Wikipedia talk:Harassment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note This page is for discussion of the policy; 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 Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance). Thank you for your time.

Contents

[edit] Is this policy

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.

The policy tag was added less than a year ago without a clear consensus.

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 Wikipedia is so clear that no policy is necessary.

I note that several attempts to generate consenus for a "wikistalking" policy have failed to gain much support.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 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 bold. HighInBC 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. HighInBC 20:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

After re-reading the page, I also support your action. Thanks for doing this. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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? --Gray Porpoise 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. LinaMishima 15:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Query

I have had questions about the identity of a particular user and whether or not he is a person about whom a Wikipedia 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 WP:AUTO). Please see the related discussion on my talkpage and give me some guidance. --ScienceApologist 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. (Radiant) 15:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harassment

A few people have been harassing me after I made a change to Treaty of Nöteborg. 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 stalking me half way across Wikipedia (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?

Atabata 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. (Radiant) 15:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] And WP:STALK

Copied from WP:COI 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." IronDuke 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. (Radiant) 09:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, wasn't clear. It's like this: let's say I edit the Bill Gates 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 hagiographic manner? IronDuke 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. (Radiant) 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 WP:STALK, no? IronDuke 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 WP:OWN issues from User:JDSomeone, it is not unreasonable to conclude that JDSomeone might be John Doe. In effect, the user has exposed himself. (Radiant) 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 WP:STALK. I'm going to paste this conversation over there and see what people think. IronDuke 15:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] And WP:STALK, 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 WP:COI and WP:NLT, the editor has repeatedly violated other policies and guidelines, such as WP:POINT, WP:COPYVIO, 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? -Will Beback · † · 00:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

(Cross posted to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard due to lack of response). -Will Beback · † · 07:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harassment?

Since Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia? For example: an argument between two people, at least one of whom has a Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. Sahuagin 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 village pump, because you're more likely to get a response there. >Radiant< 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 Wikipedia policy, specifically about vandalism and/or harassment. Sahuagin 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 Wikipedia, and Wikipedia 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. >Radiant< 10:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Artaxiad violating WP:Stalk

I would like to report a case of harassment by User:Artaxiad. 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 [1] of a poet who lived in early 20th century, served as a faulty ground for User:Artaxiad 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 [2]. User:Artaxiad further pursued harassment, trying to associate again User:Atabek with someone else and use an article on Internet as a basis for claiming that someone else as friend of another Wikipedia contributor User:AdilBaguirov right here [3]. I will not add extra evidence on User:Artaxiad following my edits to pursue revert warring, all of this evidence is well summarized at [4], [5], [6]. 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 [7], gets involved in heavy revert warring, which is presented in ArbCom case [8], clear attempt to remove all of the images related to a certain country admitted here [9], accusing others of "lying" [10], and now clear case of harassment and stalking. How long this is going to go on? Atabek 11:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shortcut

The most common shortcut reference to this page seems to be WP:STALK. 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? --Elonka 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. Abridged 21:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
First, the point of the shortcut box is not to list every single incoming redirect; that's what Special:Whatlinkshere 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. >Radiant< 09:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia, and this is the natural page. --Wetman 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. >Radiant< 14:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Posting addresses of sites which give personal details about editors is harassment

I have edited the section about posting editors' personal details, following discussion here and here. It needs to be very clear that posting addresses of websites that publish or speculate on editors' real names is forbidden per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Outing_sites_as_attack_sites (and per common sense). ElinorD (talk) 08:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 WP:NLT. It's a word-for-word copy from WP:NLT so I assume it's uncontroversial, but am mentioning it here in case anyone objects. Raymond Arritt 12:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

  • One could make a good case for simply merging NLT into this page. >Radiant< 13:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal security practices

Requesting comments on a proposal for a guideline on Wikipedia:Personal security practices that I've been working on, mainly out of the discussion on this thread at Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks#Part_two. Any comments or concerns would be appreciated. Thanks,—ACADEMY LEADER FOCUS! 00:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some more teeth needs to be put into this

In light of the very sad situation regarding User:H, there needs to be more teeth not only in this policy, but WP:NPA#Off-wiki personal attacks 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. Blueboy96 13:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia policy" as a justification of causing distress by interpreting means to stalk from a policies/guidelines.

-- Cat chi? 08:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree and given the issues being discussed at WP:ANI 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. → AA (talk) — 14:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikistalking clarification

I think there needs to be more clarity in the definition of Wikistalking. 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 PAs. 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. --BlueMoonlet 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 assume that the user is genuinely attempting to improve the encyclopedia 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 3RR 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). — Coren (talk) 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. JoshuaZ 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? Eiler7 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. --BlueMoonlet 17:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed change to WP:STALK

As I mentioned before, the WP:STALK 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:

Wikistalking refers to the act of 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 Wikipedia 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.

Proposed version:

Wikistalking refers to the act of 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.

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 Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles (in fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol (RCP) and WikiProject Spam). The important part is the disruption — disruption is considered harmful. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter.

Comments? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a better approach and you've hit it on the head with "Wikipedia:Tendentious editing" and "personal attacks". I would also suggest that unless it's vandalism patrol per WP:VANDAL, editors should be restricted to 1RR (or maybe even 0RR) as a way to measure WP:TE. → AA (talk) — 15:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
As no one has objected, I have made the change. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A curious question: Outing public personae

Would "outing people without their consent" be defined as harassment? Say Hillary Clinton comes on to Wikipedia and edits as User:HillaryClinton. 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 Rudolph Giuliani articles. Then she decides she wants to be known as User:HRCL 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 Rudolph Giuliani catches on and mentions on his website that Hillary Clinton is editing his articles as User:HRCL. When we have public figures, who espouse their views publicly in all sorts of venues, come on to Wikipedia, is it "outing them"? Are there any considerations for COI and POV to not mention that User:HRCL is Hillary Clinton? 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 Wikipedia, 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. --David Shankbone 18:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information:
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 Wikipedia 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. --User:THF
That was not the question. In fact, it highlights the question that you point out the reasoning is harm in "the real world" or other media because the question revolves around the person already exists in the media saying the same things. The policy was designed, seemingly, for people who are not public figures and may suffer repercussions for their edits. A police officer giving cited criticism of a city's mayor, for instance. But if it's Hillary Clinton criticizing Rudolph Giuliani? What real life harm comes if a known person is editing, and making edits that are the same statements they make in real life on television and in newspapers? What harm would befall them that they would require the protection of anonymity? Or, what harm would they be at risk for that the other public venues where they assert their knowledge and opinions wouldn't put them at risk? What makes Wikipedia different than CBS News in this regard? --David Shankbone 19:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Making Wikipedia Better

Cross posted from Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Workshop

The ultimate fate of Durova an myself are trivial questions. The larger concern is how will Wikipedia handle cyberstalking and harassment. We have one group of editors who use this site for trolling. Another group has formed to hunt the trolls. Unfortunately, this leads to vigilante style justice, with mistakes like the one that happened with Durova and !!. Troll hunting also creates a caustic, non-collegial environment.

The most direct solution for this problem is to route significant cyberstalking and harassment problems to the Foundation Office where they can be investigated and dealt with by volunteers under strict supervision of competent legal staff.

The advantages of this solution include:

  1. No longer can a group of trolls reinforce and protect each other by stacking consensus. Office operates on the legal definition of what is allowed and what isn't. There's no voting.
  2. Office investigations are private and legally compliant (amateur sleuthing may not be).
  3. If harassment arises to the level of being a legal problem, Office is better prepared to deal with the appropriate authorities.
  4. Amateur sleuths can instead focus their efforts on editorial problems, like conflict of interest, pseudoscience, fringe theories and POV pushing. These are important problems where we need to apply more effort as encyclopedia editors.
  5. The secret mailing lists can be reconstituted under strict Office control for accountability.
  6. Harassment reports filed with Office will be completely separate from editing disputes handled by Arbcom. I have personally experienced the very uneasy feeling of filing a harassment report with Arbcom, only to have that report used against me in another incident. That should never happen to anyone, ever.

That's my proposal. Hopefully we can all learn something from this dispute and make Wikipedia a better place. Let's not use Durova as a scapegoat for a problem that is much larger than her own activities. - - Jehochman Talk 04:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rename WP:STALK

I propose renaming "Wikistalking" to "Wikitrailing". Stalking in real life is a very big deal and we ought not to cheapen actual instances of harassment and stalking by using a powerful term too loosely. DurovaCharge! 01:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, Wikistalking is the equivalent of harassment in real life. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 05:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is Revealing Conflict of Interest Harrassment?

There's been an interesting discussion over at Conflict of Interest about when (or whether) it's appropriate to reveal an editor's employment when it provides evidence of Conflict of Interest. The issue arose because of a perceived conflict between the Harrassment and Conflict of Interest guidelines. I'm of the opinion that posting employment information to demonstrate Conflict of Interest does not constitute what is meant by harrassment, and therefore a limited exception should be provided in this article.

I suggest adding the following to the section on posting of personal information:

The posting of lLimited information concerning an editor's employment may be done posted to demonstrate Conflict of Interest.

Please add your comments. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I just edited my own text. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I would oppose this. First, people who have no genuine interest in protecting WP against COI will use this as an excuse to harass. Secondly, anyone who hasn't outed themselves and who's believed to be in COI can be dealt with by contacting the ArbCom by e-mail. I can't see that there would ever be a need to out someone on-wiki. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 15:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that there is no case for revealing personal information in this case. Releasing information only to 'demonstrate COI' doesn't place much of a limit on when it might be done. Since WHOIS was mentioned in the thread at WT:COI where this question originated, I'll ask whether WHOIS information could be taken notice of on-wiki. It's my belief that this question is not completely settled. E.g. an editor adds a link that some might perceive as advertising, and WHOIS can be invoked on that link. Or an IP editor makes some changes that seem promotional and WHOIS can be invoked on his IP. If WHOIS reveals an outside affiliation, can the affiliation be stated on-wiki? Once I asked an editor whose identity was completely obvious thanks to the whois information on his own site (that he had already linked to) if he wanted his identity protected, and he said yes, so I left it alone. EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
just to make things more complicated - someone who is attacking me off-wiki on their blog and making libelous claims, also charges conflict of interest for me who does not disguise my identity, even though their conflict of interest on the other side is equal or greater and far more hostile. This related to my complaining about their repeated nonsourced or WP:OR or highl POV edits, as opposed to mine which are WP:RS and WP:NPOV. (They also revealed personal info which they promised me by email they would not!)
More specifically on conflict of interest and outing, obviously if a person is charging conflict of interest whose own COI can fairly easily be proved if they were editor of the offending blog, that would be of interest at least to the mediators or arbitrators, wouldn't it?
Generally to this article, Village Pump link needs to repeat in more sections since section I jumped to didn't have it.
Carol Moore 23:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
I think the consensus at the MFD in favor of on-wiki "outing" of people having a conflict of interest is clear. If there were a consensus that these situations should be dealt with by contacting ArbCom by e-mail as you suggest, the noticeboard would have been deleted. —Random832 21:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] COI

Random832 has added the following bolded sentence to this section, which significantly changes the guideline, so I've moved it here for discussion:

Posting another person's personal information (legal name, date of birth, social security number, 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 Wikipedia 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. This does not apply to mere identification of who is suspected of having a conflict of interest in the course of the normal operation of the conflict of interest noticeboard.

SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I can see how dropping messages on COI could be harassing, but if there is external evidence that reveals the connection it seems to me that it would be difficult to pursue the issue without making some sort of revelation of identity. There has to be some degree of telling the truth that isn't harassment. Mangoe (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult. (This is a bot output that is mentioned in an entry at the COI Noticeboard). The bot looks for resemblance between article names and user names. I'm assuming that the operations of this bot are acceptable, and do not constitute harrassment. EdJohnston (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't yet see enough motivation for Random's change to Wikipedia:Harassment. There is a de facto compromise in place now, and I don't see any crisis that calls for a change. At present people use common sense, and it's unclear how to codify common sense. EdJohnston (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for notifying me of this conversation.~ In any case, "normal operation" was intended to refer to common sense, and the language as a whole was intended to point out that this is not a bright line rule where others might misunderstand and think it is. —Random832 20:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, the addition was in order to bring it more in line with the result of a (then-)recent MFD, so you can't really say there's not a consensus or discussion behind it. —Random832 20:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I just tried to introduce a shortened version of the COI language and it was reverted by User:Jayjg. Judging by the conversation here, there wasn't any significant objection to adding that language, but, I'll bring it up again here anyway before I readd it. COI is not allowed in Wikipedia. In order to show COI, we sometimes have to post personal information about another editor. This isn't harassment, but the right thing to do to show COI. COI is very serious because it affects the credibility of the project. Cla68 (talk) 01:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:HARASS, WP:BLOCK, and WP:OVERSIGHT make no exceptions for COI. Invading the privacy of individuals and exposing them to harassment is equally important as COI, if not moreso, because it undermines the very working environment for our most important resource, our editors. If you want to change policy in this significant way, please ensure that you have significant consensus for doing so. Jayjg (talk) 01:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
They don't say anything about COI, because it's obvious that in order to prove COI, that sometimes you're going to have to give the editor's real name. Therefore, there's a discrepancy in the policies that needs to be corrected. Either delete the COI policy, or change the three that you mention to make it more clear, because right now it is implied, that outing to show COI is fine. Why would a "significant consensus" (whatever that means) be necessary to fix a discrepancy in the policies? Cla68 (talk) 02:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
That's a very convenient interpretation. However, COI isn't mentioned because it's not an exception. WP:COI is advice for editors on how they should edit, not advice for others on how to out people they suspect have a COI, and it certainly doesn't trump the WP:BLOCK and WP:OVERSIGHT policies. Jayjg (talk) 02:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
You're stonewalling, we're not talking about just the page WP:COI, we are talking about the COI noticeboard, whose normal operation routinely involves revealing at least names and/or employers. --Random832 (contribs) 17:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
This page is a guideline, the same as WP:COI. I haven't seen where either WP:Block or WP:Oversight prohibit actions other than the improper use of those tools. Ideally we would have a very clear and limited policy for discussing COIs, which would include things like 1. Promoting one's own business, 2. Promoting references to one's own work, 3. Editing one's own bio, 4. Adding negative material in pursuit of a personal dispute. I'm not sure if there are others, but any of these issues would also have to be currently ongoing to warrant discussion. Otherwise we could simply tell people to be careful, though this leaves the problem that nobody has any good idea what will happen from time to time. Or, the third option is to state very clearly that COI is never an issue, and that what matters is always only the edits themselves. I tend to like the third option as well, but it seems to make for bad PR, and basically people don't seem willing to follow it. Mackan79 (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It is typical at Wikipedia to assert that policy is "what we do" or in some cases (BLP) "what we agree we should do" ("best practice"). What we do is to reveal real life identities when a COI violator is an outsider; but to protect real life identities when a COI violator is an insider. Deal privately with those who are our friends but deal publicly with strangers. There is some degree of sense to it. Also we are moving in the direction of offering to strangers the option of privately handling COI investigations. It is a well known conundrum of our governance. WAS 4.250 (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a conundrum. Since we apparently have a discrepancy here in our policies, or at the least, some very vaguely-worded guidelines, I think we probably should consider adding some clearer language to the COI guideline on the steps to take in identifying COI editors, and upgrading the COI guideline to a policy to give it more weight. Cla68 (talk) 06:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
It might help to make a distinction between personal information and biographical information. Personal information concerns financial accounts, home address, telephone number and such. Biographical information is the sort of information that identifies who you are and/or what your experience is that applies to an editor's motivation for editing an article.
Personal information should be protected as a matter of strongly enforced policy; however, biographical information should be generally available if the editor releases it in the first place. That places the burden of privacy on the editor to not reveal the information in the first place.
In the wiki I am using, editors are required to use their real name and provide a brief bio on their talk page that explains their qualifications to edit in the wiki. Of course, it is a specialty use of the shell (thank you Media Wiki), but it might be reasonable foe Wikipedia to make the suggestion that, if an editor is willing to release biographical information, it should be shown in the personal page and other editors should accept that as the limit of disclosure.
This is an important issue for COI. I stand behind my name and accept that I have a conflict of interest in some articles that should be disclosed to other editors. However, I know of at least one editor who has revealed his identity in one part of Wikipedia, but continues to use a fictitious screen name. When editing in article for which he arguably has a COI, I feel that most editors working on that article do not know his current educational pursuit. It becomes an enforcement issue for wiki policies. Tom Butler (talk) 02:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Private correspondence

Kendrick7 removed the section called Private correspondence. I believe it was informative, and suggest it be restored. Rejected proposals tell us something, and so does the Arbcom decision that was mentioned. If this paragraph isn't useful then Wikipedia:Perennial proposals isn't either. EdJohnston (talk) 01:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Seems very WP:COATRACKish to go on about something there's no community consensus on in a policy guideline per WP:BURO, doubly so as I don't see how this relates to "harassment" per se. We could, for example, have any number of sections about specific rulings on specific ArbCom cases, but since ArbCom doesn't create policy I wouldn't think it's worth the trouble. I guess I can try to clean this section up though. -- Kendrick7talk 00:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
BTW, what's the other ArbCom case that was mentioned? Anyone know? -- Kendrick7talk 00:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The section was useful, and should be restored. I'd actually like to see more links to ArbCom cases on relevant policy pages, as they help to clarify where the community consensus is. --Elonka 02:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I did a rewrite to a version which simply state the historical facts here. The ArbCom occasionally has cases before it where they just have to make things up as they go along. Here's an example, among many, where what they came up with on the spot was debated and rejected by the community per Wikipedia:Consensus. I'm still unclear how exactly this paragraph ties in with being a "type of harassment" or what good it does to point out here that there is no relevant policy. Per WP:CREEP, I'd prefer policies to be tight and to the point not ramble into history lessons about tangential issues. As we used to say in school: is this going to be on the test? -- Kendrick7talk 07:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. But hey, that's an interesting side-avenue ... where do we get to ramble on about the history lessons? Because of course those ARE very interesting when you're trying to find more detail on how consensus was formed. <scratches head> Any ideas? --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clearly a policy

This is clearly a policy, not a guideline: there are no situations where true harassment is warranted. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)

Indeed, I am a little shocked to realize it was not a policy. People who break this policy get blocked and get blocked fast. It would be a disservice to imply that the prohibition against harassment is mearly guidance to be followed or dismissed. (1 == 2)Until 18:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
See #Is this policy for earlier discussion on this topic. (1 == 2)Until 18:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
That was in 2006. This page has matured considerably since then. I support upgrading it to a policy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

So let it be written, so let it be done. (You guys figure out if it was the right thing to do. ;-) ) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What does this have to do with the article?

Thoughtcrime? I looked at the page and it says nothing about Wikiharassment. (a protologism I know)

Lunakeet 23:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)