Wikipedia talk:Harassment: Difference between revisions

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

This page is only for discussion of the policy and not for reporting cases of harassment; if you require information on dealing with harassment click here. Thank you for your time.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

As User:Opabinia regalis noted here and others have noted elsewhere, a discussion about the potential risks and benefits of allowing editors to post "company/client/affiliation" on behalf of paid editors would be useful.

Setting this up to get that rolling, with various categories to help keep things clear, based on what various folks have already said on this issue here and elsewhere.

This is all with respect to allowing posting of employer/client/affiliation on behalf of undisclosed paid editors (UPE) and is all about potential risks and benefits. If we actually do this, unexpected harms and benefits could emerge that nobody anticipated.

Above comments and following sub-headings added by User:Jytdog — Iadmc♫^talk  21:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Risks to readers

• People wrongly accused of being paid editors, or who fear being wrongly accused, do not produce encyclopaedic content for people to read. Thryduulf (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• The focus on paid and suspected editors means non-encyclopaedic contributions from editors not suspected of being paid are overlooked. Thryduulf (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Risks to confirmed UPE

• Loss of reputation for future engagements, possible loss of income Brianhe (talk) 05:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the loss of reputation and income is likely to occur only if the person is a confirmed persistent violator, and is a positive result of policy enforcement, not a risk. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In risk/benefit analysis, risk is a neutrally appraised cost to an actor (a party). You're adding a judgment about that outcome here, which is IMO best accomplished in a separate phase when we weigh the risks against one another. It also helps us to understand that we are in control of some risks ourselves, e.g. we could choose actions that have a greater or lesser impact on actors' reputations. Brianhe (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Information posted on Wikipedia is used by others to harass/impersonate/doxx/etc them or others connected to them. Thryduulf (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Risks to suspected UPE

• might be used as bludgeon to win content disputes; editors unfortunately "cry COI" too often in content disputes. Jytdog (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• if identification of employer or affiliation is accurate and there was no unpaid editing, editor has been OUTED with no benefit to anyone and only harm to the editor Jytdog (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• "Suspected" should not be included, only confirmed undisclosed paid editors should be named: risk of error and therefore legal action and defamation if unconfirmed — Iadmc♫^talk  21:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Per Opabinia regalis, below, the risks to real human beings of having their personal information made public are massive and very real. Let's never lose sight of that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Though this can be an actual risk, we will usually be linking to the company, not the individual. DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Information posted on Wikipedia is used by others to harass/impersonate/doxx/etc them or others connected to them. Thryduulf (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Editors who make edits about entities/people they have a COI with but who are not paid (directly or indirectly) to make them could become suspected of UPE and outed. e.g. Students making edits about their university, family members making edits about their spouses/parents/etc, employees in roles wholly unrelated to marketing making edits about their employers. Outing can then lead to loss of job, harassment, stalking, violence, and any other "usual" risk of outing. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 11:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Risks to editors who post

• there is apparently legal risk here, per statements by sitting or former arbitrators like this and this, the latter further elaborated here. Jytdog (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• If done incorrectly risk of block for OUTING Jytdog (talk) 17:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Risk of error and therefore legal action and defamation if status of outed party is unconfirmed — Iadmc♫^talk  21:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Information about them is posted by others in revenge/retaliation/in a belief that it is acceptable. Thryduulf (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Risks to other editors

• Increased risk of harm from being wrongly accused. Thryduulf (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Increased fear of being wrongly accused leads to them ceasing editing. Thryduulf (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Increased risk of real-life harassment, stalking, and violence as a result of being wrongly accused. (Important to be clear how severe the "harm" can be here) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 11:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Risks to other Wikimedia projects

• Editors on en.wp who stop editing because they have been or fear being wrongly accused are likely to stop editing other projects as well. Thryduulf (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Risks to people, institutions, etc not named above

• mis-identifying employer/client/affiliation harms the reputation of the misidentified entity Jytdog (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the possibility of misidentification is why we need actual procedures , as the alternative is our current way of doing things, which amounts to guessing, and is even less accurate and thus more risky. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benefits to readers

• See the scenario I posted in #Break 3, just above. Readers want useful information, not deviously disguised promotion. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• None:
  1. Whether content is promotional (whether or not it is disguised) is independent of whether the contributor is (suspected of being) paid.
  2. Whether content is promotional (whether or not it is disguised) is independent of whether a paid contributor disclosed their being paid. Thryduulf (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure if these sections are really for threaded discussion, but since you have asked me questions below, I will also respond to you here. Please really engage with what I wrote in #Break 3. Is changing the numerical value of the average temperature in a given location really self-evident as promotional? The world is entering into a new era, of alternative facts. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benefits to confirmed UPE

• Decreases the unethical competition Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a benefit to a disclosed paid editor, not a confirmed undisclosed paid editor. Thryduulf (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• None. If they are a confirmed unpaid editor, they get blocked. Getting outed as well offers them no benefits. Thryduulf (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benefits to suspected UPE

• Can provide an answer to "why did you revert/block me?" Editors who have been sanctioned want to see evidence. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• If done correctly and sensitively, it can provide an opportunity for a falsely suspected editor to be able to set the record straight. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • How? It is very difficult, at best, to prove a negative. Even if they were to out themselves as having a relationship with a competitor to the organisation suspected (company A) that proves nothing either way about whether they are receiving money from company A. Outing them doesn't help. Thryduulf (talk) 16:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  By giving the accused editor an opportunity to see the website that is the basis of the accusation against them. And please note that I said "if done correctly and sensitively", not as willy-nilly outing. Upon seeing that information, the accused can submit rebutting information privately, if that is better. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benefits to editors who post

Benefits to other editors

• allows other editors to see disclosure that should have been there from the beginning, so that edits can be evaluated in light of the COI. Same reason that COI disclosures are required in academic publishing. Jytdog (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• allows editors concerned with undisclosed paid editing over time, to see patterns of company activity and identify articles that are especially subject to COI editing, to better maintain article quality there. Jytdog (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• If the outed party is correctly identified, we have a good idea who not to trust — Iadmc♫^talk  21:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benefits to other Wikimedia projects

• If any Wikimedia project loses the perception that we provide useful information, that instead of having gone back to the early Pokemon days, we have become an outlet for "alternative facts", our legitimacy will be lost, and Wikimedia will go the way of daisy-wheel printers, to be replaced by something else. No, I am not exaggerating. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • But how does this proposal prevent the perception that "we have become an outlet for "alternative facts""? Thryduulf (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Further information: #Break 3 and Alternative facts. By decreasing the amount of bogus information on Wikipedia. I think bogus information on Wikipedia leads to negative public opinion of Wikipedia, and I would hope that you agree about that. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  For what it's worth, I further explain my reasoning here: [1]. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benefits to people, institutions, etc not named above

• provides groundwork on which WMF Legal might then choose to take direct action with regard to paid editing companies Jytdog (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• if list is made and is reasonably public, would allow people/entities who want to hire paid editors to see companies with a history of UPE. Could come to function like a Beall's list of Predatory open access publishing (a word of caution, Beall discontinued his list, apparently due to legal troubles or other harassment but the reason he discontinued it is not clear. ) Jytdog (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Shows how to properly edit and what and who to avoid — Iadmc♫^talk  21:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion

• This is a fascinating list, but more for what it doesn't include than what it does. You've started a list of the "risks" of posting others' personal information without their consent, and didn't include a heading for the risk to the editor whose personal information is exposed. It's pretty clear the thinking here began with risks to the people already inside the Wikipedian "empathy circle" - mostly the editors who want to be permitted to post this stuff - and therefore has overlooked the most serious risks, which are the possibility of harming someone who's done nothing more than ignore a terms-of-use document on a website (a behavior that is ubiquitous online), and the possibility that you might be wrong and irreversibly expose some entirely innocent editor's personal information. These are much more serious risks than someone getting temporarily blocked while a problem is investigated and resolved. Maybe this is a consequence of my real-life work, but I spend a ton of my time being wrong about stuff. It is part of the nature of research to develop a model that seems to fit the available data well and then discover some new information that reveals a flaw. I am very accustomed to assuming I might be wrong about things, even when I feel subjectively confident in the evidence. Unfortunately I don't see that kind of mental habit reflected in most of the conversations surrounding the "outing" of paid editors.

  Importantly, I want to amplify what I mentioned above in my previous post on this page. It is really weird that so much of the conversation about managing paid editing is taking place on the talk page of the harassment policy and is focused on this one specific, controversial, and time-consuming means of approaching the problem. Personally, I'll be much more inclined to believe the arguments that this is somehow necessary if I start seeing the people who claim they need to be posting personal information instead investing serious effort in developing other approaches to the problem that are more consistent with our usual working practices. And by that I mean the traditional methods of "comment on the content, not the contributor". Notability standards, new-article quality control, sourcing. See where the WMF stands on adapting ORES to spammy edits as well as vandalism. Consider amending deletion processes to facilitate the removal of promotional articles. If necessary, people can then present evidence of specific sets of circumstances in which those more conservative preferred approaches are not sufficient. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't "the editor whose personal information is exposed" be included in the "Risks to confirmed UPE" and "Risks to suspected UPE" groups (even if innocent)? Mojoworker (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not to totally speak on Opabinia's behalf, but I think she's talking about the framing. Calling them UPE and not Editors puts them out of the empathy circle. --Kyohyi (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^[FBDB]Does that mean Admins are in the empathy inner circle? Mojoworker (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^[FBDB] Rarely... — Iadmc♫^talk  21:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If - and it is a huge if - you want to read Opabina as being rhetorical in writing that there is no consideration to the editor whose information is exposed, that kind of rhetoric is unacceptable to me for a sitting arb in a highly charged discussion. I would like to think that Opabina simply read too quickly before they posted. Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Opabinia regalis please redact your misrepresentation of what I wrote. I provided two sections for risks to editors whose information would be posted (and in one case I am not even sure the community would ever arrive at consensus to post if it was only suspected). Two. Not zero. Jytdog (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kyohyi is correct. I'm objecting to both the framing and the consequences of that framing, namely that "the person whose personal information is exposed" is not necessarily the same as "the suspected/confirmed paid editor". That's why I posted in the "general comments" section rather than just adding to the headings or lists of risks. There are many other possible risks to the owner of the personal information that aren't accounted for in the construction of the discussion - for example, it may be that information belonging to the wrong Joe Bloggs gets posted, or that the investigator falls for a joe job and posts accurate information about an editor's identity based on inaccurate beliefs about their activities, or that posting information about Joe also reveals information about Jane, or.... etc. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps she meant it wasn't inclusive enough? Not sure, though — Iadmc♫^talk  21:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Opabinia regalis The cases you mention about making a mistake or falling for a joejob fall squarely under "suspected UPE". And again, this is about posting, with regard to a specific user account that is a suspected or confirmed of UPE, the "employer, client or affiliation". There are only four "fields" under discussion, 1) account username; 2) the three pieces of information named in the ToU - employer/client/affiliation. There is not one section for suspected/confirmed - there are separate sections for suspected and confirmed, and I did it that way exactly to deal with the kinds of things you mention. At this point you appear to be almost willfully trying to distort the discussion and I ask you to a) stop doing that, and b) redact your misrepresentation. Jytdog (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a real question, not a rhetorical one: do you really not see that "the person whose personal information is exposed" - the person, the real-life human being - is a different class being asked to bear different risks than "the suspected UPE", the (IMO rather dismissive) term you chose to refer to the Wikipedia identity you suspect of editing for pay? The difference lies in the possibility that something went awry in your "investigation".

In principle, doing a risk analysis on this problem is a good idea. In practice, I think it's unlikely to produce any clear conclusions, for a number of reasons. The simplest is the issue in the preceding paragraph, the need to correctly identify all of the stakeholders and their associated risks. More subtle is the problem of framing: how we (readers of and participants in this discussion) evaluate these risks largely depends on the extent to which we identify with the hypothetical members of each group. This is what I'm getting at with the "empathy circle" comment - the discussion is framed so that readers of it empathize with the hypothetical editors who might get blocked for posting their concerns, but not with the hypothetical real-life person who found themselves in unpleasant personal circumstances, took on some crappy online freelance work, and now has that decision publicly associated with their real name on a major website. I'm not saying you're deliberately constructing it that way; it's just the expected consequence of a discussion framework written by someone with a known strong opinion on one side of a divided issue. The broadest reason this type of risk analysis is unlikely to be beneficial is simply that it's incomplete: as I mentioned above, there is a very noticeable trend in discussions of "paid editing" to focus narrowly on the perceived value of posting allegedly paid editors' personal information, to the exclusion of managing paid-for content using other community mechanisms. A risk analysis that doesn't compare the risks and benefits of such posts with the risks and benefits of other approaches is insufficient as a basis for drawing any conclusions about how the community can best manage paid editing. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Jytdog, you are surely a grown-up dog, and you don't really need to have anything redacted. Opabinia, no it's not weird to discuss the issue here (and does it really surprise you to see something weird around here anyway?), because the outing policy is the policy that will be used against any editor who makes a mistake in how they try to deal with undisclosed paid editing. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trypto and Opabina. The misrepresentation is very serious to me. I am very disturbed by the utter lack of good faith, and the assumption of stupidity and thoughtlessness on my part in what Opabina is writing here. The assumptions make actual dialogue impossible. I am not writing this lightly. Jytdog (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Nobody is intentionally misrepresenting anything. You two disagree. Whether you dialog or not is up to you. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody ever intentionally misrepresent things? It doesn't matter why. It is a blatant misrepresentation that what I wrote above ignores the risks of OUTING to people suspected of UPE who aren't doing that or leaves no space for discussion of that. It is right here for pete's sake. User:Tryptofish how does your point here differ from that in any significant way, reading mine with even a modicum of good faith? Jytdog (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I read yours entirely in good faith, and it never occurred to me otherwise. The difference is in the framing. Peace. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trypto, that's exactly the problem I'm trying to push back on. You can make lots of mistakes in trying to deal with paid editing - say, by not making a good case for deletion when you take a fluff-filled article to AfD. The only way this policy is relevant is if you want to post the personal information of someone you believe to be editing for pay. That should be a very small part of the broader activity of "dealing with paid editing", relevant only in the most extreme situations, yet the discussion is disproportionately dominated by that topic.

Jytdog, I didn't say you are stupid or thoughtless. I said that I disagree with what appear to be the underlying assumptions motivating this discussion, and I wish you would reconsider those assumptions in more depth. I think the people advocating management of paid editing in part by loosening the outing policy are underestimating the risk of error and making assumptions about the likely failure modes that are inconsistent with my experience dealing with harassment and outing victims. The fact that I disagree with you doesn't mean I think you're stupid or thoughtless or acting in bad faith. Like I said, I'm wrong all the time, so I may well be wrong now - but calling my thoughts on the subject "misrepresentation" doesn't convince me I am. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only a small part of dealing with undisclosed paid editing involves the use of off Wikipedia material. Most has and always will entirely involve on WP evidence. What we are doing now; however, is not enough when we are dealing with companies that primarily do undisclosed paid editing. There are a number of organizations out there, that number is growing, and we have been failing to adapt to the changing times. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify that when I referred to an editor making a mistake, I was thinking more specifically about an editor who posts something that might seem to you to be personal information and seem to me to simply be an advertisement for paid editing. I think that editors who are trying hard to act in good faith can get in trouble over the current version of the outing policy because the policy is unclear in so many ways, and it may be another kind of mistake to sanction such an editor. For that matter, "case-by-case" strikes me as a colossal mistake. So obviously there are indeed many different kinds of mistakes. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I will add that Opabina's repetition of the claim that "there are other ways - go work on them" expresses a lack of awareness of the hours and hours of work that people put in all the time - the ongoing efforts -- to address paid editing/COI issues, operating very much within the limits of OUTING, and gives no room for them to even begin to understand why there has been this continual effort to come up with better ways to navigate the tension between the values of integrity and privacy, much less a space from which to productively contribute to the discussion instead of trying to derail it and shut it down. It leaves no where to go. Jytdog (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I have no doubt that people focused on COI issues work hard, I mentioned the "comment on content, not contributors" maxim because I was specifically referring to approaches that focus on content, not COI investigations. The issue I am interested in is the implicit premise that evaluating bad content on its (lack of) merits is inadequate to solve the part of the "paid editing problem" that matters to our readers: the part where we get bad (misleading, promotional, poorly sourced, etc.) content as a result.

And as long as we're talking about "framing", I reject the framing of an "integrity vs privacy" dichotomy. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Opabinia regalis I realized I did not directly reply to the following: } This is a real question, not a rhetorical one: do you really not see that "the person whose personal information is exposed" - the person, the real-life human being - is a different class being asked to bear different risks than "the suspected UPE", the (IMO rather dismissive) term you chose to refer to the Wikipedia identity you suspect of editing for pay? The difference lies in the possibility that something went awry in your "investigation". Of course I am aware that every person operating a user account is a real person. My entire approach to dealing with COI (when I could do that, before my TBAN) was dialogue-based and the mistake I made that got my blocked was a departure from that. What I am trying to communicate to you is the following - your responses to my posting have been based entirely on your assumption that I don't respect other editors and their privacy. Your question is the exact same as "Does your mother know you beat your wife?" The only answer is: I don't beat my wife. And of course I take everyone's privacy seriously. Why do you assume I don't? And why is the effort to even discuss this so threatening that you keep trying to shut it down? Those are real questions back to you - and they are real questions from me to you. Jytdog (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. However, you're wrong about what assumptions I may be making. You argued that the category I said was omitted had in fact been included. I disagree, and asked whether you saw the distinction I was drawing. As for shutting down discussion, why would you assume that was my intention, instead of the simpler hypothesis that I just disagree with you? Considering this exact subject is currently being discussed on at least three separate pages, whoever is trying to shut down discussion is apparently doing a piss-poor job of it anyway ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's try to actually discuss the objection to the section header "suspected UPE editors". In the discussion about amending OUTING to deal with UPE, we need some way to talk about useraccounts that people begin investigating in good faith, to make sure folks commenting are clear that this is not something that applies to just anybody. This is also written with the assumption there wlll be an actual process in place to authorize posting "employer/client/affiliation" (I cannot imagine there is a chance of consensus without that) for user accounts of suspected or confirmed undisclosed paid editors (who are, yes, people). Keeping all that in mind, User:Opabinia regalis what would you prefer that we call this subsection so that we can actually talk about it? Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point is more subtle than "we should change the section header", or I would've just said that ;) What I am encouraging you to do is question the assumptions that led to your original choice of wording and structure. Changing the wording doesn't change the assumptions. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tryptofish has "framed" this is in difficult way, as a "disagreement". This is not a disagreement about where to go with policy, this is a disagreement about what is going on in my mind. That is not a "disagreement" in any sense we use that word in WP. You have declared me incompetent to participate this discussion - too caught up in fervor about COI matters to be trusted to think and write clearly about OUTING and needing to have what I write here deconstructed, the conversation about the issues stopped dead in their tracks, and the flaws in the place I am coming from unpacked, as it is just "fascinating" to see a warped mind at work. And Opabina, you actually stand by this behavior and defend it as appropriate, anywhere in WP. I cannot wrap my head around that. Jytdog (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All I mean by "disagreement" is that OR takes a very strict position on "content not editor", whereas you are (correctly, I believe) pointing out that it isn't as simple as that – and that you consider OR's language to be a personal attack on you, whereas she (correctly, I believe) is trying to explain that The fact that I disagree with you doesn't mean I think you're stupid or thoughtless or acting in bad faith. My hope is that the discussion will turn away from editor motivations, which is very much of a distraction, and towards finding a consensus about what does or does not need to be posted about undisclosed paid editing accusations. And as for "framing", I can try to explain what I mean by going back to your earlier comment about my edit at #Risks to suspected UPE. I did not mean it as a criticism of what you had previously put there, and I do recognize that there is some redundancy between what we each said. But I gave it a different framing, in the sense of a difference in affect. You referred to no benefit to anyone and only harm to the editor. Quite correct, and said in a businesslike way, and nothing wrong with that. I, on the other hand, put an emphasis on the more emotional aspects of that harm, which I think is useful in drawing attention to something that will be important for editors to pay close attention to as these discussions continue, and also in demonstrating to editors who feel as OR does, that we understand their concerns. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Post-close discussion

• About the close, Herostratus misrepresents what I said: I answer the question affirmatively, but I do not see it as requiring a revision of the policy page. That is not a contradiction: one does not have to want the policy to be changed in order to answer "yes" to the question that was asked. More broadly, I think that the close goes beyond a summary of the discussion, to being an additional opinion that comes close to being a supervote. Nonetheless, I agree with the basic tl;dr. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since some argue that any linking to an outside account should be a bannable offense, this is a useful clarification which prescribes a little more nuance to the occasional black and white position. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Consent for it to be posted on-wiki was a requirement of the vast majority of supporters. Not merely a public post and thereby implicit consent -- hence the usage of "explicit". Mkdw ^talk 06:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your recent edit (diff) is very strange. The old text said it was ok to post an on-wiki statement contradicting impersonation by an editor if the disavowal was public or specific permission was given. Consider a scenario where Bill Gates posted on a public website that he is not User:Example (after that user had claimed to be Gates). The effect of changing or to and is that no one can post a link to the website where Gates has made the disavowal. That's absurd. My reading of the RfC is that people are concerned about how the community could be satisfied about an on-wiki post saying, for example, that Gates had emailed the person posting, and had said they are not User:Example. More than that, Gates would need to email the disavowal and state that it was ok to post his statement on-wiki. Johnuniq (talk) 07:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's understandable to have a concern that it's not enough if the person means that it's OK to put the information somewhere else but they did not mean that it's OK to post it here. But I also agree that we don't need a personal permission for something that is already truly public, and insisting on that would lead to unintended consequences. I think maybe that this fixes it. OK? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC question was expressly about whether it can be posted to Wikipedia with their consent. Johnuniq, if that's absurd to you, then hold an RFC where consent is not expressly required on publicly posted information. The changes to the policy where consent is not at the heart of the wording was not supported by the outcome of this RFC. Consent was cited in nearly every support comment:

• "someone has given their explicit consent to post information about them on Wikipedia" - Thryduulf (supported the RFC)
• Tryptofish, at the time of their support, also cited Thryduulf's caveats. (supported the RFC)
• "consent was explicit" -Seraphimblade (supported the RFC)
• "verifiably consent to their information being posted on-wiki" -BU Rob13 (supported the RFC)

I don't agree that publicly posting something elsewhere is implicit or explicit consent to link or share that information on the English Wikipedia. Disavowals are a much more isolated issue and perhaps the supporters had not contemplated such a narrow scope at the time they supported the RFC. However, we cannot change their consensus on a reductive interpretation of the concerns. We cannot simply disregard the caveats and restrictions by the supporters of the RFC. Do public disavowals require consent to be linked on the English Wikipedia? It's a good and valid question but not the one asked at this RFC. And certainly not something that there's a clear consensus of support on. Mkdw ^talk 20:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mkdw: Two things: First, I think your edit to the policy page was very good, an improvement. Second, I didn't understand what Johnuniq said as meaning that the RfC result was absurd, but that a specific situation that he described was an unintended absurd consequence of using the "and" construction of an earlier version. And I agree with him. The point was not that someone narrowly gave consent somewhere else in a way that would not assure that they would be OK with it being on Wikipedia. It was more like when the person calls a news conference or issues a press release, saying that this impersonation on Wikipedia is BS, and it was all over the news. The earlier "and" language made it sound like we would still need a communication directly to Wikipedia, even when a ton of BLP-compliant sources were telling us that it was impersonation. But that's water under the bridge, because the language is fixed now. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I interpreted this RfC as asking a specific narrow question - i.e. is it acceptable to post information about a person when they have given consent, and my answer relates to that specific narrow question and should not be taken as supporting questions that were not asked. I do not support a blanket statement that posting information about a person is acceptable where the consent is implicit. If the person concerned is notable AND their statement is verifiable in reliable sources AND both their statement and intent to make it public are unambiguous then it is fine to post this information (assuming it is relevant, etc). I may also support it in additional circumstances, but I have not fully thought them through. It is not possible to know, based on the above RfC, whether my position regarding implied consent represents a consensus view or not because the RfC did not ask that question. Thryduulf (talk)

Thank you Thryduulf and Tryptofish. I agree with both of you. I think the community will naturally use reasonable judgement and rely less on policies like OUTING when it comes to high profile individuals who make statements in reliable primary and secondary sources. The OUTING policy is mainly here to serve the community and where the vast majority of the incidents will occur and continue to act as a preventative safeguard to ensure personal information is not inaprropriately disclosed by other parties. I think the RFC consensus and current wording acknowledges both and ensures consent is a central aspect to the policy. Mkdw ^talk 06:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following the implementation of this: [3], it seems to me that this new, more precise, language supersedes the "under discussion" line Posting links to other accounts on other websites is allowable on a case-by-case basis. That being the case, I propose that the case-by-case sentence should be deleted from the outing section. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just providing a permalink to the RfC and its close at WT:COI -- it is here. It was on the basis of that, that the diff above was done. Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm just adding a note that the closure is being reconsidered, so editors may want to wait until the dust clears before answering my question. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Close has been withdrawn. Preceding discussions of the close were here and here and here. Jytdog (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why remove it? We have support for a case when linking to other accounts is okay. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we have one specific kind of link that the community (tentatively, depends on the revised close) has endorsed. We don't have consensus for linking in any other situation, do we? So there is no reason to imply that there are additional kinds of links that have consensus, but they are determined "case-by-case", whatever that means. If you review the talk archives here, there have been a lot of discussions about how the "case-by-case" language is so imprecise as to be useless in a policy to which editors will look for guidance. And after all, it still caries that "under discussion" tag. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much of this policy is controversial such as "This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors." Started a RfC to address this sentence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll note that a recent edit has combined the "exceptions" language into a single paragraph, such that the "case-by-case" sentence becomes an introductory topic sentence for the paragraph. This is a very good improvement, and partially resolves my original concerns. At the same time, I continue to feel that "case-by-case" is such a vague term that it is unhelpful to have here at all. So I am going to revise my original question as follows: can anyone explain to me what "cases" are allowed, that are not now described in that paragraph? If not, what purpose does the sentence serve? If so, why not spell it out instead? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO that sentence explains that outing is not a black and white issue and common sense can be used. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

Change Posting links to other accounts on other websites is allowable on a case-by-case basis. to Posting links to other accounts on other websites is allowable under specific conditions. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about Posting links to other accounts on other websites is allowable in specific situations.? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sure, that works for me. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any objections to going ahead with this? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've done it. If anyone has second thoughts, we can of course discuss it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing this proposal, but I think that it would be fine to continue discussing the subject here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The outing section of this policy page refers in two passages to privately emailing material that cannot be posted onsite, and includes administrators as permissible recipients. The two passages are:

If redacted or oversighted personally identifying material is important to the COI discussion, then it should be emailed privately to an administrator or arbitrator—but not repeated on Wikipedia: it will be sufficient to say that the editor in question has a COI and the information has been emailed to the appropriate administrative authority. Issues involving private personal information (of anyone) could also be referred by email to a member of the functionaries team.

and

Nothing in this policy prohibits the emailing of personal information about editors to individual administrators, functionaries, or arbitrators, or to the Wikimedia Foundation, when doing so is necessary to report violations of confidentiality-sensitive policies (such as conflict-of-interest or paid editing, harassment, or violations of the child-protection policy).

This seems to me to be a problem. It actually says that material that could be oversighted, or even has been oversighted, may be sent to administrators, even though we do not otherwise allow access to oversighted material to persons other than those having the oversight permission, or the WMF. Administrators are not vetted for this privilege, and although most are responsible in their conduct, we all know that this is not universally the case.

I propose that the two instances of the word "administrator", highlighted above in green, should be changed: to "a functionary" in the first case, and deleted in the second. (There could also be subsequent wording tweaks, but they can be delayed until a future discussion.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Sadly, I think there are administrators out there who don't even know what oversight is (or even RevDel). One possible objection I see is that administrators can revision delete if oversighters don't respond in a timely manner, but this is pretty rare and is more common on other Wikimedia sites. I would suggest changing it to "oversighter" because a CheckUser might not be that helpful in such a case though. --Rschen7754 23:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About checkusers, this would not simply be about making sure that something gets oversighted, but it could also be something where, for example, there is suspicion about socking based upon some kind of evidence that would violate outing if it were posted at SPI. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support and suggest also removing the words "or arbitrators" as redundant; all sitting arbitrators are also functionaries. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC) Was halfway through an explanation on change of !vote, but edit conflicted with OR and they say it better than my version. Also agree with the caution in OR's econd paragraph. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly logical, but it's probably better to err on the side of assuming that some users looking to this policy might not realize it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose changing the material in the 2nd box. There is "nothing in this policy prohibits the emailing of personal information about editors to individual administrators, functionaries, or arbitrators, or to the Wikimedia Foundation," simply because this part of the policy is about posting material on Wikipedia, not about email. (If there is any such material in the policy, please just quote it to me). It's also not about oversighted material. It's about any information that an editor has that " is necessary to report violations of confidentiality-sensitive policies." If we have confidentially-sensitive policies, we need to report violations, and if we can't report them on-Wiki we need an alternative. Emailing an admin seems to be the best alternative. It wouldn't overload arbs and other functionaries. I also have to say that some arbs are the last people I'd want to report violations of the Terms of Use by paid-editors to. Many of them seem to have declared the ToU unenforceable and thus null and void, e.g. in the Wifione decision. I would prefer to privately report violations of the ToU to somebody who is not against enforcement of the ToU. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The language is specifically about "personal information", as that term is defined in the outing section of this policy page. So yes, it is about material that would be oversighted if posted onsite. If someone wants to email an administrator about something that does not involve "personal information", no problem, and this language does not change that. The reason it discusses email (which is the existing language, and you'd need another discussion to change it) is because email is an alternative to posting onsite. Your personal opinion of some arbs is your personal opinion, and if we allow sending oversightable material to "trusted" admins, trust is in the eye of the beholder. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, although it might be better to talk about emailing the functionaries list or OTRS as that stands a greater chance of swift action than an individual. I agree that explicitly mentioning arbitrators is a good thing, as they are more known about than functionaries. Thryduulf (talk) 07:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That occurred to me too, but the existing language that immediately follows the second box says that only "the minimum number" of people should be contacted. The context here is not so much about urgent matters, such as getting an edit oversighted, but about less rushed processes in which evidence is being evaluated. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose There is no need to control private communication. If email is abused (spamming personal details or emailing them while showing battleground behavior), the editor can be blocked as normal. This is the first proposal that I aware of that attempts to control contributors beyond what happens on this website. Several cases of known off-wiki harassment have occurred where editor X has posted personal details of editor Y, along with attacks, on another website (hello Wikipediocracy and all the people who support it by contributing there), yet X is not blocked because what happens off-wiki does not count. In a couple of extreme cases, the perpetrator has been blocked, but that is an exception. Johnuniq (talk) 03:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Johnuniq. Geogene (talk) 04:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the argument about a slippery slope. But the existing language already puts certain restraints on emails, such a contacting the minimum number of persons, so this is not a first. And the existing language also seems to indicate that emailing to a non-admin is not OK, so this would only be an extension of restrictions of off-wiki communication that already exist. Furthermore, you need to take a look at WP:OWH: there is already an entire section of this policy page that is all about forbidding certain kinds of off-wiki contributions! (By the way, please do not take my replies as badgering responding editors. I'm just trying to make this a discussion, moreso than a vote.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not tending to support this. We are passing through what, 10-20 admins a year? That's a pretty select group, and if the admins can't be trusted with info like this, we're doing something wrong. The arbs and functionaries are that much more remote (and few, and busy, I assume), so this is a little bit of a step forward in making an absolute fetish about all this... I'm trying to figure out what problem or potential problem this is trying to solve... Herostratus (talk) 04:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of what I'm considering here is that we also have admins who were promoted a long time ago, under much lower standards. Obviously, it depends on which admin. I'm also commenting on this in my next response below. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This is tricky. Best practice is to search for an oversighter or arbitrator first (via email, IRC, etc.) and find an admin to revision delete the material if an oversighter is not around. The worst possible outcome is that private information remain public while someone is waiting for an oversighter to respond to their email. Even a matter of minutes can cause immense damage. I would oppose forbidding someone to contact an admin just like I would oppose suggesting that contacting an admin be a first step. I do support changing the text to make clear that outing someone to an administrator is still outing. I would oppose forbidding passing oversightable material to an admin altogether, since that would prevent someone from requesting revdel of something that's oversightable. This is one area where judgement may be important. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, perhaps the issue is one of which admin and how it gets handled. Perhaps an alternative would be to retain mention of administrators, but add some sort of language about discretion. Also, it's not clear to me that this change would actually forbid emailing an admin: it just does not mention them, but does not say "you must not do it." Finally, I agree very strongly with you about material that actually is oversightable: that should not normally be sent to an administrator, particularly after it has already been oversighted (and the existing language explicitly says that that is OK). I'm not sure that we want editors to make decisions about what is or is not oversightable before sending to an admin versus sending to a functionary. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose First of all what the WMF defines as "private information" is not what we are referring to here. What we are referring to here is typically "public information found outside of Wikipedia". Yes this should definately be available to any admin as it is now. And as it is shareable between admins upon request it is actionable on by admins. We are facing serious issues when it comes to undisclosed paid promotional editing. We are already trying to address the issues with one hand tied behind our back, we do not need to hobble ourselves more. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Functionaries haven't demonstrated any particular willingness to get involved in COI/UPE issues, so emailing them is unlikely to result in any action being taken. Given that, it's up to admins to make responsible use of any information that's provided to them. If we had a set of functionaries who would deal with these issues then I would probably change my opinion. SmartSE (talk) 12:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Doc James and Smartse. I've personally had emails to arbcom for this sort of thing fall on deaf ears more than once in 2015. Without admins willing and able to get involved, the ToS issue would be even worse. - Bri (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note regarding the functionaries team Just so we're clear, dealing with COI/paid editing issues has never been the responsibility of the functionaries team, except when it is part and parcel of dealing with oversightable material or running checkuser, which are our job. Since we (unlike literally everyone else on Wikipedia except arbcom and 'crats) have an assigned job that only we can do we do tend to focus on doing it. Some particular members may have an interest in this area but the implication that we "aren't doing our job" because aren't doing something that isn't actually our job is annoying. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah sorry if I implied that. I know it isn't the functionaries' responsibility, but as it is, it is nobody's "job" which isn't satisfactory. There'd been talk before about setting up a separate list for this, but it was quickly shot down. Hence why I can't support removing that admins can be sent this information. SmartSE (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I was on the fence at first, but I think I oppose as written, largely for the reasons Rob outlines. The primary goal here is to get inappropriate information removed from public view quickly, not to make sure the process of doing so is procedure-perfect. I would support putting a nice big box at the top of the "Posting of personal information" section that says something like "Please report inappropriate posting of personal information to the Oversight team". Not another hatnote, a big box (maybe resurrect the blink tag? ;)
  But no matter how prominently that method is advertised, people will take other paths - if you know an admin you trust is currently online, emailing them to request revdel is likely to address the problem faster. If you're inexperienced and not confident about your judgment, asking an admin is certainly better than thinking "oh, what if I send this in and the oversighters make fun of me?" and thus doing nothing. Some people are willing to use email with trusted editors but not to put their email address in OTRS or in mailing list archives. Etc etc etc. All that being said, if you know something meets the project's criteria for oversight and you're not sending it to the oversighters because you hope your cherry-picked favorite admin will impose a sanction based on information that shouldn't have been on-wiki in the first place... you are missing the point of the protections provided by this policy. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I've just withdrawn the proposal. I want to explain a couple of things, and make it very clear. First, I have seen some extremely illogical reasons given here for opposing. No, this is not a proposal to regulate offsite communication in some kind of unprecedented way: see WP:OWH. And no, it is not about simple investigation of COI. It's about material that would need to be oversighted if posted onsite, because it would violate the outing policy, and not about anything else. Contrary to what some editors appear to have said, there is no such thing as a post that would violate the outing policy but would not need to be oversighted. And for goodness' sake, this is not about asking for oversight of a post, which requires prompt action. It's about discussing things like COI, which are not urgent, but which may require discussing information that cannot be posted onsite. This is not the same thing as seeing a post that needs oversight, and asking an admin for a revdel until an oversighter becomes available.

  The reason I believed that this proposal needed to be considered is because access to oversighted or oversightable material is something not to be taken lightly, and because there are some (a minority) of admins who should not be trusted with it. The discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 134#Proposal for a confidential COI mailing list established what I think is a pretty clear consensus against tossing around personal information offsite, above and beyond what that proposal had been about. I just didn't feel right about leaving the admin language as is, without discussion.

  But it seems clear to me that editors are at least somewhat OK with providing someone else's personal information, as "personal information" is defined by this policy, to an administrator of one's choice. And I get it that functionaries should not have a new task dumped on them alone, as well as that some things can be handled more efficiently by admins, many of whom are entirely trustworthy. So, OK, no need to make this particular change. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a couple of BOLD changes and reversions to this policy page in the past day or so. As this policy deals with matters with real-world impact and the discussions above are proving less than straightforward it is important that changes are only made with consensus. Accordingly I have applied indefinite full protection to the policy page. Thryduulf (talk) 10:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me suggest that, during the period of protection, editors consider whether some sort of footnote at the end of the discussed sentence might be a way to solve the disagreements in the RfC above. It doesn't have to be the same footnote. It could be a revision of that footnote, or something completely different. But an advantage would be that the disputed sentence would remian the same within the main text. (On the other hand, if the consensus goes against any note, then an admin needs to delete the empty Notes section now at the bottom of the page.) I suggest creating a new talk section to discuss draft versions of a footnote. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The footnote only drew attention to a fundamental absurdity of the policy, that it contradicts other policies, as well as how things are actually done. That is why it is being suppressed. But it doesn't actually fix anything, and isn't really a solution to the underlying problem. What we need is really a broader, more clueful demographic here to propose genuine solutions. Geogene (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mkdw: if you oppose this edit [5] on its own grounds, please state legitimate reasons for your opposing. I don't have a problem negotiating or RfCing over this seemingly non-controversial addition, but I'm not going to waste everyone's time doing that beforehand just in case *somebody* might have a problem with it. Does anyone have a problem with it? Beyond the fact that I know that I don't have to ask superusers for permission first? If you can't justify your deletion beyond questionable procedural issues, please just self-revert. Now that the page is protected, that doesn't really help either. Geogene (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was poorly written, lacked context, and seemingly created a caveat to the harassment policy where posting personal information (potentially exceeding WP:BLPPRIVACY) is appropriate in certain situations. The credentials of the author are totally irrelevant to prohibition on violating someone's privacy and posting their personal information. Some information is prohibited in articles and discussions. As you've previously stated, you heavily prioritize "quality content" over other issues like privacy and harassment. That is not an opinion shared by everyone as clearly evident by the comments of others at the RFC. Some issues are just as important like protecting people (editors and non-editors) from real harm. The community has a responsibility to ensure that we do not cross the line in that regard.

If you're going to engage over the issue of process, here are a few things you need to know. Firstly, the issue was already being discussed in a contentious RFC. You've already opposed several other proposals. Any unilateral change that wasn't based upon the RFC outcome consensus must have been reasonably assumed to be controversial. The expectation that it would not is unrealistic and dismissive of the other participants. The process would have continued with or without your willingness to undergo the process because you are only one of several editors discussing the issue. Any notions that your change was "seemingly non-controversial additional" was immediately put to rest when it was reverted, yet you clearly demonstrated an unwillingness to allow the RFC consensus to form or discussion the issue when you revert it back again. Mkdw ^talk 23:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was not poorly written, did not lack context, and cited a binding policy. Of course, it can be rewritten by others as needed, which is not what you were doing. Your reverts are in violation of WP:PGBOLD which reads: Although most editors find advance discussion, especially at well-developed pages, very helpful, directly editing these pages is permitted by Wikipedia's policies. Consequently, you should not remove any change solely on the grounds that there was no formal discussion indicating consensus for the change before it was made. Instead, you should give a substantive reason for challenging it and, if one hasn't already been started, open a discussion to identify the community's current views. Consequently, you should restore the content at once, and Thryduulf should remove page protection, as that too is in violation of WP:PGBOLD. Geogene (talk) 23:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Geogene: The fact that you are dismissing the ongoing discussion of this content and the opinions of editors who do not share your view indicates to me that the page protection is necessary. However I will flag this up at WP:AN and ask an uninvolved administrator to review my action and explanation, taking into account this section. It is likely going to be best for further discussion to occur here to avoid splitting the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 00:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above I have flagged this up for attention by an uninvolved administrator (though at AN/I not AN). The relevant section is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Uninvolved administrator input needed regarding Wikipedia:Harassment, but I repeat my request to avoid splitting discussion unnecessarily. Thryduulf (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The specific footnote in question is not, to my knowledge, "under discussion" anywhere. Geogene (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The content of the entire paragraph it applies to is under discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which specific editors' opinions have I allegedly shown disrespect for? Geogene (talk) 00:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per my edit summary, "and largely opposed at the moment" on the point of a substantive reason. You should maybe read the first part of the policy that indicates the importance discussion. The shortcut is literally also called WP:TALKFIRST. I'm not going to spend this time educating you how RFC's work but you should particularly adhere to WP:RFC:

Edits to content under RfC discussion may be particularly controversial. Avoid making edits that others may view as unhelpful. Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or edit warring. Be patient; make your improvements in accord with consensus after the RFC is resolved.

You clearly disregarded the comments from others in the RFC as well as the entire process as a whole. Wikilawying this down to ignorance or some other form that exits responsibility to participate and adhere to the consensus process is not going to work. You opposed other proposals and when your changes are being challenged and opposed, you're sidetracking the conversation into strawman arguments rather than staying on-topic about the changes to the harassment policy. Mkdw ^talk 01:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The footnote is not under discussion, was in the policy for days before you took it upon yourself to revert it, and I would be very surprised if you can name a single editor other than yourself and Thryduulf that I allegedly disrespected by adding that footnote. Your behavioral conduct, personalizing the debate by researching and commenting on my !votes on separate issues on this page, is troubling. Your behavior is in direct violation of policy, and unbecoming of an admin. Quit digging. Geogene (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not complicated. If you make an edit to a policy or guideline that is then reverted, you pretty much have to discuss it at that point. Discussing the actual edits in what we should be doing, not wiki-lawyering. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't have re-reverted. That was a mistake. It would be nice if Mkdw were willing to acknowledge that saying "get consensus first" is not grounds for their initial revert. And if Thryduulf would acknowledge the same for his page protection. I know that's not going to happen. I'm not going to retract any of my accusations of admin misconduct, but I realize that those would be dead on arrival if I were to try to take that up anywhere else. And it's painfully obvious why that would never get any traction. That's Wikipedia for you. Geogene (talk) 03:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"And" is a conjunction used to jointly tie together two clauses. You needed a consensus and it was "opposed". The edit summary was clear and that is a valid reason for being reverted. Using only half the edit summary and attempting to wikilawyer on that point while intentionally excluding important facts will get you no closer to having your additions reintroduced. There's already a clear consensus that your changes are not supported and if you had spent more time assessing the tone and concerns of the RFC all of that was already made readily apparent. It's "painfully obvious" that your arguments are receiving no traction because there's nearly unanimous opposition to your arguments because you're not interpreting the policy or the situation correctly. I'm sorry if this has to be this blunt but WP:IDHT can only be explained so many times. Mkdw ^talk 17:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We finished here? I thought this had about run its course. I can continue to argue with you on your Talk page or something, if you'd like. Geogene (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose inclusion of the footnote. Per the policy Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, other contact information, or photograph, whether such information is accurate or not.; none of which are relevant to a discussion of the reliability or noteworthiness of a source such as might be required to satisfy WP:V et al. The footnote confuses the policy by implying that it is acceptable to post such personal information on Wikipedia. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 07:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• "This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors." - no it doesnt apply to non-editors and whoever added that needs their head examined, it doesnt matter how many footnotes are added to it, it is entirely worthless and completely unenforceable as even a casual glance at WP:RSN would indicate. Legal names, workplaces, qualifications, (photographs! ha!) of both article subjects and sources are all regularly discussed on-wiki. Not only is it directly contradicted by WP:V, as written you could not include a photo on a biography of a living person without it being classed as harrassment by this policy unless the living person submitted the photo themselves. Its completely ridiculous and just another indication of people who have no fucking clue what harrassment actually is. Attaching a footnote to something that says 'dont do this' saying 'we do this already' is a clear indication the basic problem is not fixed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• First off, that's a content matter that is well-covered under the applicable content policy. It does not belong in this behavioural policy. Secondly, in response to OIDDDE, this policy applies to inappropriate use of personal information of EVERYONE, whether or not they are Wikipedia editors. I have lost count of the number of times I have suppressed or revision-deleted personal information (whether or not true) of article subjects, students of a school on the school article, people the posting editor doesn't like, friends/classmates/relatives, and so on; and most of the time, either I or someone else will be blocking the account or at least giving a stern warning, in keeping with the intent to reduce harassment on the project. Everyone needs to keep their eye on the ball here. This policy is about harassment. It's not about article content, and it's sure not about paid editing (disclosed or otherwise). I'm getting pretty tired of all this forum shopping. I want this policy to recognize that it's not okay to use Wikipedia as a weapon. Risker (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I had earlier expressed doubt that the policy would really need to clarify that the kind of information normally and properly included in BLP pages is not the same thing as outing. But when I saw the footnote, I thought that it was a pretty good way to explain that issue, and that doing it via footnote was a better idea than putting it in the main text. But I also thought that the footnote could have benefited from a copyedit to make it better-written, not really changing the meaning. I don't have a problem with restoring the footnote, but I also don't feel strongly that it's necessary.

  But since we are discussing footnotes, I'm thinking that we might want to retain the existing sentence, "This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors", but give it another kind of footnote. Something like: Editors often regard "outing" as something that is done specifically to other users. However, there has also been a severe problem with postings that maliciously reveal personal information of non-notable persons who are not editors, which is a completely unacceptable use of Wikipedia. Therefore, this policy applies to non-editors as well as editors. Or something like that. And it could go on to discuss BLPs as well, or not. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Honestly, we could probably resolve almost everything here by changing the nutshell to read "You may not use Wikipedia to make threats, repeated annoying and unwanted contacts, repeated personal attacks; to intimidate; or to post personal information about other people, whether or not the information is true, unless it has already been posted by them on Wikipedia." Yeah, the other sentence can be improved, too. But the nutshell only talks about editors, while there is a great deal of use of Wikipedia to harass people who aren't editors. Risker (talk) 00:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the current nutshell, and what you proposed here would be a big improvement. But there are still good reasons to also make the discussed sentence clearer. This isn't an either/or – and the sentence is just plain confusing. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that sentence is squeezed in. I think we should revise the entire first paragraph and simply say You may not post personal information about other people, whether or not the information is true, unless it has already been posted on Wikipedia. This applies to members of the public, readers, and editors; and applies to article subjects under some circumstances such as repeated BLP violations or adding unsourced pejorative content, either inside or outside of article space. In fact, I'd probably cut back about 50% of the entire content of the page, but that's because I actually read and write policies all the time. Risker (talk) 01:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you should propose that (more formally). As to where, I don't know, since this talk page now has as many proposals as there are editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And that suggestion, as I've said above, is already covered by BLP and Outing. This whole policy should be cut down massively, that we agree on. It should only deal with editor to editor harassment that falls outside of BLP and Outing. Any member of the public, including an editor with a disclosed identity, is already covered by BLP. Posting personal, undisclosed, information about another editor is already covered by Outing. You can't harass a public figure without falling afoul of either of those policies. You can't harass another editor by posting undisclosed personal information with falling afoul of Outing. There's no point in redundant policies. This policy should only address the types of editor on editor harassment that fall outside of the scope of either BLP or Outing. Capeo (talk) 02:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...and the depressingly regular occurance of people posting harassment directed towards non-public non-editor individuals? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Capeo, it's possible I'm being dense and not understanding what you're getting at, but both here and above you've made reference to things "already covered by BLP and Outing". WP:OUTING is a redirect to Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting of personal information, i.e. the exact section under discussion here. It can't be "already" covered by outing; outing has pretty much always been defined as a form of harassment. "Posting of personal information" was in the very first revision. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What he is getting at, is the increasingly stupid suggestions that posting personal information of 'people' is harrassment regardless of the circumstances. As written the current wording prohibits almost all of our biographies. It would prohibit standard discussion at many noticeboards regarding sources. Risker's suggestions which she believes to be an improvement, if anything make it even worse. This policy is currently not fit for purpose and is heading in a direction that means it will be blanket ignored. Either of Risker's suggestions above are unenforceable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opabinia regalis, you're not being dense, I'm being less than clear. When I say Outing I mean, as I've always seen it traditionally enforced, the posting of previously undisclosed personal information about another editor. That's been agreed upon policy for ages but what we're talking about here is a scope creep that seems well beyond that. Similarly, the posting of derogatory, needlessly personal, or unsourced info about article subjects or any non-editor really is covered by BLP. So, as far as privacy issues, I'm not seeing a scenario that isn't already covered. If there is a specific scenario that I'm missing then the wording should be changed only enough to address that scenario. The wording that Risker proposed above, taken at face value, would not even allow us to discuss the suitability of someone as a source if they are not already an article subject. The second clause of the second sentence is especially confusing because BLP already applies to the first part of the sentence and "adding unsourced pejorative content, either inside or outside of article space" is a BLP violation. So saying "BLP violation or" (emphasis mine) is simply confusing and makes it sound like the latter isn't a BLP violation to begin with. My, admittedly long-winded, point is what specific type of harassment are we trying to address that wasn't already addressed by prior policy? I'm sure there are scenarios I may be missing that aren't already covered but I'm failing to see one. We should be trying to tighten policy to address specifics that aren't already addressed, not broaden it to the point that it becomes near meaningless or literally makes normal editing procedures impossible. Capeo (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See, this is what I mean. It's pretty clear that many people posting on this topic don't actually believe that harassment is, in fact, harassment. Let me tell you the whole story of the "X is a faggot" post. See, it doesn't stop there; the edit on Wikipedia is just Phase 1 of the harassment. The diff is then emailed to a bunch of people, it's posted on facebook, it's used to brutalize the victim repeatedly as long as it is still in existence in the article. The whole thing falls apart once the edit is redacted or suppressed and the account blocked, since the diff isn't useful at all, and a link to the page won't show the harassing statement anymore. Now, really. Why would anyone not consider that harassment? That was the purpose of the post, to harass some guy going to that school. (You can now imagine the posts about teachers and principals, which generally includes allegations of sexual impropriety, drug-taking, drug selling, or (in the case of male teachers) being cuckolded by male students who find the teacher's wife "hot to trot".) These are harassing statements. They should result in not just the usual level-1 warning for a BLP violation, but indefinite block of the account that posts the information. In other words, the normal penalties associated with BLP violations are insufficient; THAT is why this kind of harassment is included in this policy, because the penalties justified under this policy are significantly stronger. And none of this, at all, is covered under OUTING in any formulation. And incidentally, this policy as written and with the intention of the proposed change that I wrote has been successfully enforced for many years. Just because some people don't like it doesn't mean it's unenforceable. Risker (talk) 22:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Risker, you're right as I wasn't taking into consideration that BLP is subject to DS rules requiring awareness of the DS first. I was thinking the harassing editor could be indeffed on the spot through BLP. Given that they can't there needs to be a policy outlined that gives admins the latitude to indef for that type of harassment as soon as it's detected. All that said I still can't support the formulation that includes non-editors in the first paragraph of the privacy section. It's unwieldy and reads as though editors wouldn't be able to properly vet sources. I think Jytdog's suggestion of a new section dealing with the harassment of people outside of the editing community is the best way to go. I apologize for not understanding what you were getting at sooner. Capeo (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have bunches of posted personal information of non-editors on every BLP article. While some types of personal information about non-editors is not allowed some is. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Editors are defining terms in different ways, and that inevitably gives rise to misunderstanding.
  • The term "outing", as it is understood by most members of the community, means something specific: outing of another editor. Not everybody sees it that way, but many do. That is why so many editors, in good faith, find it jarring to refer to outing of non-editors.
  • There is a problem on Wikipedia: malicious users post personal information of non-editors as a form of doxing. It usually gets oversighted promptly, so we don't actually see it frequently, but it happens, and it's completely at odds with what Wikipedia stands for.
• So we have some editors here who object to applying the policy to non-editors, and others who want it to apply that way because of something we can all agree should be prohibited.
• If everyone just keeps an open mind, I think that we can all agree about that. What needs to happen is to find a way to say clearly that posting of personal information of non-editors is prohibited, whether or not it is the same thing as posting personal information of editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This "posting of personal information of non-editors is prohibited" is simply wrong. If it were correct we would have deleted every BLP we have.

That some keep stating this is concerning. If those who support such wording do not in fact wish every BLP to be deleted they need to figure out other wording to mean what they mean.

And to tell you the truth I am not sure what they mean or want to do? If they believe unreferenced content / attacks against people do not belong on WP, that I very strongly support. I support it per WP:V our second pillar. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that there's a disconnect in defining the problem; and I thank Doc James for highlighting it. As I conceive it, the question of what is (or what should be) allowed and what should be prohibited is multidimensional - including at least vectors for the category of person (article subject, source author, other) and the category of information (public, personal, private). Some personal information (legal name, DOB) is permitted, but only for some classes of persons (article subjects). Some other personal information (common name, work history) is permitted for a wider class of persons (article subjects, source authors), but may be limited to certain discussions (for source authors, discussions of reliability). Some personal information (SSN, bank account details, etc) is private and is never permitted . It should be possible to compose prose which reflects this. It should also be clear that even though some personal information about some people is permitted in certain circumstances it does not follow that personal information in general should be permitted. Hope I am clearer than usually found and that this helps clarify the discussion. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 03:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To expand, when people say "posting of personal information of non-editors is prohibited" (I believe that) they mean "posting of personal information of non-editors is prohibited with certain exceptions". (I also believe that) when they read This "posting of personal information of non-editors is prohibited" is simply wrong. they interpret it as "posting of any personal information of any non-editors should not be prohibited". (I firmly believe that that is not the intended meaning, but that it is, at least in part, the perceived meaning.) - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see anyone here arguing that posting all personal information of non editors should be allowed. In fact everyone agrees posting some information (especially when not verifiable by a reliable and notable source) should not be allowed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Should a (not necessarily this) policy prohibit posting of A. personal information of persons who are neither article subjects nor source authors? B. personal information about source authors which is not related to determination of source reliability? C. private personal information of any person? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 06:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(A) It depends. If there is an ad of someone recruiting editors for Wikipedia that is currently allowed to be posted. (B) A lot of journal article contain "personal information" such as the authors email. We cannot expect Wikipedians to go through all the sources they link to to verify that their is no personal information not related to determining source reliability. (C) What is the definition of private personal information? The WMF defines private as details they collect (does not relate to details publically avaliable on the internet). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A1. Would it be possible to link to a representative example of such an advertisement? A2. What personal information would be posted in a Talk page notice stating "This article has been the subject of an advertisement soliciting paid editing. See: 1"? A3.1 What other actions is it proposed that editors should be able to take "on Wiki" to address COI editing? A3.2 What personal information would be posted if those actions were taken? B. I do not see anyone arguing that editors should not be able to post links to sources (or even potential sources) based on their contents; nor anyone arguing that editors should be required to vet the contents of sources to which they post links. What personal information would be posted in a link or reference to a (presumably reliably published) journal article? C. The WMF's definition of private flows from the Privacy Act of 1974, and is based on what they are legally required to care about. My meaning aligns with that at Personally identifiable information, which provides a list of examples. While, we have obvious exceptions for information of encyclopedic value (e.g. birth dates & birth places of article subjects); I would consider "national identification number, passport number, telephone number" to be exemplars of the type of information meant. Should a (not necessarily this) policy prohibit posting of national identification numbers, passport number, telephone numbers of individual persons? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 07:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While this is good "I do not see anyone arguing that editors should not be able to post links to sources". But some are saying that links that contain this type of private information can "NEVER" be linked to. If that is the case than they are saying that editors should not be able to post links to many academic sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: I read & re-read the discussion on this page, but could not, in truth, find an editor saying that off-site information can never be linked to. I would, if possible, like your thoughts on A3.1; but (again having re-read everything) consider that the question posed twice (or more?) by Opabinia regalis is the most pertinent: Why is dealing with undisclosed paid content as content not sufficient? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 15:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that makes sense Ryk72. So it seems there are four classes of person, and I wonder if would be best to treat each class specifically, for clarity.., the four classes being:

1. Editors here.
2. Not editors here, but BLP subjects
3. Not editors here, but sources
4. Not editors here, not BLP subjects, and not sources

Sure there's overlap (a person could be 1, 2, and 3), but let's elide that for now, and anyway, a person is generally treated in one of these roles depending on the context.

Could we come up with a simple rule? We have a lot of the building blocks already:

1. (Editors here): our harassment rules apply.
2. (Not editors here, but BLP subjects): our BLP rules apply.
3. (Not editors here, but sources): we don't have a rule, but could put one together maybe: "Free discussion of the qualifications of individuals as reliable sources is allowed, in discussions of the reliability of a source; no private information, no [monkey business -- however you want to write that]". (This would be the hard one, as it appears that some people think we should be constrained here, so some jaw-jaw would be required I guess.)
4. (Not editors here, not BLP subjects, and not sources): we maybe don't have a rule, but could make one pretty quick: "Never. Don't do it. The default is that you will say nothing about such people. Why would you? You'd better have a damn good reason if called on it. Exceptions made for benign and restrained references ('My wife is also an opthmologist') but the default is silence" Herostratus (talk) 04:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion would be that: adding page content, discussing page content, and discussing sources does not violate the outing policy when carried out in full compliance with WP:BLP. I think that's what editors are really concerned about in this context. No one wants to be accused of outing when editing in good faith, and such editing is not what this policy is supposed to be about. The problem arose because saying that the policy applies fully to "non-editors" makes it sound to some editors like the normal content of BLP pages and the normal discussion of sources could be a violation. (Please see also #Basic principles and #Proposed section on non-editors, below.) --Tryptofish (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re "discussing sources in full compliance with BLP"... I mean, that's a very high bar. It means never saying anything negative without providing a good proximate ref, and not saying a lot of things at all. You can't really express the opinion "Smith is not trustworthy" at all, since you wouldn't write than in article. Do we really want that high a bar?

Sure, BLP isn't always enforced that strongly on talk pages, but it's supposed to be and is sometimes. And if BLP were to apply to discussing sources, its likely it would honored mostly in the breach, except exactly when you don't want it: when someone is trying to quash objections to a dubious source. Up to now I think BLP has been pretty much ignored in source discussions. Let's either make sure to keep it that way, or have a big discussion first. If we end up with "Oh yeah and treat sources like BLPs too" as a not-thought-thru aside, that'd not be good. Herostratus (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right about that. It's surprisingly difficult to come up with good wording for this stuff. I do think that discussing in full compliance is something that is always safe, insofar as that goes, but the question then becomes how much noncompliance does it take to rise to the level of violating the harassment policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The dynamics of community discussion about this policy are completely broken. How do we even begin to fix that? Jytdog (talk) 03:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its not. Short of banning a significant swathe of editors, changing the basic way wikipedia operates, or nuking the policy from orbit and starting again. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dialog, and not demonization. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To try and get some agreement and a basis for moving forward, I believe that the following principles are what the policy needs to accommodate. They are numbered for ease of reference only, they are not ranked. Many terms will need defining but that level of detail is not what this section is about, please leave that until later.

1. Harassment, including outing, is unacceptable.
2. Everybody, whether an editor or not, has a right not to be harassed on or because of Wikipedia.
3. Posting of personal information without permission can be harassment.
4. Some articles, especially biographies, need to contain some personal information.
5. Writing/editing article that complies with the WP:BLP policy is not harassment.
6. In some cases, discussion of what should (not) be in an article involves discussion of personal information, either of the article subject or of the author(s) of a source. Such discussion, when conducted appropriately, is not harassment.
7. Users who harass other people, intentionally or otherwise, may (but not necessarily will) be subject to sanctions, including being blocked.
8. Non-public information posted about someone else that does not have an encyclopaedic justification will be deleted and/or suppressed.
9. Whether non-public information has an encyclopaedic justification is dependent on some factors including (but not limited to and in no particular order) the nature of the information, intent in posting, consensus, replaceability, prior publication, accuracy, the views of subject, and Wikipedia policies.

Thryduulf (talk) 10:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, although "intent" in #9 may not be relevant. However, established principles include that WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and WP:HARASS apply to editors—these policies restrict how editors interact. Another principle is that WP:BLP applies to all people on all pages (not just subjects of biographical articles, although I can see how the "B" in "BLP" leads to confusion). WP:HARASS is not the right policy to prohibit what editors can write about non-editors—use WP:BLPPRIVACY or another policy for that. Johnuniq (talk) 11:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it OK to harass people away from Wikipedia? Is it OK for identified groups of wikipedians, acting as a group with reference to their wikipedia activities, to harass another editor away from Wikipedia?
• Is it OK to use admin-privileged information to harass people IRL? If that occurs, what is the response? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The last one would be an abuse of tools and depending on the nature of the information and the level of authority required to see it (checkuser, normal admin etc) would potentially be a legal issue. Do you have anything in mind or is this a hypothetical? Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I've specific cases in mind for all of them, cases where WP (IMHO) fell down badly.

The second case was a well-known case at Commons, where an office action from on-high rightly removed admin rights from the two concerned (I'd have supported indef bans). However Commons then turned it into a political fight to "brexit its independence" from WMF and kept reinstating them. IMHO, it should be clear that such things are simply not accepted, by the rules of this project (lest any other project decides that its freedom is more important than basic behavioural standards). Andy Dingley (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the first bullet is answered squarely by Thry's 1 and 2. "Harass bad" and "don't do it on Wikipedia". --Izno (talk) 12:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• So would you agree (as we've had before on WP) that off-wiki harassment is OK, so long as it stays off-wiki? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Andy Dingley, Izno, Johnuniq, and Only in death: Off-wiki harassment is not OK by any means. It's something I overlooked when compiling the list above (I ran out of time and had to finish in a hurry), so I've added the italicised portion to bullet 2. Obviously nobody should be harassed because of anything, but dealing with harassment unconnected with Wikipedia is outside our remit (and ability to do anything about). Thryduulf (talk) 18:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say those principles are sound. I'd also say everything except off-WP harassment is already covered by BLP and the privacy section of Harassment without the non-editor sentence at the end of the first paragraph. As I said above, is there a scenario where any type of harassment of a non-editor wouldn't be a BLP violation? If there is no such scenario then there's no reason to include non-editors in the privacy section of this policy other than to say harassment of non-editors is covered by BLP with a link. Off-WP harassment of editors is a whole other can of worms though that WP has historically struggled with due to needing to protect the privacy of editors. I have no easy answers for that one but I would say that's the scenario that current policy has the hardest time dealing with and deserves more focus. Capeo (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Risker a couple of sections above explains this better than me, but the reason you don't see harassment of non-editors that is more serious than BLP is because it's oversighted as soon as an oversighter becomes aware of it (and it's correctly almost always through off-wiki methods that such problems are brought to our attention, so you wont be aware of that either). The BLP policy covers only a subset of what this policy does, and it is very important that there is no ambiguity about who is covered by the policy. Thryduulf (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, and Risker is correct, as I told them above. I was mistaken in thinking BLP could be used to instantly indef an editor that was harassing someone outside of the editing community. It appears the DS awareness clause applies and thus it can't deal quickly enough with the type of harassment we're talking about. I think a new section, as suggested below, is the best way to deal with it. Capeo (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put it another way, although it's pretty much the same thing as what Thryduulf is saying:

1. Posting another editor's personal information on Wikipedia = BAD.
2. Going around off-site and doxing or otherwise harassing another editor = BAD.
3. Adding non-BLP compliant content = BAD.
4. Adding BLP-compliant content = no problem!
5. Using Wikipedia as a sort of web host to post doxing information about people who are not editors = BAD.

As much as editors argue about this stuff, I believe that everyone agrees with those 5 points (and anyone who disagrees is spectacularly wrong). So my "modest proposal" is that we stop arguing about which list items are or are not "outing", and focus on ways to say clearly that the BAD items are prohibited, whatever they may be called. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So what happens when a group of editors meet off-wiki, in a context that's clearly identifiable as a "meta-wikipedia" group (not Meta), and then thoroughly out another editor? Obviously WP has no control over their behaviour there, but in the case of WP:NLT we take the line that you can behave like that off-wiki or edit on-wiki, but one will exclude the other. In the case of harassment and outing, the WP response so far has been "suck it down", if it happened off-wiki, it is seen as irrelevant. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. It's covered by WP:OWH (not to say that there haven't been inconsistencies in enforcement, of course). --Tryptofish (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryptofish: I think one more bullet needs to be added for clarity when it's put in that format: Discussing whether content is BLP-compliant or not = OK when done carefully. Thryduulf (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you completely: both content and discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The scope needs discussion. I spent a bunch of time today reading versions of this policy as written over time, and its focus has always been how editors treat other editors. Go through it section by section, even now. Each part discusses what editors shouldn't do with respect to other editors.

At the same time, it is clear that in practice oversighters and others remove harassing content about non-editors all the time, under the spirit of this policy. And this activity is invisible to most editors. And BLPPRIVACY and BLPCOI really are anti-harassment policies, but aren't mentioned here.

This policy should have a section explicitly and clearly addressing harassment of non-editors by editors. This written policy is well behind practice in this regard.

But that's it. Expanding the scope throughout this whole policy from just editors, to everybody, would require a complete rewrite and is CREEP.

And to head off the people who will immediately treat this with suspicion that I am somehow talking about excluding unpaid editors from this policy, I will note that unpaid editors are EDITORS and are within the scope, and always have been. I am not talking about unpaid editors or scheming to exclude them when i talk about the problems of expanding the scope.)

Expanding the scope in OUTING also dilutes OUTING, which is a bad thing. This section of the policy is something very specialized to WP and very deep in the guts of WP - namely that we fiercely protect editors who wish to be anonymous from doxing. That focus on protecting editors' anonymity goes lost and gets all muddled with article content creation and discussion if the scope gets expanded in this part in particular. Jytdog (talk) 01:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree different policies should have different scopes. We do not need one policy for everything. That just confuses matters. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

here is a proposal

Harassing people outside of the editing community

As described in WP:BLPCOI and WP:BLPPRIVACY, and in alignment with the protection of editors from harassment described elsewhere in this policy, it is an abuse of editing privileges to harass living or recently deceased people who are not members of the Wikipedia community on any page within Wikipedia. Per the Oversight Policy, harassing content will be deleted from Wikipedia. Editors who generate harassing content about living or recently deceased people that violates WP:BLPCOI or WP:BLPPRIVACY on any page within Wikipedia may be indefinitely blocked.

Something like that? This has been missing for a long time. Jytdog (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good basic concept, but too many words; let's cut it in half to say what we really mean. References to the BLP policy aren't necessarily applicable here; for example, repeatedly referring to a male-to-female trans person as "he", which is only covered in the MOS, not in BLP. In alignment with the protection of editors from harassment described elsewhere in this policy, it is an abuse of editing privileges to harass living or recently deceased people who are not members of the Wikipedia community. Harassing content will be deleted or suppressed. Editors who generate harassing content about living or recently deceased people on any page within Wikipedia may be indefinitely blocked. Risker (talk) 05:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the version by Jytdog is clearer. This bit "repeatedly referring to a male-to-female trans person as "he"" should be added to the BLP policy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It needs to be clearer, even in the heading. Is that "Harassing {people outside of the editing community}" or "{Harassing people} {conducting such harassment outside of the editing community}"? I think "Harassing those who are outside of the editing community" would be enough - although we still need to cover the other case. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd be fine with changing the header to whatever, and with taking out the 2nd instances of BLPPRIVACY AND BLPCOI. We should leave them and the link to oversight in once each in order to make clear the underlying coherence in all this. Jytdog (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• revision addressing comments above:

Harassing those outside of the editing community

As described in WP:BLPCOI and WP:BLPPRIVACY, and in alignment with the protection of editors from harassment described elsewhere in this policy, it is an abuse of editing privileges to harass living or recently deceased people who are not members of the Wikipedia community on any page within Wikipedia. Per the Oversight Policy, harassing content will be deleted or suppressed. Editors who generate harassing content about living or recently deceased people on any page within Wikipedia may be indefinitely blocked. -- Jytdog (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In pretty much a complete 180 from what I was arguing the last couple days I now see that BLP doesn't have the teeth to deal with the type of harassment this policy is trying to address. Consequently I don't think it should be linked to at all. Though I do think misgendering a trans person should be added to BLP. I think this policy should stand on its own. I'd suggest a combination of Risker and Jytdog's suggestions. Something like: In alignment with the protection of editors from harassment described elsewhere in this policy, it is an abuse of editing privileges to harass living or recently deceased people who are not members of the Wikipedia community. Per the Oversight Policy, harassing content will be deleted or suppressed. Editors who generate harassing content about living or recently deceased people on any page within Wikipedia may be indefinitely blocked. Capeo (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm fine with any of these really. Jytdog (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that this approach is an excellent idea, and I thank Jytdog for thinking of it. There are some more things that I would like to see fleshed out.

1. I would think that this new section could be added directly after WP:OWH, and at the same header level: does that make sense?
2. And I believe that implementation of the new section should be accompanied by removal of the "non-editors" sentence from the outing section.
3. I also think that there needs to be something about what is and is not permitted in content and discussions about BLP pages, per what editors have been discussing above.

I can also think of some wording tweaks, but that can be put off until more substantive issues are agree upon. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've touched on something I was struggling, and still am, to articulate and draw attention to. I would hope that if there's consensus arrived at for this new section the "non-editors" sentence would be unnecessary and thus the conflict about it would go away. Strictly speaking it's an ongoing RFC though and I don't know how you move from that to "hey, if we all like this idea better let's just call the RFC off". Few editors who gave their opinions regarding the RFC have commented on this current proposal though I believe it meets the concerns of those editors who opposed the removal of the sentence far better than leaving the sentence in does. Capeo (talk) 02:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this isn't a matter of calling off the existing RfC, and I didn't mean to imply that we should. I think it's pretty clear that the RfC will not result in a consensus to change anything (not that my predictive skills have been all that good!), so I think we might as well let it chug along until its expiration date. In the mean time, I hope we can get a local consensus about what a formal proposal for a new section should be. After that, I think we will need a new RfC before it would be acceptable to add a completely new section to the policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought splitting the "non-editors" material into its own section was a good idea when I half-assedly suggested it a week ago, and even though I sometimes change my mind half a dozen times before noon, I still think it's a good idea ;) I prefer Risker's shorter wording, with in-text links to retain some of Jytdog's references to related policy material. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One cannot harass the dead. Nor, under US or UK law, can you defame them.[6]. What problem is this supposed to solve? John Nagle (talk) 06:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you are referring to the wording about "recently deceased people". Personally, I don't feel strongly about retaining that phrase, but I understand it to be based on concerns about the feelings of the survivors. Not all aspects of "harassment" are involved here, but revealing the personal information of a non-public person could certainly be something that the survivors would be unhappy about. Also, there is nothing wrong with saying that something that is permitted by law is nonetheless something that we do not want to permit here. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BLP applies to living and recently dead people. This goes all the way back to the earliest archives of BLP talk (see here for example) and seemed to really sharpen over issues about how to deal with articles about people who recently committed suicide (see here, here, and here) It makes sense to me that we would not tolerate grave dancing in WP. Jytdog (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• trying again - suggested location is as a main-level section, immediately following WP:OWH:

Harassing those outside of the editing community

In alignment with the protection of editors from harassment described elsewhere in this policy, it is an abuse of editing privileges to harass living or recently deceased people who are not members of the Wikipedia community. Per the Oversight Policy, harassing content will be deleted or suppressed. Editors who generate harassing content about living or recently deceased people on any page within Wikipedia may be indefinitely blocked. See also WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPCOI, and the associated discretionary sanctions.

Since we have full page protection, this needs strong consensus before an admin will add it. -- Jytdog (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there will need to be an RfC, and that's the case whether or not the page protection gets lifted. I suggest some tweaks to it:

Main-level section, immediately following WP:OWH:

Harassing those outside of the editing community

In alignment with the protection of editors from harassment described throughout the rest of this policy, edits that harass living or recently deceased people who are not members of the Wikipedia community are also prohibited. Per the oversight policy, harassing content will be deleted or suppressed. Editors who post such material in any namespace may be indefinitely blocked. See also WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPCOI, and the associated discretionary sanctions.

But I also think that there will need to be something about how BLP-compliant edits are not what this section of the policy is about. I'm finding it difficult to figure out how to word it, but discussion elsewhere on this talk page indicates that we have to include that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is much better because it acknowledges that WP:HARASS is about editors. However, the proposed text belongs at WP:BLP which should contain all policy regarding such matters. Further, a discussion which effectively extends WP:BLP should occur at its talk. WP:HARASS could link to the text at WP:BLP. Johnuniq (talk) 01:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See, this is the core of the disagreement on this page. Yes, WP:HARASS is about editorial behaviour. It is a description of what behaviour is NOT acceptable; its entire purpose is to control the behaviour of the harassing editor. It is about the people doing the harassing, with an add-on at the end for the victims. But it is about controlling the behaviour of harassers, not people on the receiving end. And from that perspective, it doesn't matter who the victim is, it matters who the perpetrator is - and the perpetrator will ALWAYS be an editor.

There is absolutely no valid reason to treat the harassment of non-Wikipedians any differently than the harassment of Wikipedians. Separating them treats non-editors as less important than Wikipedians. It needs to be here, and BLP can reference to here. Harassment is harassment is harassment. Treating some victims differently simply gives off the message that they're not really being harassed. That is the wrong message. Risker (talk) 04:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Risker do you have any objection to the proposed language (I mean deal killer ones - we are trying to get a good-enough proposal to float) Jytdog (talk) 06:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trypto I am fine with that version. I don't agree that this needs further clarification about BLP-compliant edits. We cannot legislate clue. Jytdog (talk) 06:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for the feedback. I think that Risker's reply to Johnuniq is correct, and I also think that the weight of the (admittedly tl;dr) discussion on this talk page establishes that something like this needs to be here regardless of what's at BLP. But I'm not yet fine with this version, because I still think that we need something about BLP here, because so many editors have been asking for it. There is no hurry, and I don't think we need to propose this until the current RfC has run its course. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And having said what I just said, I'll run this up the flagpole. I suspect that what I am now adding will need to be fixed further:

Main-level section, immediately following WP:OWH:

Harassing those outside of the editing community

In alignment with the protection of editors from harassment described throughout the rest of this policy, edits that harass living or recently deceased people who are not members of the Wikipedia community are also prohibited. Per the oversight policy, harassing content will be deleted or suppressed. Editors who post such material in any namespace may be indefinitely blocked. Content and sourcing that comply with the biographies of living persons policy do not violate this policy; neither do discussions about sources and authors of sources, unless comments about persons are gratuitous to determining source quality. See also WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPCOI, and the associated discretionary sanctions.

--Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this version. It doesn't attempt to undermine the primary mission of Wikipedia (writing an encyclopedia) in the process of accomplishing a secondary purpose (avoiding harassment). WP:V and WP:BLP will always have primacy over WP:H, this would help to resolve the existing contradiction. Geogene (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good, thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that if we implement a new section, there ought to be a shortcut to it, so I've created WP:HNE (harassment of non-editors) for that purpose. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All this is fine and good, but as I've said you have got to have an exception for discussing sources. If you apply BLP type rules to discussing sources, it's a big deal. Herostratus (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I misunderstand what you are asking for, but it does say: neither do discussions about sources and authors of sources, unless comments about persons are gratuitous to determining source quality. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh OK oops sorry, I missed that... there's a lot here, sorry. Carry on. Herostratus (talk) 14:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yeah, if you look up tl;dr in the dictionary, the definition is this talk page. (Actually, it's probably not in the dictionary, but... ) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BLP contains an exception for discussing sources at WP:BLPTALK. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. You mean "Contentious material... not related to making content choices should be removed..." OK. A little subtle but OK. Herostratus (talk) 14:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that discussing sources was firmly in the category of related to making content choices and therefore, under WP:BLPTALK, not subject to removal. Of course, the discussion needs to be firmly related to a content choice: "is the source author an expert?", "does the publisher have a reputation for reliability?", etc. It's not an exception which allows us to say, "well I heard X smells bad & mistreats kittens"; because that's not related to making a content choice. I'm not sure that rendering everythign to BLP is the best answer, but it does allow for discussing sources. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another proposal offered for consideration. This would go near the top of the page.

Harassment of both editors and non-editors is prohibited.

Wikipedia must never be misused to harass anyone, whether or not the subject of the harassment is an editor here. Examples of prohibited forms of harassment that can affect non-editors as well as editors include cyberbullying, threats, name-calling, offensive comments or disparagement, and the publication of individuals' personal identifying information (as described above/below). Edits constituting harassment will be reverted, deleted, or suppressed, as appropriate, and editors who engage in harassment are subject to blocking. Where content is added or comments are made about a living person for a direct, legitimate encyclopedic purpose, such as in an article about a notable person or event or in a relevant talkpage discussion, all aspects of the policy on biographies of living persons must be observed, and in the event of any disputes, the procedures described in that policy must be followed.

Additional links could be added, but this would be the gist. Thoughts? Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I definitely think this is a step in the right direction. I think there will continue to be much discussion about what constitutes as "harassment" whether it comes in the form of posting personal information, doxing, and false flag attempts to harm individuals through seemingly legitimate means. The community as a collective can usually exercise fairly sound judgement but we must be careful to ensure the protections afforded to all are not undermined by other priorities -- especially those that should be resolved by other means such as increasing notability and reliable source standards. Mkdw ^talk 00:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All we really need is:

Where content is added or comments are made about a living person for a direct, legitimate encyclopedic purpose, such as in an article about a notable person or event or in a relevant talkpage discussion, all aspects of the policy on biographies of living persons must be observed, and in the event of any disputes, the procedures described in that policy must be followed.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Is that a point of clarification contained within the harassment policy or are you suggesting that is what makes up the harassment policy? I don't see the above proposal by NYB and the one you've proposed as saying the same thing at all. One talks about harassment and one talks about article writing. Are content creators being blocked or banned under our harassment policy and against the wishes of the community at large for writing and discussing legitimate BLP content? Mkdw ^talk 04:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• @Doc James: I disagree that the one sentence you've chosen from my draft represents the sum and substance of what we need. The point that Wikipedia must never be used for purposes of cyberbullying or similar misconduct, no matter against whom aimed, is essential and in my view must absolutely be included. For some of the background on why, see Risker's comments above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue is how does one define "cyberbullying or similar misconduct"? Unless we can define those terms clearly they are not very useful. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per Doc James above In addition, how does one define disparagement? Is it disparagement to assert that x is not sufficiently notable to mention in an article? Suppose x is the department chair in meteorology at a land grant college somewhere, who is routinely quoted by his local media about anthropogenic climate change, which may or may not align with the scientific consensus. Or, in an article about a plane crash in which everyone aboard died, somebody thought it would be wise to start a "list of notable passengers". This is followed by a a torrent of IP edits adding unverifiable, but plausible, names of victims. Is it inherently disparaging to remove them? I think it's reasonable to say that it is. Geogene (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that these are very good reasons not to make this a section of the policy page – but lack of precise definition is OK in an introductory summary in the lead, with details to follow below. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this proposal contains some very good ideas, and what I particularly want to see is actually the part that is not in the portion selected by Doc James. As I see it, this new proposal covers two kinds of things: an overall explanation of the harassment policy – in what I think is a better way than before – and the specific issue of editors and non-editors. I think that the material being drafted just above, in #Proposed section on non-editors does a better job of the latter. But I also think that the proposal in this section is superior to the current lead section of this policy page. So I suggest that we get 2 for the price of 1, or maybe it's really 1 for the price of 2. But anyway, let's take:

Wikipedia must never be misused to harass anyone, whether or not the subject of the harassment is an editor here. Examples of prohibited forms of harassment that can affect editors and non-editors alike include cyberbullying, threats, name-calling, offensive comments or disparagement, and the publication of individuals' personal identifying information. Edits constituting harassment will be reverted, deleted, or suppressed, as appropriate, and editors who engage in harassment are subject to blocking.

and use it to replace what is currently the second paragraph of the lead section, and use what comes out of the discussion above for what will appear lower on the policy page. What I did here is to remove the section header and the last sentence, and make some small tweaks to the remaining wording. If one looks at the current lead section, the first paragraph is a general description of what harassment is, and the second paragraph is rather cryptic. So what I'm proposing here would be to improve the lead section by following the general description of harassment with a more specific summary of what it means to Wikipedia, and then have a subsequent section about non-editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to see the discussion on these points, but I'd like to respond to Doc James's comment that because concepts such as "cyberbullying" cannot be defined with exact precision, this means it is unhelpful to have a policy expressly prohibiting them. A word like "cyberbullying," or for that matter the term "harassment" itself, has a clear and well-understood meaning, and these concepts need to be contained within the anti-harassment policy, even though there can always be disputed or borderline cases. It is impossible, even in principle, to write a policy page that will anticipate all possible circumstances and eliminate all possible ambiguities. (I have made this point, in the context of ArbCom decision-writing and utilizing a famous hypothetical, here ... and if anyone still doubts it, read the best law-review piece on statutory interpretation ever.) We can and should, of course, provide definitional substance to the terms we use, but we certainly need to make it clear that, for example, cyberbullying is prohibited.

As for User:Geogene's point, the intent of my draft is to say that (1) disparagement, meaning making negative comments about someone on Wikipedia (which we always need to bear in mind is one of the largest and most prominent websites in the world), is prohibited unless the discussion is taking place for legitimate reasons relating to creating and maintaining an encyclopedia, and (2) in the latter case, the BLP policy governs. (As with anything else on-wiki, common sense will be used in applying and enforcing this rule: we do not react to a random instance of "[name of living past or present president of the United States] sucks" the same way we do to "[name of random seventh-grader being bullied by a classmate] sucks." But that doesn't undercut the general rule.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Newyorkbrad: Given some of the historical discussion on this topic, could you clarify where you see "COI discussions" as fitting in to this proposed text? Specifically, would the following be permitted or prohibited (each in the context of a COI discussion)?: a) Linking to an off-site advertisement soliciting paid editing (the buyer); b) Linking to an off-site advertisement offering paid editing (the seller); c) Linking to off-site Personally identifiable information (PII) without tying that information to a Wikipedia pseudonymous editor; d) as c. but tying that information to an editor. e) Posting PII on Wikipedia. If there are some types of PII which should be treated differently from others, some examples may be worthwhile. If there are any other scenarios which would be beneficial to the discussion to have clarified, please mention these also. Thanks in advance for any reply. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 15:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As several other people (particularly Risker) have emphasized, focusing on the COI/paid editing problem, while important, should not displace improvement of the anti-harassment policy as a whole. That said, I shared my thoughts on this general subject in my individual statement here. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. My questions focus on COI because it is "in the grey areas", with divergent views on what our approach should be; it's somewhat of a watershed. I had, at first reading, considered that the word "direct" in your proposed text might rule out posting information on Wikipedia; but on re-reading felt otherwise. Your statement is clear & comprehensive; and I encourage all editors interested in the discussion to read it. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 15:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad, I just about lol'd when I looked at that law review – thanks for that! Ryk72, the outing section of the policy already says, partly as a result of a recent RfC: Posting links to other accounts on other websites is allowable in specific situations (but see also Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment). There are job posting sites where employers publicly post advertisements to recruit paid Wikipedia editors. Linking to such an ad in a forum such as the Conflict of interest noticeboard is not a violation of this policy. Also, if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums. (I didn't bother to copy the blue links to here.) I think that it largely addresses the issues that you raised here. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• My initial reaction to this was revulsion. The original proposal was incremental and targeted and attempted only to put community practice regarding suppression of harassing content into writing, filling in something that has been lacking.

This proposal expands the scope of the whole policy and feels a lot like an effort to legislate from the top down, which is not how the community generates policy. And I see an tsunami of complaints akin to "uncivil!!" arising from this - please think about how hard it is for the community to actually enforce the civility policy (just to add the link: WP:CIVILITY) The broad language here just invites much more of the same.

Am still thinking. But right now I think this would probably be rejected by a large margin at an RfC. Jytdog (talk) 04:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still thinking. The first sentence alone would be a very good addition to the lead. Then in the body, the targeted thing as worked on in the section above. This is more incremental.. less startingly broadening. Jytdog (talk) 05:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you and other editors think about it, I'd like to point back to my suggestion of using part of what's here in the lead, and the material from the talk section above in the main text, described just above. I think that would be a good approach to something that might have consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is good. but in my view only the first sentence. i still find myself reacting negatively to the list of examples. In my work onFRINGEy topics POV pushers cry cyberbulling all the time, and i don't see it as helpful to feed that. Maybe too selfish? Jytdog (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors will use anything as a weapon if they think it might work. That should not stop us from using appropriate examples, explanations etc. If their cries of cyberbullying are off target, they should not be relevant. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 13:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be a good idea to revise that list of examples so that the examples would parallel the sections on the policy page. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So at AE yesterday, an anonymous IP posted this.

I have listened carefully to folks here who have written fiercely and passionately on this page, about protecting people from harassment, and especially with regard to discussion of off-wiki matters, and have taken that on board.

I found the statement in the diff alarming with regard to this policy and WP:BLPTALK. It is a very strong negative claim about what a self-OUTED Wikipedian is doing off-Wiki. While the IP is a Berkeley IP address, we have no way of knowing if that is actually a student in the class nor if it is true.

I emailed oversight, and plenty of admins saw the comment. But it is still there - not removed much less oversighted.

It is obviously OK and there is something I don't understand. How does that comment not fall under this policy and why is it not subject to oversight? Jytdog (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This may be of use. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Thanks for that. But even that warns against doing it. Jytdog (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant as justification in case you wanted to remove it. Private email correspondance should not be posted verbatim publically unless permission has been granted by both parties. This doesnt prevent a summary etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the email was apparently distributed to a clas of 180 students in order to canvass support, it could be seen as more of a public statement, and pertinent to the matter at hand. As a matter of policy, the rationale for suppressing it is borderline at best, especially since you have now chosen to publicly post about it, leaving us with a Streisand effect situation should we try to suppress it now. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Delayed response as I try to avoid this abortion of a talkpage) number of recipients has zero bearing on if a document is considered public or private. An internal email to 1000 employees of a company would not be public, anymore than a teacher emailing all their students. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am out of here. Jytdog (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I pointed out the same student comment at AN yesterday. I don't see it as violating either BLP or Outing, although it does violate Canvass. I suppose there is some issue with posting another person's email without prior permission, but this was a message that was already distributed very widely, so we can assume either that there is implied permission to distribute it further, or a disruptive intention to mislead the community about canvassing. But this is far from being in the realm of oversight. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I am floored that more than one experienced editor has taken that posting at face value and believe it is something that EJustice actually did. I view it as unverifiable and toxic. As just a matter of basic mental hygiene I don't believe it; I don't disbelieve it, but I don't believe it.

Here is the thing. Where are the oversighters etc who have brought all the passion about the risk of fakery and joejobbig on this page whenever we discussed bringing off-wiki stuff onto en-WP? The very strong concern to prevent harassment through anything that even might be a lie? This is, in my view, an example of such an ambiguous post, making pretty ugly claims about what someone supposedly did in the RW, on a fairly high profile board. I fully expected that post to come down, right way. Because this has not been taken down, I don't understand where the people who raised those concerns about the risk of fakery/joejobbing have been coming from; neither the spirit nor the letter of where they have been coming from. Jytdog (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to defend the passionate functionaries. But I found it quite easy to regard the posting as genuine, partly because there was more than one such student post, and partly because there was no denial, and partly because the claim was mostly expressed in positive terms. It just does not seem to me to be such a big deal. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The posting was fairly neutrally worded, but my sense was that the poster knew how negatively the community would view the described activity. If it was true and by a student, they were ratting him out. My concern is the risk that it is not true. But that is about that. The reason I posted here, is that I can no longer make sense of the discussion that has occurred on this page. The fierce stance that has been taken about guarding against harassment via postings about putative off-wiki stuff is a huge deal -- it has exploded almost every thread on this page. Jytdog (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And how does it matter if it's true or not? If the post included "also, he cheated on his wife" and that was true, would that be OK then? ... I think part of the problem is the suspicion, that if this sort of post was made about about somebody in the same situation who was doing PR work for ExxonMobile here, it would be treated with more alarm. I don't know if that is true or not, but that even the suspicion can be raised is just incredibly toxic to this project. Cannot people see this. Herostratus (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't followed the specific issue you're discussing, but as a general matter: if you request that something be oversighted, and you later find that it's still visible, and you haven't received any communication from the functionaries about it, the best thing to do is to send a follow-up email. It may be that there's just been a gap and no one has gotten to it yet, or the post is ambiguous and the request is being discussed, or maybe the email gremlins got your first message. If you suspect gremlins, you can always follow up by another means - emailing an individual functionary, or finding someone on IRC if you use it; there's no way to directly email the oversight list and the functionaries list has non-OS users, but if you need a group you can also email arbcom.

Also, the decision to suppress something is necessarily a judgment call; not everything that meets official criteria is best handled by suppression. Sometimes something is too conspicuous or has already been seen by too many people or would require suppressing too many revisions; sometimes it's already been mirrored or archived off-wiki (and nothing says "memory hole!" like content off-wiki that's been disappeared here). Relevant to this case, sometimes the act of suppressing something will itself cause others who have seen the material to conclude that its contents are true. Certainly the best response to a request you made is not to post a link to the material you think needs suppression on a high-traffic page. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of lost me when he started talking about "basic mental hygiene," which unless I'm mistaken was basically calling me a crazy person because I don't see it the same way he does. As the cat is quite clearly out of the bag regardless of what we do at this point, I have closed the OTRS ticket as inactionable. When this all started, it was possible that another oversighter may have seen it differently and would have supressed the material (we really aren't a hive mind and we do often discuss borderline stuff to look for consensus), but now, not so much, this thread has made it way too public. If anyone desires to, they could redact it I suppose but suppression would be pointless now. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is over my head but "mental hygiene" was not anything to do with you. Jytdog means that he believes things that have strong evidence, or which have weak evidence but which are compatible with accepted knowledge (with varying degrees of belief). As part of Jytdog's mental hygiene he chooses to not believe other claims. Johnuniq (talk) 03:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Johnuniq's interpretation above. It is not an expression I would use, but that is how I understood it. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 17:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox: In case you miss them, please note the clarifications regarding "mental hygiene" just above. Johnuniq (talk) 23:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, did not see it as directed at anyone else. It was more like "this gives me cognitive dissonance." --Tryptofish (talk) 03:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies to anybody who took that as referring to anyone else. Yes I was just describing how I think. Jytdog (talk) 03:16, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After extensive discussion above, am proposing we add the following two bits of content to this policy, to catch it up with community practice - the work that oversighters and others do every day in removing harassing content about RW people added to WP. This proposal attempts to address that gap in the written policy, and no more. There are larger issues afoot with the Wikipedia:Community health initiative which is looking to develop new policy around harassment. This is not that.

Wikipedia must never be misused to harass anyone, whether or not the subject of the harassment is an editor here.

And a new main-level section, immediately following WP:OWH:

Harassing those outside of the editing community

In alignment with the protection of editors from harassment described throughout the rest of this policy, edits that harass living or recently deceased people who are not members of the Wikipedia community are also prohibited. Per the oversight policy, harassing content will be deleted or suppressed. Editors who post such material in any namespace may be indefinitely blocked.

Where content is added or comments are made about a living person for a direct, legitimate encyclopedic purpose, such as in an article about a notable person or event or in a relevant talkpage discussion including discussions of sources, all aspects of the policy on biographies of living persons must be observed, and in the event of any disputes, the procedures described in that policy must be followed.

Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

!votes

• I support the general approach, but I also feel like the proposal is not quite ready yet for an RfC. First, you did not specify where the sentence in the first quote box is supposed to go. Based on prior discussion, I figure it is intended for the lead. I would suggest adding it at the end of the first paragraph in the lead, and also deleting the second paragraph of the lead. As for the second quote box, I strongly support the first paragraph, and I oppose the second paragraph. That latter part has nothing to do with "disputes" about content, and it should more directly reflect the concerns discussed previously, about not seeing BLP content as an outing violation. I'll put a better alternative in the discussion section, below. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I don't like the second paragraph in the second quote box. I think that the first paragraph is good as is, but the second paragraph should be changed to something that was discussed earlier on this talk page:

Content and sourcing that comply with the biographies of living persons policy do not violate this policy; neither do discussions about sources and authors of sources, unless comments about persons are gratuitous to determining source quality. See also WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPCOI, and the associated discretionary sanctions.

--Tryptofish (talk) 02:06, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I yanked it. Good luck to everybody! Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's a good idea (but I hope that you didn't mean that you were walking away).

Let me make a revised version of the proposal, while trying to tie up some loose ends – because I really do think it's a good idea, and I want to see it move forward now that the earlier RfC has closed. I hope that editors who are watching here will give feedback on it before we go ahead with an RfC, because it would be useful to have a local consensus that a proposal is ready to be presented to the community. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second version

Make three changes:

1. Delete the sentence This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors. from the outing section, because it will be replaced as follows.
2. Delete the second paragraph of the lead section, and replace it with the following paragraph:

Wikipedia must never be misused to harass anyone, whether or not the subject of the harassment is an editor here. Edits constituting harassment will be reverted, deleted, or suppressed, as appropriate, and editors who engage in harassment are subject to blocking.

3. Add the following new main-level section, immediately following WP:OWH:

Harassing those outside of the editing community

In alignment with the protection of editors from harassment described throughout the rest of this policy, edits that harass living or recently deceased people who are not members of the Wikipedia community are also prohibited. Per the oversight policy, harassing content will be deleted or suppressed. Editors who post such material in any namespace may be indefinitely blocked.

Content and sourcing that comply with the biographies of living persons policy do not violate this policy; neither do discussions about sources and authors of sources, unless comments about persons are gratuitous to determining source quality. See also WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPCOI, and the associated discretionary sanctions.

What do other editors think? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bump: I'd really like to get feedback from other editors. (This is not yet a proposal to actually make these changes, just trying to finalize what can be proposed in an RfC.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll read it, but if this RfC happens, and it runs 30 days ish, that will take us to the beginning of June, and then we can all take a nice long well-deserved summer vacation from any further RfCs on this talk page or about the content of this policy. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate that. I hope that you have a happy summer, but I'm not making any promises. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it necessary to delete This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors.? Perhaps it could be kept and modified by adding a clause to it, like ", as described below"? Geogene (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting idea, thanks! Of course, the concern in the past has been that the sentence can be difficult to understand, but with an explanation readily at hand, that makes understanding a lot easier, and doing it this way would also placate editors who object to removing the sentence. I think an easy way to do it is simply to blue-link "both editors and non-editors" to the new section. I'd be fine with doing that. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I expect to start the new RfC (incorporating Geogene's idea) in the next day or so. If anybody has any suggestions or concerns, I'd still welcome hearing that before then. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Wikipedia policies and guidelines When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the following three changes to this policy page be made, based upon discussions of the sentence This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors in the section about posting of personal information? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. Delete the second paragraph of the lead section of this policy page ("Harassment can include actions calculated to be noticed by the target and clearly suggestive of targeting them, where no direct communication takes place"), and replace it with the following paragraph:

Wikipedia must never be misused to harass anyone, whether or not the subject of the harassment is an editor here. Edits constituting harassment will be reverted, deleted, or suppressed, as appropriate, and editors who engage in harassment are subject to blocking.

(Alternatively, the existing second paragraph could remain, and the new paragraph be added before or after it.)

2. Add the following new main-level section, immediately following WP:OWH:

Harassing those outside of the editing community

In alignment with the protection of editors from harassment described throughout the rest of this policy, edits that harass living or recently deceased people who are not members of the Wikipedia community are also prohibited. Per the oversight policy, harassing content will be deleted or suppressed. Editors who post such material in any namespace may be indefinitely blocked.

Content and sourcing that comply with the biographies of living persons policy do not violate this policy; neither do discussions about sources and authors of sources, unless comments about persons are gratuitous to determining source quality. See also WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPCOI, and the associated discretionary sanctions.

3. In the sentence "This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors" in the outing section, blue-link the words "both editors and non-editors" to the new section.

Support proposal regarding harassment of non-editors

1. Support as proposer. The sentence about "non-editors" in the outing section of this policy page has been templated "under discussion" for a long time, and has been the topic of a lot of discussion (and another recent RfC) in this talk, because it is not obvious to many editors how one can "out" someone who is not an editor. (The sentence was added in 2006 by Jimmy Wales: [7].) Oversighters, however, have pointed out that there have been ongoing and significant problems with people using Wikipedia as a sort of web-host to post doxing material about other persons; such edits are usually oversighted rapidly. Some editors have also been concerned that the existing language could be misconstrued as saying that normal BLP editing, such as linking to the person's official webpage, could be a violation. The three changes proposed here represent the outcome of lengthy discussions among many editors, and clarify and modernize the language of the policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   After seeing further discussion, I want to add a few points. This is not a proposal to change policy in any way. It is a proposal to make language clearer. If some editors think it is obvious what that sentence that has been tagged "under discussion" for over a year means, then good for you, but you might want to consider that editors who feel that it could be said better are not idiots. And as for this proposal making it easier for bad actors to game the system, that's just not true. If that's your argument for opposing, you might want to explain specifically how that would happen, not just wave around vague sky-is-falling worries about wikilawyering. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2. Support sounds like an improvement. feminist 03:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support This is fine. The existing text, though not perfect, is also basically fine. While the previous RfC above involved claims of hypothetical confusion that might arise from the current text, I'm not aware of any actual examples of problems that have arisen from it. Still, on balance it's better to be clear than not. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support. Proposals 2 and 3 are fine as it. I have no problems with proposal 1, but think it would be better preceding the existing sentence rather than replacing it - "Wikipedia must not be used to harass anyone... Harassment includes...". Thryduulf (talk) 11:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support per Thryduulf's suggestion. I have a ton of respect for Dennis, and I agree that instruction/scope creep should be avoided, and also oppose the codification of common sense. However, it has been argued on this very page that our policy does not protect non-editors, or at least that there is enough wiggle room in it to get away with some level of outing of non-editors. I agree that they should be covered by the policy as is (and will not hesitate to suppress something that I see as a policy violation) but not everyone sees it that way, so I also support a clarification of the text. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support per Thryduulf, and agree that the proposed text should precede the existing text. We cannot condone the harassment of anyone, whether they edit the site or not, and the current policy can be interpreted to allow us to be used to hurt innocent people without their knowledge. It's better to be crystal clear about this. Katie^talk 13:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
7. support. This is not CREEP, it just catches up written policy with the policy that is practiced every day, as I noted above, here. It will be useful in a few ways to have this articulated. Jytdog (talk) 04:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support I would like to commend Tryptofish for putting this together. WT:HARASSMENT has been especially controversial this year. Any hopes for improvement were being undone by RFC exhaustion. This RFC demonstrates what happens when the work has been done beforehand with feedback heard from both sides of the aisle. The community still remains hugely divided on this issue so it's taken a tremendous effort to get to this point. There is still more work to be done; COI and undisclosed paid editing need to be strengthened but not at the cost of important protections for the community that builds this encyclopedia. This takes us one step closer to bring a harmonious relationship between BLP and OUTING. Mkdw ^talk 06:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support per Tryptofish's initial recommendation and Thryduulf's suggested modification. I agree with Mkdw. This was essential. Risker (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support brings policy as written more into line with policy as it's understood. Geogene (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support per nom. Brings clearer language to an important and pre-existing policy. --NoGhost (talk) 21:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support It's common sense, which most Internet users seem to be lacking these days. — Gestrid (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support, per comments above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
14. Support Not a substantial or potentially controversial change to the policy from where I'm sitting, but in my opinion the more times Wikipedia PAGs state directly that discussion of sources and their reliability is not a violation of BLP or HARASS (as the second paragraph of the proposed addition does), the better, as it seems far too many (long-term!) contributors are all too happy to shut down RS discussions with bogus claims of "harassment" and "BLP violation". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    • It's worth pointing out that such a discussion can be harassment or BLP violation - for example if it discloses non-public information that is clearly not relevant to determining the reliability of the source or suitability for inclusion. It all depends on context though and you are correct that such discussions are not automatically BLP violations. If someone thinks a discussion is harassing someone or otherwise a BLP violation, it's always best to step back and examine whether it is before continuing - i.e. it's much better to be cautious than reckless. Thryduulf (talk) 10:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oh, I know that it can (and that's presumably why the proposal specifies unless comments about persons are gratuitous to determining source quality and This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors). I'm just talking about when someone says This book gets basic facts relevant to the topic wrong, presumably because the author is a specialist in such-and-such other peripherally related field. and someone else says Hey, you need a reliable source to attack a published scholar's work in that way. It's peripheral to this discussion (and so would be "gratuitous" in this context) so I won't go into too much detail, but about three years back someone cited a book primarily about WWII in our Emperor Jimmu article; I went out and bought the book, and the relevant section got the Nihon Shoki confused with the Shoku Nihongi (something that no one who had examined the primary sources in any detail would never do), making it a tertiary source on a completely peripheral topic. But I can totally see certain users (again, not going to name names) claiming that pointing stuff like this out is a BLP-violation, harassment, defamation, or even "original research" (yes, it is OR to say without a source that a tertiary sources got details wrong from misreading primary or secondary sources, but it's the kind of OR that is acceptable on Wikipedia because it is on a talk page and not included in the article space). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

15. Support Absolutely - Wikipedia should never be used to harass anyone, editor or not !  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  20:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose proposal regarding harassment of non-editors

1. Oppose as creep. WP:BLP already covers everyone, including editors and non-editors, on basically all pages. We don't need potential contradiction that could arise, for starters. Admin already know if someone is defiling the reputation of a non-editor that this is not allowable, whether it is in an article or on a talk page. Whether or not it is harassment is moot, as harassment is only one type of behavior already covered by WP:BLP. Our policies on harassment are more about behavior between editors, actions that aren't BLP issues but troublesome, like following them and reverting all their edits or dragging them to ANI or AN3 for frivolous reasons. These actions are not possible with a non-editor, which is why they aren't covered. The more broad/nebulous we make policy, the easier it becomes to game the system, allowing the policy to be used to silence someone, rather than its original intent, while the "target" non-editor may not know we were even discussing them, and IF they join the conversation, they are instantly "an editor" so the whole thing is moot. In short: BLP already covers this. More rules = bad, simple, common sense rules = good. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose - per Dennis Brown. WP:BLP covers this, and the likelihood of editors using this to game the system is real. sIf it isn't broken, don't fix it. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose per DB, it's already covered by WP:BLP. If we make this policy big and clunky, it just won't work as well. Please keep it as simple as possible. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose per Dennis. This point is so basic that even if we don't consider it to fall under BLP (which I believe it does), we can enforce it without it being written in policy. There's no policy that says to spell words properly in articles, or to use proper grammar in articles, but we still do it all the time, and we fix such problems when we find them. WP:NOTHERE also applies, since doing this kind of thing is definitely not encyclopedia-building. Between BLP and NOTHERE, we have the idea covered already, without any need to expand this policy. Also, since someone raises the issue of personal webpages: when would we ever do that? Aside from WP:ELOFFICIAL, e.g. you put up someone's personal webpage in the external links section of his own article (hardly a problem to put http://www.birchbayh.com in the ELs of Birch Bayh), they almost always fail a bunch of points at WP:ELNO, and aside from discussing whether a link qualifies as such, these links are basically never appropriate in other namespaces. Nyttend (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC) Post scriptum We already have the WP:ATP policy; it sounds like this proposal refers to the addition of attack-related content to pages that primarily have some other purpose. If we have a general speedy deletion criterion for pages that are nothing but X, adding X-type content to another page is surely something that deserves a reversion and perhaps sanctions. Nyttend (talk) 00:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of proposal regarding harassment of non-editors

• Note I've emailed the functionaries, neutrally advising of this RfC's existence. Thryduulf (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I put a message at the oversighters' talk page, but what you did is better. I've also left notes at Village Pump Policy and Proposals, and listed the RfC at WP:CENT. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this needed? I thought common sense would indicate that harassing anybody is unacceptable. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can see why you would ask that! I tried to give some rationale in my support statement, but you can also look at #RfC regarding "non-editors", above. The issue is not the need to codify the prohibition against harassing non-editors, but to clarify the existing very vague language about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not immediately clear which paragraph your first proposal is planning to replace. I presume it's "Harassment can include actions calculated to be noticed by the target and clearly suggestive of targeting them, where no direct communication takes place." (the second paragraph of the whole policy", but it could refer to the paragraph that starts "Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently." (the second paragraph in the section about posting personal information).? Thryduulf (talk) 13:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's the lead section (and not the outing section), sorry that was not clearer. I've tweaked the language above in hopes of making it clear. The existing paragraph seems to be rather low-information, and does not really do anything to explain the policy, whereas the proposed new paragraph comes from discussion at #Alternative proposal regarding harassment of non-editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added that sentence to the RfC. [8] The sentence is unrelated to the rest of the proposal, so it's puzzling that the RfC would want to remove it. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for doing that. Actually, that sentence is kind of unrelated to anything anywhere in the policy, which makes it seem unnecessary. The discussion about that began at #Alternative proposal regarding harassment of non-editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the proposed addition to the lead could be made while leaving that sentence in place. The lead is short, and it wouldn't hurt to have both. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be fine with me, if that's the way the consensus goes. I'll make a revision above. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Moved from above, reply to Dennis Brown's !vote:

Dennis, a lot of the discussion in the prior #RfC regarding "non-editors" was about how WP:BLP does not really cover what is needed here. In fact, some editors were worried that the existing language actually contradicts BLP, because BLP says it's OK to link to the official webpage of the page subject even if it contains "personal information". And what seems "common sense" to an experienced admin can be far from obvious to less experienced editors – just look at the differing perceptions of functionaries and "regular" editors in that recent RfC. The policy needs to be clear to users who are not experienced. I disagree that this proposal makes the policy more nebulous; indeed it's quite the opposite. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is linking to a personal webpage of a non-editor an issue? I think we are a bit presumptuous to focus so much energy on protecting non-editors, people who by their very definition have not asked for protection. I don't see how someone who isn't participating can be "harassed" here. We protect claims against all people that aren't substantiated, we block anyone just trash talking anyone. This is already done. This looks like a solution in search of a problem. Or if you can point to specific instances of someone who isn't an editor who claims they were harassed by an editor, while it wasn't covered by BLP or other policies, please do. This kind of overreaching makes me cringe. And I don't see how this helps us build an encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Now I see better what you are concerned about. What you are saying is, in fact, what a lot of non-admins (including me) thought when these discussions began. (How can you out someone who does not edit here?) If you go to that earlier RfC on this talk page that I linked to, and go to the first oppose section, you will find a large number of your fellow admins saying the exact opposite of what you just said here, and you can see their reasons why. Absent what they said then, editors would probably have simply deleted the sentence "This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors", for the same reasons you give here. About that personal webpage thing, consider that it's perfectly alright to link to the official webpage of a BLP subject, even if it has their office address, who they work for, stuff like that – but if someone were to track down that information about me, and posted it here, they would be blocked for violating outing. Personally, I think it's common sense to see the difference, but a lot of editors have disagreed. We need to make it clear, even to inexperienced users, that this ain't the place to dox anyone, and while we're at it, we might as well clarify the differences with BLP. But the big point is that we need to make clear to the inexperienced that we don't allow doxing, while also not leaving editors wondering how the bleep can anyone out a non-editor. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If something is common sense, then leave it alone. You don't try to codify common sense, policies are written with the assumption you are competent enough to understand standard English. If you aren't or have no common sense, you don't belong anyway. Once you start dumbing down the rules, you open loopholes. I don't see any possibility of an inexperienced user coming here to see if their doxing is allowed or not, and admin are already fully capable of handling the problem with existing policy. This will NOT empower admin or the community in any way. It will create fodder for wikilawyering. Creating more rules for non-editors is a Pandora's Box I would rather not open as well. I don't want to get into any longer of a discussion and take up the page, but suffice it to say my opposition stands. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis, it's understandable to have skipped over all of the preceding discussion on this, because it's tediously long, but most of what you're posting here has been covered there already. Your argument that BLP covers all relevant scenarios has already been discussed, and is factually incorrect; people can and do use Wikipedia as a platform for harassing people - sometimes article subjects and sometimes not. The idea that admins need no clarification and are fully capable of handling such issues already is apparently not the case, as the previous RfC above was initiated by an experienced admin offering a scenario that would seem to be straightforward, yet was presented as an example of potential confusion. This proposed change of course suggests no new rules "for" non-editors; it suggests a rewrite of an already-existing rule for editors about what they can post on Wikipedia's pages. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, I didn't say BLP covers every scenario, I said it covers every human. The replies I'm getting seem to imply that because I oppose, I am ignorant of the ramifications. I would disagree since the ramifications are rather known and have been the status quo for most of my experience here. The rest is semantics of what "for" means, so I won't bother with a reply as you surely knew what I meant and my grammar isn't faulty. From my observation, this is a flawed attempt at regulating what should be common sense, which is always a bad idea. What I don't care for is using the polling part of a poll to attempt to discredit my valid expression of opposition. My opposition stands. Perhaps the badgering can stop now. Perhaps a neutral party should move all this banter into the discussion area, where it should have been to begin with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, moved it myself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say that I never intended any of it to be badgering, and I definitely do not think that you are ignorant of the ramifications. Sorry that any of this made you feel badly. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When others who oppose see a long line of questioning on the only oppose, it makes them less likely to want to get involved. Wikipedians, in general, have a habit of demanding explanations from anyone who opposes an idea, much more than they do those that support it. In general, mind you. RFA is a good example. I don't take it personally, but I'm not willing to have my !vote watered down with questions that belong down here. Everyone has the same right to participate unmolested. Even me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion puts a lot of energy into telling Dennis Brown that if he only read various walls of text he wouldn't make so many mistakes. It would be a lot simpler to directly "point to specific instances" as he requested. At least it would be easier if there are specific instances rather than overlooked mischief. People occasionally find hoax articles or BLP violations that have gone unnoticed for years, but I would be astonished if no action resulted from a report showing that an editor posted harassment regarding a non-editor. Johnuniq (talk) 05:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Personally Dennis I am just waiting for this further farce of a discussion to come to an end before I start to go change BLP's to make them compliant with this policy as it is written. I predict that will cause a swift response somewhere... Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johnuniq, I take your point about a specific example, thanks. I'm at a disadvantage here because I do not have advanced permissions, but in that wall of text multiple functionaries have said that they frequently get complaints from people who are (a) not editors, and (b) not subjects of pages in any way, just private individuals, and these complaints are about somebody posting doxing information about them on-Wiki. Those posts get oversighted rapidly, which is why most editors do not see them, and why I have no way of linking to them. But I AGF that this does happen. If you look at Opabinia's comment, she confirms this where she says "sometimes article subjects and sometimes not". And if any functionaries can flesh out what I said, that would be great. So yes, if an editor posts harassment about a non-editor, there is a swift response. That's existing policy, and this proposal does nothing to change that. But it does change the cryptic sentence in the outing section that is tagged "under discussion" into clear language. Now, having mentioned AGF, I would suggest to both you and Only in death that you might want to try a bit of that with me. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well of course attacks are posted on Wikipedia! That won't be unexpected to anyone who saw usenet from a previous era, or who has seen the forums and blogs since. The point is that such attacks are swiftly handled—adding market-speak to this policy will have no effect on harassment other than to add confusion. Will I be able to post harassment about people who died more than a month ago? Six months ago? What about that corrupt local politician who died a year ago? Maybe someone should tell the world about the evil things they did, using every noticeboard and user page that can be found? What if someone wants to talk about their dog, using every noticeboard and user page that can be found? Policies should not try to list every prohibited action because that leads to wikilawyering—I don't see dogs mentioned in any policy! The basic principle is that we are here to build an encyclopedia. Anyone not helping that needs to go elsewhere. Johnuniq (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the follow-up. I guess that what it comes down to for me is that there is no substantive change in policy proposed here, but rather an improvement of language to make it clearer. (The answers to your questions about amount of time after death are answered at WP:BDP.) Maybe it's already clear enough for some people, but others of us believe that the proposal makes some unclear language clearer. It does not add confusion, but rather reduces it. What you see as "market-speak" does not look that way at all to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Umm, did you just agree with me that WP:HARASS is about editors (not non-editors) and that WP:BLP is the policy about everyone (editors and non-editors)? The fact that WP:BDP is at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Recently dead or probably dead substantiates the point I made at 10:17, 10 April 2017 above. Johnuniq (talk) 01:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Very seriously, that is what I used to think, until quite recently. And I was in favor of deleting the sentence about "this applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors" for that very reason: because I did not see how harassment in the way that we define it at Wikipedia could possibly apply outside of the WP community, whereas BLP would cover non-editors. Really: if you look through the wall-o-text and find my earlier comments, that's what I was saying! But then I saw the outcry from oversighters and other functionaries against deleting the sentence, and they persuaded me to change my mind. Apparently, there's a big problem with people who try to use WP to post doxing information about non-notable non-editors. Go figure. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • User:Only in death would you please provide examples of current content that in your judgement would need to be removed if this amendment gets consensus? I don't see what that could be since the proposal specifically says that any content that is BLP compliant is fine, so am curious what problems you see this causing. thx Jytdog (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to add this link to See also: Wikipedia:Community health initiative

The page is calm. You all should lift protection. Jytdog (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Is this a common thing? Policy pages being indefinitely fully protected? I took a look at a bunch of other policies and it seems like they were just semi protected, I thought full protection was reserved for edit disputes and was supposed to be temporary. Tutelary (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm the reason the policy page is protected. I have no intention of causing further disruption should it be lifted. Geogene (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably just missing something, but isn't this the wrong page to request deprotection? WP:RFPP is. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per the instructions there the 1st step is to ask the admin who protected. I figured Thryduulf, who protected in this diff, was watching the page, as are other admins. But I will ask -- User:Thryduulf would you please unprotect? See note just above. Jytdog (talk) 00:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Self-facepalm – I thought you were asking for the health initiative page to be unprotected. Woops! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't got time right now to check things I'd want to check before unprotecting. I will look when I get time (most likely not until this evening UK time) but I've got not objection to another admin unprotecting before then if they feel it is no longer required. Thryduulf (talk) 09:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reduced to semi-protection. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thx Jytdog (talk) 04:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was just reading (not commenting on) a couple of FTN discussions, and was reminded of an unrelated incident a few years back, where a Wikipedia SPA was pushing an extreme minority view, likely only held by one person and that person's close associates. In one case, the SPA cited an as-of-then unpublished writing by said person in a Wikipedia article, all but confirming their own real-world identity with that person (or at least their personal affilition with said person).

I have to wonder what the appropriateness of even pointing this kind of thing out would be, since if incorrect/random speculation as to someone's real-world identity is considered OUTING, then surely pointing out that someone has inadvertently outed themselves is also a violation, no? And if saying "Hey, I think you might be Joe Bloggs or someone associated with him, since you admitted to having seen his unpublished essay with this edit" is a violation, then what about "Hey, if you want to keep your identity secret, you might want to self-revert this edit and request oversight"?

Thoughts?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My take on it (for whatever that might be worth) would be that there is a difference between posting an edit that can be interpreted by other editors as revealing personal information, as in this example, and choosing to voluntarily post the actual personal information on-wiki. Thus, the example comes close to "investigating other editors", but is also an example of something where common sense points towards the identification. Therefore, the "I think you might be..." comment borders on outing, but I personally would only regard it as sanctionable if the comment were made in a hostile or battleground-y way. (Note that my opinion is also that administrators need to employ good judgment about whether there is an intent to harass, or a danger that outing might continue, before blocking, and that automatic or punitive blocking is administrative misconduct.) Anyway, I think that a pragmatic approach that would present no problem would be simply to say "Hey, it looks like you might have a WP:COI here, based on your familiarity with the unpublished material." That way, there is no explicit speculation about identity. As for suggesting to the editor that they redact the comment and have it oversighted, that seems like a friendly and good-faith attempt to help, rather than harassment, so long as it is not done in an overly attention-getting way. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Wikipedia policies and guidelines When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

• Question 1: If an editor regularly introduces pages into the mainspace that have problems (e.g. categories need activated, containing empty sections which should be removed, not in compliance with basic parts of the manual of style, etc.), and the user is known not to clean up the pages themself, does it constitute harassment for another user to regurlarly fix those problems in said articles?
• Question 2: If an editor moves pages from the userpsace of others to the mainspace that may not be suitable for the mainspace, and has shown a pattern of having pages they move in that manner end up being deleted, does it constitute harassment for another user to seek the restoration of those pages to the userspace per the result of WP:UP/RFC2016 (B4) (i.e. "If a draft is moved to the mainspace by a user other than its author, then found to be unsuitable for the mainspace for reasons which wouldn't apply in the userspace, it should be returned to the userspace.")?

— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 19:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question 1

No (it does not constitute harassment) 1

• No - "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." (part of the WP:WIKIHOUND section) makes it clear to me that this does not constitute harassment. It is akin to new page reviewing. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 19:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes (it constitutes harassment) 1

Question 2

No (it does not constitute harassment) 2

• No - Community consensus resulting from a request for comment that was widely advertised should be adhered to. Editors known not to adhere to such things after they have been made aware should not be allowed to disregard them under the guise that those noticing are harassing them. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 19:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes 2 (it constitutes harassment) 2

Discussion 1 & 2

• Comment This looks suspiciously like an out-of-venue behavioral dispute that should be handled by an admin board, or, ultimately presented to ArbCom. I recommend it be closed. Geogene (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a better place to consult the community regarding whether or not certain actions are considered to be harassment under the harassment policy. I considered being more general with the questions, but I'd rather the decision by the community be explicitly clear. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 20:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Geogene. This RfC is obviously related to this ANI thread. This amounts to forum shopping, in light of that ANI thread. The question is also too general; how this is done and whether there is good judgement being applied matter a lot. Godsy this was poor judgement; please withdraw this RfC. Jytdog (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it amounts to forum shopping, but rather seeking a valid form of dispute resolution. Other forms of dispute resolution have been recommended by some in the thread. WP:AN/I interprets policy, this will clarify the policy itself; I do not consider this a behavioral issue, but rather a disagreement regarding this policy. "How this is done and whether there is good judgement being applied" is important, but if someone is doing strictly what is being described in this rfc in a reasonable manner, I don't believe it constitutes harassment. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 20:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to do DR you need to do it on the specific issue. The general question does not help resolve the specific dispute, especially when you don't make reference to the specific dispute in this RfC. Two of us have told you that this smells bad - please withdraw it. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was blocked because an administrator determined the actions described in question one constitute harassment. I do not believe they do. When there is disagreement about a policy, it is reasonable to handle it on the talk page of that policy. I do not plan to withdraw this because I believe this is appropriate. Best Regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 22:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be better to address the underlying issue. Legacypac believes that Wikipedia should not be a web host that permanently records thousands of fake articles on garage bands, minor businesses, self-promotions, and a lot more. Legacypac would, presumably, be called a deletionist who tries to get these pages deleted. However, inclusionists undermine those efforts with completely unrealistic demands that Legacypac spend two hours on each page carefully polishing it and adding all possible sources to see if there is anything worth saving. Legacypac cannot get much support for cleaning up pages in user or draft spaces and so is recruiting the large and competent group of editors who patrol new articles. Godsy should focus on the underlying issue—what should happen with the thousands of promotional fake articles? Tweaking this policy to allow Godsy to hound Legacypac would not be productive. Johnuniq (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I share the concern about forum shopping expressed by other editors, but I also see an aspect of this discussion as Godsy asking in good faith what the community really thinks about this, and it's not an unreasonable question. So I don't like the idea of treating this as a formal RfC (especially on a talk page where editors have recently commented about "RfC fatigue"), and would oppose a change to the policy. So I'm not going to comment in the !vote sections (where it is also a bias to put the "no" sections before the "yes" sections, by the way). But I'll just say here what I think. It depends a lot on context. I sometimes see new editors or IPs make very bad edits (copyright violations, for example) on my watchlist, and after fixing those edits I often check the account's editing history to find and fix similar problems on pages not on my watchlist. That is not harassment. But the more that a user has become established as someone who is neither a vandal nor a single-purpose account, the more it becomes a problem to treat them as someone who needs cleaning up after. I think the first step is to try to engage with them on their user talk page. If that fails, and particularly if they express the belief that you are harassing them, it's time to stop following them, and time to start working with the community instead of taking it on alone. Bring it up at an appropriate noticeboard. If other editors agree with you, they will help with the cleanup and establish a consensus that the user is, in fact, making unhelpful edits. But if the consensus is that the edits do not need cleanup, then the matter should be dropped right there. Continuing to follow after that is indeed harassment. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I can see how some think this could be seen as forum shopping. Personally, I'm not sure it is, but I also feel that it wasn't really appropriate to start an RfC. Anyone who comments in either !vote section could be seen as taking sides for or against one editor or the other. While I'm not sure which other (I say other because WP:RFC says this actually is a form of dispute resolution.) forms of dispute resolution these two editors have tried, I don't think it's appropriate to get the community involved in this way. On the other hand, ArbCom probably would not take this case at this time since there hasn't been any real attempt to resolve this besides this RfC and a couple ANI threads (as far as I know). — Gestrid (talk) 00:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]