| Revision as of 09:59, 10 August 2014 editWnt (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users36,218 edits →Sexual harassment← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:13, 9 September 2014 edit undoLightbreather (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users17,672 edits →Proposed addition to "Avoiding personal attacks": new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 67: | Line 67: | ||
| ::The problem is that if one type of harassment is mentioned, all the others have to be mentioned as well—do not harass young editors by suggesting they are inherently immature; do not harass old editors by suggesting they are past it; do not harass male editors by suggesting they would say that wouldn't they. And then all the sexual orientation and religious affiliation gibes that I barely understand; and more. ] (]) 01:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | ::The problem is that if one type of harassment is mentioned, all the others have to be mentioned as well—do not harass young editors by suggesting they are inherently immature; do not harass old editors by suggesting they are past it; do not harass male editors by suggesting they would say that wouldn't they. And then all the sexual orientation and religious affiliation gibes that I barely understand; and more. ] (]) 01:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :::Well, nowhere in the text above did I say anything female-specific, so your comment on harassing male editors misses the mark. There's something at least a little different about sexual harassment in that it can involve unwanted advances and such. But it is indeed possible that some other sentence covering a broader variety of people would be better. ] (]) 09:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | :::Well, nowhere in the text above did I say anything female-specific, so your comment on harassing male editors misses the mark. There's something at least a little different about sexual harassment in that it can involve unwanted advances and such. But it is indeed possible that some other sentence covering a broader variety of people would be better. ] (]) 09:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | ||
| == Proposed addition to "Avoiding personal attacks" == | |||
| There is a proposal to add a short paragraph to the ] section of the No personal attacks policy page. The discussion is ]. Your participation is welcome. ] (]) 00:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:13, 9 September 2014
 | 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. |
 | See WP:PROPOSAL for Misplaced Pages's procedural policy on the creation of new guidelines and policies. See how to contribute to Misplaced Pages guidance for recommendations regarding the creation and updating of policy and guideline pages. |
 | 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 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Reporting Paid Editing
Paid editing, in particular undisclosed paid editing (that is, editing where the payment is secret) is a current and growing threat to the integrity of Misplaced Pages. It is sometimes thought that the policy against outing, which is very strictly enforced, makes the enforcement of the policy against paid editing nearly impossible. There needs to be a balance between the two policies. Outing is a threat to individual editors, and therefore to editor recruitment and retention, and therefore to Misplaced Pages. Paid editing is an institutional threat to Misplaced Pages. My proposal would be that, while reporting the employment or compensation status of editors on talk pages should remain outing, the policy should state that reporting paid editing to particular trusted personnel, such as OTRS, is not only permitted, but may be necessary. Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- You're on the right track. I think it's fairly clear that many of our rules were designed for a community of volunteers building an encyclopedia and were not intended to handle a paradigm where Misplaced Pages articles are commodities in the marketplace.
- If you're a Wikipedian, you have an expectation of privacy. However, being a Wikipedian means you're here to help build the Misplaced Pages. If you're here to degrade, disgrace, and weaken it, you're not any kind of proper Wikipedian so you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. All of our rules -- all of our rules -- are in place to help us build an encyclopedia. If new conditions arise such that a rule needs to be modified to better serve that purpose, we should do it. (Right now, WP:IAR not only permits but requires Wikipedians to defend the Misplaced Pages against paid advocacy attacks, using whatever means are necessary and appropriate, and the WP:IAR brief to defend the Misplaced Pages already trumps subsidiary rules such as this one, but it'd be good to clarify that with a modification to this rule also.) Herostratus (talk) 06:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Posting of personal information from another Wikimedia project
The policy says, "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Misplaced Pages." What if the person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on another Wikimedia project? Nurg (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Nurg,
- I don't think that there is an easy answer. The interpretations run from "must be posted specifically here on the English Misplaced Pages" to "could be posted on any WP:Unified login account" (see Special:CentralAuth/Nurg for yours). I don't think that anyone would want to say that you could post information about unassociated accounts (e.g., WP:SOCK#LEGIT, if the person doesn't voluntarily disclose the alternate account name).
- In practice, I believe that the interpretation varies depending on the situation. If you just feel like saying, "Hey, fellow resident of ____", and the editor's upset that you disclosed his location, then you'd probably be asked to remove it. But if you're dealing with an editor who is behaving very badly, and it's relevant to the dispute (e.g., POV editing against a company, and he posted elsewhere that he'd been fired from the company), then it might be accepted.
- One of the challenges here is that we're dealing with about 800 different WMF wikis, which means 800 different policies on what's okay. So we say, for example, that if you ever posted your hometown on your userpage, even if you removed it ten minutes later, then that's fair game. But at another wiki, the rules might be very different. Their policy might say that if remove that information from your userpage, then everyone is required to pretend that it was never present. It wouldn't be very nice to violate their policies to gain an advantage here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
IP addresses and outing
Misplaced Pages:OUTING#Posting_of_personal_information reads: Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not.
It doesn't mention IP addresses and in 7 years of editing I've seen editors discuss various accidentally revealed IP addresses (usually in regard to possibly or alleged sockpuppetry, and usually on article talk pages or WP:ANI) numerous times without anyone yelling harassment and demanding removal of material. (Though obviously some were mad it was discussed.)
However, if you look at WP:ANI history on December 27 a bunch of edits were removed because an editor accidentally revealed his IP address and then demanded that every post mentioning it be removed, which an admin complied with. The admin also left this message on an editors talk page, with his reply about his having reverted the editors deletion of his comment mentioning the IP address. It would help if the sentence clarified the above. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- The Oversight policy covers the removal of the IP address of an editor editing while logged out on request of the user. In addition, the privacy policy treats IPs as protected information, as they can sometimes disclose an editors' region, workplace, or (in some cases) even building or room number.
- If a request for removal has been received and acted upon, it should not be re-added without consulting with the Oversight team or AUSC. That said, the team isn't notified about every instance of an accidental IP disclosure, and I at least don't proactively look for such instances to suppress. LFaraone 04:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for info. I guess people don't request it often, though that may explain some of the mysterious crossouts I've seen from time to time that didn't seem to be vandalism related.
- If privacy policy does forbid discussions of accidental IP release outside of an SPI, few editors know about it. I'm ambivalent about advertising it myself since have had more problems with socks than an innocent person being hurt by an accidental IP release.
- Also, I assume that if someone starts editing as an Anon IP and then very publicly starts an account and makes clear what Anon IP they were and leaves that info public a few months or more, it's not a problem to mention it in an administrative noticeboard where that factoid might be relevant. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Geolocation and COI
Every IP's user contributions page has a Geolocate feature at the bottom. If this reveals that the IP address relates to a company, is it "Outing" to reveal that the address relates to this "work organization" ? Or is an IP address not considered "an editor", as it can be used by numerous different people? - This often comes up with COI editing, and I'm never sure if I am allowed to say "it appears from your IP address that you have a conflict of interest in editing this article" or not. - Arjayay (talk) 16:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Student editors and outing
Editors here may perhaps be interested in a discussion at WP:Education noticeboard#About outing students. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Sexual harassment
With substantial ongoing discussions of gender gap issues (see User talk:Jimbo Wales) it is striking that we do not mention the word "sex" in this policy. While clearly policies on sexual harassment vary widely and have been known to get out of hand, I think we send the wrong message to people who might have been harassed on this basis if we literally do not have the word in the policy. We never know what happens when people don't speak up based on what the text says.
I think a fairly moderate text might be
Sexual harassment
This policy applies to sexual harassment on an equitable basis when the offensive behavior is targeted to a person or group of people based on their sex, gender, or appearance. Sexual bullying and coercion, repeated unwelcome or spammed sexual advances, and other harassment meant to cause a hostile and discriminatory work environment are unacceptable. Additionally, sexual favoritism or the promise of rewards for sex are regarded as "WP:Meatpuppetry" and also contrary to policy.
This might go, perhaps, under User space harassment in the policy. Comments? Wnt (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- No, nothing extra is needed. If sexual harassment is mentioned, others will want their favorite harassment target mentioned, with the silly result shown at WP:NPA#WHATIS. For example, anyone found to have "spammed sexual advances" will be indeffed regardless of words in this policy, and anyone objecting to the indef on the basis that there is no rule against sexual advances fails to understand Misplaced Pages. Johnuniq (talk) 00:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- Ordinarily, I might think the same thing. But I think it's true that there is a perception out there that Misplaced Pages is hostile to women. Now some of that we can't do anything about - for example, we rightly embrace WP:Not censored]], which also leads some to say we're hostile to Muslims, etc.; I simply reject those who say that censorship is a female or a minority right - but I don't see any reason why we have to rely on an unwritten policy for something that could be written out. There will probably be at least some people who read the policy and think that they're not protected from sexual harassment, and some others who read it and think they won't get banned for sexual harassment, and it wouldn't be bad to avoid these. I would like to give ground where it should be given so that we can preserve other policies where we ought not to compromise. Wnt (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- It's not unwritten—the nutshell says all that needs to said: "
Do not stop other editors from enjoying Misplaced Pages by making threats, repeated annoying and unwanted contacts, repeated personal attacks, intimidation, or posting personal information.
" The lead has more that absolutely forbids anything that even approached sexual harassment. Johnuniq (talk) 01:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- It's not unwritten—the nutshell says all that needs to said: "
- Ordinarily, I might think the same thing. But I think it's true that there is a perception out there that Misplaced Pages is hostile to women. Now some of that we can't do anything about - for example, we rightly embrace WP:Not censored]], which also leads some to say we're hostile to Muslims, etc.; I simply reject those who say that censorship is a female or a minority right - but I don't see any reason why we have to rely on an unwritten policy for something that could be written out. There will probably be at least some people who read the policy and think that they're not protected from sexual harassment, and some others who read it and think they won't get banned for sexual harassment, and it wouldn't be bad to avoid these. I would like to give ground where it should be given so that we can preserve other policies where we ought not to compromise. Wnt (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- Well, as a fall-back, do you think it would hurt to put "including sexual harassment" after "repeated annoying and unwanted contact or attention"? I just think it would be sensible to let users know we are aware of complaints about the issue.
- I should add that the way I came to this in the first place was that I was going through WP:Civility stripping out all the dreck for a version WT:Civility/sandbox, and noticed that the present policy there actually lists sexual harassment as a separate kind of incivility apart from WP:Harassment, linking to the Misplaced Pages article on the term. I would like to lump them together and further trim the size of my proposed revision but I can see why the previous writer was unsure that this policy directly addressed the topic. Wnt (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- The problem is that if one type of harassment is mentioned, all the others have to be mentioned as well—do not harass young editors by suggesting they are inherently immature; do not harass old editors by suggesting they are past it; do not harass male editors by suggesting they would say that wouldn't they. And then all the sexual orientation and religious affiliation gibes that I barely understand; and more. Johnuniq (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- Well, nowhere in the text above did I say anything female-specific, so your comment on harassing male editors misses the mark. There's something at least a little different about sexual harassment in that it can involve unwanted advances and such. But it is indeed possible that some other sentence covering a broader variety of people would be better. Wnt (talk) 09:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- The problem is that if one type of harassment is mentioned, all the others have to be mentioned as well—do not harass young editors by suggesting they are inherently immature; do not harass old editors by suggesting they are past it; do not harass male editors by suggesting they would say that wouldn't they. And then all the sexual orientation and religious affiliation gibes that I barely understand; and more. Johnuniq (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Proposed addition to "Avoiding personal attacks"
There is a proposal to add a short paragraph to the "Avoiding personal attacks" section of the No personal attacks policy page. The discussion is Proposed addition to "Avoiding personal attacks". Your participation is welcome. Lightbreather (talk) 00:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)