Wikipedia talk:Harassment

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

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

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

As emails ar not released under CC-BY-SA 4.0 (unless the author noted it), wouldn't (with that obvious exception) posting them on-wiki be a copyright violation?

--Luhanopi (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed extensively. The counterargument is that Wikipedia is full of unlicensed copyrighted text in the form of quotations, because all copyright regimes acknowledge this as a legitimate exception. The wider point is that we are not lawyers and the purpose of this page is to give guidance to Wikipedia editors on preventing and dealing with harassment, not to interpret or enforce copyright law. – Joe (talk) 13:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the answer. Luhanopi (talk) 13:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this post of mine [1] ok per WP:OUTING? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't view it, but as you probably already know by now, it was rev-deled, along with some edits by someone else. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryptofish Collateral damage from an unrelated issue, I think, my post is still there, words unchanged: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#COI-editing,_but Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's changed now, nevermind. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I couldn't be of more help. I guess you could ask the admin who rev-deled it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussion now at Talk:Camille_Herron#Proposal_to_add_"Controversy_section"_as_follows:. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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 [connected to an editor]", and that reading is in harmony with the "should not be connected to any specific Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I don't think stuff should be added to this page without consensus. jp×g🗯️ 07:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Exceptions 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_[meow] 17:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]