anyone, ever.

That's my proposal. Hopefully we can all learn something from this dispute and make Wikipedia a better place. Let's not use Durova as a scapegoat for a problem that is much larger than her own activities. - - Jehochman ^Talk 04:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Rename WP:STALK

I propose renaming "Wikistalking" to "Wikitrailing". Stalking in real life is a very big deal and we ought not to cheapen actual instances of harassment and stalking by using a powerful term too loosely. Durova^Charge! 01:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, Wikistalking is the equivalent of harassment in real life. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 05:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Is Revealing Conflict of Interest Harrassment?

There's been an interesting discussion over at Conflict of Interest about when (or whether) it's appropriate to reveal an editor's employment when it provides evidence of Conflict of Interest. The issue arose because of a perceived conflict between the Harrassment and Conflict of Interest guidelines. I'm of the opinion that posting employment information to demonstrate Conflict of Interest does not constitute what is meant by harrassment, and therefore a limited exception should be provided in this article.

I suggest adding the following to the section on posting of personal information:

The posting of lLimited information concerning an editor's employment may be done posted to demonstrate Conflict of Interest.

Please add your comments. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I just edited my own text. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I would oppose this. First, people who have no genuine interest in protecting WP against COI will use this as an excuse to harass. Secondly, anyone who hasn't outed themselves and who's believed to be in COI can be dealt with by contacting the ArbCom by e-mail. I can't see that there would ever be a need to out someone on-wiki. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there is no case for revealing personal information in this case. Releasing information only to 'demonstrate COI' doesn't place much of a limit on when it might be done. Since WHOIS was mentioned in the thread at WT:COI where this question originated, I'll ask whether WHOIS information could be taken notice of on-wiki. It's my belief that this question is not completely settled. E.g. an editor adds a link that some might perceive as advertising, and WHOIS can be invoked on that link. Or an IP editor makes some changes that seem promotional and WHOIS can be invoked on his IP. If WHOIS reveals an outside affiliation, can the affiliation be stated on-wiki? Once I asked an editor whose identity was completely obvious thanks to the whois information on his own site (that he had already linked to) if he wanted his identity protected, and he said yes, so I left it alone. EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

just to make things more complicated - someone who is attacking me off-wiki on their blog and making libelous claims, also charges conflict of interest for me who does not disguise my identity, even though their conflict of interest on the other side is equal or greater and far more hostile. This related to my complaining about their repeated nonsourced or WP:OR or highl POV edits, as opposed to mine which are WP:RS and WP:NPOV. (They also revealed personal info which they promised me by email they would not!)

More specifically on conflict of interest and outing, obviously if a person is charging conflict of interest whose own COI can fairly easily be proved if they were editor of the offending blog, that would be of interest at least to the mediators or arbitrators, wouldn't it?

Generally to this article, Village Pump link needs to repeat in more sections since section I jumped to didn't have it.

Carol Moore 23:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I think the consensus at the MFD in favor of on-wiki "outing" of people having a conflict of interest is clear. If there were a consensus that these situations should be dealt with by contacting ArbCom by e-mail as you suggest, the noticeboard would have been deleted. —Random832 21:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

COI

Random832 has added the following bolded sentence to this section, which significantly changes the guideline, so I've moved it here for discussion:

Posting another person's personal information (legal name, date of birth, social security number, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself. This is because it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media. This applies whether or not the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Wikipedia editor. It also applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old signatures can still be found in archives. This does not apply to mere identification of who is suspected of having a conflict of interest in the course of the normal operation of the conflict of interest noticeboard.

SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I can see how dropping messages on COI could be harassing, but if there is external evidence that reveals the connection it seems to me that it would be difficult to pursue the issue without making some sort of revelation of identity. There has to be some degree of telling the truth that isn't harassment. Mangoe (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult. (This is a bot output that is mentioned in an entry at the COI Noticeboard). The bot looks for resemblance between article names and user names. I'm assuming that the operations of this bot are acceptable, and do not constitute harrassment. EdJohnston (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't yet see enough motivation for Random's change to Wikipedia:Harassment. There is a de facto compromise in place now, and I don't see any crisis that calls for a change. At present people use common sense, and it's unclear how to codify common sense. EdJohnston (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me of this conversation.~ In any case, "normal operation" was intended to refer to common sense, and the language as a whole was intended to point out that this is not a bright line rule where others might misunderstand and think it is. —Random832 20:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, the addition was in order to bring it more in line with the result of a (then-)recent MFD, so you can't really say there's not a consensus or discussion behind it. —Random832 20:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I just tried to introduce a shortened version of the COI language and it was reverted by User:Jayjg. Judging by the conversation here, there wasn't any significant objection to adding that language, but, I'll bring it up again here anyway before I readd it. COI is not allowed in Wikipedia. In order to show COI, we sometimes have to post personal information about another editor. This isn't harassment, but the right thing to do to show COI. COI is very serious because it affects the credibility of the project. Cla68 (talk) 01:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:HARASS, WP:BLOCK, and WP:OVERSIGHT make no exceptions for COI. Invading the privacy of individuals and exposing them to harassment is equally important as COI, if not moreso, because it undermines the very working environment for our most important resource, our editors. If you want to change policy in this significant way, please ensure that you have significant consensus for doing so. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

They don't say anything about COI, because it's obvious that in order to prove COI, that sometimes you're going to have to give the editor's real name. Therefore, there's a discrepancy in the policies that needs to be corrected. Either delete the COI policy, or change the three that you mention to make it more clear, because right now it is implied, that outing to show COI is fine. Why would a "significant consensus" (whatever that means) be necessary to fix a discrepancy in the policies? Cla68 (talk) 02:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a very convenient interpretation. However, COI isn't mentioned because it's not an exception. WP:COI is advice for editors on how they should edit, not advice for others on how to out people they suspect have a COI, and it certainly doesn't trump the WP:BLOCK and WP:OVERSIGHT policies. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You're stonewalling, we're not talking about just the page WP:COI, we are talking about the COI noticeboard, whose normal operation routinely involves revealing at least names and/or employers. --Random832 (contribs) 17:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This page is a guideline, the same as WP:COI. I haven't seen where either WP:Block or WP:Oversight prohibit actions other than the improper use of those tools. Ideally we would have a very clear and limited policy for discussing COIs, which would include things like 1. Promoting one's own business, 2. Promoting references to one's own work, 3. Editing one's own bio, 4. Adding negative material in pursuit of a personal dispute. I'm not sure if there are others, but any of these issues would also have to be currently ongoing to warrant discussion. Otherwise we could simply tell people to be careful, though this leaves the problem that nobody has any good idea what will happen from time to time. Or, the third option is to state very clearly that COI is never an issue, and that what matters is always only the edits themselves. I tend to like the third option as well, but it seems to make for bad PR, and basically people don't seem willing to follow it. Mackan79 (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It is typical at Wikipedia to assert that policy is "what we do" or in some cases (BLP) "what we agree we should do" ("best practice"). What we do is to reveal real life identities when a COI violator is an outsider; but to protect real life identities when a COI violator is an insider. Deal privately with those who are our friends but deal publicly with strangers. There is some degree of sense to it. Also we are moving in the direction of offering to strangers the option of privately handling COI investigations. It is a well known conundrum of our governance. WAS 4.250 (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a conundrum. Since we apparently have a discrepancy here in our policies, or at the least, some very vaguely-worded guidelines, I think we probably should consider adding some clearer language to the COI guideline on the steps to take in identifying COI editors, and upgrading the COI guideline to a policy to give it more weight. Cla68 (talk) 06:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It might help to make a distinction between personal information and biographical information. Personal information concerns financial accounts, home address, telephone number and such. Biographical information is the sort of information that identifies who you are and/or what your experience is that applies to an editor's motivation for editing an article.

Personal information should be protected as a matter of strongly enforced policy; however, biographical information should be generally available if the editor releases it in the first place. That places the burden of privacy on the editor to not reveal the information in the first place.

In the wiki I am using, editors are required to use their real name and provide a brief bio on their talk page that explains their qualifications to edit in the wiki. Of course, it is a specialty use of the shell (thank you Media Wiki), but it might be reasonable foe Wikipedia to make the suggestion that, if an editor is willing to release biographical information, it should be shown in the personal page and other editors should accept that as the limit of disclosure.

This is an important issue for COI. I stand behind my name and accept that I have a conflict of interest in some articles that should be disclosed to other editors. However, I know of at least one editor who has revealed his identity in one part of Wikipedia, but continues to use a fictitious screen name. When editing in article for which he arguably has a COI, I feel that most editors working on that article do not know his current educational pursuit. It becomes an enforcement issue for wiki policies. Tom Butler (talk) 02:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Private correspondence

Kendrick7 removed the section called Private correspondence. I believe it was informative, and suggest it be restored. Rejected proposals tell us something, and so does the Arbcom decision that was mentioned. If this paragraph isn't useful then Wikipedia:Perennial proposals isn't either. EdJohnston (talk) 01:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems very WP:COATRACKish to go on about something there's no community consensus on in a policy guideline per WP:BURO, doubly so as I don't see how this relates to "harassment" per se. We could, for example, have any number of sections about specific rulings on specific ArbCom cases, but since ArbCom doesn't create policy I wouldn't think it's worth the trouble. I guess I can try to clean this section up though. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, what's the other ArbCom case that was mentioned? Anyone know? -- Kendrick7^talk 00:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The section was useful, and should be restored. I'd actually like to see more links to ArbCom cases on relevant policy pages, as they help to clarify where the community consensus is. --Elonka 02:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I did a rewrite to a version which simply state the historical facts here. The ArbCom occasionally has cases before it where they just have to make things up as they go along. Here's an example, among many, where what they came up with on the spot was debated and rejected by the community per Wikipedia:Consensus. I'm still unclear how exactly this paragraph ties in with being a "type of harassment" or what good it does to point out here that there is no relevant policy. Per WP:CREEP, I'd prefer policies to be tight and to the point not ramble into history lessons about tangential issues. As we used to say in school: is this going to be on the test? -- Kendrick7^talk 07:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. But hey, that's an interesting side-avenue ... where do we get to ramble on about the history lessons? Because of course those ARE very interesting when you're trying to find more detail on how consensus was formed. <scratches head> Any ideas? --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Clearly a policy

This is clearly a policy, not a guideline: there are no situations where true harassment is warranted. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)

Indeed, I am a little shocked to realize it was not a policy. People who break this policy get blocked and get blocked fast. It would be a disservice to imply that the prohibition against harassment is mearly guidance to be followed or dismissed. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

See #Is this policy for earlier discussion on this topic. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That was in 2006. This page has matured considerably since then. I support upgrading it to a policy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

So let it be written, so let it be done. (You guys figure out if it was the right thing to do. ;-) ) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the article?

Thoughtcrime? I looked at the page and it says nothing about Wikiharassment. (a protologism I know)

Lunakeet 23:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikistalking

There are several problems with this section:

1. It does not explain legitimate uses of the contribution history, such as following up on vandalism, copyvio, etc, in one article by checking other edits made by that user. While clarifying this may not stop the inevitable drama of a serial copyviolator coming to light, it will at least let them be assured they are getting due process, instead of the now-seemingly-inevitable upset as they discover this policy and cry "Wikistalking! Why do the rules only apply to ME?!"
2. The name itself is problematic: when actual, real-life stalking migrates to or develops on Wikipedia, we need to be ready to deal with it. Mistaking it for a minor form of dispute escalation is not going to help us here.

As such, this section needs rewritten and renamed. I'd suggest that we either use soft redirects as per WP:VANITY to handle the renaming, or, as we'll be rewriting the policy anyway, set up a page at Wikipedia:Wikistalking labelled as a historic policy, and giving the reasons for the change in name, and link to the new policy. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Harass#Assistance_for_administrators_being_harassed

I suggest the recommendation concerning OTRS be removed - ie or to contact the Arbitration Committee or OTRS if needed.. It appears not to be true. --Matilda ^talk 01:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Nutshell

I think the nutshell should be slightly amended to account for the distinction of necessary, purpose- and useful contacts on the one hand from unuseful contacts on the other. A given message may annoy the addressee, but it may nevertheless be justified by its content.

Do not stop other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making threats, nitpicking good-faith edits to different articles, repeated unuseful annoying and unwanted contacts, repeated personal attacks or posting personal information.

All input appreciated. user:Everyme 15:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Outing and COI

In the section on outing, we need to explain how a users can talk about conflict of interest editing without violating this policy. For example, there may be circumstantial evidence that an editor is writing about themselves and linking to their own work for the purpose of promotion. How is a user supposed to deal with that potentially serious damage to Wikipedia without outing? Jehochman ^Talk 13:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That this is a problem suggests the relationship between WP:OUTING and WP:COI hasn't been thought through well. Obviously it's clear harassment to out an editor who's doing nothing wrong. But if they're doing something wrong already, it could cripple attempts to protect Wikipedia if we can't do anything that leads to deduction of identity (e.g. if an article is getting attention from anon IP editors, the whois necessary to show that they're socksmay reveal identity).

It does look as if intentions have drifted. WP:COI started out with the assumption that few, if any, people are capable of writing neutrally about themselves or their own companies, and that COI edits were therefore to be strongly discouraged. COI makes for a bad dynamic, because the suspicion of bias will always be present, especially if someone with a COI is pushy proactive in that connection. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:OUTING vs. WP:COI & WP:NOR

While WP:OUTING addresses the serious issue of stalking, as currently written, it renders WP:COI and aspects of WP:NOR (specifically WP:COS) unenforceable. Any good-faith attempt to identify a user as having a COI (e.g., WP:COI/N#COI with Rjm7730) usually necessitates some degree of real-life identification. Typically, the user name is a give-away, but otherwise only an intentional or inadvertent admission by a registered or anonymous user is usable evidence – and the problems are mostly with editors who do not want to have their COI edits exposed as such or are unfamiliar with WP:COI in the first place. I feel that the community needs to discuss whether WP:Outing trumps WP:COI and WP:COS (which should then be degraded or eliminated [to include the WP:COI/N noticeboard]) or else needs to accommodate legitimate, good-faith enforcement of these policies and guidelines (thereby perhaps making WP:Outing more in line with WP:STALK, the problem which originated). While the issues have been raised here, there has been no resolution, and that lack of resolution is beginning to hamper the work of enforcing WP:COI. Askari Mark (Talk) 15:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:COI is not intended to be "enforceable". It is advice to people who may be editing under a conflict-of-interest, and is not supposed to be a club used to justify edit reversion, article deletion, or outing. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Conflict of interest is a Wikipedia guideline. For troublesome COI editing, you can reference neutral point of view as the relevant policy. Jehochman ^Talk 15:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:COI is a guideline intended to be read by users who may have a conflict of interest. We use WP:NPOV and WP:OR, among others, as the policies which back up the guideline. True, we can not invoke WP:COI to a user who does not reveal his connection to the topic, but that's not really an issue in my mind. WP:COI specifically states that a user with a conflict of interest is not automatically prevented from editing, it just offers them tips on how to make sure they stay within policy. Think of it like this: WP:COI is for the user who comes here thinking "I want to write about my company, but I want to stay within policy. How do I do that, in a nutshell?". In this regard, WP:COI is not at odds with WP:OUTING.

The user who comes here completely anonymously to project his opinions, original research, etc, is probably not interested in reading the guideline anyway. In those cases, we have the policies on NPOV and OR that we can invoke to ensure the articles stay within policy. This is true whether the editor has a COI or not. Arakunem^Talk 16:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

What WP:OUTING fails to acknowledge is that evidence of an individual's identity may already exist on the internet, and is therefore in the public domian, as such presenting information about an editor that is already acessible to all concerned cannot be considered outing. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community does not want people sleuthing details about editors lives and making speculative comments on Wikipedia. (What happens elsewhere we cannot control.) Who somebody is does not matter so much. We are concerned about the quality of their edits. Jehochman ^Talk 18:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It depends how you define "sleuthing". We're talking about what's effectively Open Source Intelligence, where the information is not in the least secret. I'm thinking of situations where, say, [[User:Joe Blow]] is editing Yrellag Gallery and Google shows the proprietor of Yrellag Gallery to be a Joe Blow. If the search required is at that level of triviality, as it often is because COI editors are so commonly both arrogant and stupid, it can heardly be considered as "outing". Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we need a consult with the Foundation on that issue, because I am uneasy tiptoeing around the edges of WP:HARASS by making that link on Wikipedia. When is something blatantly obvious (and reliable) enough not to constitute outing? You can certainly do the sleuthing and then act on that info by saying, "Joe Blow, your editing seems to be very promotional. Are you associated with that gallery?" Jehochman ^Talk 19:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. If the sleuthing stays within Wikipedia's pages then it's likely ok. By this I mean that if User:Yrellag Gallery edits the Yrellag Gallery page, then we know there's a COI. This happens a lot with autobiographies and such. As soon as you have to go to google to establish the connection then you're treading on dangerous ground. "You" (the hypothetical "you") may stop at "Ok, are you the proprietor of Yrellag Gallery?" but the next, more fanatical editor that comes along might do a phone book lookup and call Joe at home about his editing. Its best if that train never left the station. Remember, if Joe Blow is editing the article and inserting promotional material or original research, then we neutralize it, whether he's affiliated or not. Arakunem^Talk 20:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well it all depends how seriously wikipedia wants to take the issue of WP:COI. When it can clearly be demonstrated that an editor has a COI, using public domain information, they should be restricted from editing an article, or at the very least they should be placed on some kind of admin watch list. What should be appreciated, is that COI editors waste peoples time, particulalry if they have a POV adgenda that they are intent on pushing, and this is something that is not good for wiki long term. Also, the declaration bypass is a poor safeguard because the editor can still behave in a problematic fashion. There seems to be little incentive to tackle this issue, and it is one that can potentially create a lot of hassle. WP:OUTING using public domain information should be seen as an acceptable method of bringing attention to an existing COI especially if admin are reluctant to deal with the issue in a satisfactory manner. Semitransgenic (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I oppose any policy prohibiting people from editing pages where they have a COI. What should be, and is, prohibited is POV-pushing. If somebody finds a Wikipedia entry about themselves and sees inaccurate negative information in there, they should absolutely have the right to remove it. If they want to write a hagiography about themselves, they should be forbidden from doing so; but they already are forbidden from doing so, by WP:NPOV. Same goes for adding unverifiable information about themselves: it should be forbidden, and is, by WP:V. Also, to Arakunem, we need to be careful of assuming that people who declare themselves to be the subject of an article are telling the truth; that assumption can lead to a whole new type of BLP problem. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely, S.I. (if I may abreviate) :) At the end of the day, NPOV and V are the order of the day, so keeping editors, COI or otherwise, within those policies takes the burden off of having to validate an identity claim in the first place. Arakunem^Talk 23:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess the big sticking point regarding off-wiki sleuthing is that it is un-policeable, so there's no way to know if a user has gone too far with his sleuthing. If there were a wikipolicy saying that investigation using google is ok, for example, and a tenacious investigator ended up with a COI contrib's phone number, workplace, etc., and harassed them in person, it could be construed as sanctioned by the foundation. Arakunem^Talk 22:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

yes but the issue with COI, from what I have seen of it, ranging from possible COI, to full blown COI, is that the manner in which it is policed by admin depends entirely on the priority of the article and the level of exposure it receives. Also, getting a COI issue addressed in the first instance, and seeing something done about it, long term, requires time and effort, whereas if an editor could point directly to evidence that supports a claim it would cut all the red tape, save everyone time, and hopefully lead to real policing. But that's only COI, one can face an uphill struggle having POV pushing dealt with also; and never mind getting WPV addressed wiki-wide. It's fine saying this is not allowed that is not allowed but if such matters are dealt with in an inconsistent fashion, and varying results are achieved, nothing will improve, and people will continue taking the piss, knowing definitive action will never be taken. There is an attitude that if articles are not to the fore, are not controversial, and generally have fewer interested parties engaged in editing them, that they slip down the scale of importance when it comes to admin enforcement. Semitransgenic (talk) 23:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Depends on the admin, I guess. Recently an admin and I got pulled into in an issue (called in as a COI to the noticeboard, but was really just POV), over whether a song finished in last place, or second-to-last place in a contest, in a stub-class article. Certainly not an article in the forefront by any definition, but we spent a fair amount of time discussing NPOV and V issues with the involved parties. I suppose the bigger issue might be how and where to bring up COI and POV concerns. We have the notice boards, but the average anon editor working on one article may not know how to handle these disputes. And you are absolutely right that consistency in policy application and enforcement is critical. Arakunem^Talk 23:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Semitransgenic, ArbCom has made rulings specifically stating that outing another editor onsite is unacceptable unless the editor has disclosed his or her identity onsite voluntarily, no matter how well know this identity is elsewhere in the Web. Now that doesn't stop you from presenting the relevant evidence to administrators or to ArbCom if there's a need; it's a matter of compliance with the Foundation privacy policy. You can view this as a tradeoff. So yes, it's possible to exploit the privacy policy in order to circumvent the COI guideline, but people who do that assume a risk for themselves and their employers. Sometimes the press catches onto that stuff and when that happens it does not look good at all. Durova^Charge! 23:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

And it looks even worse when admin are engaged in COI. The Jossi Fresco case for instance. That incident, in my opinion, undermined the credibility of this encyclopedia and that is the concern. But there are a number of editors guilty of conduct similar to Fresco's but they go unchecked for the most part. They are not only persistently engaged in vetting the contributions of others, they are clever in the way they edit, so as not to appear too problematic, and draw attention to their activities. Challenging such individuals and then demonstrating to others that a particular agenda is at play is not easy. Semitransgenic (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

That particular editor has disclosed his real name and his affiliation. I thought the primary question you raised had to do with undisclosed conflicts of interest? Durova^Charge! 23:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

No, not entirely, as I mentioned earlier, the disclosure clause is a weak deterrent, the Fresco case is one example of this, but odder still, if the article is correct, with Fresco "there's a catch...you can’t expose him [on] the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. He created the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard." Maybe I'm being idealistic in thinking that there is a way to do things here that benefits the encyclopedia long term, and that those interested in supporting this ideal should be met with a greater good approach to policy enforcement. The form of extreme egalitarianism practiced here is simply counter productive when it's obvious certain individuals ultimately have their own interests at heart. Semitransgenic (talk) 00:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Our onsite mechanisms of dealing with conflict of interest are inherently weak deterrents. Suppose someone estimates a dollar value of $20,000 to maintaining a positive brand presence at Wikipedia. A 24 hour block makes no difference and it's fairly easy to invest a little manpower into circumventing whatever Wikipedia's volunteers try to do. So manipulating Wikipedia looks like an attractive option. What's to balance that? Well, the more steps to resist scrutiny the worse it looks when the press does get hold of it. And when the mainstream press takes an interest that generally costs a lot more in bad PR than anything they hoped to achieve. Durova^Charge! 00:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

You are dwelling on a specific form of COI that relates to commercial interests, let's instead dwell on the Jossi issue, for instance: "So long as you divulge a conflict and you edit appropriately in light of that conflict, then it's OK to continue editing," says another senior administrator, who requested anonymity. "But Jossi made considerable revisions to that conflict of interest policy himself, including deleting a section about having a conflict of interest relating to your guru." Semitransgenic (talk) 00:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, "According to Wikipedia's 'user contribution' tool, Fresco's first 2400 edits - spread over more than a year from April 2004 to August 2005 - were almost entirely devoted to Prem Rawat- or cult-related articles. The edit histories of Momento and Rumiton look much the same." This leads nicely to the issue of tag-teaming, when are we going to see official policy on this form of abuse? Same for goes for polite POV pushers. Semitransgenic (talk) 00:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I dislike the idea of calling out a particular individual to this extent on a policy page, unless it's coupled with a link to the relevant arbitration case that followed. Your posts are likely to give passers-by an impression that this individual's conduct has not been scrutinized. It has, and he is currently a named party in a second arbitration case. If you have substantial information to bring to bear that the arbitration committee has not already considered, please raise the matter there. Nothing good can come of further steps down the present path: either he behaves appropriately, in which case this is unfair to him; or he behaves inappropriately, in which case the arbitrators ought to receive whatever you have to say directly. In general the site runs better when people handle such things in a direct way. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 01:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Now this is interesting, I didn't know all that, but you are presenting it like there is a legally binding non-disclosure agreement in place, yet this 4 page item on The Register is in the public domain. Wikipedia does not exist in isolation, there is no border, as such, where a different set of legal constraints apply, at least I don't recall agreeing to any terms and conditions that limit me from discussing a relevant news report on a discussion page. The Jossi incident has the potential to demonstrate why we need stronger COI enforcement and why the issue of tag-teaming needs to be given more serious attention, at the very least it should be policy, and not just an essay. Semitransgenic (talk) 01:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, as always, there is more to this, having read more to the background, I can now see why you express concern about that article, it appears it may have been a hit piece. It also seems the ArbCom cleared the editor of any wrong doing, have you a link to the second arbitration mentioned above? Semitransgenic (talk) 01:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Durova and Semitransgenic are both right. We're not here to discuss particular cases but the COI guideline is too weak prevent abuse. I suggest that the COI talk page would be the best place to diccuss improvements to that guideline, including incorporating some of the good ideas discussed relevant to "polite POV pushing" and tag teaming. As for this policy, no COI justifies harassment. If an editor can't handle his or her COI, then they should be referred to the ArbCom or at least ANI. Probations and banning for editing problems aren't harassment. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Well said, Will. Durova^Charge! 01:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No outing, period. Any concessions to the contrary will void the privacy rule. NVO (talk) 05:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at the Wikimedia privacy policy, and it doesn't mentions anything about outing. The only policy that concerns outings is this one. If the community wishes to change this standard it may do so. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Change to what, exactly? Mandatory upfront disclosures? Fingerprinting? Mind reading? The last one is no joke: the Foundation may require copies of IDs, letters from employers, tax returns, but how in the world can it establish/discourage COI in less formal matters? NVO (talk) 06:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not proposing any change. I was just noting the logic of saying that "we can't change this policy because that would violate this policy". Changing a policy doesn't violate a policy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses, but so far I’ve seen little discussion about the conflict between the “current editions” of WP:OUTING and WP:COI. Please keep in mind that WP:COI was established before such serious stalking problems arose that the formulation of WP:OUTING was found necessary. The establishment of WP:OUTING (as it currently exists) quite essentially changes Wikipedia from an environment in which privacy of identity was not a “given”. If we are to maintain WP:OUTING in its present formulation, then something has to give with regard to WP:COI (and WP:COS) – or vice versa.

Since identifying someone as having a COI is tantamount to “outing” them, if WP:OUTING is to be maintained and enforced as it currently stands, without any nuance of qualification or exception, then there is no point in having COI/N at all – for the majority of COI problems are not with conflicted editors who have revealed their COI and are working as requested by the guideline; furthermore, the archives must be reviewed and any past outings oversighted. In fact, retaining COI/N for the sake of problems with “known unknowns” begs for problems with well-meaning editors who don’t re-read a policy or guideline every time they rely on it to see what has changed since they first read it months or weeks ago. Inadvertent outings are inevitable, so COI/N would require more watching by admins.

Gordonofcartoon raises a further important point not defined in WP:HARASS: Just what constitutes “outing” (an unfortunate choice of words given the term’s normative cultural meaning which is unrelated to what’s going on here). Ignoring the trivial cases, what happens when someone makes the obvious connection that User:FOO may have a COI with his peacocking in the article on Dr. Foo? Are logical deductions from an obvious user name relationship “outing”? If so, why? How is it any different than when a user name is the editor’s real-life name? Furthermore, how does one “legally” approach a user suspected of having a COI when the very suggestion essentially constitutes an outing? If WP:OUTING is to be a no-exceptions policy (as it is currently), then WP:COI and WP:OUTING both need to be revised with guidance on how to do what they encourage editors without accidentally crossing the line. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Posting of personal information, when scoured from wikipedia contributions

Someone reverted what I thought was a quite reasonable change to “Posting of personal information” (WP:OUTING)

The section currently says “Posting another person's personal information … is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily posts this information, or links to this information, on Wikipedia themselves”

The “unless” clause creates quite a loophole legitimising actions that should be considered blatant outing, on the basis that information posted was derived from editor posts. Editors who wish to be anonymous, even moderately so, should be allowed to participate under their chosen handles without having to worry that every edit will be scoured for information for a protected outing. Additionally, a user who once posted personal information, should be allowed to return to anonymity, and this policy should encourage all editors to protect the anonymity of all other users in cases such as these.

The appropriate place to collect information about yourself is on your userpage (or a user subpage). The first sentence of this section should reflect this. Posting personal information about another user should only be allowed if that user currently discloses the information in their userspace, where they control it. There’ll surely be ambiguous cases, but the posting of information collected from obscure locations, edit histories, third party userspace, etc, without good reason, should definitely be consider WP:OUTING, and should be discouraged as a matter of policy. The important issue here, as I see it, is WP:Editors matter, and the need for wikipedia contributors to feel safe within our community. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this by any chance related to your participation at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ScienceApologist‎, which is referring (quite often) to that section of the policy? It's generally not a good idea to refer to a policy in a discussion, and then go and change the policy to try and get it to backup the points that are being argued. --Elonka 00:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The MfD is what brought me here, where I found that the wording of the policy is at odds with its spirit, and sought to fix it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

A completely thorough OUTING policy would shut down all COI enforcement, as was hinted in the section just above. The two priorities are 'in tension', and you can't preserve the maximum version of either one at the same time. I think we still want to enforce the COI rules, and I think we want to avoid discussing people's real life identities unnecessarily. (Judgment is required to find the balance). Someone who fears *any* disclosure of their personal information should avoid editing Wikipedia, and might be well advised to stay off the internet as well. (All those web sites out there are logging their IP address). I suggest that the current policies and guidelines should remain as they are. EdJohnston (talk) 01:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Ed, but it seems to me that there is little regard for WP:COI issues here. I’m afraid that without some broader resolution, editors who bring up COI issues on COI/N in good-faith do so at their own risk of being “punished” for doing so. There is no guidance available for how to report such issues in a manner that doesn’t accidentally “out” someone (who, of course, has no desire to see their COI being pointed out in the light of day). Askari Mark (Talk) 23:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

This is an unsettled point that's worth discussing. Some of the site's most persistent and damaging long term vandals have been thwarted because of early self-disclosures. I don't think it's necessary to hamstring the conflict of interest noticeboard and other necessary site maintenance functions in order to supply a reasonable leeway for editors who AGF with ScienceApologist. Three principles can cover the situations:

1. Add voluntary or the notion of informed consent to the statement about self-disclosures. If an eleven-year-old posts their name and home address, of course we don't want to encourage reuse of that because a child isn't capable of making a fully informed decision. And it's reasonable to give adults some leeway for logout system bugs, within reason.
2. Add the concept of site standards compliance to the policy: editor who is here to help the project and acting in good faith shouldn't have to worry about an obscure early disclosure being exploited to bandy his or her identity on pages where it serves only as irritation, but long term abusive sockpuppeteers etc. don't get a free loophole to continue exploitation when their actions come under legitimate scrutiny. AGF is not a suicide pact.
3. Add the concept of necessity and/or discretion to the reuse of information under condition 2: when you know the person's real name, and you know they probably don't want it reused, but it's necessary to repeat it in order to prove a pattern of abuse, then use it only when necessary for that purpose. As much as possible, use the individual's username or other moniker (long term IP vandals are often assigned a nickname).

So to take an actual example, a certain editor had been indefinitely blocked and a later account was accused of being his sockpuppet. On his original account he had disclosed his own name early in his editing career. He was a writer in real life and had often edited Wikipedia to add citations to offsite material he had written. For COI, POV, and other problems he earned an indefinite block. Several months afterward a new account appeared, which often cited articles by the same author and claimed to be a fan of his. The original account had been dormant for too long to checkuser. Yet Wikipedians who checked the new account's edits noticed that the new account had attributed the original author by name at an Wikipedia article, and used a citation to a source article that lacked any byline. Only the the original editor or someone who knew him personally could have known that he was author of that source. Based upon that, the second account was linked to the original account and the editor got community banned. (I know who this fellow's name is, but as you can see I'm not using it because because it isn't absolutely necessary in this post). Later actions and checkusers confirmed that this conclusion had been correct. Durova^Charge! 01:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Returning to this now that the MfD is closed

I understand the points made, but there is still plenty of room for improvement in the text of WP:OUTING. At the moment, the language is very harsh about a very narrowly defined meaning of outing. I believe that what Elonka did was wrong (debatably), that many would consider “outing” to be the applicable term, but that the action does not meet the more restrictive definition accepted by others, and the action was not at the level to warrant something like an “immediate block”.

The unstated but partially accepted definition of “outing” seems to be “the original publication of another’s personally identifying information”.

A softer definition would be “the repetition, or drawing attention to, another’s personally identifying information, whether that information was released by another party, accidentally by the subject, or previously but now with regret by the subject.

I think that WP:OUTING should state that the softer version of outing should be avoided. An exception can be made for good faith contributions to a WP:COI debate. However, when such cases are closed, the identifying information should be removed.

The intention is to support the anonymity of users who wish to be anonymous, including where a past disclosure was accidental or is later regretted. This intention should be supported by advice in this policy, not by threat of punishment over small infringements, and should not be taken to limit focused discussion with respect to WP:COI cases. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Information about people's real life identity, or at least their affiliations, is constantly leaking out due to their pattern of edits and how they behave in discussions. The suggestion that the 'identifying information can be removed' is unrealistic. The best we can do is not go out of our way to draw connections when they don't have to be drawn. In contexts where a person is charged with policy violations, we may necessarily have to draw connections. Whenever there is no hint of any abuse taking place we like to speak indirectly about a person even if sometimes we are skirting mention of the obvious. Street addresses and phone numbers can be oversighted but a person's entire edit history can hardly be oversighted. EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

By “removed”, I merely mean cut, or blank, so that search engines don’t index it. There also should be no obvious (to a non-wikipedian) instructions on how to find the information. I agree that there is little point in pretending that information can be removed absolutely, and indeed I am not suggesting trying to do that, and further, I think doing so (excessively deleting or oversighting important information) is a bad thing. The main point is that identifying information shouldn’t be repeatedly revealed, without good reason, if it is against the user’s wishes.

Ed, is it your position that there is nothing herre to improve? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it needs to be part of our culture to not publicize information that might help identify somebody (who doesn't wish to be identified) unless it's in a context where it is necessary for protecting the encyclopedia. So it is perfectly in order for anyone to suggest to another editor that they have revealed too much about a third party and ask them to redact it. I've not yet seen any proposal for a rule change here that sounds convincing. EdJohnston (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

While it's good courtesy to refrain from repeating information about somebody that they don't wish to publicize and might consider to be harassing in nature (or to aid stalkers/harassers), unless there's a really good reason that overrides this, it's probably a bad idea to have a hard and fast policy that strictly prohibits all such mentions; the overextension of this concept has caused much mischief in the past. People have sometimes insisted on draconian efforts to shut the barn door after the horse has left, to suppress "personal information" that's already appeared on Slashdot or The Register. The "BADSITES wars" of last year were about some people declaring all links to certain critics' sites to be inherently wrong because those sites might just possibly "out" somebody. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

"hard and fast policy that strictly prohibits all such..." is an extreme that is obviously bad. It is preferable to have simple to understand policy that advises in softer terms. WP:OUTING, as written, is excessiveley stern about excessively restrictive situations. It is also too verbose. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikihounding

It's high time we phased out 'wikistalking' from site jargon: the word confuses minor onsite irritation with an actual real world felony. I've been bold; we got WP:VANITY out of our jargon and that was much less a problem than this. Durova^Charge! 02:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• ... and now it will be confused with an aristocratic sport... NVO (talk) 03:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  • That sort of confusion is much better than confusing it with a felony. Jehochman ^Talk 03:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Heartily approve. annoyingly following someone around the wiki is a problem-- but it's insulting to all involved to liken it to actual felonious stalking. "Wikihounding" is as good a term as any I've yet heard-- and it's far better than "wikistalking". --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Agree. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• The new word seems fine to me, too. Cla68 (talk) 06:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Concur. Although "stalking" is a common internet term, given the number of Wikipedia editors who have been physically or electronically stalked in the "real world", we need to differentiate between the annoying onsite behaviours and those that continue off-site, creating genuine potential for harm and/or safety concerns. Risker (talk) 15:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I've just used "wikistalking" in a proposed arbitration decision and no one seems to have minded.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I have commented on the talk page of the proposed decision. Risker (talk) 16:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should not have. As a named editor, I was annoyed when somebody else casually accused me of "stalking" because I had been following their contributions (legitimately in my view, not legitimately in theirs). It is not nice when a Google return for a person's name returns an accusation that looks like a criminal activity. Jehochman ^Talk 16:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I tracked the wording from the existing policy. As I've noted on the talkpage of the proposed decision, if the policy is changed by consensus, the decision will be deemed modified accordingly (either before or after it was issued).

In my view, as you know, Google should not be picking up any of the pages on which such allegations might be made, in any event. I thought this issue had been addressed by now. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Regrettably, the situation is more complex, even with Google. We are not exactly sure where they stand and whether they might change their handling. [19] There are also a number of mirrors and spam sites that copy Wikipedia pages. These copies can and do show up in Google. There are other search engines besides Google, including Yahoo, Microsoft Live, and Ask that constitute something like 30% of the search market in the United States. It is unclear whether these engines support noindex, and how completely they support it.[20] Google's dominance is less in markets such as China and Russia which have strong local search engines (Baidu and Yandex respectively). Jehochman ^Talk 16:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I was wondering at the outset how much to post onsite. It doesn't surprise me that someone came along to pooh-pooh the change; what does surprise is to see it coming from Newyorkbrad (who is usually adept at taking a hint and withholding judgment until the appropriate time). I've just sent him an e-mail and any other trusted Wikipedian is welcome to write me and find out what other reasons I have. Yeah, they're strong reasons. And yeah, they're the sort of thing best left offsite (hint: an FBI case I opened this year has something to do with it). Brad, consider yourself heartily trout slapped.Wikipedians who wonder where this move for a change is coming from are encouraged to contact me. Durova^Charge! 18:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikihounding sounds much better! (Although it could be confused with fox hunting, which is illegal in the UK). I heartily support this change. DendodgeTalk^Contribs 18:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no trouble with adding "wikihound" as an occasional synonym for "wikistalk", but I think it's going a bit far to aggressively attack editors who continue to use the wikistalking term. I also think that there's a subtlety that is missed between the two, as "stalk" is closer to "follow" which is what many wikistalkers do. "Hounding" on the other hand usually means a more aggressive kind of attack. If I say, "I have a stalker", then in on-wiki context it means that I have someone who is systematically tracking my contribs, and possibly popping up in various areas where I am working, to "hound" me. But I don't feel that it would make sense for me to say that I have a "hounder". --Elonka 19:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree it would go too far to aggressively attack; that's why no one is proposing such a thing. Look up WP:VANITY: you get a soft redirect with a note of explanation and a pointer to WP:COI. That's the right approach, and there's better reason to do that here. Elonka did not attempt to contact me and seek my reasons before she posted her opinion. Durova^Charge! 20:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

If somebody is purely observing, we'd never know about it. They actually have to take some sort of observable action to be discovered. Additionally, that action has to have the effect of causing consternation. Hounding implies both following and some sort of annoyance (barking, slobbering, biting). I think it is more accurate than stalking, and as Durova points out, hounding does not conflate the issue with serious, real life, criminal terminology. Jehochman ^Talk 20:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

There might be other synonyms that are better than "hound", but this is certainly better than "stalk". Support this change. Cirt (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Would it not be more sensible to not use a potentially derogatory term at all? It's like DTTR; why not just describe one's actions rather than having to label them with something? Giggy (talk) 22:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Harassment of editors on-wiki, such as by following them around and tampering with their edits for the purpose of annoying them, can be a significant issue. Harassment of editors in real life, such as by threats of violence, defamatory statements to employers, unwelcome sexual approaches, and the like, is obviously a very grave and substantially more serious problem. Certainly nothing that I said above was meant to suggest or imply in any way that the seriousness of the former is on the same level as that of the latter, nor have I ever suggested or meant to suggest any such thing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I for one had no doubts about your position on the matter. It seems like a good idea to use controlled vocabulary in an attempt to distinguish between the two cases. Jehochman ^Talk 00:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that clarification, Brad. Unfortunately our current terminology lends itself to precisely that confusion, in situations where no need for clarification ought to exist. I have seen conscientious and well-meaning editors make that mistake more than once in more than one context. By shifting our terminology away from the zone where conflation does the most damage, I hope to spare other editors an additional layer of difficulty when dealing with gravely serious matters. Durova^Charge! 01:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

To return to the matter of language, "pest" is what I used to call my sister when she did this kind of thing, not sure if this is any more pleasing than "hound" although - Durova's crucial point aside - we are talking about something unpleasant. We may need to use a neologism ... I am sure if it is clearly defined, after a few months people will get the idea of what it means ... Slrubenstein | Talk 02:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

We have a popular essay Wikipedia:Trolling#Pestering. A hound is slightly different from a pest. A hound is Wikipedia:Griefing whereas a pest is trolling. Pestering is defined as asking lots of disingenuous questions. Jehochman ^Talk 02:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I disagree with the premise here, but I'm a bit concerned about "hound" here - in my experience, it can be used as a slang term with sexual connotations. Shell ^babelfish 05:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence of that usage being common, such as a dictionary definition? We know that "stalking" is widely used in a criminal/sexual legal sense.[21] Almost every word has multiple uses and meanings, but I think "hound" is far less confusing than "stalker". Jehochman ^Talk 07:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Random House lists as one of its definitions "a mean, despicable person". The American Heritage Dictionary lists "A contemptible person; a scoundrel." Princeton University offers up "someone who is morally reprehensible". Webster's also lists "A despicable person." -- so perhaps not the precise connotation that occurred to me (courtesy of my grandmother :) ) but I can see how someone might legitimately assume we meant they were "despicable" instead of just "relentless". Shell ^babelfish 17:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly it, that "stalk" is a word that's used in many senses, so it doesn't make sense to get rid of it just because of one narrowly-focused definition. Sherlock Holmes had a deerstalker cap. A panther "stalks" its prey. Would you want to change nature documentaries to say that the panther "hounds" its prey? Which doesn't mean that we can't try to use the word "hound" as a synonym and see if it catches on, but I think it's a bad idea to try and punish people for using the "stalking" term when it's so much a part of the English language. --Elonka 16:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Why, Elonka, we are not trying to punish anyone. People can use whatever terminology they like, but when we are writing official policy, I think a very good point has been made that we should not conflate a relatively minor wiki annoyance with a real life felony. Shell, looking up the definition of "hounding", after "any of several breeds of dog" we see "pursue or chase relentlessly" followed by "someone who is morally reprehensible". The context of this policy makes clear we are not talking about dogs. I think the risk of conflating "morally reprehensible" with wikihounding is much lower than conflating wikistalking with felony stalking. While neither term is perfect, hounding probably would cause less confusion. Elonka's point that stalking has a plain English meaning has merit, but I think overall we should use a different word. Could you perhaps suggest a third alternative? Jehochman ^Talk 17:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, you and Durova have been cautioned in the past about working in concert, yet changed this Wikipedia policy page without prior consensus, trout-slapped an arbitrator who dared to disagree, and now I see that you're already at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, chastising people for being unaware of the policy change.[22] Especially as you yourself have been repeatedly warned both on-wiki and off-wiki by multiple admins for harassment (diffs available upon request), and you are now trying to build a case that you should be an arbitrator,[23] it is extremely bad form for you to be pushing through this kind of policy change while pretending to be a neutral voice. Please stand down. --Elonka 18:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Er. For what its worth as the person who was talked to on Wikiqutte alerts, the note seemed polite. I thanked Jehochman, came over here. Took a look and it and it seemed reasonable enough. As the recipient I didn't feel like Jehochman was "chastizing" me. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think everybody has had their full of disputes between Elonka and Jonathan & Durova. I only hope yet another round does not develop here. AGK 18:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, AGK. I hadn't looked at this page today until now. Very disappointed by the level of discourse. Just dropping by to repeat my offer: any trusted editor who wants to know my real, substantive reasons for wanting to change this wording is welcome to e-mail me, because it wouldn't be appropriate to post details of that nature here. This is about a serious matter. Please, some things are more important than personal likes or dislikes. Durova^Charge! 21:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

One of my kids made a funny suggestion that hadn't occurred to me; I was describing the kind of behavior that we want to name and he immediately pipes up with "Mom, that's a griefer". That suggestion would probably resonate well with the younger crowd, but might not mean anything to older folks who haven't played an mmorpg like Wikipedia ;) . Other things we came up with were pursuer or badger(er?) (they'd have a theme song then I guess). While I was chewing on this, I started wondering about "harass" as well; could just be my point of view, but I tend to think of that in the legal sense of the word even more often than I would "stalk". Anyways, just some thoughts and suggestions. Shell ^babelfish 04:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I support this change of wording. More respectful, more accurate in most cases I would hope, less likely to escalate disputes; if it's criminal stalking we can call the police. Sticky Parkin 01:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the fact that it is more respectful makes it less appealing. Sometimes off-wiki stalking begins onwiki, and I think it's a good idea to let people know - very, very firmly -- that this behavior is not okay. Wikihounding doesn't do the job as well as wikistalking. IronDuke 02:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It's so funny, that we don't stalk anymore! I'm of mixed feelings about this change. On the one hand, I've long opposed the tendency of people here to form opposing cliques and camps, and accuse those in the "enemy camp" of the vilest crimes, using all sorts of inflammatory language of which "stalking" is just one of the terms. On the other hand, I've never liked "PC" renaming of long-established terminology just because somebody, somewhere, might be offended by it. I recall that now-banned user Jon Awbrey once made a big fuss about how Wikilawyering absolutely had to be changed to "Wikicaviling" because the term was defamatory to lawyers... that was swiftly reversed and was the last straw that got him banned, as I recall. *Dan T.* (talk) 12:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Making this policy being able to swim...

...instead of being a lame duck. Before we begin, yes, I know, "zomg Sceptre's trying to start up drama". And yes, I know I got blocked for "harassment". Now we've got over that, I want to say: I've got serious problems about this policy. It was well-intentioned to begin with. But these days, it makes no distinction between Amorrow's behaviour (criminal harassment) and editing the same page as someone who doesn't like you (not harassment). Often people are blocked for the latter but not the former. So I propose that this policy be improved by:

• Offering a clearer definition of harassment much nearer to the criminal definition (remember, harassment is a criminal offence, and like the Wikistalking proposal, we should not interchange criminality with minor annoyance).
• Vastly reducing the amount of blocks made for harassment so that only clear harassment is actioned upon. If there is any reasonable doubt that harassment has occurred, no block can be made.
• Harassment blocks, unless it is blatantly obvious to any observer, must be affirmed; by either the arbitration committee or the community.
• If it's a minor case of harassment, minor block. If it's criminal harassment, indefinite block. Not the other way around.
• Off-wiki inter-Wikimedian harassment is actionable. Again, the AC or the community will need to affirm any action.

Thoughts? Sceptre ^(talk) 17:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure we all agree that real-world harassment, such as making threatening phone calls, is unacceptable and even criminal in some places. The question here is more about what forms of activities within the community are unacceptable. From the beginning, personal attacks and incivility have been prohibited, though the exact definitions of those haven't been fixed. Harassment is an omnibus term that involves several categories of activities: following editors across wiki pages, divulging personal information, making threats, etc. It appears that Sceptre is suggesting that either some of those categories are entirely minor, or that some forms of them are minor. This proposal would be better if there was more specificity. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

My main problem is that accusing someone of harassment is very risky business. It's very defamatory if it's untrue, and the person accused would have a hard time trying to clear his name. With the current policy, this messy word has been used to accuse people who are trying to make points of something not far from a criminal offense. As an experienced Wikipedian, Will, I'm sure you've heard of the slang term "SlimVirgin harassment". What I'm trying to do is reduce this landmine of bad faith by reducing any harassment blocks to cases where it's beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm sorry if my writing's disorganised, but it's a Sunday evening :) Sceptre ^(talk) 23:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether "SlimVirgin harassment" refers to harassment of or by that user, so that doesn't help much. Could you give some examples of behavior that was labeled as harassment that shouldn't have been, in your opinion? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll explain the term in pieces. Being experienced, you know SlimVirgin has a tendency to complain a lot about people. Hell, the ArbCom reprimanded her for this in a recent case (I forget what it was, it's either C68-FM-SV or SV-Lar). The term specifically refers to her tendency to call some good-faith edits harassment.

As for specific examples... well, for one, I still don't believe the actions I got blocked for, while childish, don't really constitute actually harassment (and some people agree). Sceptre ^(talk) 01:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not following. Are you saying that SlimVirgin's comments/actions were properly viewed as harassment or not? Are the postings about her on WR or elsewhere on the internet harassment, or not? Regarding your own behavior, I'm sure you're not asking us to change a guideline based on what you think was improper handling of your own case. So again, please provide some specific examples of the types of behavior that have been called harassment that you don't think properly qualify, and that don't involve you. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying that, several instances SV has asserted to have been harassment were not really harassment. And that request has blown away my second example of poor application of this policy. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, you're not providing any specific examples. Do I need to explain the concept of diffs? Or quotations? I haven't seen any concrete evidence that will help editors know what it is that you're proposing. Please don't answer tonight as this is going nowhere. Take the time to assemble your evidence of what is, and isn't, harassment, and what changes you think should be made to this guideline. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Will here, and that does not happen often. Please clarify, as it stands now your proposal is incomprehensible. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to give a few examples here, Sceptre. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 02:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Very recent example, then: User talk:QuackGuru's recent block. From how I read DigitalC's talk page, QG was trying to solve a dispute and DC (if not QG as well) were being obstructive. Good faith actions should never be considered "harassment". DigitalC complained on ANI that it was harassment and QG got blocked. Unfortunately, this behaviour of quantifying an opponent's actions as "harassment" is all too common in FRINGE/Central Europe/Eastern Europe/Israel-Palestine/Armenia-Azerbaijan/Any-AC-restricted-area. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

There's still a lack of diffs or details here. I see that QuackGuru was blocked by a well-respected editor, User:Shell Kinney. Without a more detailed description of the purported error, I'd presume it is correct. I disagree with your assertion that Good faith actions should never be considered "harassment". Many people who have engaged in harassment probably thought they were doing it for the good of the project. We can assume good faith but we can't prove it. Behavior is what matters. The problem of editors in a conflict making false accusations isn't limited to this policy. We don't change WP:NPOV just because editors falsely accused each other of violating it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The difference between harassment and NPOV is that the former is a criminal offence. Yes, people act like prats for the good of the encyclopedia, but they don't harass for the good of the encyclopedia. Harassment, in itself, is an action of bad faith. And we assume good faith barring significant evidence otherwise, not assume bad faith and try to prove otherwise. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The logical conclusion of your view is that if I publish your personal information you should assume good faith and not regard it as harassment. That if I post a dozen notes on your talk page demanding an answer to an editing question you should assume good faith and not regard it as harassment. And that if I follow you from article to article undoing all of your edits that it's probably a good faith action. I don't see that as a wise change to this policy. We should assume good faith, but we should also respond to harmful actions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Adding IP address to WP:OUTING

Has there been any discussion about adding one's IP address to the list of personal information prohibited by WP:OUTING. In many cases, an IP address could help geo-locate a user, narrow a user down to a particular school or business, and, when compared to other edits, could indeed be identifiable information. EU regulators have gone so far as to state outright that an IP should be treated personal information. I suggest we consider adding it to WP:OUTING. (My asking this was prompted by this ANI thread, but I'm not looking for any specific or immediate remedy in that case). --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

While I think that not announcing a (usually) logged-in editor's IP address is in general a good rule of thumb, we should take care to note that there are situations where it is appropriate. (Where abusive sockpuppetry is taking place, for example.) An editor who logs out to engage in abusive conduct (or, in the alternative, who usually edits logged out but creates a bad-hand account for abuse) obviously shouldn't be sheltered by the provisions of this policy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

If I read the linked source correctly, one commissioner said that IP addresses should be viewed as private information, not that it is viewed that way. On Wikipedia there are only two ways that the IPs of editors can be known: because a checkuser request or because a user failed to log in. Checkuser information is covered by its own special privacy rules, and that doesn't appear to be a problem. Editors who edit while logged out are advertising their IP address. As TenOfAllTrades writes above, this type of information is used in dealing with abusive editors and even harassment. Any new language should acknowledge that information divulged by users is no longer private, and that includes IPs. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm of two minds here. Obviously information that a user has voluntarily posted here is no longer secret, but I'm not sure that it should always be treated as no longer private. Consider a hypothetical situation:

• Joe Blow signs up for a Wikipedia account. Being a naive innocent, he posts his name on his userpage and boasts that he is studying physics at Prestigious University.
• A few months later, Joe Blow realizes that there are cranks, wackos, and stalkers on the Internet. He removes the identifying information from his userpage.
• A few months after that, Joe Blow is editing our article on meerkats. Jane Smith disagrees with his edits, arguing over details of meerkat mating rituals. A heated dispute involving many editors ensues on the talk page. At one point, Jane says, "Well, Joe, I don't think your professors at Prestigious University would see things the same way, do you?"

In this (imaginary) situation, I'd say that despite Joe originally revealing the information himself, Jane would still be waaaay across the line of our policy. On the flip side, if Joe were adding lots of references to his supervisor's (or his own) academic papers to Wikipedia articles, or deleting legitimate criticism of the Prestigious University's physics department from PU's article, a reference to his status which identified his apparent conflict of interest could be appropriate.

Now, linking IP addresses to usernames is slightly different in at least some ways. An IP address is usually less specific than other identifiers; in many cases the most an IP can confirm would be that someone was editing from the UK, or the eastern United States. (Some IP addresses reveal do more, however: particular school boards or even individual schools, universities, specific employers, identifiable government offices.) On the other hand, it is also much easier to leak one's IP address. While it's very difficult to accidentally post your contact information on your userpage, it's quite straightforward to inadvertently edit while logged out — nearly-indelibly posting your IP in the article history.

Posting another editor's (putative) IP address is something that should only be done where there is a clear and specific need to respond to abuse. It shouldn't be done just for the hell of it, and it should never be used in an attempt to chill discussion, to gain leverage in a dispute, or to encourage harassment. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I also think the way an IP address is discovered/surmised/guessed matters. For example, I'm concerned that one editor to coerce another to visit an off-project website under the editor's control (perhaps linking to a site during an active discussion, attempting to align IP hits to that site with corresponding project activity), allowing a potentially accurate correlation between a user and an IP address. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is another way of obtaining an editor's IP address, and would count as a form of subterfuge. In that instance, the information is still private and posting by an editor would almost certainly be outing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Posting of personal information

This is an important section, and I suggest adding to it one's job, although I'm not sure of the best wording. It currently says "workplace address", but in my view that is not enough. If a Wikipedia editor is outed as, for the sake of argument, Google's Chief Engineer for World Domination, then it doesn't really matter if the name, ID number, car license plate, email address, etc. is given. Arguably, not even a specific job title but a general job role is also identifying information. If an editor is outed as a nurse, it doesn't matter so much, but if she is outed as a pediatric nurse at hospital XYZ, then it becomes quasi-personally identifying. Thoughts? BrainyBabe (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

outing question

So I used to have my name on my user page, and that was fine by me. Then another editor decided to use my name in edit comments, as a way of deriding me. I would like to prevent this in the future, and to that end, have de-published the mention of my name on my user page. I am not overly concerned with trying to keep my wikipedia activities unconnected to my real-life identity, but I would like to not have my name be a part of other editor's commentary. so WP:OUTING performs a useful function in that regard, even for people like me who are not overly concerned about secrecy of their wikipedia/real-name connection. So my question is, is my removal of my name from my own user page sufficient to achieve the result I want, which is simply for it to become once again prohibited for other users to make use of my real-world name in their comments. Tb (talk) 10:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You are currently harassing me and other editors. It is called WP:Hounding and you need to stop. This is not "deriding." You are violating Wikipedia's rules, and ordinary manners. Please stop following me around Wikipedia and reverting all my edits. This is an encyclopedia and as such it is open to constructive editors and not to people who wish to disrupt us (such as by [[WP:Hounding). Ad.minster (talk) 10:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

So, if this is true (which it is not), you have the right to out me? Tb (talk) 10:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You already outed yourself. And you continue to use your own initials, which don't exactly conceal anything. You outed yourself. You cannot unring a bell.

However, you can stop WP:Hounding me all over Wikipedia. You CAN stop deleting Wikipedia articles (which you list, showing that you plan to delete them again: [24]). Ad.minster (talk) 11:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the policy says that once I depublish my name from my user page, you are prohibited from mentioning it in user comments. I regret that your disrespect for me is to the level that you think you can score debating points by mangling my name when you know I would prefer you not use it at all. Tb (talk) 11:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Internet research to prove alleged POVs

Actually, I think this is an important point that doesn't seem to be covered in article. I use my real name and used to have link to my page but people would search around and find some opinion of mine and use it out of context (or claim I was "self-promoting"), so I took off my link. Now editors just google me, find some opinion, (usually take it out of context) and use it against me as proof of whatever. I've been calling this WP:Harassment but when looked at this article page now didn't see it as clearly described as outing as I thought it was. So I think both User:TB and I have issues here that need to be addressed. Thanks CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

That is a gray area. Without getting into any specific case, I would say that if the outside Wikipedia content is publicly available then it is not in itself a violation of privacy to bring that information here, particularly if that information is self published. That being said should this information be used to harass, identify someone who has not been identified on wiki, or to misrepresent then it would be very inappropriate. I am sure there are many other ways one could violate policy doing this, but I don't think it is an automatic no-no. I would love to hear the opinions of others on this subject. Chillum 14:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You express the issue very clearly and guidance on that in the article would be great! CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It may be time to re-examine Wikipedia's anonymity policy, in light of the rise of Facebook. Until Facebook, most bulletin board systems and social networks used anonymous handles. Facebook does not; it's based on real names and identities. Facebook is now the #1 social network (it passed Myspace in 2008). I think there's been a social change; the sheer amount of dreck and spam associated with unlimited anonymity has worn everyone down. The Facebook paradigm, that you really do have to identify yourself, seems to be on the way up. Wikipedia might want to get with the program. I'd argue, as a start, that privileged users (admins, oversight, etc.) should no longer be anonymous. --John Nagle (talk) 06:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Having just been reamed twice by an abusive admin for a minor oversight, I agree! CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Consequences

As this is a templated reason for blocking, I copied part of the "consequences" section of the NPA page here, editing appropriately. I thought this was on this page already, but perhaps someone edited it out. Editors who are pointed to this page should be made aware of the potential consequences of their actions. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:HA#NOT

What are peoples' thoughts for this policy including something about what is not harassment? This is, with no exaggeration, the most abused policy on Wikipedia. It started out with good intentions: to protect victims of genuine harassment. But it's being used by most editors to mean "someone disagrees with me!" Which belittles and cheapens the horror of genuine harassment. The exact reason why we renamed wikistalking to wikihounding. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I like what I see so far. The biggest wording issue I have is "a great amount of distress" which I feel is a bit too subjective. Basically everytime somebody abuses this policy they can just claim that it has caused them a great amount of distress, even if the claim is BS. I realise there can't be a matematical formula for what constitutes harrassment, but it should be a bit less subjective than it is currently. ThemFromSpace 20:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

This addition seems like basic sense to me. Chillum 20:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I was bold and fixed it. Anyone can claim a warning is "valid" while still making it for ulterior purposes. An arguably valid warning isn't enough if it was presented in a way to be harassing. Warnings should be worded civilly and try to resolve conflict instead of egging it on. Also, saying it's not harassment unless it causes a great amount of distress is really just bizarre. So someone harassing someone else but not being good enough at it to cause full on emotional anguish is A-OK? No, the intent to harass (or lacking intent originally but continuing just the same when it's pointed out that the target objects) is the problem. Whether the harassment works or not isn't the issue. DreamGuy (talk) 21:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Posting of personal information

I would like to point out that User:ChrisO, a wikipedia administrator, recently attempted to change the wording of this policy [25]. He is currently involved in an arbitration case for issues of misconduct and abuse of administrative rights [26]. People have indicated that some of his edits might constitute or be bordering WP:OUTING [27], so editing the very policy he is accused of violating could be seen as gaming the system: "Editing a policy to support your own argument in an active discussion may be seen as gaming the system, especially if you do not disclose your involvement in the argument when making the edits." [28]. It goes without saying that I oppose his change. --Radjenef (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

New option

There is a new option under Special:Preferences that says Reveal my e-mail address in notification e-mails. Do we need to add a note somewhere letting people know that if they click that, other people can see their email, or is it self evident? MBisanz ^talk 16:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

My first question would be to ask what a notification email is, and where the sending of such notifications is logged. Risker (talk) 17:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I presume it has something to do with E-mail me when my user talk page is changed, maybe the email address of the person who changed the page? Maybe we need to flag down a dev to find out. MBisanz ^talk 18:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, of course. I have the "notify me when a page on my watchlist is changed" feature ticked off on meta, and you are right, it does include the email address of the person who changed the page if it is available. I think the page needs to be changed to say "include my email address when other people are notified" or words to that effect. Risker (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Done at MediaWiki:Tog-enotifrevealaddr. MBisanz ^talk 03:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:OUTING, a suggestion

I think the "Posting of personal information" section needs some clarification. Does a very trivial Google search (not a sophisticated one) based on the information provided on one's userpage constitute "Posting of personal information"? For instance if I say on my userpage that "I am Mr.X living in Y", and someone googles my name and very easily finds out the university I go to, would that constitute OUTING or "Posting of personal information"? I don't think so. Of course, one may use this information (or those on the userpage) in an ironic manner to harass another editor, but this is not WP:OUTING. It is another type of harassment, which goes beyond a simple "Posting of personal information" that the particular subsection describes. I would like to clarify the text if there is no objection. --DoostdarWKP (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I can't agree with your suggestion. It leads to a slippery slope whereby a lot of personal information could be revealed. Where exactly would you draw the line? Would the information obtained by googling a person's username be allowed? What about their favourite quotation or the name of their cat? What about false positives? Also, don't forget that the information that can be obtained via google search is very volatile. People might pull down pages that contain personal information, so what appears on google today is not necessarily what will appear there tomorrow. --Radjenef (talk) 23:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It is a good question. I would draw the line based on a user's intention in posting some material. If one writes a favourite quotation, its purpose is not clearly to reveal his/her own identity. On the other hand, if one writes "I am Mr.X living in Y", he is actually revealing his identity. And like other policies, it is a matter of common sense. Googling favourite quotation, name of a cat, etc would constitute a sophisticated Google search. On the other hand, if I say on my userpage that "I am Mr.X living in Y", a trivial Google search may provide the name of my university for instance. I think such an addition is necessary because I have witnessed a case where a user got a one month block for doing such a trivial google. While preserving the identity of users is very very important, the policy should be very clear; especially given the average length of the blocks imposed in the false positive cases. In sum, I believe the OUTING policy is meant to protect individuals who want their identity remain confidential; not for those who publicly announce their identity. And this is the principle that should be taken in consideration in drawing the line between a trivial google search, and a sophisticated one.

Regarding the second part of your reply: "... the information that can be obtained via google search is very volatile..." Well, people can remove their information from Wiki as well, or ask for their userpage to be deleted. I think the two cases are similar.--DoostdarWKP (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the first question to ask is why it would matter if the editor goes to University Z, to follow the example above. If the name of the university is relevant then the simplest thing would be to ask the user: "Hey, I see you live in Y - do you attend Z?" The main situation in wihch off-wiki information is relevant is if there's a concern about a COI. It might be better to address the behavior instead: "Say, you seem to be advocating for the University team in a non-neutral way. Please remember to make all of your edits NPOV, and to avoid adding unsourced derogatory comments about the rival teams."   Will Beback  talk  00:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I completely agree with you. To simply say that "Hey, Mr X. Since you attend Z,..." (here Z is retrieved by doing a trivial google search on the info provided by the user, i.e. full name, occupation, major, etc) in itself is not in disclosing personal information that warrants a one-month block. Sure, if one says "you attend Z" in an ironic way, it may be harassment because of it being ironic (and not because it is OUTING). And probably it doesn't call for a very long block (as is usual with WP:OUTING cases). All I ask is an addition to the policy that helps us avoiding such false punishments. --DoostdarWKP (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What's more: In my home wiki, if one argues against such blocks by simply saying that "doing a simple google search on full name, occupation, major of that user, one can get the name of the university" without actually naming the university, the diff gets deleted because it is providing an algorithm for finding personal information!! The reason that I am here is that I am not allowed to have such basic discussions in my home wiki (the diffs get deleted). Can you please clarify the policy so that it doesn't allow such interpretations. --DoostdarWKP (talk) 01:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we entirely agree. If the user hasn't said they attend Z, and if that knowledge is based on outside research, then it'd still be outing. What I proposed is asking the person if they attend, which is another matter. They are free to ignore the question if they choose, and by doing so they neither confirm nor deny the potentially personal information.   Will Beback  talk  01:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

So, if someone says his full name and his major, and the top google hit for "name+major" for instance gives you the name of the university, and in wiki someone writes: "Since you attend Z,..." would you consider blocking the person for a month for OUTING, appropriate? --DoostdarWKP (talk) 01:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the specific remedy warranted in such a case. If you want to discuss a specific case then it'd help if you link to it.   Will Beback  talk  01:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but unfortunately a detailed investigation in that specific case is not possible because the details are all in Farsi. If we can however recognize existence of extreme cases where WP:OUTING doesn't really apply, that would be great. A sentence answering the question of "why WP:OUTING doesn't apply here?" would be great, but even simply saying that there are extreme examples (like the one I mentioned that really happened) where the policy should not be interpreted so literally that demands a long-term block (even if we do not get to the specifics and leave the decision to the admin).--DoostdarWKP (talk) 02:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

If this happened on Farsi Wikipedia then that's up to them. But broadly speaking, the nebulous issue of intent is an important factor. If somebody is trying to use personal information in an attempt to gain the upper hand in an edit dispute, then that would may deserve remedy. ("Everyone knows that University of Z graduates, like yourself, are just rich idiots.") OTOH, if someone merely mentions a possible affiliation in passing then that's negligible. ("Did you go to UZ too?! What a rad school, dude!"). Much of this depends on context and so I hesitiate to endorse any changes without clear need or proposals.   Will Beback  talk  08:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Protection of privacy should come first, so I would go one step further. I would outright reject any notion of discussing any personal information, especially if imported from Google. Imported information can be an unsettling experience for the target. Because people are not stupid. They know that someone is using google to find out things about them. This can be unsettling, especially if discussed in Wikipedia. The whole ethics question of this approach is questionable. Dr.K. logos 17:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What if a google search on a person's self-identified name were to give more than one person with the same name (i.e. if the person's name is "John Smith"). Would a person be allowed to pick one of those real-life people and attempt to link them to the editor? Also, you didn't answer my question about usernames; would we allow people to post the results of googling a person's username? Finally, suppose I self identify as "Mr X" and someone googles "Mr X" to find out a website where my home address is listed. If a user posts a message saying "Mr X's address is 1 Wikipedia street", then I can no longer hide my address by pulling down that website. I'd have to ask that the message be oversighted, which in some cases would be too hard or next to impossible (i.e. if there have been many subsequent posts). --Radjenef (talk) 01:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Good questions. "What if a google search on a person's self-identified name were to give more than one person with the same name": If the person does not provide more information (like his major, occupation, etc), the person has not provided sufficient information to be identified. This is very similar to the case in which a person just tells his name but not family name. The information provided is not sufficient to uniquely identify him. So, yes, we must explicitly mention that we are only talking about scenarios in which the user has provided sufficient information to be uniquely and very easily identified (and this is what I meant by saying that such restrictions are not for those who publicly announce their identity, but for those who may want to remain ambiguous (or partially ambiguous) about their identity).

If a person's username is a real name: e.g. "John Smith", then the person has chosen it intentionally to reveal his identity to some extent. Otherwise, if the username is "Blue Laptop", it shouldn't be used in a search, because the user didn't mean to reveal his identity with this choice of username.

Regarding your last question, I think it is possible to ask an admin to remove the diff, just as it is possible to bring the website down. Of course, posting one's address can be easily identified as a typical harassment, if not as an OUTING. So, I am not saying that we would like to have only one policy on OUTING and nothing else. Policies can compliment each other.

Lastly, please also think about users who may get long blocks for what is really not a WP:OUTING case, false punishments! That is the other side of the coin if we go too far with this without making enough clarifications. --DoostdarWKP (talk) 02:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Using Google in any capacity, advanced, sophisticated or unsophisticated search etc., to synthesize information and import it to Wikipedia is not to be condoned, especially if the user has not revealed this information in Wikipedia. Importing any non-locally disclosed information should be considered an attempt at outing. People reveal as much information as they feel comfortable with. Researching and sunthesizing facts no matter how easily obtainable in Google will quickly lead to a very slippery slope. Dr.K. logos 03:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

WT:Policies_and_guidelines#Subcats

Discussion about policy subcategories for several pages, including this one. As far as I know, this doesn't make any difference, except as a help to people trying to browse policy. - Dank (push to talk) 03:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Renaming this page to avoid problems with the real concept of harassment

In video game lingo, "griefing" is a term used for players who annoy and disturb other players. How about moving the page to Wikipedia:Griefing? Ciarlone (talk) 21:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd draw the line at using euphemisms such as that, because examples of wiki-harassment can be equatable to real harassment. Not all, but some, c.f. User:Amorrow. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Griefing already exists. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 17:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Continued Harassment in AFDs

A previously indefinitely blocked editor has been following another editor around to AFDs for several months. Calling him names in the AFD like troll, which has been reverted by a friendly admin when this personal attack has been removed.

Unfortunately the editors who are supposed to stop this abuse, the previously indefinitely blocked editor has done a lot of work for them, so they look the other way. This emboldens the editor, making him harass/stalk this editor even more. It has gotten to the point that the majority of the AFDs that this editor has gone to the previously indefinitely blocked editor follows.

RfC seems out of the question, because of the drama that it will cause and the attacks that this editor will have to endure. ANI has not worked for the same reason.

Writing this, I think I found my solution: compile the evidence, and give it to a uninvolved admin to sternly warn this previously indefinitely blocked editor that if it continues he will be blocked.

What do you all think? What other options do I have? Ikip (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you should consider an RfC/U, actually. Get the issues out on the table, presented as neutrally as you possibly can, and get them dealt with. (I know who you are referring to in the above, and I guess I'm one of those you think is looking the other way). The thing about an RfC/U is, of course, that sometimes the issues aren't completely always what one thinks they are. In this particular situation it is my view that there are multiple parties who need to change approaches, not just one. ++Lar: t/c 16:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the suggestion lar, anyone else? Ikip (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

An RfC/U may be premature if there has been little dispute resolution attempts before. I think your solution is on the write track: compile the evidence and take it to ANI. --Ronz (talk) 17:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:OUTING

Several editors have alleged that one editor has pages about themselves on main space. These editors continue to say that this editor is the editor in the main space pages.

The only case I am aware of similar to this is another editor, who changed his username, and everyone no longer can call him by his name, etc, and he continues to edit pages within his sphere of work. It appears like he has some strong admins which support him. Absent strong admins buddies, what can I do?

Can't these edits be removed immediately and reported to WP:Oversight? I see this is not a 3rr exception. Wikipedia:3rr#Exceptions_to_3RR.

How does WP:COI fall into all this? Ikip (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I only take situations to WP:COIN where there is very clear evidence of a conflict of interest (e.g. the editor has admitted to being a specific individual that has a clear coi, the editor has used an ip address from a company with a clear coi). --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiBullying

The essay Wikipedia:WikiBullying needs to be improved and expanded. --Atomic blunder (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Bullying

The section just added Wikipedia:Harassment#Bullying seems to go too far. The evaulation of whether something is a warning or a threat as well as the evaluation of whether a block is unjustified are far too subjective, and far too easy to game. Admins can, and should, give warnings about behavior. Nine times out of ten, the person warned is going to see the warning as "unjustified" and is going to reply unhelpfully (it takes a big person to realise they erred, for a more typical example encounter, see [29] :) ). If the matter is taken to AN/I and the warning or block endorsed, that's that. If it isn't, this page's statements aren't going to help. That's not to see that there isn't misuse of tools by admins, up to and including harassment of folk, which needs attention. Just that I don't see this section as helpful. ++Lar: t/c 13:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how long the Threats section has been in the policy but it was very similar in August 2008, over a year ago: [30]. Wikipedia has dispute resolution processes to resolve disputes over whether something is justified. --Atomic blunder (talk) 14:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I am referring to your changes: [31] ... not to how the page was in August 2008. You've reorganised some material and added a whole new section on "bullying". As I said, I think you're incorrectly positioning admin warnings and other legitimate admin actions as bullying when they usually are nothing of the sort. As for " Wikipedia has dispute resolution processes to resolve disputes over whether something is justified" ... um... this is the starting place to discuss these changes, so I'm not sure what you're driving at. If you can't show a consensus for the changes then they may well be changed back because I think they're distortive. ++Lar: t/c 16:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I reworded it and removed the word "justified" and "unjustified". --Atomic blunder (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm dubious, the whole section seems off kilter somehow, and a minor tweak may not be enough to fix it. ++Lar: t/c 19:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You're not going to correct harassment/bullying if you don't address it publicly. --Atomic blunder (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:OUTING and a new RFC

moved from WP:ANI

“ "Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted one's own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia oneself. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Wikipedia. This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors. It also applies in the case of an editor who has requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found. Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for Oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently." ”

Over the past few years I have seen WP:OUTING being unevenly applied. For example, a certain editor I talked with a few months ago, no one can mention his old name. In other cases, editors regularly out other editors with no repercussions.

Take for example [32] posted today. A Nobody has repeatedly asked editors to stop calling him by his previous user name. There was some real world harassment when he used this name, which DGG is aware of, and which I am sure that A Nobody can share with other admins on request.

Protonk, one of the 3 authors of this RFC wrote: "The WP:Right to vanish thing isn't too important. It plays a role in the RfC insofar as it marks the watershed of past bad behavior, but the purpose of this RfC is not to rap his knuckles about that issue." [33]

I requested that the creators of this RFC to remove this section.[34]

Protonk, responded, saying

"Why we chose not to is explained in the RfC. I'm prepared to have a discussion about this, but the cat is out of the proverbial bag."[35]

I asked Protonk to give me the "the cat is out of the proverbial bag." policy. i.e. you can out someone when everyone knows their old name.

I think in the previous case, like many cases here, this editor has powerful friends, like an arbcom member to enforce his OUTING concerns, A Nobody doesn't so the outing continues.

I just removed this section, and I would like editors comments on this.[36] Ikip (talk) 02:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted. OUTING applies to real-world consequences, not a change of an online handle. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that may need to be clarified. How can this be dealt with: "It also applies in the case of an editor who has requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found." I have posted a notice about this on WP:OUTING and have contacted two arbcoms with Oversight ability who have special knowledge about these two cases I mention above. Ikip (talk) 02:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

"An editor who has requested a change in username"—did A Nobody request a username change (keeping all the old edits under the new name), or is it just a new account? Evil saltine (talk) 02:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Are we planning on notifying affected parties? Protonk (talk) 02:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• It seems silly to suggest that "outing" a user's previous handle is WP:OUTING, particularly when 1) the previous username contains no personal information, 2) it's common knowledge and 3) the user retains so many - I'll go for individual as a polite way of saying it - character traits that anyone vaguely familiar with the old account would be able to identify the new one. Ironholds (talk) 03:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Not commenting on the specifics of this case, but I think the need to have a discussion about agreed norms concerning outing is clear, as illustrated by the recent disagreement surrounding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Pusspuss (2nd nomination) and related pages.  Skomorokh  03:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

One point I should make. Once the RfC is closed, it can be courtesy blanked. As I noted on the RfC and the RfC talk page the reason the old username is used is to eliminate confusion and offer a clear delineation of actions. Once it is no longer needed then the rationale for showing it disappears. I am also willing to {{hat}} it if there is consensus to do so on the RfC talk page. Protonk (talk) 03:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The explanation is here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/A_Nobody#Description and the response to the original concerns are Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/A_Nobody#WP:OUTING there. Protonk (talk) 03:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You can't out what's public. The other account is here and links to A Nobody's page [37]. It did not vanish. NVO (talk) 04:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This edit by A Nobody makes it pretty clear this account wasn't a secret. AniMate^draw 05:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course you can out what’s public. Nearly always, outing involves merely pointing to information already in the public domain. If any editor wishes to remain anonymous, we should all be reasonable in respecting that wish, regardless of past releases of information. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this policy routinely and regularly breached as a manner of standard practice? Everytime someone comments on a spammy article or the like and say "it's clear that user:wooza is Joe Blo, the subject of the article". --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's a recent example of exactly that, which at once admonishes editors for attaching information to Benjiboi and then proceeds to out another. Adding the suggestion that editors are associating Benjiboi with two named individuals is a bonus red herring outing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• WP:OUTING: "Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted one's own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia oneself." - I think that if we're considering account names "personal information", this edit counts as self-outing, and it doesn't apply. Note that this isn't pulling together behavioural traits or anything - A Nobody actively says that he's The Account That Must Not Be Named For Fear Of Dramah. Ironholds (talk)

That's a very bizarre example, people who are worried about real world harassment vanish - they don't run a renamed account, carry on acting in the same way as they did previously and interacting with the same people who knew who they were before. That would be akin to someone standing in the town square shouting "don't look at me, don't look at me" via a megaphone and then complaining to the police that people are staring at them. I can't take that seriously as a sensible example of the sort of cases this policy applies to. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this policy routinely and regularly breached as a manner of standard practice?

yes, like most behavioral policies, this one is selectively enforced and only vigorously enforced if you have powerful friends, otherwise the commuity heckles you and tells you to fuck off, in passive agressive wikispeak of course.

people who are worried about real world harassment vanish - they don't run a renamed account, carry on acting in the same way as they did previously and interacting with the same people who knew who they were before.

Actually, some editors do exactly what you say Mr. Scott. One example that I am aware of is an editor involved with Arbator Cool Hand Luke.

This example makes this statement moot:

"Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted one's own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia oneself."

Ikip (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

But a Wikipedia user name, unless it is one's real name, contains no personal information whatsoever. On changing username an editor in good standing can either make a complete fresh start with a new handle or be renamed, in which case the edit history and block log follow them to the new name, and by default the old name's userpages redirect to the new name. You know this, Ikip. Anyone concerned with privacy issues should not choose this option, and should not be surprised that their old username(s) are not secret.  pablo_hablo. 22:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

further additions to WP:OUTING

I suggest adding: sexual orientation, religious belief and political affiliation (read "or lack of" in each case). — Alan^✉ 14:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Indirect OUTING

An interpretation question:
Is it still OUTING when no personal information is directly revealed, but specific Google search terms are given that directly lead to finding the personal information? Manning (talk) 01:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding one section

Please see WT:NLT#Moving one section. - Dank (push to talk) 21:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Enforcement cat?

Reading over the enforcement policy pages WP:VANDAL, WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN, I'm seeing more overlap with this page than overlap from WP:CIVILITY. We're having an RfC at the Village Pump on what sidebars to put on policy pages, and I think that makes it more important to put things in the right subcats, so that readers will be encouraged to contrast and compare pages within the same policy subcat. Are there any objections to moving this page to the enforcement cat? I'm about to start a related discussion at WP:NPA. The main point is that, with the exception of WP:HARASS#Dealing with harassment (which could perhaps be merged with WP:CIVIL#Dealing with incivility), everything this page discusses is block- or ban-worthy. - Dank (push to talk) 17:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Related policy proposal - incivility blocks

In case anyone is interested, I've kicked off discussion about an idea I've had about incivility blocks. Currently it's hard to get a consistent blocking policy in terms of warnings and blocking times, I'm hoping that this proposal can get some traction to make this more clear. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Revenge AfDs as a form of Hounding

I have just seen this (see 1st comment) and am aware of other instances where this has happened to me. We really should find a way of doing something about this kind of behaviour. NBeale (talk) 07:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

What to do about an unambiguous legal threat?

An editor has posted a legal threat on my talk page. I sent him a warning but other than that I am not certain where to take this. If this person proceeds with this I will walk away from Wikipedia completely as this is not worth it. The issue at hand is the user attempting to insert himself into various articles including Gene Clark. Although there is some evidence that he was a session musician for Clark in 1968, beyond that I am uncertain about his notability as there are few reliable sources. I have only dealt with the Clark article although he has inserted himself into a number of others as well. I haven't edited the Clark article since Aug. 2009 and the editor's name still does appear in the article, so I'm not certain what his issue is. In any case, I would like to either take this to the proper channels or ignore it completely but I'm not certain where to take this. freshacconci talktalk 17:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Is connecting the dots a form of outing?

Is connecting personally identifiable informations that already publicly available on and off-wiki to identify a person a form of outing? PII can be a simple username. Sole Soul (talk) 11:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I dunno. The whole "outing" policy is kinda dumb, in a way. In practice, hardly anyone is going to connect the dots; most outing occurs when someone makes an ill-advised decision to reveal their personal information and then decides later they want it redacted, in which case, it's their own fault that they got outed. Tisane (talk) 16:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, definitely: if editor X posts any information that connects any dots regarding editor Y, that is outing and X should be immediately blocked. The outing policy is not dumb: it is essential to avoid nasty battles and real-world damage. Johnuniq (talk) 00:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Theoretically. But if someone wanted to, for instance, start a website devoted to revealing the true identities of Wikipedia editors, and allow users to post the results of their detective work connecting the dots in reference to various users, we could do nothing to suppress the information, and anyone who wanted to google that user could find it. So really, all we are doing is preventing users from talking about one another's identities on Wikipedia. Thus, the second point you raise about avoiding real-world damage is rendered less persuasive. As to avoiding nasty battles, well, you have a point there. Tisane (talk) 01:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Shortcut

Am I the only one who finds it odd that the shortcuts leading here include HA and HAR - also known as onomatopoeia for laughter? Just sayin.--Tznkai (talk) 22:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Erm, I know what you mean, but it's not particularly amusing... WackyWace ^{talk to me, people} 14:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Organized Wikistalking/Wikiharassment

I would like to draw your attention to a wikiharassment tactic that is not a problem (so far as you know) yet; organized wikistalking/wikiharassment.

Drawing parallels with the non-wiki phenomenon which Wikipedia refuses to acknowledge the existence of, organized wikiharassment would be wikiharassment performed by a large group of people, such that no one person appears to be engaged in wikiharassing behavior. So a large group of people would take turns vandalizing the edits of a single user, for example.

Do you think this is a problem, or might be a problem in the future? How would you deal with it?Jeremystalked (talk) 03:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Threats of outing

This is currently not covered under WP:OUTING - threats to "out" another editor, such as this edit. I've warned that editor not to repeat such threats or they will be blocked. Are such threats generally treated the same way as the offence itself? The section needs a slight reword to make it clear that threatening to out an editor is also unacceptable. Mjroots (talk) 05:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Now that is an oversight! There is not even a mention in WP:NPA that threatening outing is prohibited. I'm confident that many admins would readily block an editor who (after a warning) made a second threat. In general, we should not try to list every dumb idea, but we should spell out that implying personal information may be revealed is a very serious threat. I guess it may not quite fit WP:HARASS, but it definitely is an attack breaching WP:NPA. I also don't like the "uninvited invasion of privacy" wording at WP:OUTING because the "uninvited" may suggest that outing is ok if the target said anything that could be interpreted as an "invitation". I might try some new wording later. Johnuniq (talk) 07:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI notified so that other admins may contribute. Mjroots (talk) 09:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

In my personal opinion, threatening to out someone is harrassment, plain and simple. It can be used to bully and suppress other editors, thus we should not tolerate it, it isn't the sort of editing environment we want for the project. I support any rewording to make that clear here, as it does strike me to be an oversight in the original wording. --Taelus (talk) 09:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed addition to text "Threats to out an editor will be treated as a personal attack and dealt with accordingly." Mjroots (talk) 09:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been bold and added threats to out an editor to WP:NPA. Mjroots (talk) 09:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I'm going to be bolder and add the proposed text to WP:OUTING too. Mjroots (talk) 09:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I support these changes as well. Silverseren^C 09:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I don't like this policy defining what is oversightable, as that is defined by WP:OVERSIGHT which is backed by meta:Oversight, etc. This policy page can not add new criteria which are not clearly within those enumerated at WP:OVERSIGHT. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 17:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

How did that ANI conclude? The edit in question has not yet been suppressed. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 17:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Relationship Status

The relationship status of a couple of editors has come up in a couple recent ANI threads. There has been some concern about outing, and I think it would be helpful if this was clarified in the policy essay. Assuming that this information was not provided on wikipedia, if someone discovered that one user was married to another user, would that information be considered Personal Information for the purposes of outing? If so, could this be explicitly added to WP:OUTING? If not, could this be clarified in some way in the essay? aprock (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course it is a form of outing, but it is already covered by the "personal information". We should not try to specify every form of harassment, partly because of WP:BURO and WP:BEANS, but mainly because there will always be some new way to reveal personal info on another editor. However, in the case you are probably thinking of, at least one user did self-identify to a large extent (I have not looked at the details, but I don't think any "connecting the dots" was done), and it was a pretty blatant case of user X robustly supporting user Y in an ANI discussion, where the two had a close relationship in RL. I'm not saying it was ok (I have not examined the issue), but it was not a clear one-side-is-wrong case, and there were plenty of admins who could have followed up if they thought it appropriate. That's why we don't try to spell out what behavior is acceptable and what is not (it's the principles that should be followed). Johnuniq (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that being overly specific is a problem. That's part of the issue. Right now, the WP:OUTING section only discusses personal information in terms of contact information. Broadening that description to include more general personal information would make sense if discussion of relationship status (or sexual orientation, race, sex, height, religion, political inclination, etc...) is considered outing when introduced by another editor. aprock (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Semi-self disclosed

Out of curiosity, if a contributor edits an organization article under a "real name" registered identity and an individual with that same name is on the organization's employee roster, is it outing to note that? What if phrased simply to mark upon the coincidence without drawing conclusions? It seems by the letter of the law that it would be so (can't reveal job titles and work organisation), but I rather wonder if it's against the spirit if there seems to be no effort whatsoever to avoid self-disclosure. (Cannot supply a diff, because it didn't happen. Well, rather, I'm sure it has happened. But not that I'm aware of. :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious too, because I am aware of a particular instance of this where I ran into COI and copyright issues. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That sounds roughly like the events that led up to Wikipedia_talk:COIN#Yet_more_COI_vs_OUTING. I can provide more detail via email. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 17:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

What's the rationale behind protect users who changed their name?

Under posting personal informationm, it includes: "It also applies in the case of an editor who has requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found." Why is this protected? This seems easy to abuse, where the new user could agree with his old comments, especially e.g. regarding policy, style guides, etc. which often refer back to older material and precedent. Was stalking the main issue? Argel1200 (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

COI and Outing

What's the proper procedure to raise the issue of possible Conflict of Interest of a user without Outing them in anyway, since a particular user may edit under a pseudonym? Just wandering.radek (talk) 00:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid to say that there is little that can be done. If the editor is making POV edits then address that issue directly.   Will Beback  talk  00:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, it's more of a question of notability and undue weight.radek (talk) 00:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If there's an article that seems non-notable, then that can be addressed with a request to show proof of notability, and if that seems insufficient then AFD would be the ultimate arbiter. If you suspect COI then you might remind the user about the guidelines for participating in editing and in AFD discussions. As for weight within an article, that's covered by WP:NPOV#Due and undue weight. Issues and POVs should be included with weight proportionate to their prominence. Depending on their relationship to the topic, COI editors may with to either minimize the negative and accentuate the positive, or the opposite. Whichever it is, COI editors typically find it difficult to respect NPOV, so it's best to focus on that rather than the COI itself. COI editor also typically have unverifiable inside information, and that shouldn't be allowed in an article without proper sources.   Will Beback  talk  01:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Good advice, thank you. For sake of privacy I'm going to leave this alone for now anyway.radek (talk) 01:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Banned harrassers

I appreciate that this is a bean-sy comment, but the horse has already bolted on that front. This page makes no mention of what happens to banned users engaging in harrassment. --WFC-- 05:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis of user nationalities (or other personal data)

During the discussion of a proposed move of Talk:Plymouth, one user has added up what they believe are the nationalities of contributors (it is unclear on what basis this has been done) and posted these numbers, this has then been used as a factual statement by others in the discussion. Is there any established consensus on how far we can go with synthesizing user pages? I have highlighted this as a possible breach of WP:PRIVACY, on the basis that this highlights minority nationalities, puts pressure on users to declare their nationality or constrain discussion contribution based on nationality. I have drawn a parallel with how limiting discussion to contributions from users based on race or nationality would be unacceptable and counting !votes in this way may result in the same type of marginalization. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 12:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Accusing others

I added a section [38] on accusing others of harassment, adapted from WP:AOBF. Rd232 ^talk 02:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe add also that this kind of dispute about who is harassing who the most should be brought to - which forum?? Sometimes it's in mind of beholder, sometimes accusation wildly exaggerated or even false to draw attention from other issues. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiScanner and WP:OUTING

When does posting results from WikiScanner conflict with WP:OUTING?

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

An issue with Wikiscanner is that it simply presents correlations, and has many false positives. However, when it's working best it can provide clear evidence connecting an account with an IP. A classic example would be someone posting on a talk page while logged out, then logging in to sign. It is not outing to point to such self-identifications.   Will Beback  talk  00:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Exposing off-wiki former editors harassing off-wiki?

I can see we don't get a lot of responses here on these questions. Is there a better forum? After all, how can one get in trouble if one asked and never got an answer?? :-)

Anyway, what if a possible former editor (a banned user, an AnonIP, someone who edited briefly with a user name, someone who claimed to have quit but may have legitimately changed user names because they edited under their real name and are well known, or sockpuppets of any of the above) is harassing you anonymously "off wiki" through various nasty blogs, etc. Is it illegitimate to use evidence from their history of editing or editing comments here as (a small) part of the "off wikipedia" evidence they are now harassing an editor "off wikipedia" and/or smearing other people, etc.? CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Carolmooredc,

(I'm monitoring this page because I am waiting for an answer to Wikipedia talk:Harassment#WikiScanner and WP:OUTING so my answer to your question is definitely not official.)

The following section from Wikipedia:Harassment#Dealing with harassment is applicable:

In serious cases or where privacy and off-wiki aspects are an issue (eg, where private personal information is a part of the issue, or on-wiki issues spread to email and 'real world' harassment, or similar), you can contact the Arbitration Committee or the volunteer response team by email, in confidence.

Definitely do not post on Wikipedia the former editor's private personal information: Doing so has left an editor I know being blocked and revisions of user and user talk pages being oversighted.

Here is an alternate question: If I send an email to the WP:VRT, may I post the fact on WP:ANI? Especially if I do not include any private personal information in my post?

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you either contact the AbrCom per e-mail, or if you want, an admin you trust by e-mail. Because I expect that it depends a lot about the details. I gather that we are here working at the intersection between someone who has been banned at wikipedia for obvious reasons who has taken that fight off wiki. That is a rather different situation from when someone is editing wikipedia and is outed by someone who wants to make a political point. I therefore would need to know the details before I can say something sensible to this. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for comment. I've noticed a couple other people with the same off wiki harassment problem just in the last couple days on the Gender Gap email list, so I actually feel better now knowing I'm not only one with this kind of problem!

Anyway, to provide relevant info on something that probably isn't that odd ball a case: this is someone who had been using their real name, which was well known in areas he edited in, who quit almost two years ago. I haven't seen evidence of someone with similar modus operandi editing his favorite articles, but it there's still a possibility he's under a new name, wiki-legally or illegally.

Obviously, it's wikilegal and sufficient to say that the person is familiar with wiki policies and histories of articles I'm being attacked for.

So maybe I should ask in the future, if he was exposed through outside evidence as the anonymous blogger attacking me now, whether it would matter if I mentioned publiclly, "oh, and he also quit editing wikipedia in the middle of a debate with me on his WP:COI." CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Lets see, some thoughts and more questions. He edited wikipedia under his own name (not anonymous), so using that info is fine. That is not outing, that is sharing public information. It would be a different story if he edited anonymously and accidentally disclosed who he was and use that to out him. Now, he is anonymously attacking you via his blog. How do you know it is him? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

He's one of several suspects who recently moved to top three with some new evidence off-wiki showing up, but I figured as long as I was wondering and it seemed a topic of discussion here, I'd ask. Otherwise, I'll leave it for now.

Of course, part of your response reminded me I got distracted by others' discussions and haven't even gotten around to asking my original question in coming to this page, something I think needs clarifying in the text. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Meanwhile, back in the jungle, in a now 1 hour old blog attack, the attacker actually mentioned for the first time this former Wiki editor in his role as "expert" as if he was an uninvolved party, maybe covering his tracks, as he obsessively watches my various wiki entries. Get a life!! This Independent article related to the NY Times Wikipedia article series does make one have to laugh about it all! My more important question soon... CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for "Posting_of_personal_information" section

This is sort of a question in form of a proposal. KimVdLine, who also uses her real name, wrote: "He edited wikipedia under his own name (not anonymous), so using that info is fine. That is not outing, that is sharing public information." The question is, for those volunteer (not paid or professional) editors who either naively or consciously use their real name (whether or not they post any off wiki links to themselves at any time past or present): Can people then just do a bunch of "opposition research" on them to harass them about any edit they don't like in an article, as an excuse to start screaming "POV" or some other policy violation (besides obvious WP:COI) about it. It's happened to me with a few obnoxious people on particularly controversial articles, but it really is annoying. And it has been considered either irrelevant or harassment by other users, even at WP:ANIs, yet no one is ever sanctioned for it.

I would propose a short second paragraph to this section that bounces off the first sentence of the section which reads: Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. It would read something like:

The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for "opposition research." Dredging up their off line opinions to be used to constantly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be. However, once individuals have identified themselves, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest in appropriate forums.

Thoughts? CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

This seems like a logical addition. All WP editors have biases, but those biases don't inevitably mean they are not editing in a neutral manner. It's a bit unfair for someone with an undisclosed identity to attack another editor about their past. That said, it's important to exclude actual COIs from this, as the proposal does. It's very different to say "User:JDoe wrote a letter to the editor 8 years ago on this topic" as opposed to "User:JDoe worked as a lobbyist related to this topic".   Will Beback  talk  04:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

What about situations where editors don't use their real-world names here but have accounts elsewhere with the same username where publicly-viewable pages reveal personal information relevant to assessing an alleged conflict of interest? Daniel Case (talk) 16:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that goes more into the Outing vs. COI section of WP:COI - unless it actually also turns into a harassment situation on wikipedia. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

That would be fine, except for the fact that there's currently no such section at COI, nor does the word even appear in the text. Is there somewhere else you might have meant? Daniel Case (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, guess I was thinking about this article. I think technically this would actually be under Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not. However, offenders probably would argue that the user name gave it away, so it doesn't count. The counter argument being if someone with username JSmith666 edited a lot on motor cycles and satanism and someone put together that was John Smith the infamous satanist motorcyclist, they would be guilty of outing. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I have always felt that people should be warned about this sort of thing if they want protect their privacy better. You'd be surprised how many people just use their login from work or somewhere, and it can be linked to them in the Google hits via a directory or mailing list archive.

What's the current policy regarding outing in the context of an SPI or COI allegation? (as a not-disinterested party at the moment) Daniel Case (talk) 05:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The place to put you first proposal is Wikipedia:Username_policy where I just added that using your real name could lead to harassment on and off wiki. Relevant discussion could continue under Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy#Need_more_warnings_on_using_real_names. I think it's a good point since user:professorbigblueturtle and "professorbigblueturtle@mit.edu" or whatever would be easy enough to trace. (I googled to make sure someone not using that now!)

You'll have to read outing here and at WP:SPI. It can get tricky. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It sure can. There's nothing at SPI either. Daniel Case (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Who can remember where one read what and when - since things go in and out of policy. And then there's discussions on talk pages that never quite make it into policy. For example, it seems to me that because of privacy of email you canNot say John Smith (and for whatever reason you know it really is him and not an impersonator) emailed me and said he's the infamous sock puppet so and so. But I think you probably could say the infamous sock puppet so and so emailed me and told me he also is this new sock puppet whatamacallit. Of course, then whatamacallit might deny it and start a brouhaha. Anyway, when it doubt there's case by case basis. Just hope it doesn't become a problem! CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Clarification sought

I've become confused with the policy on outing and I need clarification on a few points.

1. The policy states that "Personal information includes legal name, ... home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, ... or other contact information," But there are templates in common use that are designed to reveal exactly that. Template:Shared IP gov, for instance, is designed to allow users to identify individual IP editors as government employees. Template:Shared IP edu acts similarly although there is no explicit bar under outing against revealing a person's school. Is the prohibition of revealing information about workplaces limited specifically to direct references to the workplace's address?
2. For a person's address, at what point does it cross the line? Can you identify an editor as a national of a particular country? Can you specify the region or town? Can you specify the part of town?
3. The policy states that "if an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, their wishes should be respected, though reference to self-disclosed information is not outing." What if Editor B has posted personal information on name and workplace ("I am Ethel Carter and I work as an administrative officer for the State of Georgia's Foo-County Correctional Facility at the intersection of Bar and Baz in the city of Qux") and then later redacts only a portion of it such as Editor B's workplace address? Assuming that Editor B's real name, "Ethel Carter," is still available for use as a non-redacted reference, would it violate the outing policy for Editor A to use a "shared IP gov" template to identify an IP edit made by Editor B as having originated from the State of Georgia's Foo-County Correctional Facility and then to communicate with or about the templated IP User while referencing Editor B as "Ethel" (her non-redacted name)? Provided that Editor A doesn't explicitly connect the dots that "Ethel" works at "the intersection of Bar and Baz in the city of Qux, GA," is this acceptable behavior?
4. Using the same scenario from the previous question, what would happen if Editor B had redacted both her workplace address and the name of her workplace? Would it have violated the outing policy for Editor A to have used the "shared IP gov" template to identify the IP address as belonging to Foo-County Correctional Facility of Georgia and then to talk to or about the templated IP as "Ethel?" Is there such an offense as implicit outing?
5. What is meant by redaction? What if Editor B creates a vanity page for herself with all of her personal information and then the page was nominated by a third party for AfD and deleted? Has she redacted the information? If we assume not, then shouldn't it still be sufficient for her to verbally declare certain information as redacted?
6. Surely Editor A couldn't be punished for having referenced Editor B's previously self-disclosed personal information prior to Editor B's redaction of the information, but what's to stop Editor A from referencing his own pre-redaction references to Editor B? This seems like a loophole that is bound to cause problems.
7. Who is responsible for seeking oversight subsequent to a redaction? If I've included personal information on my userpage for several years and others have referenced it as public information, then what happens when I redact it 2 years later? Is it my responsibility to seek oversight for all edits containing my previously-unredacted personal information or is it the responsibility of all users who have used this personal information to monitor me from now on lest I redact anything? If Editor A knows that Editor B has redacted a piece of personal information but that Editor C had made a pre-redaction comment referencing the same information, can Editor A still treat it as referenceable information as it appears in Editor C's public edit? Or is it sufficient for Editor A to be aware of Editor B's desire to silence that information? If Editor A does reference Editor C's message as an indirect means of outing Editor B, can Editor C be banned for outing as well?
8. And what about banned editors? It seems to me that there is a prohibition against outing a banned editor as they are also persons, (potential) users, and (hopefully) non-editors, however if this is true it still seems like a somewhat less-than-obvious category and so shouldn't it be made explicit as in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found?

Any help on these questions would be most appreciated. -Thibbs (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

There are all kinds of "if" scenarios. For the unusual ones, people can come here and ask. For ones that are more frequently, like the one I just put in per my proposal at talk above, something has to be put in policy. Do you have a specific pressing question you personally need help with?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

My questions address obvious holes in the current policy. Considering the drastic consequences of violating the policy (an immediate block), I believe that there should be no uncertainty involved. All of the scenarios that served as bases for my questions are easily conceivable and some of them occur on a near-hourly basis (see e.g. Q's #1 and 2). It is quite unfair to hold editors accountable to this degree for failing to understand a poorly-written piece of policy. My hope is that by gaining answers to some of these questions I can help to draft an improved version of the policy. If you wouldn't mind, I'd love to hear your thoughts on some of them. -Thibbs (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but I haven't read all of the above. It is pretty simple: an editor must reveal no information at all about another editor. If editor X learns something about editor Y and later is concerned by Y's behavior, X should seek advice before revealing anything about Y. For example, if it is a COI issue, X might post a generic message at WP:COIN, possibly identifying the article and saying that X has reason to believe that another editor has a COI, and seeking advice on whether to reveal what X knows. Another approach would be to find an administrator with an interest in the area of concern and email them with an outline of the problem. There are exceptions: if editor Y put their real name on their user page and six months later removed it, it might be reasonable for X to point to the disclosed name if there is a reason related to improving the encyclopedia to do so. Gratuitously using Y's real name would be harassment. If X reveals personal information about Y and later decides that was a mistake, X can email a request for oversight (see the box at the top of WP:OS). Johnuniq (talk) 02:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me clarify that I understand the basic idea behind the policy and I don't need a general summary of it. I am interested in receiving answers to the specific questions I have asked above. These questions delve into areas that the written policy (as currently drafted) does not cover. I am not asking for anyone read through and think about all of the questions if they do not wish to but I would greatly appreciate it if some editors that are familiar with the policy and its enforcement could clarify some or indeed any of the questions I have raised. By receiving answers to the questions that I asked, I hope to help draft an improved version of the policy that clarifies these issues. This should improve the degree of fairness with which the heavy penalty is applied to people accused of outing. -Thibbs (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

A template that identifies the location of an IP address is just a convenience: it displays no information that is not publicly available, and it specifically is about a shared IP (so it says nothing about an individual editor apart from pointing out what is publicly known about an IP address). Suppose editor X noticed that editor Y had once acknowledged editing while logged out, so X could determine Y's IP address, and then later X were to say "you are from SomeSchool" (determined by the IP). That would be mild harassment; repeating it would be definite harassment (exception: on an appropriate noticeboard, it would be ok for X to ask whether it would be appropriate to reveal certain information if the information was related to improving the encyclopedia). I think the other questions are covered by my earlier view: an editor must reveal no information at all about another editor (with certain exceptions that are best dealt with by asking for assistance as I mentioned–there would be no benefit from trying to document the precise conditions for this, see WP:BURO). Johnuniq (talk) 06:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Re banned editors (but see WP:BAN to note that a "ban" is very different from a "block"): On an appropriate noticeboard, and when dealing with a long term problem editor, it is common for people to talk pretty plainly (i.e. there are exceptions to what I earlier said). However, normal editors (I think that includes everyone who has commented here so far) should be very careful—that is why I was earlier saying that contacting someone experienced is the best procedure. It is not possible (and not desirable) to document exactly when it is ok to reveal information about an editor (see WP:BURO). Email an admin active in the area of interest if you are concerned. I do not think anyone should worry about having revealed personal info about a long term problem editor, provided that real damage has occurred (e.g. the problem editor has performed more than, say, 50 vandal edits over a period of more than a month). At places like WP:ANI, people do not care much about a problem editor who has just added naughty words to a few articles (and outing such a person would be a bad idea). If someone has really caused significant trouble over an extended period, more blunt approaches may be required. Perhaps one might look for an admin who is active at WP:AIV and email them if worried. One important point: It is best to not talk to a problem editor; just revert their edits, including their comments on your own talk page. Engaging a vandal gives them a purpose and feeds their ego; you will never find the magic words to convince them to change their behavior (they will probably grow out of it, but that won't occur because of reasoning). See WP:DENY. Johnuniq (talk) 06:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't say that I agree that there is no benefit in trying to be more precise/exact about which revelations can lead to blocking and which are acceptable but I can now see that this appears to be part of a deliberate choice rather than simply and oversight. As such, I'd have to gain consensus for clarifying the instructions before gaining consensus over how to clarify them. As I am too busy at this point to make the case for clarification, I'll concede the point. Thanks for your explanations. -Thibbs (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)