| Revision as of 19:47, 16 November 2007 editDavid Shankbone (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers22,979 edits →A curious question: Outing public personae← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 05:36, 18 December 2024 edit undoClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,373,058 editsm Fixing links to archived content. (BOT) | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Policy-talk}} | |||
| {| class="messagebox standard-talk" | |||
| {{tmbox |image=] | |||
| |- | |||
| |text=This page is only for discussion of the policy and not for reporting cases of harassment; if you require information on dealing with harassment ]. Thank you for your time. | |||
| | style="padding-right: 10px;" | ] | |||
| }} | |||
| || This page is for discussion of the guideline; if you wish to complain about a user harrassing you, your request won't be heard by many people here; you will have better luck at ]. Thank you for your time. | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |} | |||
| |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 200K | |||
| |counter = 22 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 2 | |||
| |algo = old(60d) | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Harassment/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| {{archivebox|auto=short|bot=lowercase sigmabot III|age=60| | |||
| * }} | |||
| == "profiles on external sites" == | |||
| * Older discussion can be found . | |||
| * ]. | |||
| In January, "profiles on external sites" was added to the list of "personal information" in the "Posting of personal information" section in ] by {{u|A smart kitten}} without any discussion on the talk page (as far as I can see). I've reverted this bold edit, as I believe this is a significant change to the policy and should not be made without affirmative talk page consensus, and because it's appearance in policy has already been used to justify the arbcom block of at least one editor ({{u|Kashmiri}}, ]). Smart kitten said in their edit summary that this edit just aligns the paragraph with what was already stated in the "Exceptions" section, but I disagree: the exceptions says "links to personal profiles on external sites should not be connected to any specific Misplaced Pages editor unless that editor discloses it themselves," which is different than saying that links to personal profiles on external sites are forbidden even when they ''aren't'' connected to any specific Misplaced Pages editor--forbidding them in that circumstance would be a significant expansion of the outing policy, and one that I do not think would be wise or necessary. I think before this text is added to this policy, there should be talk page consensus (at least) if not full ] consensus. ] (]) 17:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Is this policy == | |||
| :It seems to me that this is very much a function of the degree to which linking to a profile on an external site has the effect of linking to "personal information" about the Misplaced Pages editor who also owns that external profile. The exceptions listed in the Exceptions subsection are really quite delimited, so many other kinds of linking are still prohibited under the intent of this policy. I looked at the discussion you linked to, about the recent block, and I do note some functionaries pointing out, separately from the wording added in the January edit, that blocking for linking to external profiles has been understood by Oversighters for a long time as a valid reason for blocking as a violation of the Outing policy, so I think the January edit just put long-term practice into writing. You made a distinction between "unless the editor discloses it themselves" and "when they ''aren't'' connected to any specific Misplaced Pages editor". I had to think about that one. There's also when they ''are'' connected to an editor, but the editor has not chosen to disclose it here, and that's a pretty big deal. This discussion is, of course, taking place in the context of the current dispute about that WP criticism site, and that's a reason to be careful about how we word the policy language here. My inclination is that we might want to restore some sort of language about it, but maybe craft that language a little differently. --] (]) 21:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not sure I understand the distinction you are making. The sentence in question from the "Posting of personal information" section is followed by {{tq|Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy...}}, so it is already in the context of that information being posted in connection with an editor. (I don't know how to apply this in the situation to which you linked, as I don't know what is in the edit in question.) ] (]) 21:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you both for that feedback. To clarify one of Tryp's points, I wasn't referring to the "unless the editor discloses it themselves" part of that sentence, but the part that said "should not be connected to any specific Misplaced Pages editor." And I have no comment on or knowledge of the merits of that block, I just read the discussion and then came and looked at the page history. | |||
| ::After reading the section again, I see your points that the entire section is about information that is connected to an editor, so that is implied in "profiles on external sites ", and that reading is in harmony with the "should not be connected to any specific Misplaced Pages editor" line in the exceptions part. | |||
| ::So I put back "profiles on external sites" but boldly added "an editor's" to the beginning of the sentence to help poor readers like me remember that the entire list is about an editor's information, as opposed to just any profile on an external site. The bottom line, for me, being -- and I think everyone will agree this is the actual policy -- it's OK to link to profiles on external sites as long as those profiles aren't connected to any specific editor. Meaning, it's OK for me to post a link to a professor's university bio or a celebrity's Twitter account or whatever. What's not OK is posting a link to ''an editor's'' profile on an external site. ] (]) 22:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't know if other editors are going to comment, and point out things I haven't thought of, but I like the way that turned out, and I think the discussion so far has improved the policy page. --] (]) 22:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think stuff should be added to this page without consensus. <b style="font-family:monospace;color:#E35BD8">]×]]</b> 07:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for the ping. It seems like this might be resolved now, but I'll leave my thoughts for the record. As the paragraph in question starts with {{tqq|Posting another editor's personal information is harassment}}, my perspective is that the paragraph's scope is that of prohibiting the posting of other Misplaced Pages editors' personal information. My thoughts therefore align with those of isaacl, in that I don't see the addition I made as forbidding the linking of external profiles in general -- just when they're those of a Misplaced Pages editor who hasn't disclosed them themselves. I therefore didn't believe that the addition represented a substantive change to the policy, given that this is (by my reading) what is already said at the bottom of the {{tq|Exceptions}} section. | |||
| :{{pb}} | |||
| :For some additional context, I made the change following a discussion with a new editor at {{slink|User talk:Ilike2burnthing#January 2024}} <small>(as a courtesy, I've let them know on their talk page that I've linked to that discussion from here)</small>. {{ucfirst:{{they|Ilike2burnthing}}}} found the wording relating to external profiles confusing, and remarked that the policy was {{tq|poorly written in this regard}}. I therefore made the change I did as a result of that conversation with the intention of clarifying the existing policy on this matter, rather than to substantively change the policy itself. | |||
| :{{pb}} | |||
| :All the best, <span class="skin-invert" style="color:#000"><span style="">‍—‍</span>]<sub>]]</sub></span> 17:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Can you use disclosure in any Wikimedia project as "voluntary disclosure" or can it only be disclosure on en.wikipedia to cross reference user name to name? == | |||
| As part of an overall effort to simplify and streamline policy, I've boldly replaced the policy tag with a guideline tag. There are several reasons. | |||
| Suppose it involves cross referencing name to username156666. If there is an account user156666 on Commons.Wikimedia and they make a voluntary disclosure of their identity there, can it be shared here with link to it? ] (]) 22:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :This has been discussed previously without clear consensus, but my view is that there isn't a single simple answer. It depends how prominent the disclosure is on the other project and how prominently that project is relative to their contributions here. For example, if User:Example discloses on their Commons userpage that they are John Smith from Barnsley and their en.wp userpage says "for for information about me, see my userpage at Commons" then that definitely counts as voluntary disclosure here. On the other hand if the disclosure came once 8 years ago on an obscure talk page on Serbian Wiktionary, they don't link to the Serbian Wiktionary on their userpage here and have never edited any en.wp articles about the Serbian language then they haven't disclosed it for the purposes of this policy. | |||
| The policy tag was added less than a year ago without a clear consensus. | |||
| :Obviously most examples are going to be somewhere in between, so it a judgement call, but if you aren't sure assume they haven't disclosed. Also remember that you need to be able to justify ''why'' you are making the connection - it's almost never a good idea to do so just because you can, doing so should actually be necessary or beneficial in some way. ] (]) 23:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::For something to do with UPE. The disclosure they made is in stating author name, then, saying it's their own work. It's in English on commons. ] (]) 23:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| This page is disjointed and is more of an essay than a statement of policy. Much of the reason it is disjointed is that there isn't any real consistent policy on harassment. The AC cases that are identified in the page were the sort of cases that produce unclear precedent because there were so many problems being addressed at once. The most serious problems of harassment we have had are not mentioned here; they have involved sexual innuendo, threats of physical violence, and deliberate disclosure of personal information. That this sort of behavior is inappropriate at Misplaced Pages is so clear that no policy is necessary. | |||
| :{{ec}} I have a feeling that this has been discussed before, so you may want to check the talk archives. My gut feeling is that one should err on the side of caution, and assume that non-disclosure here is intentional. --] (]) 23:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :No. OUTING is not permitted because we don't want that kind of battleground approach used to drive away editors. Editors should only be driven away by good arguments related to content, or by sanctions from behavioral issues. That means we don't want people doing opposition research and revealing that years ago, or somewhere else, their opponent revealed something personal. I imagine this relates to the ongoing fuss at ]. Yes, that is dubious but I looked at a few of the edits and they were fine. It's just an enthusiast writing with inside knowledge and (many years ago) inserting undue details. There is nothing wicked going on. Please drop it. ] (]) 00:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I note that several attempts to generate consenus for a "wikistalking" policy have failed to gain much support. | |||
| ] Co., ] 17:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I will re-read the page and related pages and come back either supporting or opposing this decision. Congradulations on being ]. ] 20:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :After a very short re-read I have determined that it is indeed a disjointed series of ideas mostly covered in other areas. The section on wikistalking seems to be the only unique information here, but following people around can be either constructive or disruptive. In the case of constructive following(such as following a vandal or spammer) this is acceptable behavior, in other cases I beleive that other policies cover it. I '''support''' you decision to turn this page into a guideline. ] 20:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| After re-reading the page, I also support your action. Thanks for doing this. ] 02:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Wikistalking? == | |||
| When I looked at a user's contributions page, I saw several articles (about Italian models, if you want to know) that had a couple of minor formatting and capitalisation errors, so I went to those articles and fixed them. Would that be considered Wikistalking, though not harmful? --] 19:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Nope, I consider such things to be more giving someone a hand rather than stalking. True wikistalking would be if you were to check their contributions on a daily basis and edited most of their changes. ] 15:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Query== | |||
| I have had questions about the identity of a particular user and whether or not he is a person about whom a Misplaced Pages article is written. When I asked this question, he told me I had to remove it as it represented a form of harassment. I don't think that the policy states that it is a form of harassment to ask the question whether a particular user is actually the subject of an article, especially if that user is editting that article (and then there is question of violation of ]). Please see the related discussion on my ] and give me some guidance. --] 19:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Read the note at the top of the page. This talk page is for discussing the policy; complaints about actual harassment go on e.g. the village pump. (]) 15:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Harassment == | |||
| A few people have been harassing me after I made a change to ]. First some guy shows up claiming I'm some other user and posting things on my page. Then another guy shows up threatening me with blockage and (undoing something that doesn't make any sense). I then took to see who this person and undid one of his edits (something that didn't make any sense to me). Then he comes back calling me names, claiming I should be blocked for stalking him (HE WAS THE ONE STALKING ME!). I left a message on this guys page telling him not to stalk me, but he removed the message saying "plonk". | |||
| Why am I being harassed and how come no one is doing something about it? | |||
| ] 12:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Read the note at the top of the page. This talk page is for discussing the policy; complaints about actual harassment go on e.g. the village pump. (]) 15:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == And ] == | |||
| ''Copied from ] | |||
| If this has already been covered, please direct me to the relevant conversation, but: doesn't this policy conflict a bit with user's right to privacy? In other words, it is it possible to suggest to someone that they are violating this policy without yourself violating the policy, in particluar "'''Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself.'''" <font color="green">]</font> 20:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I don't understand what you're trying to say. It's quite possible to point out that someone is posting personal information without repeating that personal information. (]) 09:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry, wasn't clear. It's like this: let's say I edit the ] article and change the lead to read "Bill Gates is the smartest human who has ever lived." After looking at some of my other edits to Microsoft, etc., you get suspcious. So you come to my talk page and you say, "IronDuke, you aren't by any chance Bill Gates, are you?" Well, if it turns out I am, aren't you violating my privacy? And yet, am I not violating COI by editing the Bill Gates in a ] manner? <font color="green">]</font> 14:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::*If someone asks whether you're Bill Gates, they're not violating your privacy (they are likely incivil and incorrect, though). If he posts Bill Gates's home address and telephone number, that would be violating privacy. (]) 15:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::But it says "legal name" above. Thus, if you post that I am Bill Gates, you are violating that part of ], no? <font color="green">]</font> 15:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*If asked out of the blue, yes. If this could reasonably be implied from your on-wiki activities, then no. For instance, if John Doe is the founder of DoeCorp, and the article on DoeCorp is suffering ] issues from User:JDSomeone, it is not unreasonable to conclude that JDSomeone might be John Doe. In effect, the user has exposed himself. (]) 15:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Well, he's exposed himself to being exposed, yes? If you, intrepid editor, are the only person who puts it together, it can stay secret of you keep it secret. But this gets back to my question... when may one essentially violate ]. I'm going to paste this conversation over there and see what people think. <font color="green">]</font> 15:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == And ], part 2 == | |||
| This is similar to the situation above. We have an articles on a company and its owner/CEO. Over time there have been several registered users and IPs who have identified themselves as the owner or officers of the company. Overall, they appear to be just one editor. One account was banned for legal threats but several of them posted threatening or intimidating language. The editor engaged in various edits which represented conflicts of interest, such as promoting the company in other articles, removing information from the articles of competitors, and trying to settle scores. In addition to violating ] and ], the editor has repeatedly violated other policies and guidelines, such as ], ], etc. | |||
| A new account claims to have no relation to the company or its owner. However his editing patterns, spelling mistakes, interests, etc, clearly show it to be the same editor as before. Outside information, such as the content of a MySpace account, further supports the theory that the new editor is the owner of the company. Proving the connection to the owner serves to prove that the editor has a conflict of interest and that he is the same editor as previous usernames. So, to recap, is it legitimate to reveal a user's probable real name in interest of enforcing wikipedia rules? -] · ] · 00:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :(Cross posted to ] due to lack of response). -] · ] · 07:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Harassment? == | |||
| Since Misplaced Pages has pages on many real life people, places, and even businesses, what is it considered when people bring real life conflicts and start placing them onto Misplaced Pages? For example: an argument between two people, at least one of whom has a Misplaced Pages article about them, or also, a business that has an article and an employee/ex-employee that is angry at the business. | |||
| I have seen a specific instance of the latter where an employee from a company has gone onto the Misplaced Pages article of the company and posted various defamatory statements about real people that work at the company. Is this vandalism, harassment, or perhaps something else? | |||
| This brings to mind a second problem. What happens when sensitive information is posted onto a Misplaced Pages article? Due to the way the Wiki system works, any content that is posted is technically there forever. It may not be on the official page, but it will exist in the pages history indefinity as far as I know. What if, say, someone at KFC decided to post the complete KFC chicken seasoning recipe, or maybe every last piece of personal data they could find about the CEO? I suppose information of that nature would not be verifiable, but it should probably be removed somehow from the history. ] 01:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *This talk page is for discussing our guidelines against harassment, not for reporting actual cases of harassment. I'd suggest you bring this up on the ], because you're more likely to get a response there. ] 13:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I had a feeling you'd say that. I am not reporting a case of harassment, I'm asking questions regarding Misplaced Pages policy, specifically about vandalism and/or harassment. ] 15:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Okay okay, from your wording it was obvious you had a specific case in mind. Yes, it's inappropriate to bring real-life conflicts to Misplaced Pages, and Misplaced Pages is not a good place for whistleblowing about your ex-employer, because such statements tend to be unsourced (however, if you whistleblow to a newspaper and it becomes a media scandal, we'd certainly write about it). Sensitive information, well, that depends. If you mean "something that is true and verifiable but that the subject of the article doesn't like", well, tough luck. If a celeb goes to prison for embezzlement, our article will report that, regardless of whether the celeb likes that. If you mean "personal contact information", we delete it from the history. If you mean "a secret recipe", likewise. The admin deletion button allows us to do that. ] 10:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==] violating ]== | |||
| I would like to report a case of harassment by ]. He has been following my edits, to identify myself with certain other physical identity without any proofs at hand. My creation and editing of this page of a poet who lived in early 20th century, served as a faulty ground for ] to claim my identity based on false name associations and some information he found on Internet about a certain individual in California. His first case of intimidation was here . ] further pursued harassment, trying to associate again ] with someone else and use an article on Internet as a basis for claiming that someone else as friend of another Misplaced Pages contributor ] right here . I will not add extra evidence on ] following my edits to pursue revert warring, all of this evidence is well summarized at , , . | |||
| I am just wondering when negligence of disruptive behavior of this user is going to end. While being an experienced user, he walks away free with confirmed sockpuppets , gets involved in heavy revert warring, which is presented in ArbCom case , clear attempt to remove all of the images related to a certain country admitted here , accusing others of "lying" , and now clear case of harassment and stalking. How long this is going to go on? ] 11:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Shortcut== | |||
| The most common shortcut reference to this page seems to be ]. I see that a couple people (including myself) have tried adding it to the top of the page, but someone else keeps removing it saying it's unneeded. It's so commonly-used though, I think it's worth including. Anyone else have an opinion? --]]] 20:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I think it is good to have. I had seen people referring to "wikistalking" and was looking for mention of this on a policy page yesterday and had trouble finding this page because the shortcut was not there. ] 21:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :First, the point of the shortcut box is not to list every single incoming redirect; that's what ] is for. The point of the shortcut box is to list a select few handy mnemonics for the page, generally related to the page name (e.g. HAR -> Harassment). Second, "stalking" is a needlessly nasty term and should arguably not be used for that reason (for the same reason that the term "COI" is preferred to "vanity"). Third, the term "stalking" is frequently used to mean "reading people's contrib logs". While it is not infrequently ''argued'' that reading people's contrib logs is a form of harassment, we should not be giving the impression that there is merit to this argument. So adding that redirect is (1) not necessary and (2) gives people the wrong impression. ] 09:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| =="Stalking" vandals== | |||
| The following text was deleted: | |||
| :'''"Stalking" vandals''': It should be needless to add that, once a consistent pattern of vandalism has been detected — particularly the furtive vandalism that in isolation might appear to be reasonable and accurate — it is important to vet the vandal user's previous contributions for further instances of editing designed to undermine Misplaced Pages's credibility. This is ''not'' considered "wikistalking". | |||
| It was unimaginable to me, inserting this note, that this familiar point could be controversial, yet an editor suppressed this text— under the edit summary of making a "suggestion." Whether or not a few second-rate editors speciously accuse one another of "vandalism' in edit wars, this is not a sensible motivation for forbidding a guideline that concerns pursuing authentic vandals. On rare occasions I have been accused by vandals of "stalking" them. Surely this distinction needs to be made clear ''somewhere'' at Misplaced Pages, and this is the natural page. --] 14:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *It's a bit of a false dichotomy. Reading contrib logs isn't stalking period. What makes it stalking is acting upon those logs in a disruptive way. If, for instance, a long-standing editor makes a lot of tyops, it's perfectly reasonable to check their contrib logs for similar tyops and fixing them. ] 14:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Posting addresses of sites which give personal details about editors is harassment== | |||
| I have edited the section about posting editors' personal details, following discussion ] and ]. It needs to be very clear that posting addresses of websites that publish or speculate on editors' real names is forbidden per ] (and per common sense). ] ] 08:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Legal threats== | |||
| Lately I've noticed something of an increase in legal threats. To make sure the implications of such threats are clear I changed the language "may be blocked" to the stronger "will typically be blocked" that appears in ]. It's a word-for-word copy from ] so I assume it's uncontroversial, but am mentioning it here in case anyone objects. ] 12:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *One could make a good case for simply ''merging'' NLT into this page. ] 13:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Personal security practices== | |||
| Requesting comments on a proposal for a guideline on ] that I've been working on, mainly out of the discussion on this thread at ]. Any comments or concerns would be appreciated. Thanks,—]<sup><small><font color="BrightRed">]</font></small></sup> 00:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Some more teeth needs to be put into this== | |||
| In light of the very sad situation regarding ], there needs to be more teeth not only in this policy, but ] to ensure there isn't a next time for this outrage. It's simple common sense--we have every expectation to be safe editing here. ]] 13:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Wikistalking - Following an editor to another article to continue disruption == | |||
| ''The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor.'' | |||
| ''This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. Using the edit history of users to correct related problems on multiple articles is part of the recommended practices both for Recent changes patrol (RCP) and WikiProject Spam. The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful. Wikistalking is the act of following another user around in order to harass them.'' | |||
| An editor should not be constantly followed by a single editor "to fix errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy". If someone is repetitively violating wikipedia policies, the person should be either blocked (to prevent further disruption), or the issue should be brought to community attention (if it isn't a clearcut case). If the person is really being disruptive, community would agree with it. Following an ''allegedly'' disruptive user for months is particularly unhelpful. | |||
| People stalking had been using "violations of Misplaced Pages policy" as a justification of causing distress by interpreting means to stalk from a policies/guidelines. | |||
| --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 08:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree and given the issues being discussed at ] it seems this guideline might as well not exist. I don't see a need to sift through a users contribs in order to fix anything apart from vandalism. → ] <sup>(])</sup> — 14:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Wikistalking clarification == | |||
| I think there needs to be more clarity in the definition of ]. People are being indef-banned based primarily on accusations of stalking, and it seems to me that there is significant gray area as to what it is and what it isn't. The current definition makes it clear that following another user's contribs "to fix errors or violations of WP policy" is okay, while doing it "with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor" is is stalking. But intent is hard to prove, especially when the actions involved are reverting edits and disputing on talk pages, rather than explicit ]. Hypothetically, what if I come to the conclusion that another editor holds certain views that I believe erroneous, and I think it would be good for WP if I look for other places where that editor has advanced those views so that I can oppose them? Is this stalking? Does particular misbehavior need to be demonstrated, or is it always wrong to revert an edit or participate in a discussion that you found through someone's contribs page? I can see an argument for either side, and it seems to me that some people are confused as to just what is acceptable. Perhaps such situations need to be addressed specifically in the policy. --] 06:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I would say that if one follows a user contributions because one disagrees with the ''contents'' of his contributions then stalking is taking place. In other words, if the edits would have been judged "constructive" by general consensus (i.e. not vandalism, disruptive) then one should ] and not hunt down his edits to revert/contest them. | |||
| :I would expect a very good rule of thumb is if the actions done following a user's contribs would have triggered ] or been considered otherwise edit warring if they had occurred on the same article, they are almost certainly stalking. (Not that undoing a vandal would not fall under that criterion given that reverting vandals is never 3RR). — ] <sup>]</sup> 02:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: I disagree. If an editor has serious POV issues then looking at the editors recent contribs is reasonable and reverting problematic ones is not stalking. The truth is that stalking is very hard to define and is used generally when people already don't like an editor but can't pin anything concrete on the editor. For this reason, I'm generally very uninclined to claim someone is stalking unless there is very clear evidence. ] 03:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: "People are being indef-banned based primarily on accusations of stalking" - can you provide some examples of this? How many people have been banned? ] 00:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'd rather keep the discussion here in the general case. You can follow my contribs — seriously, I don't mind :) — if you care to do so. My main question is whether stalking should be considered an offense in an of itself, in the absence of PAs or other incivility. And if so, what differentiates stalking from acceptable consultations of another user's contribs page. --] 17:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Proposed change to ] == | |||
| As I ], the ] policy is rather vague around the middle ground between researching a user's contribs to judge their RfA or to hunt down a vandal (obviously okay) and following them around to make personal attacks (obviously not okay). What I'm trying to address are accusations of this form (exaggerated somewhat to make the point): "This guy has opposed me on other topics, and he never edited on this new topic until I did. That's stalking and he should be banned!" The following is how I would write the policy if it were up to me, but what is really important to me is that the vague area be addressed in some form. | |||
| Current version: | |||
| <blockquote>''Wikistalking refers to the act of following an editor to another article to continue disruption.''</blockquote> | |||
| <blockquote>''The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor.''</blockquote> | |||
| <blockquote>''This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. Using the edit history of users to correct related problems on multiple articles is part of the recommended practices both for ] (RCP) and ]. The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful. Wikistalking is the act of following another user around in order to harass them.''</blockquote> | |||
| Proposed version: | |||
| <blockquote>''Wikistalking refers to the act of following an editor to another article to continue disruption.''</blockquote> | |||
| <blockquote>''The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor.''</blockquote> | |||
| <blockquote>''Reading another user's contribution log is not in itself harassment; those logs are public for good reason. In particular, proper use of a user's edit history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles (in fact, such practices are recommended both for ] (RCP) and ]). The important part is the disruption — disruption is considered harmful. If "following another user around" is accompanied by ], ], or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter.''</blockquote> | |||
| Comments? --] (]/]) 14:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I think that's a better approach and you've hit it on the head with "]" and "]". I would also suggest that unless it's vandalism patrol per ], editors should be restricted to 1RR (or maybe even 0RR) as a way to measure ]. → ] <sup>(])</sup> — 15:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::As no one has objected, I have made the change. --] (]/]) 20:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==A curious question: Outing public personae== | |||
| Would "outing people without their consent" be defined as harassment? Say ] comes on to Misplaced Pages and edits as ]. She goes on all the consumer rights pages and makes edits that she feels are NPOV. She edits articles related to the Senate and health care, et. al. She adds quotes and links to her own websites and published work. She makes some edits to the ] articles. Then she decides she wants to be known as ] because people keep bringing up she is Hillary Clinton and she doesn't like that. She'd prefer to edit without that bugaboo hanging over her. Then ] catches on and mentions on his website that ] is editing his articles as ]. When we have public figures, who espouse their views publicly in all sorts of venues, come on to Misplaced Pages, is it "outing them"? Are there any considerations for COI and POV to ''not'' mention that ] is ]? The ultimate question is: is RudolphGiuliani.com "outing a person without their consent" as defined in the guidelines as they are being drawn? If a person operates publicly saying the same things they say on Misplaced Pages, is it "outing" them? This question needs to be taken into consideration, since our influence has increased to a point where influential people edit us. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 18:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :]: | |||
| ::Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself. This is because it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media. '''This applies whether or not the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Misplaced Pages editor. It also applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old signatures can still be found in archives.''' --] | |||
| ::::That was not the question. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 19:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 05:36, 18 December 2024
 | The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. 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 |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
"profiles on external sites"
In January, "profiles on external sites" was added to the list of "personal information" in the "Posting of personal information" section in this edit by A smart kitten without any discussion on the talk page (as far as I can see). I've reverted this bold edit, as I believe this is a significant change to the policy and should not be made without affirmative talk page consensus, and because it's appearance in policy has already been used to justify the arbcom block of at least one editor (Kashmiri, here). Smart kitten said in their edit summary that this edit just aligns the paragraph with what was already stated in the "Exceptions" section, but I disagree: the exceptions says "links to personal profiles on external sites should not be connected to any specific Misplaced Pages editor unless that editor discloses it themselves," which is different than saying that links to personal profiles on external sites are forbidden even when they aren't connected to any specific Misplaced Pages editor--forbidding them in that circumstance would be a significant expansion of the outing policy, and one that I do not think would be wise or necessary. I think before this text is added to this policy, there should be talk page consensus (at least) if not full WP:PGCHANGE consensus. Levivich (talk) 17:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- It seems to me that this is very much a function of the degree to which linking to a profile on an external site has the effect of linking to "personal information" about the Misplaced Pages editor who also owns that external profile. The exceptions listed in the Exceptions subsection are really quite delimited, so many other kinds of linking are still prohibited under the intent of this policy. I looked at the discussion you linked to, about the recent block, and I do note some functionaries pointing out, separately from the wording added in the January edit, that blocking for linking to external profiles has been understood by Oversighters for a long time as a valid reason for blocking as a violation of the Outing policy, so I think the January edit just put long-term practice into writing. You made a distinction between "unless the editor discloses it themselves" and "when they aren't connected to any specific Misplaced Pages editor". I had to think about that one. There's also when they are connected to an editor, but the editor has not chosen to disclose it here, and that's a pretty big deal. This discussion is, of course, taking place in the context of the current dispute about that WP criticism site, and that's a reason to be careful about how we word the policy language here. My inclination is that we might want to restore some sort of language about it, but maybe craft that language a little differently. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand the distinction you are making. The sentence in question from the "Posting of personal information" section is followed by
Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy...
, so it is already in the context of that information being posted in connection with an editor. (I don't know how to apply this in the situation to which you linked, as I don't know what is in the edit in question.) isaacl (talk) 21:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)- Thank you both for that feedback. To clarify one of Tryp's points, I wasn't referring to the "unless the editor discloses it themselves" part of that sentence, but the part that said "should not be connected to any specific Misplaced Pages editor." And I have no comment on or knowledge of the merits of that block, I just read the discussion and then came and looked at the page history.
- After reading the section again, I see your points that the entire section is about information that is connected to an editor, so that is implied in "profiles on external sites ", and that reading is in harmony with the "should not be connected to any specific Misplaced Pages editor" line in the exceptions part.
- So I put back "profiles on external sites" but boldly added "an editor's" to the beginning of the sentence to help poor readers like me remember that the entire list is about an editor's information, as opposed to just any profile on an external site. The bottom line, for me, being -- and I think everyone will agree this is the actual policy -- it's OK to link to profiles on external sites as long as those profiles aren't connected to any specific editor. Meaning, it's OK for me to post a link to a professor's university bio or a celebrity's Twitter account or whatever. What's not OK is posting a link to an editor's profile on an external site. Levivich (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know if other editors are going to comment, and point out things I haven't thought of, but I like the way that turned out, and I think the discussion so far has improved the policy page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think stuff should be added to this page without consensus. jp×g🗯️ 07:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. It seems like this might be resolved now, but I'll leave my thoughts for the record. As the paragraph in question starts with
Posting another editor's personal information is harassment
, my perspective is that the paragraph's scope is that of prohibiting the posting of other Misplaced Pages editors' personal information. My thoughts therefore align with those of isaacl, in that I don't see the addition I made as forbidding the linking of external profiles in general -- just when they're those of a Misplaced Pages editor who hasn't disclosed them themselves. I therefore didn't believe that the addition represented a substantive change to the policy, given that this is (by my reading) what is already said at the bottom of theExceptions
section. - For some additional context, I made the change following a discussion with a new editor at User talk:Ilike2burnthing § January 2024 (as a courtesy, I've let them know on their talk page that I've linked to that discussion from here). They found the wording relating to external profiles confusing, and remarked that the policy was
poorly written in this regard
. I therefore made the change I did as a result of that conversation with the intention of clarifying the existing policy on this matter, rather than to substantively change the policy itself. - All the best, —a smart kitten 17:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Can you use disclosure in any Wikimedia project as "voluntary disclosure" or can it only be disclosure on en.wikipedia to cross reference user name to name?
Suppose it involves cross referencing name to username156666. If there is an account user156666 on Commons.Wikimedia and they make a voluntary disclosure of their identity there, can it be shared here with link to it? Graywalls (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- This has been discussed previously without clear consensus, but my view is that there isn't a single simple answer. It depends how prominent the disclosure is on the other project and how prominently that project is relative to their contributions here. For example, if User:Example discloses on their Commons userpage that they are John Smith from Barnsley and their en.wp userpage says "for for information about me, see my userpage at Commons" then that definitely counts as voluntary disclosure here. On the other hand if the disclosure came once 8 years ago on an obscure talk page on Serbian Wiktionary, they don't link to the Serbian Wiktionary on their userpage here and have never edited any en.wp articles about the Serbian language then they haven't disclosed it for the purposes of this policy.
- Obviously most examples are going to be somewhere in between, so it a judgement call, but if you aren't sure assume they haven't disclosed. Also remember that you need to be able to justify why you are making the connection - it's almost never a good idea to do so just because you can, doing so should actually be necessary or beneficial in some way. Thryduulf (talk) 23:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- For something to do with UPE. The disclosure they made is in stating author name, then, saying it's their own work. It's in English on commons. Graywalls (talk) 23:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I have a feeling that this has been discussed before, so you may want to check the talk archives. My gut feeling is that one should err on the side of caution, and assume that non-disclosure here is intentional. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- No. OUTING is not permitted because we don't want that kind of battleground approach used to drive away editors. Editors should only be driven away by good arguments related to content, or by sanctions from behavioral issues. That means we don't want people doing opposition research and revealing that years ago, or somewhere else, their opponent revealed something personal. I imagine this relates to the ongoing fuss at WP:COIN. Yes, that is dubious but I looked at a few of the edits and they were fine. It's just an enthusiast writing with inside knowledge and (many years ago) inserting undue details. There is nothing wicked going on. Please drop it. Johnuniq (talk) 00:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)