Wikipedia talk:Private correspondence (2007 proposal)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

New proposal

Based on comments on the Durova arbcom from Mackensen and Jehochman. • Lawrence Cohen 19:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to reitarate my comments in the arbitration decision - I think the copyright issue is a cop-out. Raul654 (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The real issue is incompatibility with Wikipedia's GFDL licensing. "Only public domain resources can be copied without permission—this does not include most web pages or images." - Jehochman ^Talk 19:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This is, rather, a privacy issue, and a matter of courtesy. In particular, I don't want editors to be looking over their shoulder when they give confidential opinions about Wikipedia matters. We can do without the kind of witch-hunting atmosphere that would result from relaxing out longstanding policy against the posting of private communications. It would be heaven for trolls, and not much fun for anybody else. --Tony Sidaway 19:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems some of the Arbiters and a lot of the community disagree, though. Do you think User:!!'s posting here of a summary and snippets of Durova's evidence was acceptable? While Giano's copy/paste was Oversighted and removed, this posting from !! has stood. Clearly, if some reposting wasn't acceptable of private correspondence, this would have been removed as well. • Lawrence Cohen 19:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a particular view on how we word the policy yet, but I don't want to see people posting private emails on Wikipedia without good reason, and it's obvious to me (and from the evidence on the proposed decision page, to the committee) that posting Durova's email was a side-issue to the fact that she blocked an editor of high reputation whose behavior wasn't at all disruptive, and failed to justify the block except by vague references to discussions with unnamed individuals.

Obviously it's better to discuss potential blocks beforehand, there's nothing to be criticised in such activity, but if one does then block one had better be prepared to justify the action openly by producing evidence of user misconduct on-wiki, except in rare cases involving oversight, checkuser and other Foundation-controlled activity. I don't think a written policy on this matter is going to get much traction at dispute resolution, since it obviously isn't in Wikipedia's interests to condone the posting of confidential material. Each case, in other words, will be judged on its merits by the Committee. There's nothing we can write here that would be a definitive or even reliable guideline on when and how it is okay to post confidential communications, private correspondence, or whatever else that is normally treated as private. --Tony Sidaway 20:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Public posting on Wikipedia

Much of this is simply lifted right from Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova_and_Jehochman/Proposed_decision#Everyone_else, to start it out. • Lawrence Cohen 19:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

To the extent that this has validity it is redundant with the proposed arbitration decision or the broader Wikipedia:Confidential evidence. Durova^Charge! 19:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

To be fair this doesn't apply just to Wikipedia political or dispute resolution, but outside and other private correspondence. Also, ArbCom doesn't make policy, right? • Lawrence Cohen 20:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

There's also a problem that this proposal appears to be giving legal advice. Durova^Charge! 22:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

We can fix it. - Jehochman ^Talk 22:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Check now. • Lawrence Cohen 22:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete

This proposed guideline does not add anything useful and is covered by common sense. I don't think it is needed. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Between common sense, the ArbCom's decision in the Durova case, and things said elsewhere I don't think we need an entire policy on this. Also agreed that the rationale isn't great - it's not a copyright matter. Wikidemo (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Instruction creep. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

True, but let's see how it turns out. We could learn something. --Tony Sidaway 20:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

To reply to the original Tim Vickers' post, yes this is just common sense. However, some Wikipedians don't have enough of it and claim that there are some "rules" involved and whistle blowing is sanctionable. It is sad that we have to codify ethics into policies. The reason we have to do it is that some don't have enough of common sense. --Irpen (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You do not write policies to describe common-sense actions. That is classic instruction creep type-thinking. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, what is common sense here? Obviously posting refactored or excerpted private correspondence is completely accepted. Giano's copy/paste posting was Oversighted by Cary Bass (or someone else?) from his talk page. However, !!'s posting of the exact same material in an alternate format was completely acceptable as public ArbCom evidence. • Lawrence Cohen 20:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If it was such common sense, we wouldn't be having a raging debate that lasted several days already. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The argument about letters and e-mails being covered by copyright law is pretty absurd. Copyrights are only intended to protect people from unfair commercial exploitation of their work. If every time you forward an e-mail from one person to another you break the law, then the law is an ass. This is simply a matter of politeness and social norms. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

What is your view on the fact that Durova's email, as copy/pasted by Giano, is considered unacceptable, but the alternate version of the exact same material as posted by User:!! in evidence is acceptable? • Lawrence Cohen 20:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither is illegal under copyright law. I am not familiar with the circumstances, so I don't know if either was a justified breach of our personal expectations that correspondence remains private. If it was wrong, this was a lapse of ethics. People should apply their common sense to each situation, this is not something you can write an effective or useful policy about. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You'll never hear me say "instruction creep," but I think we are better not trying to fix the mercury here. I think we end up with bad results no matter what. Anything, accurate or not, will act as proof of what someone is allowed to do and simultaneously used to beat on people for doing what they should do. In other words, there is an element of WP:BEANS involved, and it also leads us to offering yet another alphabet soup citation that will get hurled with more violence than sense. I understand the impulse behind the page creation, but I do not think that we can do it, and I agree with Tim Vickers that we do not need to. Therefore, without the need, and with every possibility of disaster, I have to say that it's trouble all the way around. I applaud the effort and the impulse, but I just don't think we do much good trying to weigh such things. Geogre (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Modifications

I made several modifications. First, I added the plain obvious thing that we are dealing with the social norms and ethics here rather than copyrights and other law-related issues. Unless disclosure violates a contractual pledge and constitutes a contract breach (a legal issue), there is no legalese here to talk about. We are dealing purely with ethics-related issue here and this should be stated from the onset.

Second, I eliminated the suggestion that was implying that posting to Wikipedia Review is more acceptable than to Wikipedia. Posting anywhere is unacceptable in most save very few circumstances and when those circumstances are met, we are better off cleaning our own house than aiding WR in any way.

Third, I modified the ArbCom section to show that snitching to ArbCom is different from posting to public but less different than some think. Forwarding private stuff to ArbCom violates privacy too. The main issue is whether the violation is warranted rather than the method of violation (ArbCom, Wikipedia post or Wikipedia Review post)

Finally I added a reminder how to avoid any embarrassment whatsoever. Has Durova done nothing inappropriate, have our #admin IRCers said nothing inappropriate, we would not be having all these rage in the first place. --Irpen (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent changes. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and I'm dismayed to see some user or other employing logging out to try to evade 3RR in reverting. Geogre (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Durova arbcom in see also

I readded them (Jehochman had pulled them out earlier). At the least, the link to !!'s evidence section seems directly relevant, given that was a clearly acceptable use of private correspondence on Wikipedia. • Lawrence Cohen 21:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware if linking to Arb cases in this manner is standard practice. A link to the arbitration might help people to understand the circumstances which led to this policy's creation. Linking to a specific part of the arbitration is probably overkill, unless there's a really pressing reason. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

General cluelessness of the original version

It ignores not only a core Wikipedia principle, respect for anonymity, but also many previous arbcom statements like email is outside their domain and that evidence that reveals identities should be submitted as confidential evidence. This was the most ill-advise bit of pseudopolicy in some time. I've fixed it to reflect how things are traditionally done. 64.237.4.140 (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Where did my bare bones initial draft or the subsequent expansions by Irpen, WAS, and Jehochman advocate or enable outing identities in any way? Please cite the text that did so? Also, please remain WP:CIVIL, which is mandatory. Thanks! • Lawrence Cohen 21:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Not only was it flat wrong you apparently didn't take the time necessary to actually find out the preferred method for confidential evidence, but it was a recipe for disruption and legal threats. 64.237.4.140 (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Please login to your account. Your acting like that is most disrespectful. --Irpen (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Tony's changes, and anon IP

Starting a section to discuss this before we start warring in a silly fashion. Lets figure out consensus, rather than going by lone opinions. • Lawrence Cohen 21:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoever it is is now susceptible to a block. Let's please avoid such horrors. No one benefits from peevishness, and I simply hate touching that button. Geogre (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Several of the changes make a lot of sense. It certainly isn't ok to revert to a grammatically incorrect version. More importantly

• telling people "don't put things in writing that you don't want to turn up" is silly. It doesn't belong in any policy document. Putting it there only allows people to wikilawyer after they do wrong.

• the "secretive culture of the arbcomm" doesn't belong in a policy document - culture is culturel it's subject to change. We can't make rules based on the culture of a small group, a culture that we can't control. In addition, of course, it's unverifiable. Guettarda (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Amazing that you wanted to go back to the anon's version, though, instead of leaving the changes that make a lot of sense. Saying that one should never write in e-mail what would does not want to be public is an ancient nugget of wisdom. The point is that nothing may be used to reason on-Wiki actions privately. Wikipedia was not set up that way. It was set up on the model of the open slate. Therefore, retreating to irc to have "private" talk about things to be done on Wikipedia is inappropriate, but so is insisting on all discussion being by e-mail. The specifics surrounding the Durova case is that she uses e-mail for positively everything. This means another attempt at irresponsibility, or at least unindictability, and an attempt at making one's actions seem more mysterious, more magical, and more impersonal. The attempt here is to say, "E-mail won't give you those things." If you use it inappropriately, count on someone making it public. The same is true of irc. The same is true of blogs. The same is true of anything used to increase opacity. Never think that you can be private and secret if you send it or show it. That's the long and short of "secret" evidence. I think the statement should be done in blinking letters. Geogre (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

A small addition to what Geogre said. That ArbCom has a secretive culture is an undeniable fact. Saying so is not its criticism in any way. Both its bashers and its fans agree on fact. The matter at hand is why forwarding to ArbCom is less privacy invasive and the reason why is the ArbCom's secrecy. Oh, and thanks for logging in. --Irpen (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Off wiki

We're not regulating off-wiki conduct. If users want to violate each other's privacy by forwarding emails, that not our concern, up until the moment they post on wiki. - Jehochman ^Talk 22:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Expectation of privacy, mail forwared to ArbCom

I agree with this edit. If I send a private email to Irpen about George, and Irpen turns and mails it to ArbCom, Irpen has now breached the privacy between us by bringing who knows how many third parties into my private conversation. The same principle would apply whether Irpen forwarded that mail to ArbCom, User:Whomever, or his mother. • Lawrence Cohen 22:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Really? If Arbcom requires to share this information, for example like federal athorities, should it not comply? You send it is not yours anymore. So do not send what you do not whant shown. We are not some underground hidden society, like some Cabal of the lower house of chambers, we are not BlackOPs, we are not some Fraternity of Brotherhood. We are transperent orgonization bound by principals and law of the society. We do confirm to WP:NPOV and that is what differentiates us from all the rest. Honest and True to the Core! Igor Berger (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This is bullshit

We do not publish provate or confidential information. That's why ArbCom publishes an email address. Most especially, referencing a current case, we don't do it when the information is already with ArbCom in its entirety. And we most absolutely 100% especially do not do it when the primary purpose is to harass, intimidate or humiliate someone, for example by blackmailing them, as happened this time out. Which is why the proposal as written was a crock. Guy (Help!) 00:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I was working on a rewrite at the same time Guy, I've posted that too now. I removed all reference to copyright, mentioned that it's ok to post with the sender's permission, and I also mentioned that the AC can permit the forwarding of correspondence where it considers it appropriate. I think this may be more cognizant with established principles, but your wording looks pretty good too. --bainer (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

We do not publish private info, true, but only because it is socially unacceptable. For the very same reason, it is totally acceptable and appropriate under exceptional circumstances. The reason of what "happened this time out" is that this sneaky email was written in the first place rather than that it was forwarded.

As far as the policy goes, it is only clear about revealing RL identities. Show me the provision under which an editor who receives an email threat and posts it to ANI to request an action should be blocked. --Irpen (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

User:evrik was blocked for a month, later reduced to a week, for posting on ANI an email he believed was harassing. I believe the posting has been oversighted, but the matter came up in regard to a RfAr.[1] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Guy, you're spot on in your analysis and a little rude with the language, both as I've come to expect. I approve of both short versions, and don't approve of the philosophizing meta-speaking long version, which seems to leave some room for people to take it upon themselves to decide that it's okay. Everything here is a social decision. Language is a social act. That doesn't mean we can't take an absolute approach to banning breaches of the social code. Allow people to publish private email at will according to their own determination that the sender did something wrong and all hell will break loose. No, a harassing or threatening email should not be published either. The best approach would be to forward it to a trusted admin, or else post in AN/I that you've received a threat without reposting it, and take it from there. Wikidemo (talk) 01:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Guy's version is a big improvement. I have doubts about attempting to post private e-mail with the sender's permission, since publication here entails GDFL license. That seems like something Wikimedia's counsel should decide. Still seems like instruction creep since the Copyright policy could be amended and that's watched a lot more closely. Durova^Charge! 02:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

JzG's version is the only accurate version, previous versions were way out of step with established practice. Furthermore, the edit warring and piling-on by the originators of this proposal on those who tried to correct it was also way over the line and disruptive. I'm not going to speculate on motives publicly for creating such an obviously baseless proposal, but for anyone familiar with current disputes, there's little doubt as to the intent. This page bears careful watching for now on. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Versions prior to JzG's version were the accurate versions; JzG's version and similar recent versions are way out of step with current community consensus. Furthermore, the edit warring and piling-on by JzG and his meat puppets on those who tried to correctly represent current consensus is also way over the line and disruptive. I'm not going to speculate on motives publicly for edit warring in such an obviously baseless proposal, but for anyone familiar with current disputes, there's little doubt as to the intent. This page bears careful watching for now on. WAS 4.250 06:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you really mean that? It's a great feeling to know I have meatpuppets, I'd like to know who they are so I can make better use of them. I often feel as if I'm the Aunt Sally here. Guy (Help!) 23:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Any coin has two sides.

I have added the other side of this one to the proposal. What happens off-wiki, stays off-wiki, unless you ARE willing to bring it on-wiki. —Random832 04:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sorry I just womped it. Could you try to rephrase that? My concern is that use of private information is no big deal. People can consult tarot cards if they like, so long as they can explain their actions clearly and justify what they are doing with proper evidence. - Jehochman ^Talk 05:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

But when they refuse to do so (or they lie), there should not be sanctions against someone, who happens to know what their reasons actually were, disclosing it in their stead.—Random832 05:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

That seems to be the question of the day. Let us see how it is decided. We can also refer to Wikipedia:Confidential evidence that may already cover the point you wish to make. - Jehochman ^Talk 05:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to propose the wording "If a user refuses, on request, to disclose the basis for an on-wiki administrative action (stating that the basis was something on OTRS, a privately-made arbcom decision, checkuser data, or an OFFICE action is sufficient disclosure), it is presumptively concluded that there was no basis beyond 'i felt like doing it'." - basically something to clearly get across "private evidence is no evidence" (Except, of course, for arbcom/otrs/office/checkuser). —Random832 06:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If that belongs anywhere (and I don't think it does) it is not this page. --bainer (talk) 06:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If someone flatly refuses to justify any action - from a minor edit right up to blocking User:Jimbo Wales and deleting the main page - then it gets undone. Simple. We allow mistakes, we expect mistakes to be swiftly rectified. Guy (Help!) 23:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree, that might be something more for Wikipedia:Confidential evidence, doesn't seem relevant to this particular aspect of policy. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Question

User:Bcorr/Plautus, acceptable or not? How's it different from what Giano did? (Note: I do, for the record, think that this is acceptable, but a lot of the reasons people are opposed to what Giano did would also apply here.) I think making a policy that says it is flat-out NEVER acceptable to post the contents of an e-mail is a mistake. —Random832 17:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes or no, is it acceptable under what you intend this policy to be? —Random832 21:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that page clearly violates the community norm against posting emails. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that page, and the fact that it has stood unchallenged for three and a half years, is a testament to the non-existence of any such community norm. This was at best an opportunistic attack on Giano, and at worst an attempt to prevent Durova's actions from being scrutinized.—Random832 00:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

User sub pages aren't seen much, so I don't think that is representative. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It also assumes anyone knew about it. Guy (Help!) 23:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Why I wrote the first draft - can you guys please just explain why one is acceptable, the other not?

I agree that straight direct posting (in its entirety) of an entire mail, *unless* its somehow open source, or posted to a public, open-source list, *or* you have permission is not a good idea at all. However, User:!!'s posting of excerpts and analysis of Durova's email in the ArbCom evidence clearly acceptable. Giano's posting was removed repeatedly, and finally oversighted, but the !! evidence was not touched. Why was the !! version acceptable? My view of the disconnect is that there is clearly room to do this, quoting a mail, analyzing it, and demonstrating who sent it. By that token, if User:Blah mailed me an offensive mail, threatening me, it would be wrong to directly paste it into an ANI report, but I don't see why it would be wrong to say User:Blah sent me an offensive harassing mail, with the gist of it/summation, on ANI. Please help me understand? • Lawrence Cohen 18:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The !! version is acceptable and Giano's is not because Giano is an easy target and no-one has the guts to attack !!. You're confusing political maneuvering with a consistently-applicable principle. —Random832 21:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Posting an email in full and quoting it directly both violate the presumption of privacy that the writer expects. Summarizing the contents of an email is different, and is allowable. Emails, IRC logs, forum postings, and other off-site communications should not be quoted as evidence in ArbCom cases unless they contain harassment that is part of the case. In those rare circumstances the material should be submitted to the ArbCom privately. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

So why was !!'s evdidence not removed? Lawrence Cohen • I support Giano. 22:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you think it should be? If so I suggest asking a clerk to do it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thats a great non-answer. Maybe there should be a policy proposal that any and all policies are applied at all times evenly, for all users. Lawrence Cohen • I support Giano. 23:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Is your question about how this proposal should be written, or about how it should be enforced it in a specific, active incident? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

My reaction

I have drafted a caveat on my userpage stating that by communicating with me off-Wiki any person is giving me permission to disseminate any content received, including copies of other correspondence contained therin (whose permission to allow use is assumed given to the correspondent). If you don't wish your "private" messages to me to be posted... stay away. LessHeard vanU 00:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that a disclaimer like that would have any standing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You should be easily contactable by email. Please don't do anything to deter people who may need to contact you over an edit or conduct issue. --Tony Sidaway 00:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it. It represents a curtailment of the general ability of users to contact administrators, which, per long-standing community practice on the "contactability" of admins, is not acceptable. --bainer (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The person displaying that disclaimer is an admin? Yikes! --Tony Sidaway 00:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

People are free to contact me, and make any points they wish, by email (or whatever means) - but if they are going to violate Policy, or the Law, or Good Taste then I shall not allow bleatings of "privacy" or "copyright" to disallow me bringing the matter to the attention of the community. It is made clear near to the "mail this user". People bringing legitimate concerns privately may do so without fear. LessHeard vanU 01:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we can post "caveats" that allow us to violate policies. This is no more valid than if I were to post a caveat on my talk page announcing that WP:NPA doesn't apply to me. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no violation of privacy in a cyberspace if that cyberspace is clearly labeled as a non-private space. WAS 4.250 06:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope, but my caveat makes clear that I will not allow a policy of "Private Correspondence" to over-rule my ability to combat other violations of the rules and policies. If someone conducts a personal attack on me or a third party in a "private" message then my admin duty is clear - the caveat clarifies that. I am not violating policy in the wording, I am stating that by contacting me the sender gives permission to disseminate such information (which would include the identity of the sender if forwarding other persons sensitive material). To quote Burke, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing". I don't intend to be muzzled in bringing violations to the attention of others. LessHeard vanU 10:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC) ps. my caveat gives me the ability, but not the requirement. It is a matter of judgement.

You appear to be saying that if someone wrote you messages like "You're a jerk", or "I'm actually a sock puppet and my other account is X", that you'd be justified in posting them verbatim in public, including the email address and IP headers. And that this is your right regardless of the views of the Wikipedia community, just becasue you have a disclaimer buried on a user page. Those alone seem like problematic issues. It leaves me wondering what would happen if the community disagreed that the email you posted was actually harassing, or felt that the sock puppeteer wasn't using them abusively and so shouldn't have had them disclosed. That approach seems to require too many value judgments, and it's simpler and easier all the way around to simply prohibit posting private emails across the board, with no allowance for opting-out via disclaimers. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

If someone messaged me to comment that they think I'm a jerk I would WP:IGNORE it, if someone admitted to being an abusive sockpuppet I would make a request at WP:SSP, or contact ArbCom, to ascertain the facts - as I would without this policy. You mistake my acting to make disclosure permissable to a declaration that I will in every and all instances post the contents of a message. Not so. I am reserving the right to post the material if I believe the situation warrants it.

In the event of me exercising this option, like any admin my actions are then subject to review. If I am found to have acted inappropriately, whether regarding the disclosure or the subject matter, then I am open to rebuke and sanction as the community decides. All I am ensuring is that serious malpractice or disclosure of information vital to the interests of Wikipedia cannot be suppressed by declaring that the content is private. LessHeard vanU 17:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You cannot simply declare yourself exempt from policy. I have removed it again. --bainer (talk) 11:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not policy, as there sure isn't any consensus for this page as written. But I'm pretty sure people don't think anyone should edit war over an admin's user page. R. Baley 11:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I have not exempted myself from policy. I have permission from any Wikipedian who sends me an off-wiki message to disclose the contents of their messages, per my caveat. Policy refers to the posting of messages without permission.LessHeard vanU 17:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Tagged as policy

As the current form of words has long been an unwritten policy of Wikipedia, I've taken the liberty of tagging the document as policy. Changes to the wording should be carefully discussed with the intention of gaining consensus. --Tony Sidaway 00:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added the following:

Any uninvolved administrator may remove private correspondence posted to Wikipedia without the permission of the sender.

Please revert and discuss if you disagree with this change. --Tony Sidaway 00:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the addition you make is within what has been the practice. --Rocksanddirt 00:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

While I dispute that this has current consensus; I don't care much because posting short excerpts and paraphrase can accomplish the same thing. Someone sends "I will kill you" and I post "He said 'I will [murder] you' but he did not use the word "murder", he used a synonym that I am changing to "murder" to avoid breaking our idiotic clue-less rule on private correspondence." WAS 4.250 06:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

If there's a need to report it on-Wiki then the hypothetical email could be summarized as a "death threat". There's not need to quote the email itself. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Unsolicited mail

What is the situation with unsolicited mail? Supposing someone sends an unsolicited threat. Surely the recipient is within his rights to post it on Wikipedia if it's needed to show abuse. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

No. The nature of the email doesn't matter (after all, if it were acceptable to post email to show abuse, nothing would have happened to Giano), it's ALWAYS forbidden to post it. No exceptions, because if there were exceptions, this would have been the first. (To clarify - yes; real, credible threats of real-world violence are in an entirely different universe from anything to do with wiki abuse. But they should nevertheless not be posted to wikipedia, they should be forwarded directly to real-world law enforcement. Because, really, what are we supposed to do about it?) —Random832 01:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason that we have to respect the copyright and privacy of people who send us unsolicited threats. And most threats aren't things you can take to the police, so that's a red herring. Who is saying it is always forbidden to post e-mail, even if unsolicited, even if threatening? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

See Will's reply to me above, and Tony's comments all over. My belief was that User:!!'s unchallenged posting of Durova's email shows that this idea of never ever posting emails is something that a small group of people made up. Durova's mail about !! was pure harassment and borderline stalking, so that would probably fall under what you are saying. Lawrence Cohen • I support Giano. 02:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we're talking about different issues. I'm not talking about borderline situations where people have different views of the e-mails, as is clearly the case here. I'm talking about unambiguous cases, where a user threatens an admin who blocks him, for example. It's not a good idea to post such e-mails, but I wouldn't like to see it made against policy. If I'm in correspondence with someone and he threatens me, then that could be regarded as part of the private correspondence. But if a threat comes out of the blue, there's no reason we should have to respect the copyright. That's ludicrous, in fact. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the threat item would be better handled by forwarding to a) appropriate law enforcement, b) the foundation, and c) the arbcomm should the potential for the user to still be active exist. I can't think of a situation where it would be appropriate to post the threats here. I could be incorrect. --Rocksanddirt 03:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I had an interesting conversation with Seth Finkelstein about this. He is a expert on Internet privacy who I respect. My understanding of what he said is that:

1. Email is generally private, except that
2. Very ugly email might be post-able as an informal sanction, and
3. Exceptional circumstances can override privacy, such as evidence of wrongdoing by people in power.

This is a perspective. - Jehochman ^Talk 02:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Jonathan. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

If someone sends an email so harassing that it merits on-Wiki action then it should be forwarded directly to the ArbCom. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

If I might comment a bit late, I think Slim's point is a good one to consider. Privacy is an important consideration, but is it absolute? – Luna Santin (talk) 01:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Uninvolved admins

The same as admins aren't allowed to exert any special status at all when they are involved in a conflict (blocking, protecting, deleting) common sense that it should apply here to. Lawrence Cohen • I support Giano. 02:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

As I noted in my edit summary, we allow any admin to remove improper material, such as BLP violations, copy-vio, attacks, etc. Removal of privacy violations should be no different. Crum375 06:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll defer. What things are involved admins not allowed to do? Lawrence Cohen • I support Giano. 10:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

IRC

I've removed IRC because it's not private and it's not correspondence. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you say the same about mailing lists, then? IRC, like mailing lists, has public and private channels. And much like with private mailing lists, posting IRC logs is extremely frowned upon. --krimpet⟲ 06:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) A misunderstanding, SV. Some flavors of IRC are definitely private. It depends if it's a one-to-one connection or a private room, or one of the more open channels. - Jehochman ^Talk 06:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

How are we defining a private channel? The admins channel, for example, is restricted, but as I understand it, anyone who's an admin may join. No one can tell an admin they're not allowed to register (so far as I know). Given we have well over 1,000 admins, that's not really private. I would accept that one-to-one should be covered, but where are we drawing the line? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

We draw the line with common sense. - Jehochman ^Talk 06:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Which is sadly in short supply. :-) Would you call the admins' channel private? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Anything more than 30 - 40 recipients will inevitably leak. - Jehochman ^Talk 06:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make the public/private distinction, it's going to have to be more precise than that. The admins' channel could have six people in it, or a couple of hundred. We can't decide whether it's private only after counting how many were actually there on any given occasion. So we do need a working definition of private. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless participants in an IRC discussion explicitly agree to release their comments under the GFDL, those comments can't be posted on-wiki, full stop. --krimpet⟲ 06:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup. - Jehochman ^Talk 06:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Could we see a source for this? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Even on a "public" IRC channel, you can know who is there at any given moment, so it's just like the mailing list you're pretending you don't own.—Random832 06:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The best way to look at this may be by focusing on the writer's expectation of public availability. On Wikipedia, we all know that it is disallowed to use IRC logs as evidence, and on WP IRC channels it's forbidden to log. Therefore, an IRC user has an expectation that the audience for his remarks is limited to the people in the channel. An IM chat has an even higher expectation of having a limited audience. Someone posting to a limited email list, even a large one, also has the expectation that their remarks will only be read by the subscribers of the list. OTOH, folks posting to a public, archived mailing list has no expectation of a limited audience, even if the list only has a few current subscribers. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Will, in what sense is it disallowed to use IRC logs as evidence? Posting chats may be discouraged by the people who run IRC, but that has nothing to do with Wikipedia. We can decide for ourselves whether IRC logs may be reproduced. And anyway the point for this policy is that an exchange in a public chatroom can't be regarded as "private correspondence," which is what this page is about. So if we want to say that some of it is private, we have to define what we mean. The issue of someone having an expectation that their discussion will remain private among the 400 people in a public channel, most of them anonymous, is clearly unworkable. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Historically speaking, most situations involving this sort of things have been to do with emails sent between users via the Special:Emailuser function. This is a channel of communication that's deliberately private, as opposed to user talk pages, and I believe has always been understood that way. I think the proper place to draw the line is at any channel where a user would have the same expectation of privacy; I would include any channel that a user provides to the community, for example if they listed their email address or instant messaging address on their userpage, or if they listed their IRC nick to facilitate private chat. --bainer (talk) 11:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we're getting in a knot for no reason here. If an admin wants to discuss a block with some people in order to ensure they are not making a call based on their judgement alone, then I don't really see why that should be a problem. It's explicit in policy that the final responsibility lies with the admin who clicks the button, and we all sign up for that, nobody is under any illusion that a block or deletion is unchallengeable because it's been discussed on IRC. There are several private mailing lists where admin actions are discussed, including lists for Arbcom and OTRS volunteers, there are IRC channels and there is private email. Any attempt to write a regulatory framework for those is going to fail. My company has spent a fortune on write-once storage systems for email, for regulatory compliance; Wikipedia does not use a common email system or enforce the use of any particular hosting provider for mailing lists, so even if we had the cash to do this (which we don't) it would be technically impractical. And in my view any attempt to stop private discussion is almost certainly going to have a detrimental effect by reducing the ability to get a sanity check or quiet CheckUser anyway. So we fall back to the original position: if you click the block button, you take the heat, exactly as for content edits. Guy (Help!) 12:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

IRC's posting 'rules'

I was reading the IRC rules scattered around and searched for IRC in the AN and ANI logs. Since the "official" IRC channels are 100% seperate from Wikipedia and the Foundation, and have no legal or official relationship with them, isn't any rule made up by IRC operators unenforceable on Wikipedia? Their status as IRC ops is meaningless here, and their authority there, legitimate or illegitemate has no value here. If this is not true, can someone point out what policy on Wikipedia means their views on a 3rd party system carry any clout here? Lawrence Cohen • I support Giano. 17:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Whatever they want to do is fine, and ditto for us. Someone being an IRC op has no relevance on Wikipedia. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)}

What they say is irrelevant. The consequences of betraying their rules is that you might lose your access on their medium. IRC therefore can never stand in for on-site discussion, because it is 100% not-Wikipedia. This brings up, yet again, why Wikipedia links to it with pages. The present form of this essay, by the way, is ridiculous. I can only hope it's as fluid as I suspect it is. Mailing lists are not private, and there is no such thing as an open one, as opposed to a closed one, as all mailing lists have a list manager who approves those who join. There is, therefore, only the difference between a list administrator who welcomes all and one who does not. Once an e-mail is no longer really private, it's not private at all. Attempting to codify entre nous is not fruitful, and trying to enforce it is going to be another NPA -- all citation, no meaning, and enforcement without understanding. Geogre 12:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

A closed IRC channel is exactly the same as a closed mailing list. Privacy is expected. Logging is a red herring. Emails are routinely stored on local hard drives or in private webmail folders in exactly the same way that IRC channels are sometimes logged. Logging and storage of communications does not equate to lack of privacy. --Tony Sidaway 06:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

A private forum is a private forum, regardless of type. This policy need not concern itself with the particular mechanisms of the forum, beyond recognizing that the forum is (or isn't) private, and taking appropriate on-wiki action for on-wiki behavior. That's my understanding, anyhow. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggested solution

I think it is clear that there is in fact no version of this that has been adequately thought through, and that common sense is the only real solution. The point of copying an email is to communicate information. That same information can be communicated without direct quotes. Game shows do it all the time. Any proposal of this nature simply turns straight forward communication into a game show like event where the audience is supplied with enough clues that they can accurately guess exactly what was said without it being said directly. This only increases drama. I suggest we let this proposal die. WAS 4.250 06:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

But since half the current arbcom mess is because of this issue, shouldn't it be detailed in a community accepted way? Lawrence Cohen • I support Giano. 08:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it is necessary to have this discussion. But there is no consensus and I don't think both sides are even listening. I think in the end it will simply be more drama of the BADSITES kind where one side says there are going to be exceptions and the other side says no it is black and white, we are obviously right, you are being disruptive for disagreeing. WAS 4.250 11:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

This proposal doesn't come out of the blue. People have been blocked for posting emails without the formality of an ArbCom case and without any controversy. It's an accepted norm throughout society that it's inappropriate to post private emails without the consent of the sender. We're not writng new policy here, we're just setting down in black-and-white the existing policy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It is an accepted norm in society that privacy is valued as well as information sharing and that people use their POV in deciding which to emphasis at any given moment so any give person or entity will say that should have been kept secret/private for some things and that should have been revealed for other things. Making up hair-spitting rules that distinguish between the posting of Giano and the posting of !! (which excerpted and summarized rather than directly wholesale quoted) is unwise and in the end will only increase drama. WAS 4.250 11:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Will, that's what we're doing in this version. The first version I saw pretty much said the opposite, which struck me as a truly terrible idea. Stated as it is now, it represents a fair statement of existing policy and consensus. We can revisit this if we ever have a case where a credible allegation is privately emailed to ArbCom and they flatly refuse to deal with it - I think it's unlikely that will happen since Wikipedia is pretty much endlessly tolerant of dissenting viewpoints even if some ways of stating them are considered problematic. Guy (Help!) 12:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It has been de facto policy for many years that it is inappropriate to post private correspondence on the wiki, and this page in its current version simple recognises that. The earlier versions here were a departure from that position. --bainer (talk) 11:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. It's a long-standing consensus position, and the reason for even having this debate is a misrepresentation of somethign one editor did that was openly acknowledged by that editor to be "for your entertainment". Apparently I am being disruptive and creating drama by saying so, though :o) Guy (Help!) 12:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

We should stick to the completely non-controversial issues. Posting e-mails with the consent of the author, or private chats without the consent of both parties. Discussion on an open IRC channel is a different thing entirely. Let's stick to "private correspondence" as most reasonable people would understand it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think perhaps the criterion should be "correspondence with reasonable expectation of privacy." Open IRC would fail, as would any message with a very large and/or uncontrolled distribution list. Crum375 17:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

That would rule out the admins channel then. I've been told it's regarded as a channel for all admins on Wikimedia projects, and considering that includes someone who's an admin on an attack site, there can't be any reasonable expectation of privacy. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

That is false. #wikipedia-en-admins is first and foremost a channel for English Wikipedia admins, hence the name; a few trusted individuals with reasonable purpose to be there, such as stewards, OTRS correspondents, and Foundation folks, also have access, but admins on other projects are not granted access the way en.wiki admins are. --krimpet⟲ 19:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Guy, what you're being is combative. This page is currently a violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND (if folks will only read that and look, they'll see that it's about articles, not people). "We have to strip all changes and make it say what we said was always there" is not an answer, since the page came from the fact that there was no policy and should be no policy. Wikipedia has no business telling people how to interpret privacy, even in terms of itself. It must protect its editors, and it must protect itself against legal threat, but neither of those is within a hundred miles of Giano's posting of a multiply-forwarded e-mail to a listserver with a dozen recipients, after being on another list server with as many. Something that has an audience already of 20+ official and then + 10+ unofficial may still be within a circle of trust, but it's nowhere near private.

The fact is that Wikipedia and e-mail are unrelated. That's why this particular e-mail ended up here. Because on-Wiki actions were being discussed exclusively by e-mail, and because the "privacy" was acting as a protection against scrutiny and review by any dissenting voices, it was a matter of time before one of those in the chain letter posted it. Privacy was unaffected by posting it or not posting it. Punishing a person for not keeping a secret is obviously and absurdly distant from someone who did not respect privacy. There should not have been the one, and there was none of the other. Geogre 13:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm prepared to believe that I might be excessively combative here. Maybe I have reason. Maybe it's not a good enough reason. But in the end, we should not post the contents of private emails. The truth is, no block was discussed off-wiki. Durova honestly never gave the slightest indication she was intending to block. ArbCom had Durova's email, and Giano had ArbCom's email address. I do not think we should publicly post private emails, because we end up holding people to Wikipedia standards for off-Wiki actions. That may be justified in some very rare cases, but for the most part, not. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

"we end up holding people to Wikipedia standards for off-Wiki actions." This is a misleading statement in the context of Giano's recent actions. In that case on-Wiki actions were being justified with off-Wiki information released to a relatively small group (I would agree with Geogre that the mailing list would be best described as "secret", not "private"). I would also agree that a person's off-wiki behavior should not be dragged into Wikipedia, but the incident that started much of this wouldn't fall under that category, IMO. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been repeatedly struck by how unshakeable are the opinions of those not on the list, as to its purpose, content and constitution. Let me run this by you: how likely do you think it is that a harassment victim would be prepared to share the intimate details of their experience on an open list or on the wiki? One of the reasons the email trail started was precisely because people did not feel comfortable baring their souls in public, not least because such debates have had a tendency to be hijacked almost immediately by individuals pushing some agenda or other. It's not clear to me how, precisely, we were supposed to handle the issue of how to help victims of harassment without gaining insight from private discussion of details of individual incidents. We have Jimbo along to keep us on topic. There are others who are not part of what one might term "the cabal" (TINC). Guy (Help!) 13:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you're confusing me with one of those people who wants to know everything about the mysterious list. People can discuss things secretly off-wiki all they want, and I imagine they do. It's not a big deal, and certainly not Wikipedia's concern. The trouble is when on-wiki actions are justified using secret information, hence much of the concern over the mailing list. If it had only been used for personal discussions of incidents, I doubt we'd be having this debate. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 23:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

GFDL and private email

I've removed the stuff about GFDL mailing lists. Obviously this policy pertains to private email and where mailing lists are involved, only closed mailing lists. --Tony Sidaway 19:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• It's a red herring anyway. There's no evidence that the list in question is GFDL (the GNU logo on the list management page is because the software is GPL). I've been through the Wikia documentation for list admins, GFDL for list postings is not mentioned anywhere I can find. It would be very unusual for a list to be GFDL without explicit acknowledgement. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

  Yes, I gathered that the claims that the mailing list in the Durova arbitration was publicly licensed were nothing more than wishful thinking, and ignored them. --Tony Sidaway 22:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Tony: you're flat out wrong. You should not be in the habit of ignoring long time editors' opinions because you have not been moved. Guy, you're possibly wrong and possibly right. Guy appears to know the evidence, and that's a good thing, but he is interpreting it. It is unwise to put your interpretation forward so strongly that no one else may be tolerated. It was more than a software logo, Guy. You might know this. The fact that we're still keeping secrets means that I can't tell how vigorously to oppose what you've said. However, I will agree only this far: a mailing list is already not private. Again, "secret" it might be, but "expectation of privacy" it cannot have. Geogre 13:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Geogre,

You are so right sir! That is the law in the U.S., as well as, the U.K. Further, Wikipedia cannot change the law; the tax status of the U.S. based Wikipedia cannot change laws that are for all people. Thanks and I will try to be…… Nice 15:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The mailing list in question is not GFDL-licensed, and is private. Statements by anyone, whether longtime contributors or not, don't need to be taken notice of if they're clearly unpersuasive and amount to repeated statements without evidence (to do other than ignore such statements would waste time and effort). --Tony Sidaway 16:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit disappointed to see Geogre wading in in this way; it's not at all in keeping with his usual careful and thoughtful approach. We don't allow copyright violations because someone thinks it might not really be copyright, you have to prove it's public domain. In this case there is no evidence that it is public domain other than a GNU logo on the Mailman interface, which refers to the software itself (as do the other banners). Guy (Help!) 23:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Geogre, the logo refers to the software. If the contents of all mailing lists using that logo were GFDL-licensed, there'd be no point in having the option of a private list. Your argument is that if you and I exchange a few e-mails, with me emailing you directly and vice versa, it's private. But if I set up a closed mailman list, adding you and me as the only members, and with no public archive, any exchange between us is automatically public simply because we communicated via mailman. That makes no sense. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It gets even sillier than that when you consider that there's an awful lot of GPL-licensed encryption software around. The private keys generated would presumably constitute public information, as would all messages encrypted using the public keys. Moreover, authors writing books, articles and papers using GPL-licensed software would, by Geogre's reasoning, have automatically released them under a public license the minute they sent the work to a publisher. --Tony Sidaway 00:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Correct. GPL licensing of software does not apply to contents GPL applications. This is a fundamental principle of GPL. Crum375 00:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh and I forgot that this is covered in GNU's own GPL FAQ. --Tony Sidaway 00:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Explicit rules against reposting

I have added this:

A chatroom or channel that has an explicit rule against posting content elsewhere is usually treated as private.

This is in keeping with past treatment of content from such sources. --Tony Sidaway 16:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyright issues

I believe there are copyright issues involved in reposting private correspondence. I know that J.D. Salinger has sued to keep his love letters private. The law in respect to correspondence is that the physical letter belongs to the recipient but the words belong to the writer. Thus, it was okay for the recipient to sell the letters at auction, but not to publish the content. See http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/salinger.html Sarsaparilla 23:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

With regard to email, this would make passing the contents on (which is publishing within the meaning of copyright law) a tortious activity. However I think we should be clear that the reason we don't want people posting private emails is that they are private, and their content on a public website like Wikipedia is only rarely likely to do anything except cause disruption by making public that which was intended to be private. I may not like what X or Y say in private communications about my Wikipedia activities, but the place to tackle them about such off-site behavior is, if anywhere, off-site. --Tony Sidaway 00:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think the copyright issue is that anything posted to Wikipedia is supposed to have been released by the author into GFDL or be posted under some fair-use rationale. Otherwise, it doesn't belong here. This seems like basically just a subset of our regular copyright policy. Sarsaparilla 00:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

IRC rules

The IRC rules are irrelevant to Wikipedia, because we make our own rules. What matters is whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in any given exchange. If yes, Wikipedia should respect that as a matter of courtesy. If not, then not. There is clearly no expectation of privacy in a public IRC channel, and none (or precious little) in the admins channel, which is logged, and which non-admins take part in. However, clearly, in a much smaller group, there is such an expectation, and that should be respected. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If there is no expectation of privacy in IRC, there is no expectation of privacy on a mailing list. And the fact that people do log the channel is every bit as immaterial as the fact that people leak messages from your mailing list: i.e. if a channel that is known to be logged in defiance of rules against it has no expectation of privacy, neither does a mailing list that has a history of people leaking messages. You have a leak and you don't know who it is. So, clearly you're not going to expect things to be private - thus no expectation of privacy. I do agree with you on this and have made the appropriate changes to the proposal to reflect this. —Random832 06:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

We had a leak and I do know who it was. The admins IRC channel on the other hand is logged all the time by several people, and no one has any expectation of privacy there. There's no point in pretending otherwise. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding IRC logs, have they ever been posted without a negative response? Aside from privacy one concern I'd have about allowing IRC posts (and this also applies to emails to a lesser extent) is that readers of the material may not be able to establish who is "speaking". Nicknames on IRC may be unrelated to WP usersnames, may spoof WP usernames, and can change from moment to moment. Further, fake IRC logs and emails are easily created so their evidentiary value is low. I don't see the benefit from posting them publicly. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The key distinction, I think, is in whether it's a private mailing list/channel/whatever. If "expectation of privacy" is indeed the deciding factor, here, what better indicator than the policies of whatever forum? Note that I do favor public or semi-public release of most information, but prefer to do so via policy reform when possible. "Murder happens a lot, so expect to be murdered" strikes me as a bad rationale. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No leaker's charter

I've reverted an edit by User:Random832 saying:

Another example of a non-private list is one in which it is widely known that there are people "leaking" the content of posts, regardless of any rules against it.

and:

or a channel in which it is widely known that there are people making and posting logs of activity, regardless of any rules against it

This would be a leaker's charter, enabling malefactors to obtain private information and then post it to Wikipedia with impunity. --Tony Sidaway 07:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This was SlimVirgin's proposal regarding IRC; I simply added it to the page and applied the same logic to mailing lists. And, if they're posting actual personal information, that can be dealt with otherwise under existing policy, rather than by making it so that it is against the rules per se to post anything that's from a mailing list or IRC. —Random832 14:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

As for a "leaker's charter", I think we do need one - it needs to be made clear when it is appropriate to post such things, rather than simply a flat answer of "never".—Random832 14:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• But the flat answer is "never" - at least until we have a credible case that ArbCom refuses to handle. If an email is sent by someone to ArbCom and ArbCom give it due consideration and say "no", do we then need the contents published in Wikipedia space in the hope of getting a different answer? Is there any evidence that arbitrators would refuse to handle a credible allegation of abuse with private evidence? They don't seem to bme to be shy of doing that. Guy (Help!) 16:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• True, we should define when this is appropriate, otherwise people will assume WP:IAR is the threshold.--Rayc 16:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Reason

When deciding to bock or not the reason why the disclosure was made is critical. Any sensible decision has to consider if the person who discloses the information was responding to a death threat, or if they were just trying to embarrass or harass somebody. I have added this to the proposal. Tim Vickers 18:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle, but amended your addition to reflect that both the reason and the extent of the violation of privacy should be taken into account and weighed against each other. R. Baley 18:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the need. Length of block is always up to the blocking admin, with due regard to mitigating circumstances, and of course prevention not punishment. This is no different. Guy (Help!) 18:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Adding specific instructions beyond "may be blocked" is unnecessary. Tim Vickers 18:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I am hesitant to endorse a document as 'policy' if it does not take into account the reason for posting in violation of someone else's privacy in an explicit manner. Some reasons for doing so are better than others and this should be acknowledged in some way within the policy itself. R. Baley 18:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

What reasons are you thinking of? Could listing them cause WP:BEAN-type problems? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to list anything, just an acknowledgement that sometimes there are extenuating circumstances. I'm mostly OK with Tim's latest edit, and I understand that we walk a fine line between 'no exceptions'/banhammer and giving tacit approval by not wording it strongly enough. R. Baley 19:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Although I agree this isn't strictly necessary, I tried to reword this to make it explicit that people should use their common sense. Tim Vickers 19:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

[2] Sorry, I had no idea you had already made your policy! Giano 23:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh and Crum, don't attack with WP Point allegations unless you can substanciate them! Giano 23:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems a point worth discussing. Are there any circumstances in which this policy would not apply? It's still {{proposed}}, might as well hammer out such details, now. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Some do not seem to want to discuss just revert. Giano 08:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Potential for conflict with content policies

Unless I am mistaken, we are here to build an encyclopedia. That's what it says on the front page. The crux of this policy will prevent editors from inserting good-faith and contextually appropriate information into articles. The second point conflicts with another proposed policy, WP:SECRET. How about you folks get your respective acts together and build one policy, preferably one that cannot be gamed to affect the reason we are all here, which is building an encyclopedia? Risker 23:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

When would emails or IRC logs involving WP editors be considered proper material for articles? They certainly aren't reliable sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you guarantee that any living person is not a Wikipedian? I personally know five people who are the subject of a Wikipedia article, and three of them have edited here. So they are indeed Wikipedians. Should a quote from some writing of those individuals show up in an article, we would be violating a Wikipedian's privacy. Will Beback, we have already been through this nonsense on WP:NPA where those who supported the additions kept insisting that there would be no effect on mainspace. Guess what...

The second and third paragraphs of his proposal are already covered under the proposed WP:SECRET policy and the WP:HARASS policy respectively. So tell me...if WP:HARASS gets changed, which policy takes precedence? This one or that one? How does anyone decide?

If you really feel that this very specific point must be addressed in a policy, please put it in an existing policy that relates to privacy. But I will point out that it contradicts the Foundation privacy policy, in that the Foundation doesn't guarantee this level of privacy, quite the opposite. Risker 23:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't follow. You wrote "The crux of this policy will prevent editors from inserting good-faith and contextually appropriate information into articles." What reliably-sourced, verifiable information would be kept out of articles if emails can't be posted? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I find it hard to imagine any context in which posting this sort of stuff on articles might come up. In the unlikely event it did, it could probably be argued that the text is hardly so private after being printed on the front page of the New York Times (or wherever). – Luna Santin (talk) 00:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I can understand that, but then it was difficult coming up with examples of possible issues when we were expressing the same concern on the WP:NPA policy. Amazingly, there were several incidents directly relating to article space specifically referencing that policy, only one of which fell into classifications we had identified in advance. Who knows whether or not such a quote from an email or a private mailing list will be relevant to an article? We cannot judge that without the context of the specific article. Thanks to many of the people who have drafted this policy, we had almost 8 months of wrangling over NPA, it was discussed at Arbcom in various processes at least four times, took up endless ANI threads, and disrupted the building of the encyclopedia. Risker 01:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

If something is reliably sourced, it might be iffy to consider it "private." – Luna Santin (talk) 01:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ignore all rules applies. If there is an-otherwise private email that is verifiable, reliably sourced, and vitally important to an article, then I'm sure there'd be agreement to use it. I can't imagine how that circumstnace would come to pass and I don't think we should sweat over a hypothetical. Regarding NPA, the wrangling over the wording has continued actively since 2004 and has been discussed in ArbCom cases far more than four times. Yes, disputes over policy do disrupt the project. Blaming that on "you folks" or "many of the people who have drafted this policy" seems unfair. Let's focus on the issues this proposal needs to address rather than on each other. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Case studies

Case study, Durova disclosure

A real world, example as it was. Could each of you explain your take on this? I just want to get a grip on how this is viewed, since I keep seeing conflicting views from all of you. I'm still not understanding why some hold the view that "no disclosure, ever, period, full stop, nada, bannable" are saying that in no form should anything be released, when it clearly is acceptable in cases.

For example, User:Giano II's wholesale copy/pasting of User:Durova's harassment e-mail was unacceptable, but User:!! posting samples and snippets from it in a form of case study expose here was completely acceptable. Why is that? If User:!!'s version is unacceptable, why is that, and why hasn't it been removed if this is accepted as a zero-tolerance policy for posting such information? Lawrence Cohen 23:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Definitely worth looking into. Taking an offline example, consider which is more severe: "Hey, Steve and I talked about your mother-in-law, the other day," followed by a paraphrased summary, or playing a taped recording of the full conversation. Likewise, news publications which regularly quote snippets of conversations with reporters might not post a word-for-word transcript of those conversations. I won't pretend this is an easy or universal distinction, but hopefully it's enough to get a conversation going. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thats why I asked about this example often on this page, and it was why I wrote the first draft of this page. I saw extreme measures to remove private communications (Oversight, blocking by an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation who stated he was acting in an official Foundation role), and on the flip side, people completely embracing and allowing another user to post functionally the same material, which made no sense. On this page, half the people seem to advocate a bright line sort of, "Never do it, or you'll be banned," sort of approach, while others are sprinkling various clauses (IRC is allowed, its allowed if leaks are known in that forum, etc.). Its probably silly, but it needs to be spelled out. Exceptions are either allowed or they aren't. If they are, when? How? If not, something as serious as this should be written to be a "all users, no matter who you are, what you're posting, no exceptions, period, the end," since copyright may be involved.

!!'s posting is either allowed and the accepted policy, since no one has removed it, or else in the case of !!'s posting people are ignoring accepted policy and it should be removed, and he should have been warned to not repost it. Lawrence Cohen 00:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I would describe this as being one big fat gray area. On one hand, the email posting in that case wouldn't be allowed under this proposed policy. On the other, that particular situation is unlikely to come up again, since private evidence is unlikely to ever be allowed outside arbcom and checkuser in the future (and this whole fiasco is also a strong deterrent to any possible attempts to skirt the general principles regarding transparency).

So, the issue from this case is transparency. If transparency before the community is not being satisfied, is posting of this kind of information acceptable? Not really...but I think it certainly is a mitigating factor. I would say that !! took a far more diplomatic path in addressing the contents of the email without posting it verbatim, though. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 00:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Case study - MCB proposal

Thinking back, I have posted e-mail myself without asking the sender. For example, I got a proposal for a collaboration with our Wikiproject and posted the e-mail on the MCB talk page here. I didn't ask Andrew Su if that was OK beforehand, since it did not occur to me that he would object (he didn't and thanked me for putting it in the correct place for discussion). As the current policy proposal stands, I should be warned for this and might be blocked. Was this justifiable, or was it an ethical lapse? Tim Vickers 23:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It was a minor oversight. Indeed there was no need to publish the email itself but little harm was done. --Tony Sidaway 00:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Since you say this was an oversight on my part, you think this was wrong and a breach of Andrew's privacy? Tim Vickers 00:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Does the possibility of harm done by the disclosure play a part, then? Other editors here are saying there is zero tolerance rule for this. If the possibility of harm plays a role, who decides on that? Surely the author of the posted e-mail? Lawrence Cohen 00:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It's against policy but the gravity of the breach of privacy in this case does not appear great. The important point is that it was unnecessary. You probably wouldn't be blocked. The policy as written currently doesn't say you would be blocked. --Tony Sidaway 00:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, is not against policy, since what we are discussing is still a proposal. Secondly, I think even removing the e-mail from the talk page would be an over-reaction. Indeed, making these kind of communications public where I am speaking for the MCB project as a whole is a beneficial act, and includes the rest of the community in decision-making. I think this is a case where the current wording of the proposal does not apply. Tim Vickers 00:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy isn't what's written down. Posting private emails isn't allowed. --Tony Sidaway 04:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

So you claim, however, since people don't agree on the text of this proposal, or even how to apply any one version, policy on this topic can't be described as enjoying consensus. Undocumented ideas that are currently disputed are not policy. Tim Vickers 04:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Case study - permission to use images, by e-mail

I've seen a few images here and there with comments from non-Wikipedians giving their OK to use emails, in the body of the image test page. Is this in violation? If not, why? Thanks! Lawrence Cohen 23:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. If someone gives his permission to publish the contents of an email originated by him, of course it's not a breach of privacy to publish that part of the contents attributable to that person. Whether it's sensible to publish on Wikipedia is another matter, which is not covered by this policy. --Tony Sidaway 00:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear. One day while looking at an article about the meadow lark, you notice there aren't any good pictures to go with it. You go to Google Images, lets say, and find a great picture on lawrencecohen.com of a meadow lark, and email me to ask my permission. I say yes, Wikipedia can use it with such and such licensing. I've seen images (I can't find the ones, now) where the comments from the photographer giving permission were pasted right into the File:Suchandsuch.jpg page. Is that acceptable? Lawrence Cohen 00:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Such letters are better sent directly to the Communications Committee (as I recall), who handle archiving permissions. There's no need to post it on the image page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, there is no need to post these emails on Wikipedia. Follow the process listed at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission#When permission is confirmed and the permission will be approved and archived in the OTRS system for eternity. Daniel 01:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Case study - Posting a harassing email

User:Evrik was blocked for a month, later reduced to a week, for posting on ANI an email he believed was harassing. I had removed the email myself, but the user was still blocked[3]. The matter was subsequently part of an RfAr.[4] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

--Clarification: I sent Evrik one email venting frustration over his behaviour editing an article. There was no harassment. Evrik decided to post that all over the place (reposting when I removed the personal info), including on the talk page of Will, who did nothing to remove it until Admin Fred Bauder got involved. The info Evrik posted was my real name, a google search of me and my personal email address. Evrik was initially blocked for a month, he lobbied and got that reduced to roughly 4 days which, although to short IMHO, was better than nothing. LordPathogen 4 December 2007 (UTC)

So what's your view of this proposal? Do you think we should prohibit posting emails like Evrik did or allow it? If your email had contained harassment, would that have changed the issue? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I think if an email contains a physical threat, it should be reported to authorities. If it is harrassment, it should be forwarded to an admin for possible user blocking. In no case, however, should a private email be publicly posted without the express consent of the parties involved. --LordPathogen 03:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Case Study: User:Bcorr/Plautus

For anyone who can see the deleted (by Will Beback based on a premature application of this proposal) history, this page speaks for itself. For everyone else: It's simply copies - full text with headers, of harassing emails sent by a banned (if i'm reading the timeline accurately, banned after sending the emails but before the page was posted) user. Was this unethical? Would the user who posted it have been blocked if this had happened today rather than almost four years ago? Does it make a difference that it was posted by the direct recipient rather than a third party? Does it make a difference that similar (but not always identical) emails were, according to User:Raul654/Plautus, sent to a large number of admins? —Random832 16:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

We already discussed this. Yes, I think it was improper for Bcorr to post those. The fact that a respected member of the community was dealing with a problem editor may have meant that he'd have been given a warning rather than a block. As in the Evrik/Lord Pathogen case study, if we allow editors to rely on their own judgment as to whether an email is sufficiently harassing to warrant posting in public then that would open the door for more problems. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "we" (as in, you and I) discussed it above - I wanted broader input, everyone else seemed to have missed it, and it fits better in a section with numerous other "case studies".—Random832 19:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Intent proposal

I think the crux of this dispute is intent. If a private e-mail is published on Wiki with the intent to harm, harass or embarrass the writer, this is wrong and the person who does this should be blocked. However, if this is done in a genuine attempt to help the encyclopaedia, the person who published it shouldn't be blocked. I have made a change to reflect this in the proposal, comments? Tim Vickers 04:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

All my emails to private lists or between myself and other users are privileged in the sense that they are sent with the expectation that they won't be published on Wikipedia. In that sense, I think limiting it will merely open us up to Wikilawyering etc. if/when someone is blocked. However, it is a well-made point that those using private correspondance to the ends you mention will be dealt with more harshly, so I added an extra word ("especially") which I hope is acceptable. Cheers, Daniel 05:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The "especially" is a good touch, directs the policy without exclusively limiting it -- there may be any number of circumstances we haven't predicted, both good and bad. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not satisfied with the current version. The version Tim wrote earlier was better (diff, with my additional edit). It gives 3 factors to consider when blocking/warning: 1) intention/reason for a post which violates privacy, 2) extent of the privacy breach (have we even considered more egregious violations such as phone #'s or home addresses?) 3) likely-hood of recurrence. These guidelines or factors should be self-contained within the policy even if the exact penalty cannot be. R. Baley 09:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't seen them (they were removed by JzG). My head isn't functioning properly at this juncture (stares bleary-eyed at clock), so I'll look at it in the morning, my (Australia) time. Cheers, Daniel 10:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

There was some discussion about it, above, as well (link). R. Baley 17:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I've added back in the wording of this diff. I also added in 1 other factor to consider: "harm done as a result of the disclosure." R. Baley (talk) 06:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The text re length of block etc. is generic for all blocks. Guy (Help!) 07:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting Guy, I'll re-factor to (try and) address concerns. R. Baley (talk) 08:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit is here. R. Baley (talk) 08:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

and removed again [5]. I'm uncomfortable supporting this as policy/guideline if it does not explicitly and accurately reflect the current state of the wiki-community. R. Baley (talk) 08:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Duplication is bad because it inevitably introduces inconsistency, which at best confuses people and at worst results in inconsistent application of policy. How to determine the length of blocks is covered already in the blocking policy, in the "duration of blocks" section. There are no advantages in adding much the same material here. --bainer (talk) 09:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I linked WP:BP in the text,that should be sufficient. Guy (Help!) 09:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Many other policies offer guidance on blocking outside of WP:BP, why not this one? R. Baley (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Please explain!

Why in policy proposal is this disruption [6] Giano 19:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason why this clause cannot be added "Unless there is a true need to achieve justice for an attacked and victimised editor in which case the editor posting must be aware of the risks he is taking, if this proves not to be the case" Giano 19:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know any of the background of this discussion, but to me, this addition has the strong appearance of being motivated by some kind of grudge. In my opinion, an addition written in what seems to be confrontational and crusading language is inappropriate. Tim Vickers 19:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

If an email contains material that needs to be shared with other because of a "true need to achieve justice for an attacked and victimised editor", then it should be sent to the ArBcom privately. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• OK, you "all" seem to want it your own way, don't come crying and complaining when the policy does not work or is held up to ridicule in the future. Giano (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking that comes back to Ignore All Rules, as with any other policy/guideline. There is always supposed to be room for exceptions to rules, but there has to be good reason beyond WP:IAR. As a result, I'm not sure your line is necessary. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

On your own heads be it. I have been reverted twice. No more. You have my view. You dig your own trenches, be careful you don't fall into them. Giano (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)