Wikipedia talk:Private correspondence (2007 proposal)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

So - who gets blocked in this example?

Please think about this carefully. Kneejerk reactions are unhelpful. But let's be honest - somebody will get blocked as a result of this. The question is - should it be the sender of the email or the poster of the email?[1] Risker (talk) 19:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

What email? The edit seems to concern an edit war on a talk page about waterboarding (whatever that might be). --Tony Sidaway 19:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see you gave a "diff=cur" link. Presumably you're referring to the outing of John1951 as User:Windybear. That's a very depressing example of the abuse of privacy. We appear to have lost a good, well behaved editor because somebody else couldn't keep their personal demons in check. --Tony Sidaway 20:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Fork This!

Ok, so here is how I would approach it.

1. Material provided with an expectation of privacy should ordinarily be respected and kept off of Wikipedia.
   1. If we look at the analogy of postage, we see that intercepting mail and tampering with mail is a crime in most jurisdictions, but there are no laws against forwarding received postal mail freely.
   2. The exception to this is when there is a legal classification attached to a document ("classified," "top secret" and other designations).
      1. Things can only be classified in the interests of "national security" in the U.S. (a demonstrated belief that making them public will damage the nation's security)
      2. They may also be classified when the documents put lives in danger (a demonstrated reasonable belief that knowledge of the names attached would mean murder) <Note that these are the equivalent of our OTRS and BLP. When the site's viability is at stake, we have our own version of "secret," and the same is true of personal identities.>
   3. If anyone takes private material, then such an act is stealing. Hence, "hacking" and the like is illegal, and it would be illicit on Wikipedia to go to get the private material.
      1. If I send you an e-mail saying that I have a bomb, you own that mail and may do with it as you choose.
      2. If you go searching Google Groups for anything I might have ever said on a newsgroup and find that, in 1991, I said that I was going to blow up my house, you have unreasonably derived something.
2. If you broach the decorum of privacy by spreading around what has been e-mailed to you, then you are a bounder. You are reprehensible. You are not, however, violating any laws. As has been seen in the case of "Brad the Cad" and others, once an e-mail is sent, it has been sent.
3. If you violate the rules of Freenode by logging and posting a log of an IRC channel, then you have violated Freenode's rules, but there is not and must not be an attempt by Wikipedia to make acts on outside websites germane to Wikipedia editing privileges.
4. E-mail and IRC are not legitimate methods for formulating Wikipedia actions.
   1. They are good for establishing communication, sharing information, and they will be used in any case.
   2. They are, however, not Wikipedia, and Wikipedia actions must be justified by discussion on Wikipedia.
   3. Office decisions, BLP concerns, etc., are, in fact, documented on WikiMedia servers. They can be retrieved. They can be examined. They are not open to any and all, and they should not be, but they are also a minor fraction of a fraction of Wikipedia actions.
   4. Blocks, in particular, must conform to the blocking policy, and therefore there absolutely must be explicit, coherent, and full justification of blocks made on Wikipedia. Even "blatant vandal" is documentation on Wikipedia.
5. If any user on Wikipedia accuses another of being a sockpuppet, role account, vandal, or troll, then acting on that charge must be:
   1. Reviewed on Wikipedia
   2. Documented on Wikipedia
   3. Acted upon by an uninvolved administrator who must document the action on Wikipedia.
6. If users violate the above by using "private" methods for coordinating, justifying, or extending blocks, bans, or any other curtailing of editing privileges, then those users abrogate the privacy. Because they have done by "private" means what should be public, it is useful and laudable to correct that misbehavior.
   1. Anyone who makes public "secret" material that is, in fact, properly public is not violating secrecy.
   2. If a person is whistle blowing by making a matter public, he or she is not betraying trust.
   3. If the material that has been kept off Wikipedia touches upon identities, IP addresses, BLP matters, or anything of that nature, then it should not be made public, as that is not covered above.
7. ArbCom is not mother and father. It is not the teacher in the room. It is not the proctor. It is a dispute resolution body. If arbitration is underway and material evidence has been "private," that evidence should go to ArbCom's mailing list. If, however, there is no arbitration underway, then there is no reason to send ArbCom unsolicited mail.

Bottom line: don't do blocks by "secret" means, and don't be naive or dishonest enough to say that e-mail is private. If it were private, you wouldn't have sent it. Once you send it, it belongs to the recipient, and you are at the mercy of the recipient. Geogre (talk) 20:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Forking discussion

I can get behind almost all of this, and I find it terrifically well organised material to boot. Two nits: 1) I think there are rare extenuating circumstances for which the reason for a block should not be publicly discussed, but for those circumstances, there is the arbcom mailing list. ArbCom is charged with, among other things, receiving and acting on information too sensitive to be public. That's not exactly "on wikipedia" traceability but it nevertheless is accountability and tracabiity. (this contradicts your #7 a bit, as well as #4.4) 2) If I send you a note saying "I have something to share, but before I share it you have to promise not to reveal it further without my permission, or I won't share it with you", and you agree, and I send it, and then you reveal it publicly, you're in violation of privacy. Regardless of what the law says. (this contradicts your #2 a bit) I think it's as important, or more, to do what's honorable, and to expect others to do so and even censure them for it, if they don't. I do not subscribe to separability or compartmentalization of actions. But those are quibbles rather than major differences and if your text were adopted wholesale I'd be fine with it, it's close enough for me. ++Lar: t/c 20:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

On your #1: ArbCom is not supposed to be a court that initiates its own cases, as it is supposed to resolve existing conflicts. However, I agree that there are some select cases where ArbCom may need to act without full transparency on Wikipedia. I wouldn't deny that, and I tried to get at it with (now made more explicit) the analogy to when governments use "Top Secret" classification.

On your second point, I agree that, if you get me to promise, and then I break that promise, I'm certainly a rascal. I deserve to be hooted. I should be excluded from all polite company (seriously). However, in practical terms social groups exact their own revenge on people who abrogate trust that way. If I'm sharing your comment about loving "hot Asian lesbians" in the admins channel, then I'm obviously being outrageous: all I can do with that is try to hurt your reputation, and I should be vilified for breaking your trust. If, on the other hand, your confidence is that, secretly, you're Willy on Wheels, then I may feel that the consequences are so severe that I have to break confidence, and the community, by itself, will not pillory me. In other words, people will react on their own in these cases, but, in any case, these are bad form and bad behavior rather than Wikipedia matters. In either case, I shouldn't be blocked for my behavior (unless I'm making an attack page or something like that, obviously).

The biggest thing is that several people, and I do not want to name names, have sought to cut down the size of the room somewhat. They've been annoyed or discomfited by this user or that and wanted to block. Because they don't want the discussion, or because they don't want to be contradicted, or just because they're acting out of passion rather than reason, they have sought out forums for block discussion that are smaller than the general Wikipedia pages. They've used IRC, and ArbCom has ruled that that is not proper. They have used e-mail. ArbCom has not quite ruled on that, although I can't see how it could rule any way but against that, too. The point is that, if the rationale is sound, it can survive wide scrutiny. If it isn't, then no one should be blocked. Since "Durovagate," I've noticed more people wanting to do everything by e-mail. That is no answer.

Sure, people e-mail. That's great. Sure, some things have to be done privately. That's regrettable but understandable. However, we have to be transparent, because the rules we use against Bobo-da-Troll today will be used tomorrow against us. Geogre (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Once again I'm amazed by how close we are to one another on these matters.

I'll go along with everything above except the following:

• If users violate the above by using "private" methods for coordinating, justifying, or extending blocks, bans, or any other curtailing of editing privileges, then those users abrogate the privacy. Because they have done by "private" means what should be public, it is useful and laudable to correct that misbehavior.

Perhaps it's because I don't understand what it's intended to encompass.

Let's give a real world example. In deciding whether a Wikipedia admin action needs to be taken, I'll often discuss the matter with many people, mostly off-wiki.

According to Wikipedia policy, with rare and tightly distinguished exceptions that don't concern us here an action stands or falls on whether it can be justified on wiki (and in my experience it's rare that my decisions are countermanded on-wiki so I don't think it's a big deal). Now it's extremely unlikely that any of my correspondents would breach the privacy of our discussions, nor is it any concern of Wikipedia's that I discussed a matter with X or Y (who might not even be Wikipedians--yes, I do sometimes consult friends who are competent in various fields). The only legitimate concern is whether the action is actively justified and defended on the wiki. Each of us makes the decision in his head and most admin actions are the result of individual ("unilateral") interpretation of community standards.

Are my discussions with third parties fair game? If so, what relevance does it have to Wikipedia? Assuming a block, page protection, deletion, undeletion or other administrative action is justified by policy and prevails on the wiki, what relevance does the fact that I privately discussed the matter with my brother-in-law, who formulated the justification, have to Wikipedia?

Or have I misunderstood how this clause is to be applied? Are we likely to be in the market for mind-readers very shortly? --Tony Sidaway 21:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Why would anyone betray your confidence? Let's take it as a given that the people who do that, even the ones who do it wrongly, have a reason for it. The "nyah-nyah" crowd aren't our concern. If your decisions do stand up to scrutiny, there's no reason for anyone to mention your off-wiki communications. If, however, you say, on IRC, "We've got to find a way of banning all the sources of drama. People like Esteemed, Sociable, and Irrascible should die," then you have obviously violated three or four Wikipedia policies, but, more to the point, you have established that whatever you do will be in pursuance of a private gripe. You'll be proving that you're not uninvolved when, two weeks later, you block one of the persons, it'll be pretty obvious that, whatever you say on-wiki, you've said other things off-wiki that call your judgment into question. Anyone hearing both would say, "Step away from the button! Let me look at this, instead."

In other words, no one is going to post publically something "private" unless there is cause for it. Otherwise, it's simply not an issue. We're all free to chat with each other. What we shouldn't be doing is trying to organize 3RR circles, voting blocks, block shopping, etc., by private means. If someone has access to such evidence, then it is evidence of a policy violation. If you, for example, say, "I never did that, and you can't prove it," then you're making it necessary for the proof to be lodged on Wikipedia.

I'm trying to avoid naming specific instances, but generally no one will want to post something publicly unless it's germane. If it's germane, it probably should have been public in the first place. If someone is just maliciously or capriciously putting things up, then that's going to be blockable for other reasons than "it was private." Geogre (talk) 21:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's suppose my decisions didn't stand up to scrutiny. Why is it conceivably material that prior to effecting an administrator action I discussed the matter with some chap on IRC, my teacher, my sister, or a passing gorilla? Either my decision is accepted or it is not.

Now you suggest a hypothetical situation in which a person makes unreasonable demands("People like Esteemed, Sociable, and Irrascible should die")

Obviously this kind of thing takes care of itself. Do we care about the reasoning of someone who removes references to the Gunpowder Plot from an article about Guy Fawkes Night? Do we need to know? In practice we do not. If they're being silly their off-wiki reasoning is no excuse.

So again I ask: why is their purported off-wiki behavior relevant? This seems to me to be a recipe for nastiness of the sort we saw in the recent Durova case, where ridiculous and silly and obviously false accusations were made about a perfectly innocent anti-bullying mailing list. I'm sure we're all a little ashamed about the false and sometimes quite vicious accusations that were made against those good people during the case, but what have we done since then to ensure that such false and damaging accusations are never made again? --Tony Sidaway

I'm sorry? What about the ridiculously silly and obviously false accusations against a perfectly innocent editor? We should be doing more to prevent THAT from happening, rather than any perceived slight against a mailing list, whilst created and operated with the best of intentions, clearly was in the wrong? DEVS EX MACINA _pray 04:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

There is such thing on wiki like conflict of interests and good faith and they are relevant. If before a block some chap on IRC said "At last we have a reason to block our enemy. We need an admin who can make a clean kill" and a couple of minutes later the guy was blocked by an admin present on IRC then the conversation is relevant. If the guy would have said "Such and such user was incivil, I have a history of conflicts with him, so please somebody uninvolved make a look" it would be absolutely relevant as well.

In real life a recipient of a correspondence has the rights to do almost anything with it. You have to make your party sign a Non disclosure agreement to limit their rights. If you suspect your party would abuse your correspondence then just not send it to them before signing some formal agreement. Most people do the right thing with their correpondence and do not abuse it. I absolutely agree with Geogre that we have no reason not to trust users to do the right thing with the wiki related correspondence and enforce separate rules different from the real world. Said that we obviously should enforce privacy of information obtained by wiki-office holders due to their privilege status. Admins should keep private information they read from the deleted versions, they may obtain a lot of private info during e.g. some sockpuppeting investigations and the info should be kept private. The checkusers, arbitrators and OTRS people may have accessed even more private info and they should keep it private. Still most of wikiusers have no additional obligations whatsever. It might be useful to put guidelines outlining the best practice of handling private correspondence but it should not be a strict inflexible policy. Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

To answer Tony, if you are breaking Wikipedia policy and guidelines, intervention is necessary, right? If you "spam" talk pages by putting up "Vote Giano for ArbCom," you'll get cautioned or blocked. If you create a script to say, "Vote Giano 4 ArbCom" on IRC every :10, are you spamming? Would you not get any intervention/blocking? If someone wants to challenge the high votes Giano got while your script was running, would they be forbidden from making reference to your IRC behavior?

If the "private media" is being used for improper behavior, it becomes germane. The gorilla who told you to change "Guy Fawkes" to "Gordon Brown" is not a wikipedian, and hence it is sub jure. On the other hand, if you and ProjectYorkshire did so, then we would be looking at Wikipedia concerns that have been hidden behind the veil of "privacy." Blocking that way is inappropriate. Conspiring to block is wrong, and it's wrong in "private" and in public.

If we accept the ethical wrong of Wikipedians conspiring, then the next step is to say, "If you were sent an e-mail of such a conspiracy, either through list membership or directly, or if you have a log of the IRC session showing this conspiracy, then it is a propos to Wikipedia."

It's there that we have to be careful and decide "what to do with such material that is relevant to Wikipedia administration and when to do it." That is what this page really should have been doing, not arguing the basics of "never" and "always." Geogre (talk) 13:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

What we saw in the Durova case should be caution enough, I think, but if not then your language above is enough to remind us that we must always be on the lookout overreaching, declaring Wikipedia interests where there are none. Durova herself made a bad block, and we know it's bad because she was unable to justify it on the wiki. To turn that into a crusade against "conspiracies" and the like would damage Wikipedia, which is why I oppose the idea that posting Durova's email to that list (which obviously and patently gave absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing) was acceptable or would ever be acceptable in the future. There are occasions when breaching privacy is acceptable, but this obviously was not one, for there was no wrongdoing of any kind. --Tony Sidaway 14:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

<side discussion> This is a side discussion, you know. The reason I didn't post the e-mail was because I didn't really need to, but the reason I didn't provide an open paraphrase or summary of it is because throughout Durova had made, essentially, an argument of "I was told to do it." I rejected that then, and I reject that now, and I reject that every time. When Betacommand said "IRC said it was good" to block, my response was IRC can't do that, and either you're a fool or a knave to act on "IRC consensus." However, we then have pages like the admins.irc page that David Gerard has been ... exaggeratedly guarding ... that essentially say that that IRC channel is where all the cool kids are and where important things are decided. Durova used e-mail for virtually everything, and before the "Durovagate" episode I thought that was trouble. We can't be formulating on-wiki acts or policies or guidelines anywhere but Wikipedia. No "semi-policy," no "consensus of the people on the channel at the time who happened to be active," no "my listserver of really esteemed Wikipedians agrees," no anything but what can be seen, considered, and evaluated by the affected parties. This includes, incidentally, "I am important" claims. "I do secret stuff that's vital to the continued liberty of the free world" sounds to me like a challenge. If your importance comes from e-mail and mailing lists and IRC, then you are only of import there, not here.

<side still>However, Durova kept saying that such mighty secrecy was at the heart of ArbCom, that it was with ArbCom, that it was at the behest of ArbCom. Since arbitrators couldn't quite deny that (although they should have), because each one was unsure what the others were doing, and since they wouldn't quite deny it because they felt it was improper to get involved in something that might come before them, Durova was effectively gilding her actions with "trust me, it's important." That's the very problem with "privacy" of this sort. No one can know whether it's true or false or exaggerated or underestimated. That's why the list of people who actively supported her actions was germane (that turned out to really be none, and I knew from my own part that there was no actual "yes, do block" going on, so, in fact, we do have the names of the active supporters -- none). It's why the case had to be made public -- because she was asking everyone to assume good actions not assume good faith. She was assuring all that there were better reasons than they might ever know. Well, that kind of "trust me, I'm the government" doesn't come naturally to an old punk like me, and it doesn't come naturally to the GNU-inspired populists of Wikipedia. Geogre (talk) 14:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Geogre has a right to his opinion, yet it is distinctly unfair to explain it by making a caraciture of me. I never did claim that I was told to do it, and when people construed that I immediately clarified that and continued to do so until it became obvious that I was not being heard and further repetitions were pointless. The assertion that I used e-mail for virtually everything is quite far from the truth. I don't recall using it with Geogre, for example, and since we rarely interacted he is really not in a position to estimate how much of a role e-mail played in my actions. I never used IRC. I did not even enable my own account e-mail until people started voting against me at RFA for the lack of it. When I saw that I had erred I promptly corrected it on my own initiative, extended apologies, and pledged improvements. The really corrosive dynamic has been how many people attributed statements and opinions to me I had never professed, and how readily Wikipedians who ought to have demanded diffs instead picked up and embellished those distortions. If there's a lesson to be leaned from my own mistake, it's that we should all assume more good faith of editors who have a track record of positive contributions. Durova^Charge! 16:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if you feel that I was engaging in caricature. I also never suggested that you employed IRC. On the other hand, this issue is when and where "private" matters may or should be broached, and in that respect both the use of e-mail and the use of IRC are alike. In that respect, anything done by these methods that violates our policies may, or may not, be susceptible to the breaking of privacy: it depends upon the level of action. My comments about your case were in regard to assuring people that your actions "were approved." When that happens, we have two choices: 1. believe that there was approval, 2. call the person a liar. That puts the community in an untenable position. As for the rationale you offered, it is possible to go back in time and look at exact language and argue semantically whether it was explicit or implicit claim, but that's not important. If you were only perceived to have made such claims, and even if only by those outraged at you, then I apologize for saying that you explicitly made them. Nevertheless, whenever there is a "trust me: important people are with me, but I can't reveal them" involved... and it has been done with "I was on IRC with Jimbo, and he thought I was invaluable to the project," as well as, "I was on admins, and everyone thought I should block," as well as "I posted to a secret mailing list of current arbitrators, and they agreed"... the situation for us as a community is identical: the material cannot justify, exonerate, or be cited for any Wikipedia action, and if such claims or practices is preventing examination and fair evaluation, breaching the "privacy" is appropriate.

I have no interest in insulting you, Durova, and no intention of doing so. I had and have extraordinary difficulty with conducting business behind the scenes, but I bear you no ill will and would avoid making specific reference to any user, if I could. The specific people aren't an issue for a page like this. The specific practices are. Geogre (talk) 17:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Geogre, I never did assure people that my action was approved, and framing that attribution in quotation marks without diffs is thoroughly inappropriate, because I never said it. From the moment people construed such a thing I did my best to dispel the notion. What actually happened was option 3. a meme took on a life of its own. Your analysis also contains a rather serious logical flaw. I don't blame you for it personally; the community has been making the same collective error for weeks. I've been waiting for things to settle down enough that rational discussion becomes possible. Durova^Charge! 18:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It's true that a lot of discussion about blocks and the like occurs off the wiki. I know you don't think this should be permitted, however it is permitted. If you want it to not be permitted, I think it's acceptable to argue for a change of policy. I don't think it's acceptable to condone the breach of privacy simply because you don't agree with existing policy.

There is no problem with privacy. We recognise that the arbitration committee makes decisions and deliberations in private, and we welcome this because we know how toxic the atmosphere would be if such decisions were made publicly. Other groups obviously also engage in private discussion, and that is good, although those groups do not have authority, as the committee does, to impose decisions on the community. --Tony Sidaway 15:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, dear. Now we're going backwards. Tony, discussion of blocks should not occur off-wiki, if it can't appear on-wiki. If it can appear on-wiki, then someone who reproduces the off-wiki talk won't be doing any damage. Geogre (talk) 17:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Even if I were to agree with you that it was wrong to discuss Wikipedia matters off-wiki, it would obviously be impossible to enforce such a rule. Moreover, the block was discussed on-wiki, found to be based on unsupported speculation, and lifted. --Tony Sidaway 17:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Redrafted

I have redrafted this proposed policy in keeping with the current discussions and comments on this page. Comments are welcome. Risker (talk) 16:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

That appears to be a different proposal entirely. I suggest that we move your draft to a separate page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's much more in keeping with the initial spirit of the proposed policy. Mr Which??? 18:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, MrWhich is correct, as is Risker. The page began much more aligned with how it is now than it was before I began my "Fork this" discussion. However, some very... spirited... editing took place that effectively chased people away. I know that I was appealed to to help out, and, because I've said all along that any page is an attempt at fixing the mercury, I was reluctant. Frankly, I was also conflict averse, but there is a limit. For me, that limit was when the now adulterated page was being proposed as acceptable for merging into policy (thereby avoiding, consciously or not, the approval process). The page really did begin with an eye toward setting forth the circumstances when revealing the "private" is warranted. Geogre (talk) 18:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Going back to that, the fact that User:!!'s posting of Durova's harassment email is still posted in the Arbcom evidence publically, and no one has redacted it, isn't that explicit evidence that saying "no posting of private correspondence, ever" is false? Lawrence Cohen 19:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Part of the logic behind the redrafting is in response to Jimbo's post to the #-admins page, where he advocates civilized behaviour and notification all the way up to him if administrators witness improper behaviour[2]. Risker (talk) 19:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Since the two are bleeding into each other, I should point out that the garbage at en.admins.irc has to do with there being no guidance to editors after the much-cited "Giano affair" of over a year ago. In that, the guilty wanted Giano blocked, banned, and burned for posting IRC logs. The result was that ArbCom tried to rule that IRC needed regulation, and David Gerard essentially said that they needn't listen to ArbCom. After that we got new ops, and after the issue broke out yet again with an example of "blocked by unanimous consent of IRC," there was another new set of rules.

Please stay with me, because it is sadly relevant. The current RfAR is because Giano privately shared logs from IRC that prove horrible behavior by a non administrator at en.admins. So, here is "private" material that has been sent "privately" to people who deny that there is an offense. It is, in fact, by the rules, such as they are, and yet arbitration opens.

The problem with cloaks like this is that it allows people to believe that nothing is happening. Forget, for a moment, any individual bad actor or bad act. Exonerate all. With evidence being controlled in the name of "privacy," the general user base cannot assess things honestly. People are edit warring at that page because they really believe that there has never been abuse, and they can think this because they haven't seen any. Therefore, they are eager to support a page that says that all is well and all has always been well. The invocation of "privacy" on IRC logs allows IRC users to believe that whatever they have personally seen is all that there is to see.

No one wants to say that there is no privacy. It should be practice #1 to never share. It should be rule #2 to assess the need for sharing. It would even be a recommended thing to say, "A discussion of the need to share the private information should be documented and open for comment." Maybe that would help us. Geogre (talk) 13:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

This is nuts

As this proposed policy is written, a user subject to harassment would have no recourse because any correspondence related to the harassment could be splattered all over the site and beyond. An admirable concern about secret blocks and the like has now been carried to the opposite extreme in a zeal for openness at all costs. Raymond Arritt (talk) 07:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No shit. This is conceptually FUBAR, at the moment. Marskell (talk) 08:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, I'd be just as happy to dustbin all versions of the proposed policy and have it marked obsolete, but given the alternative version where some teenager could be banned for posting on ANI that some dirty old man was sending her disgusting emails ("look, here's what he sent me" - copy of email), or worse yet would be terrified to complain because she could be banned - well, this is the opposite direction. Frankly, it is in line with the laws and ethical practices of every Western country I could find - if you send a message, control of the message belongs to the receiver.

There is no perfect answer to this one. As I write this, an RFAR has just been initiated that turns on behaviour in the #-admins IRC channel. If Arbcom accepts the case, I would fully expect them to request and review that evidence. Except of course that some people think it should be "private." And some of the editors and admins involved do not have access to the channel or its logs, so are not in a position to present or test evidence relating to them. One cannot help wondering if the egregious behaviour would have occurred had the individuals involved been aware that anyone could post the logs on-wiki. On the other hand, I am sure there have been some things discussed on that channel that really do reach the confidentiality level where posting them on-wiki would indeed lead to a privacy breach.

The happy medium would be to expect people to use good judgement and be very conservative in posting, without writing a policy. But we all know that some editors would get indef blocked and others would be saluted for posting exactly the same information, depending on who happened to be around and noticed. Of the two alternatives, I much prefer putting people on notice that if they are talking about activities they are considering or plan to take on-wiki, their exchanges will not be shielded. Risker (talk) 09:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Below. Marskell (talk) 16:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Upside down

Someone edited this recently and completely changed the point of it, to say basically that there is no such thing as private correspondence, which is clearly false. So I've reverted to a version from a few days ago. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 10:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

This is clearly an argument proceeding from extremes. That on-site decisions such as blocks should not be made through private correspondence is perfectly fair, and this should say as such if it's to go forward. But Risker's version essentially eliminated the idea of private correspondence entirely and did not adequately address BLP or STALK issues.

We also need to decide whether this is meant as a kind of admonishment or as an enforceable rule. Given the nature of the media, the latter is difficult. Marskell (talk) 16:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It was changed boldly, back to the original intent of the proposer. Mr Which??? 16:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus?

That anyone sees "consensus" here is amazing to me. Mr Which??? 19:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Well then, let's ditch the whole thing as unworkable and get on with writing articles. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Two alternatives

As each of the alternative versions has received varying levels of support and opposition, I have placed both alternatives onto the project page so that they can be more easily compared and discussed. This is in keeping with the process that was used at WP:Confidential evidence, a similar proposed policy based on the same case, ably led by FT2. Neither version has achieved consensus at this point. Let's see if we can find an Alternative #3 that achieves a middle ground and is not strongly opposed by people who view this issue from opposite ends of the spectrum. Risker (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• I support this option. It makes much more sense than pretending there's consensus on one of the versions. Mr Which??? 22:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• I also support this proposal which offers a concrete route forward. Alice^✉ 23:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed this. We can't reach consensus by presenting the discussion as a dichotomy. It gets in the way of convergence. --Tony Sidaway 23:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

And I've readded it. We can't reach consensus by pretending the discussion isn't a dichotomy. Mr Which??? 23:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Mr Which, there is no point in adding a proposal that has zero chance of becoming policy. Any proposal that says there's no such thing as private correspondence regarding WP is clearly wrong, and no reasonable person will accept it. Continuing to add it looks like an attempt to kill this proposal. If it's killed, please note that the status quo ante will continue, viz. that no correspondence that is even arguably private may ever be posted to Wikipedia. Given that you oppose that position, you're shooting yourself in the foot by supporting an extremist alternative that has no realistic hope of changing anything. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I have asked FT2 to stop by this page and explain the process of using multiple variations on a single proposed policy page in order to find a consensus point. I specifically have not asked him to comment on any of the content of either proposal. The fact of the matter is that neither proposal is likely to reach consensus as each is too extreme; but it is very disappointing to see obviously involved administrators edit warring, when we have just had an arbitration case filed in relation to similar actions by other admins trying to keep a page in their various preferred versions. Everyone needs to take a giant step back here. Risker (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Would a split be any easier? As the two positions are diametrically proposed policies, they might as well be completely separate. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm rather appalled at the warring that followed my action in removing the split. It was only intended as a suggestion, and the edit warring that followed was obviousy completely contrary to any concept of consensus (and I'm absolutely not pointing the finger at the person who immediately reverted my edit, that was fine and we could have discussed it). --Tony Sidaway 02:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Page Protection expires at midnight - 7 minutes from this message

I would request that the page is not edited while protection is up. I would respectfully ask that there is no reverting afterward, unless there is a real consensus to do so, for the immediate future. Since I have made a few comments in the earlier days of this discussion I am now going to recuse myself from further interference. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I can almost guarantee that within a few minutes after protection expires, the version with only one of the two proposed versions will be reverted by someone. Mr Which??? 23:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

LessHeard, you've made 14 comments on this talk page in favor of a particular position. That means you shouldn't use your admin tools in relation to this page -- not even for seven minutes. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, give it a rest Slim. There's no consensus for anything on this page, and having protection placed on it was well within the bounds of a proper admin decision. Mr Which??? 23:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The page was protected for 13 minutes??? I don't understand the motivation for doing such a thing. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

To calm waters that were beginning to churn, would be my take on it. Granted, with Slim's above comment, I'd assume that the waters will start churning again shortly. Mr Which??? 00:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Not quite, SV, I have no real position on this proposed policy since anyone who contacts me off-wiki gives me permission to reproduce the content - per my caveat. However to allay any misconception is why I am now recusing. I have made a request at WP:AN that an admin or two keep a look out on these pages. If you want to bring up the proprietary of my actions I think that would be the place for it.

Raymond, I temporarily stopped an escalating/nascent edit war that threatened to go wheel shaped... LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand that, but 13 minutes? That's not nearly enough time for the combatants to simmer down (as we have seen). But I could understand it being protected for a few days. Given how divisive this has been I'd rather blank the page and then protect instead of protecting on one version or the other. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Blank and protect! Good call! Not one I could have made even if I had considered it, having some input a fortnight ago, but it may have been the best situation. As it was some time was bought for an uninvolved admin to be contacted. Hopefully there will be no requests for sanctions regarding the edit war, since the potential of losing too many articulate proponents of various viewpoints during the enforced truce is pretty apparant. Anyone really wanting blood is welcome to comment here; my block log is suspiciously empty and I am going off-line now (beddy byes!) - a two or three hour block will likely bolster my public image no end... ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Protection request

I requested protection after this kept flashing up on my watchlist. I made this page initially based on what I saw on the Durova Arbitration. I'm sort of surprised by how polar everyone is on different ends here. Why not just leave it protected as it is now for a few days, to force people to talk rather than revert? I say just leave it locked down till 1/1/08. Discussion is better. If anyone doesn't discuss, and goes right back to revert warring, it will be obvious who has no respect for their peers and can have their "views" devalued. Lawrence Cohen 00:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you guys stop? Lawrence Cohen 00:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• There's no consensus for either version. Why should Slim and her crew be allowed to revert to only their version of the proposal? Mr Which???

How about you all just stop and discuss instead? Lawrence Cohen 00:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Quit the insults for god's sake. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I never insulted you, I'm just saying lets all stop the RVing and talk instead. I insulted you...? Lawrence Cohen 00:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

"Slim and her crew" isn't an insult?

Look, I give up here. You have no hope of getting that silly "there is no private correspondence" thing through. If you want to behave like schoolchildren, go right ahead, but it'll change nothing. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

That was Mr Which that wrote that, not me. He didn't sign it and it looked like I did. Lawrence Cohen 00:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. I was surprised when I saw it seemed to be from you. My apologies. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No apology needed, it did look like it was me saying it. Lawrence Cohen 00:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• No insults. I just made a prediction, and it came true, that's all. Mr Which??? 00:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Whatever your insult or non-insult was, would you mind signing it? It looks like I said it, when I clearly didn't. Lawrence Cohen 00:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Done. Sorry for any headache it caused. It was a simple observation of what appears to be the case on this issue, especially given that Slim reverted within minutes of the protection being lifted. Mr Which??? 00:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. And poking people with sticks still doesn't help anything get done, FWIW. Lawrence Cohen 00:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This entire section neatly sums up the situation here, IMO. Can you all please quit with the personalized campaigns and get on with fixing the issues here? This is the second time in 24 hours that I've had to lock something down due to the actions of people on all sides who really should know better. It's so unbelievably immature - Alison ^❤ 00:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a Mr Which Hunt! *Dan T.* (talk) 14:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - absolutely ridiculous. Posting word-for-word from the last debacle --> okay, folks. I'm a regular WP:RPP patroller, as many of you will know. I've not, to my knowledge, ever edited the article before. I've no interest in who-did-what-to-which-revision but I know an out of control article when I see one. This needs to stop. To that end, I've fully protected the article against editing for a period of a week. This is no more nor no less than I would do with any other article and, as with anything other dispute, please, please work towards consensus on the talk page here. All of you should know this stuff already. If there are any changes to be made in the interim, please use the {{editprotected}} template here so everyone can see it and judge accordingly and, hopefully, a neutral admin can hop in an do what's needed. If anyone does otherwise, I'll be less than impressed - you all know the rules - Alison ^❤ 00:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Good call. --Tony Sidaway 02:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

And now JzG has gone and effectively wheel-warred by editing using his admin powers, and he's far from neutral. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 12:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This has been resolved now, as Guy has self-reverted and is discussing the matter here now - Alison ^❤ 18:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC

Will the outcome of this play a role here, as one of the topics at stake on this policy is IRC logs? Lawrence Cohen 00:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• I think so. This is all the more reason to have both possible alternate versions directly available for review on the main page. Mr Which??? 00:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I think arbcom is unlikely to interfere in an ongoing policy formation discussion. --Tony Sidaway 02:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I meant the other way. Whatever decisions come out of that case, in regard to IRC logs, playing a role in what the community decides to do with release of private correspondence in the future. Lawrence Cohen 02:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• I knew what you meant. I think that the ongoing discussion at the RFAR/IRC case may well have some fallout for this discussion. Mr Which??? 02:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there will be any surprises arising from the channel logs. I don't think this case is likely to convince the arbitrators that it's a good idea to abrogate our respect for privacy. --Tony Sidaway 03:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• So you think that's what this is about? That those who oppose your preferred version of this page wish to "abrogate our respect for privacy"? Bad faith much, Tony? It's not about that at all. It's about allowing users who have been "beaten up" by bullies, (whether over e-mail, mailing lists, or IRC) the ability to post freely the evidence of the misconduct, without having to seek the bully's permission to do so. Mr Which??? 11:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

What a f--king joke.

I give up. When an admin abuses his power in such a way as to promote one version to the exclusion of the other... and combined with some "other issues", well Wikipedia has officially gone to hell. I won't go with it. Leave this shit for guys like JzG to f-ck up by abusing their admin tools to the exclusion of us little editors that don't have that priviledge. Good luck to all who wish to actually help this project. I'm done. Mr Which??? 12:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

JzG replied to my comments that he had not noticed that the page was protected. Even if he doesn't self revert it should not matter, the version that it is protected in does not mean that that edit has consensus or is correct - it's just where it was when protection was applied. Discussion should continue here, and WP:AGF stretched just a little further so that issues can be addressed before protection lapses. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'm out of good faith with JzG. Hell, I'm out of good faith for this whole damn project. Good luck, LHvU. I truly think you're one of the "good guys" in this blasted project. Mr Which??? 13:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, I am in agreement with you! ;~) Best wishes for the future. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Mr Which, since that was your starting position I'm not exactly surprised you're "out of good faith", but I think I know why I did not see the protection message; I came to the article from diffs and it either did not show up or got lost in the mass of pink. Either way, the present version is a joke. Guy (Help!) 13:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• And an edit summary of "Self-revert to the fatuous version, since that seems ot be what everyone wants, though God knows why since it is a joke" on his reversion to the version with both alternatives available further confirms my view that JzG has exhausted all the good faith he has been extended. Mr Which??? 14:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you so much for your kind words. It is fatuous. A version of the page that says two completely contradictory things, one supported by policy and prior ArbCom rulings and one saying the opposite, inserted for God alone knows what purpose. It doesn't get a lot more fatuous than that. Guy (Help!) 15:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The community is permitted to change policy, and to make new policies that would not support a past arbcom ruling, so your claim that not being "supported by policy and prior ArbCom rulings" is a problem is incorrect. Furthermore, "supported by ... prior ArbCom rulings" is itself patent nonsense, since arbcom rulings are based on policy, they do not and cannot support policy [in the sense of being a reason to have a policy a certain way or not]. —Random832 16:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous

As soon as protection lapses, I'm tossing this up on MfD. No consensus is ever going to emerge from this train wreck, much less a coherent guideline or policy. Jtrainor (talk) 13:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless the proposal below flies, I am there with you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus wording proposal

How about simply

"Publish and be damned"

for a wording that all parties can subscribe to? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• This is for values of consensus which include completely ignoring ArbCom, right? Guy (Help!) 13:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • ArbCom doesn't make policy, by its own admission. The policy-making process is done by the community and is not bound by anything ArbCom may have ruled on in the past, as their job is only to interpret the policy made (and revised, and unmade) by the community. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • There is never going to be consensus for either variant, because both are intractable and unworkable. There seems little likelihood that a version can be constructed from the two versions. "Publish and be damned" allows for individual cases to establish what limits there are on privacy against transparency, providing that there are individuals brave/passionate enough to test those limits, in the full knowledge that such instances will be used for that purpose. In the absence of those examples the status quo, publishing such content without permission is not well regarded, remains. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I've heard of Publish or perish, but you seem to be advocating "Publish and perish"! *Dan T.* (talk) 14:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
      • It depends on the quality of the material presented, and the bravery (the honourable cousin of stupidity) of the presenter. Salacious piffle will be accorded the short shrift it deserves and the editor concerned decried. Material reproduced that galvanises the community into investigating the circumstances of the matter over and above the circumstances of publishing it obviously (in my opinion) has a right to be seen, as long as there are those willing to test that instance. The consequences to the person making that judgement will form part of the decision. That is recognised in my proposed wording. It never was never going to be an easy option, which helps protect the assumption of privacy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Sorry, but this has the potential for great harm. Raymond Arritt (talk) 14:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• It's also the precise opposite of what we should be saying - and what we did say until the latest hijacking of this page. People should not publish private data on Wikipedia. It's rude, it may violate copyright, it's been identified as problematic in a number of ArbCom cases interpreting policy as they are bound to do, and the fact that a minority appear to be fanatically devoted to the right to publish private information (presumably because they think they, like Giano, can get away with it) should not allow us to believe it is anything other than a seriously bad idea. Guy (Help!) 15:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Guy, the cry of "per ArbCom/MONGO" was heard throughout the BADSITES fiasco - until it went back to ArbCom (and even then). One persons perception of how the ArbCom might interpret their considerations into the construct of policy does not mean that they are right. ArbCom follows community, and this section of community is split over this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

...and when Guy found that the ArbCom ruling didn't give him a bulky-enough bludgeon to use against the hated "attack sites" and their supporters, he went back to them with a long rant he called a "request for clarification", but was disappointed to find that the ArbCom had no interest in acting on it. But he'll still cite the ArbCom as if it were holy writ whenever it suits him. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Dan, you are still beating the dust that blew over the bloody smear where the dead horse once lay. Is there no debate so tenuously linked to BADSITES that you won't drag the rotting carcass of that debate from its grave once more?

LessHeard: the fact that policy has been misinterpreted in the past is precisely why guidelines are needed. The ArbCom rulings on MONGO were mis-applied in a few cases, absolutely correctly applied in others. Here, we have no credible examples of mis-applicaiton of ArbCom's interpretation of policy. Publishign private data on Wikipedia violates policy and copyright law. The de facto policy, since forever, is don't do it. It's not been mis-applied because it's pretty straightforward and unambiguous. It is worth taking the time to tell people where they can take private communications if they consider there is a problem, and that is what this page can do. Or it can go, and we'll carry on as we always did, which is not to permit the posting of private data on Wikipedia without consent. Guy (Help!) 19:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 is fine except for a couple of things: prior ArbCom rulings, specifically in respect of email and IRC, copyright law, which makes no presumption that material may be republished, and civility, which strongly mitigates against publishing private communications without consent. Apart from being illegal, uncivil and a violation of ArbCom findings, the idea that nothing should be considered private is just fine. The present version of the page is farcical and any editor acting on Verison 2 is likely to find themselves blocked or banned in short order, so I suggest we rapidly form consensus for removal of that bogus line of reasoning. Guy (Help!) 14:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You're getting rather close to violating the No Legal Threats policy yourself. Shouldn't the Foundation counsel be the one to weigh in over what may or may not be illegal? *Dan T.* (talk) 14:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't be absurd. Noting that private correspondence is covered by copyright is not a legal threat, it's a statement of fact. Guy (Help!) 15:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Except that it's not a statement of fact. Legally, when one sends a letter to another, the letter belongs to the recipient, not the sender. The same applies to online "private communication." Copyright doesn't apply, and it's not illegal to post such communication, no matter how much you want it to be. Mr Which??? 15:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly right, Mr. Which. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid some people may be living in an era that has long since past when it comes to privacy. In many major cities it is nearly impossible to walk in any public place (including parks and sidewalks) without being captured on multiple security cameras. The email that I send from my computer will course through potentially dozens of other stops on the way to its destination, and some or all of my message can be read by people anywhere along that path - and when I hit "send" the email belongs to the recipient, just as if I had mailed a letter. My MSN chat will be recorded in several locations. IRC channels are inevitably logged by someone who has access, and of course they are recorded in servers as well. Indeed, I cannot think of a means of communication currently in use that provides the level of privacy that some seem to be seeking. A single issue of a tabloid magazine is more likely to be read than any of the classic novels - many of which were allegorical gossip in their time. Let's stop romanticising please, and either work out a reasonable middle ground or call a halt to this. Risker (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• But that does not make it legal, or morally right, to publish private data on Wikipedia. Two concepts are being conflated here: a general caveat, that one should be careful what one reveals (valid advice); and the policy on private data, which has always been, de facto, that one should not do so. Guy (Help!) 19:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Unless someone here is a lawyer, and in particular one who specializes in copyright, then it really isn't appropriate to attempt to give legal opinions. I am not a lawyer. I did, however, study writing in graduate school where a course in relevant law was required curriculum. If the things I learned there are correct, then some of the editors at this page have been confusing physical ownership with intellectual property rights. If Stephen King sends me a free copy of his latest novel all I own is that copy of the document, not any underlying right to republish it or relicense it under GDFL. What some participants here are attempting to claim is that e-mail is an exception to this. If I'm not mistaken, Steve Jackson Games, Inc. v. United States Secret Service established that the same basic intellectual rights apply to electronic communications as to other media. Since I am not a lawyer, though, this is mere speculation and not legal opinion. I have grave concerns about many edits and arguments periodically advanced at this proposal and strongly suggest an actual lawyer be consulted. Durova^Charge! 21:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you be more specific as to the relevance of that case? -- Kendrick7^talk 21:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, the claim is being made that the copyright for all correspondence, electronic or otherwise, belongs to the recipient; and the examples given have been the fact that people generally have the right to publish books of letters they have received without the consent of who wrote the letters. If the same principles apply to electronic as non-electronic, this actually supports that claim. Incidentally, based on the wikipedia article, the issue in Steve Jackson Games, Inc. v. United States Secret Service does not appear to have been copyright. —Random832 21:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Random, you seem to be arguing that one violation of copyright strips the creator of intellectual ownership and legitimizes later violations. That goes against everything I learned on this subject. I suggest that several editors here are attempting to overrule copyright law via this policy proposal, probably in good faith ignorance, and it would be very good to get a professional opinion about where the lines actually are. Bear in mind that Wikipedia policies and practices generally err on the conservative side of copyright. As I attempted to explain to Ilena of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal, who was the successful defendant of the Barrett v. Rosenthal case itself, cutting edge challenges to existing free speech principles are best made on one's own private website, and defended in court at one's own expense. WMF would likely be overwhelmed with suits if site policies were equally daring. I have never made any legal threat, actual or implied, and make none now. This is simply an observation. Durova^Charge! 22:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not arguing anything. I am rephrasing an argument others have made which you are not understanding properly: the argument is that copyright of a letter (i.e. something specifically written to communicate with someone) does not belong to the person who writes it, but to the intended recipient. They are claiming that this is well-established, and that your idea that someone who writes a letter owns the copyright in this letter is, in fact, the "cutting edge challenge to existing free speech principles" here. —Random832 22:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)