Wikipedia talk:Harassment/Archive 1

message: *Older discussion can be found  here.
What about the false accusation of a threat? Or of bullying? wikinerd and lifeisunfair have each accused Admins of "bullying" or "threatening" because the admins were attempting to enforce project rules. I think that these accusations constitute harassment. Should an RFC be made? Uncle Ed 01:19, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
:Agreed, go ahead and make the RFC's against them. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just stumbled upon the above post.  For the record, this is discussion to which Ed referred.  As is patently obvious, he was attempting to enforce nonexistent project rules, and was threatening to block another user (Wikinerd) for perceived violations thereof.  I merely noted this fact (and Wikinerd agreed).  Evidently, Ed believes that questioning the judgement of a "senior admin" constitutes harassment.  —Lifeisunfair 00:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

message: Please merge this with Wikipedia:Stalking so that we don't have to repeat the discussion again. To reiterate, stalking is usually used as a synonym for reading through other people's contribution logs, and there is nothing wrong with that. If you don't want people to read your contribs, don't make any. If you don't want people to criticize you, don't make mistakes. Radiant_>|< 07:55, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
:Right. This is like the attempt to redefine "threatening" so that it includes analyzing a user's contributions and considering whether to block them for violating policy. The trick is that the one following and enforcing policy is cast as making an even worse violation! (Because "threats" are an absolute, clear-cut violation: grounds for an instant, permanent ban.)
:So I oppose any re-definition of Wikipedia's civility policy (see Wikipedia:Civility) which undermines the ability of sysops to enforce Wikipedia policy. 
:This is supposed to be a project to produce a free encyclopedia. Everyone is supposed to be donating text - with no strings attached. All you get for your donation is a one-line acknowledgement in the article history. After that, you do not own your contribution. It is the mutual property of everyone in the world. You have no more or less rights over it than anyone else: to copy, modify, or distribute it (for  "free as in beer" or for profit).
:That is the only business of Wikipedia and of its policy pages. Now, if someone is violating our civility policies, creating a hostile atmosphere which discourages contributions of free text, then such a person should be made to stop their violations. Polite encouragement to adhere to policy has proven to work best, but in extreme cases they need to be excluded from the project (for a time, perhaps, but sometimes indefinitely).
:Some people, however, are into "Wikipedia:gaming the system". They try to use complex rules and procedures to defeat the very purpose for which Wikipedia exists. They even claim a "right" to do this!! 
:They have no such right. 
:Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. Only those who continue to demonstrate that they are contributing to the fulfillment of project goals are permitted to remain users of this web site. And that goal is rather simple and quite easy to grasp: the organization and presentation of the world's knowledge. 
:Anyone who opposes or undermines this goal MUST be shown to the door. Uncle Ed 13:25, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with every word above by Radiant and Ed. Except better than merge, let's be bold and delete both proposals;) WAS 4.250 17:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not again please 

message: To people considering adding to this: Go nuts; do whatever you feel is appropriate. Just so long as you can point to solid policy concerns or precedents, and Assume good faith. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 06:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do what you like 

message: One of the important items I'd like to have here is cites in the precedents section; thus, my naming of KOAP, so that other users can see his behavior. If there exists a better refrence page to explain his ban then his user talk page, please, let me know. The case is, after all, an excelent illustration how harassment can be an aggravating factor, and only used as such. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 03:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rephrased things slightly, but left in a link to KOAP's talk page. If you feel it nessisary to remove him from the main article, at least leave a link in the comments so that those who don't know the history of the case can study the situation in question. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 03:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  User:KingOfAllPaperboys 

message: So, perhaps I have another example of this. Yesterday I reverted edits by this user to the Case Western Reserve University page and left a vandalism warning on his talk page. Then he came back and made edits like this () and this (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tanggula_Mountain_Pass&oldid=21758663) to pages that I had just written about on my user page. He was introducing inaccurate information into those pages. I suspect he was following me to pages I had recently written about editing, and harrassing me in retaliation for his vandalism warning.
What is the procedure I would follow to assert that he is Wikistalking me, according to this proposal? (I realize that this is still in development.) Mamawrites 04:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree. Every edit in the user history looks like vandalism. When you see vandalism, report it here. (clicking that may take a second or two to get you there) FuelWagon 01:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did that (on the current alerts: RU: low page) at 04:28, 25 August 2005. Because the user who tagged his talk page for vandalism after me didn't give the 4th warning, he didn't actually get blocked, though. He hasn't been back (yet). Mamawrites 04:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Sultan_of_smoov]] 

message: I see this project is being edited in different directions. Two quick points about some version that's in play:
*Wikistalking is disruptive when it is used to cause annoyance or distress to another contributor and this is against the rules.
"Against the rules" seems like a unnecessarily definite judgement for a project that does not have "rules".
*Stalk puppets are multiple internet identities that stay separate from each other, but that the person behind them acts different on. 
"Stalk puppets" is a term that I've never heard of and that gets no Goggle hits. Is this a neologism? -Willmcw 23:34, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
:Given that the editor who created the "stalk puppets" passage also linked to and created the article Power Word: IRL Name (a phrase which gets only 3 google hits) in the same version, I'd say "Yes, it is a neologism". Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 00:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  various revisions 

message: A thought: In many ways, WikiNature is opposed to any emphasis of contributor egos or personalities. We do not sign our contributions to articles. There is no byline on Wikipedia articles or Wikinews stories. Unlike Everything2, we do not keep score of how many people like a particular editor's contributions. We tend to eschew the development of idiosyncratic writing styles; editors are encouraged to regularize others' writing to fit the Manual of Style.
There are relatively few spaces in which we emphasize individual views and personalities. The one rare positive way we systematically and procedurally single out editors is the adminship system, where we vote for those people whom we trust to have greater technical powers. We generally reject the idea that this means they are more worthy contributors of encyclopedia material -- rather, we take adminship to usually mean that we trust that they are not going to do something stupid or destructive with those powers. Usually, we single people out when there are negative reasons for doing so, such as an RfC or RfAr.
In other words, in many senses the "ideal Wikipedia" would be one wherein everyone agreed to contribute in as egoless a fashion as possible. This is perhaps only a slight exaggeration of what we mean by NPOV. The NPOV policy means that while we are free to focus our attentions on articles and topics that interest us, we agree to set aside our personal preferences or opinions and contribute text that enhances a neutral description of each subject.
The kinds of behavior that we typify as abusive and harassing are almost always ones which focus upon the personalities and persons of editors themselves. The most general example of this is the no personal attacks policy: when we disapprove of a contribution, we're supposed to direct our disapproval at the text, not at the person. Personal attacks are ad hominem -- literally, against the person.
The kind of conduct which we call harassment is nothing but an exaggeration (almost to the point of self-parody) of ad hominem attack. It goes beyond remarking upon another's personality, to the point of attempting to provoke or harm that person themselves. Harassment is the logical end of the conduct which is (so badly!) described as "POV-pushing". It is the logical opposite of WikiNature.
Thus, perhaps we can deter harassment by deëmphasizing ego and personality throughout Wikipedia. We should perhaps refocus some of the administrative actions so that rather than labeling people as problems, they lock down and address problems with articles. We could discourage the formation of "interest groups", such as WikIProjects which focus upon pushing a particular view about sex or inclusionism or whatever. We could spread out administrative powers more, and discourage the present "thin blue line" attitude in which administrators are sometimes given undue assumption of correctness when in conflict with others.
In short, I suspect that anything we can do to promote a more relaxed and less egotistical WikiNature here, will do a great deal to deter harassment. --FOo 01:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harassment as ''ad hominem ad nauseam'' 

message: (This was originally posted to the main page; I have moved it here, since it appears to have nothing to do with the proposed policy per se. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 21:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I thought I was on the talk page. WAS 4.250 22:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

text: The template you are using means you dispute the data. We do not tag every article without referances. --Cool Cat Talk 16:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good edits or wiki-stalking? 

message: I believe that if this policy goes into effect, the #1 most common invocation of this policy will be by editors who feel the urgent need to insert POV edits into political articles.  Let's call them bad editors.  These editors will insert POV in such an inappropriate way that other editors — let's call them good editors — will feel compelled to check the edit history to see if similar damage has been done to other political articles.  Then, as soon as a good editor removes POV edits from more than one article by the bad editor, the bad editor will cry out "I am being stalked by a liberal/conservative/green/radical/reactionary editor who is persecuting me for my political beliefs" and run to the court to plea for relief under "Harassment".
This harassment policy should state explicitly that the above corrective conduct is OK and is not harassment.  It's reasonable to assume you're going to be watched like a hawk (as distasteful as it is to be corrected by people with other political views than you) if you make bad POV edits.
Anyway, this can be made explicit and not implicit by inserting "or violations of Wikipedia policy" in the last line of the wikistalking definition, viz:
: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. The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful.
I think this will cut down on 'harassment' complaints by 50%.
That said, I'm not happy with the fact that "disruption" isn't defined here, since it's highlighted as the important part of the policy against wikistalking.  Can we have a definition?  Tempshill 23:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding the proposed "or violations of Wikipedia policy" sounds good to me. Go for it. Rangerdude 00:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Tempshill 22:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention that following an editor to correct policy violations is OK, too. 

message: Is it just me, or is this page missing any suggestions on what to do in case of harrassment? --InShaneee 00:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just you.  This page should definitely have instructions for victims of harassment, especially that Template:Pinfo4 warns that those violating the harassment policy can and should be immediately blocked.  We need to put our money where our mouth is here. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 08:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing info 

message: I strongly feel harrasment should be considered as a type of personal attack given one pursuing another is as personal as an attack can get :/ --Cool CatTalk|@ 13:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is possible to harrass without actually engaging in personal attacks. Our personal attack policy (IMHO) is primarily about content: "You're an idiot", "Nazi!", and so on. Harrasment is not, at heart, about content, but rather about a pattern of behavior. The difference is subtle, but very very important. Inclusion of harrasment material in WP:NPA. As it would change the focus of both pages (this page on behavior, NPA on content), I would oppose such a merger. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 01:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: FuelWagon maintained that no one of his criticisms of SlimVirgin was a personal attack.  That may be true, but his pattern was harassment.  This policy should not be merged.  It is needed.  Robert McClenon 19:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: The case of FuelWagon should be added to the list of precedents involving harassment.  FuelWagon's pattern of criticism of SlimVirgin for several months after a series of edit wars resulted in a six-month ban.  While any one of FuelWagon's criticisms of SlimVirgin might not have been considered a personal attack, the overall pattern was one of harassment.  Robert McClenon 19:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there consensus (except by FuelWagon, who has expressed disagreement to me by email) that his conduct should be listed as an example of harassment?  Robert McClenon 21:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection, Robert. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Precedent 

message: What's not to say that for fear of being accused of stalking, people are effectively scared away from discussion pages where "opponents" are "hanging out" (whose subjects not coincidentally often happens to be part of that person's interests)? Either this policy is redundant in light of other policies and therefore not necessary or opens up a new avenue of Kafkaesque situations (dare I say abuse?) where whoever happens to be the most respected at the moment "wins". The definition of "wiki-stalking" in particular takes the cake in this regard:
: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.
So now we're down to looking in somebody's head to determine whether somebody is "intending of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor"? Unless it's even worse and we simply go by the "feelings" of the "plaintiff"! I already accepted that Wikipedia can be a harsh place at some times (see in that regard Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot) and I welcome any proposal that can make this place have a more friendly atmosphere, but I'm not interested in submitting to a tyranny of crybabies at the expense of NPOV considerations, because that's what a person whose only argument is "wiki-stalking", is, a crybaby.
And I don't recall this ever being put up to a consensus vote. It seems more that it's simply "case law" as the result of Arbitration Committee rulings. -- Dissident (Talk) 01:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very harmful policy 

message: Before you change the definition of Harassment, consider the following:
# The definition must exclude honest anti-troll work.
# The definition needs a mens rea requirement.
# The definition must be as clear as possible.
I can explain the reasoning behind each of these, if somebody cares to ask. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 02:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you expand on the limits of "honest anti-troll work"?  There are a lot of forms of harassment that would still be unacceptable even if someone thought they were doing them to oppose a troll. --FOo 03:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Defining the exact line between "honest anti-troll work" and "harassment" is tricky, because the difference is a matter of focus, rather then any one definite act or even set of acts. If the focus ceases to be about the troll's misdeeds, and becomes more about driving out the troll, then the line from "honest anti-troll work" to "harassment" has probably been crossed. Note that I count seeking a ban of the troll once all other options have been exhausted as still remaining on the "honest" side of the line. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 03:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The same way a prosecutor usually establishes "purposefully" under mens rea: circumstantial evidence (and please, read the article I've linked to before you complain that this is a lowering of the burden of proof). Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 04:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This demonstrates further the folly of this policy. Wikipedia policy doesn't exist to punish people for a "crime", it exists simply to ensure a proper editing conduct. So bringing over typical criminal law concepts like the mental capacity to "stand trial" makes no sense, as it's about the edits people make and nothing more. Someone's mental state itself doesn't change Wikipedia articles. -- Dissident (Talk) 05:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The mens rea requirement isn't intended to do anything but prevent good faith efforts from being called harassment. Fair enough? Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 05:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, my position is clear. The whole accusation of "harassment" has got to go as policies against personal attacks and disruption suffice just fine. -- Dissident (Talk) 06:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harassment definition requirements 

message: For instance, if I detect what appears to be a POV vandal who is going around editing any article which refers to public figure x to call that public figure a name or misrepresent public figure x's views, is it wikistalking for me to use that vandal's contribs page to quickly find and revert all these vandalisms (as long as I do so within the limits of 3RR)?  Kasreyn 18:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The contributions link exists for a reason.  Using it is fine.  That said, let's not confused a vandal with a biased editor- they're not the same thing.  3RR does not apply to reverting vandalism.  Friday (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikistalking is following an editor with the intent to harass. Good faith editing is not harassment. -Will Beback 20:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is Wikistalking NOT? 

message: A user or group of users has repeatedly pasted the contents of my userpage to various articles. I consider this a personal attack since it targets me directly and would seem to "us[e] [my] affiliations [viz Mexican American ethnicity] as a means of dismissing or discrediting [my] views", but the action described does not seem to fit any of the categories of personal attacks, and so seemed to be better classified as harassment. The edits in question are the following:  by 64.12.116.70,  by 64.12.116.6,  by 64.12.117.11. There may be more that I haven't discovered.
Similar vandalism was made to my userpage by 205.188.116.195.
So the question is, does this qualify as harassment? If so, where do I report it? And what can be done about it? Most of the vandals are AOL IPs. Is there positively no way to block them for more than 15 minutes? This is causing me some wiki-stress, and any help would be greatly appreciated.--Rockero 18:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My suggestion: Go to WP:ANI. They should be better able to sort through this than people who just read a policy Talk page. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 05:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question and a plea for help 

message: Hi, I'm an user with a stalker bothering me. The user has:
*insulted me (and continues to do so),
*vandalized my page 6 times (one recent), 
*keeps posting in my page even though several times I rerequested him not to do so as I don't post in his, 
*he reverts or at least edit every single page I edit, 
*he already admitted ignorance on several topics I edit and he after me (about 30 minutes after I edit each), 
*he already admitted monitoring me
He has at least touched (most time uncalled for) every single article I create while I refuse to follow him and do the same to him.
I want him out of wikipedia.
Where should I go, What should I do. Is there a format to present the evidence in a way to show there is no doubt he is stalking me in the same fashion of users previously banned for the same reason?
--T-man, the wise 04:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dyslexic Agnostic 

message: Question, it says Harassment is defined as a pattern of disruptive behavior that appears to a reasonable and objective observer to have the purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person or persons
Well, what if I have no emotional response to harassment like behaviour but it still distracts me? Say I am a Vulcan and do not feel emotions, yet the behavior is still disruptive to me, does it still meet the definition of harassment? Not trying to disprupt things to make a point, just wondering. HighInBC 17:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  emotions 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Is this policy 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Wikistalking? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Query 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Harassment 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  And [[WP:STALK]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: (Cross posted to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard due to lack of response). -Will Beback · † · 07:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  And [[WP:STALK]], part 2 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: *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)
thread_title:  Harassment? 

message: 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  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 . 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 . I will not add extra evidence on User:Artaxiad 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? Atabek 11:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Artaxiad]] violating [[WP:Stalk]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Shortcut 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Stalking" vandals 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Posting addresses of sites which give personal details about editors is harassment 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Legal threats 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Personal security practices 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Some more teeth needs to be put into this 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Wikistalking - Following an editor to another article to continue disruption 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: As no one has objected, I have made the change.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed change to [[WP:STALK]] 

message: ::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:
#  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.
#  Office investigations are private and legally compliant (amateur sleuthing may not be).
#  If harassment arises to the level of being a legal problem, Office is better prepared to deal with the appropriate authorities.
#  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.
#  The secret mailing lists can be reconstituted under strict Office control for accountability.
#  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)
thread_title:  Making Wikipedia Better 

message: 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)
replies: text: Well, Wikistalking is the equivalent of harassment in real life. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 05:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename [[WP:STALK]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: BTW, what's the other ArbCom case that was mentioned? Anyone know? -- Kendrick7talk 00:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Private correspondence 

message: 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)
replies: text: See #Is this policy for earlier discussion on this topic. (1 == 2)Until 18:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Clearly a policy 

message: Thoughtcrime? I looked at the page and it says nothing about Wikiharassment. (a protologism I know)
Lunakeet 23:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does this have to do with the article? 

message: There are several problems with this section:
# It does not explain legitimate uses of the contribution history, such as following up on vandalism, copyvio, etc, in one article by checking other edits made by that user. While clarifying this may not stop the inevitable drama of a serial copyviolator coming to light, it will at least let them be assured they are getting due process, instead of the now-seemingly-inevitable upset as they discover this policy and cry "Wikistalking! Why do the rules only apply to ME?!" 
# The name itself is problematic: when actual, real-life stalking migrates to or develops on Wikipedia, we need to be ready to deal with it. Mistaking it for a minor form of dispute escalation is not going to help us here.
As such, this section needs rewritten and renamed. I'd suggest that we either use soft redirects as per WP:VANITY to handle the renaming, or, as we'll be rewriting the policy anyway, set up a page at Wikipedia:Wikistalking labelled as a historic policy, and giving the reasons for the change in name, and link to the new policy. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikistalking 

message: I suggest the recommendation concerning OTRS be removed - ie or to contact the Arbitration Committee or OTRS if needed..  It appears not to be true. --Matilda talk 01:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Harass#Assistance_for_administrators_being_harassed 

message: I think the nutshell should be slightly amended to account for the distinction of necessary, purpose- and useful contacts on the one hand from unuseful contacts on the other. A given message may annoy the addressee, but it may nevertheless be justified by its content.
:Do not stop other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making threats, nitpicking good-faith edits to different articles, repeated unuseful annoying and unwanted contacts, repeated personal attacks or posting personal information.
All input appreciated. user:Everyme 15:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nutshell 

message: This is an important section, and I suggest adding to it one's job, although I'm not sure of the best wording.  It currently says "workplace address", but in my view that is not enough. If a Wikipedia editor is outed as, for the sake of argument, Google's Chief Engineer for World Domination, then it doesn't really matter if the name, ID number, car license plate, email address, etc. is given.  Arguably, not even a specific job title but a general job role is also identifying information. If an editor is outed as a nurse, it doesn't matter so much, but if she is outed as a pediatric nurse at hospital XYZ, then it becomes quasi-personally identifying.  Thoughts? BrainyBabe (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Posting of personal information 

message: Actually, I think this is an important point that doesn't seem to be covered in article. I use my real name and used to have link to my page but people would search around and find some opinion of mine and use it out of context (or claim I was "self-promoting"), so I took off my link. Now editors just google me, find some opinion, (usually take it out of context) and use it against me as proof of whatever. I've been calling this WP:Harassment but when looked at this article page now didn't see it as clearly described as outing as I thought it was. So I think both User:TB and I have issues here that need to be addressed.  Thanks CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a gray area. Without getting into any specific case, I would say that if the outside Wikipedia content is publicly available then it is not in itself a violation of privacy to bring that information here, particularly if that information is self published. That being said should this information be used to harass, identify someone who has not been identified on wiki, or to misrepresent then it would be very inappropriate. I am sure there are many other ways one could violate policy doing this, but I don't think it is an automatic no-no. I would love to hear the opinions of others on this subject. Chillum 14:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You express the issue very clearly and guidance on that in the article would be great! CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be time to re-examine Wikipedia's anonymity policy, in light of the rise of Facebook.  Until Facebook, most bulletin board systems and social networks used anonymous handles.  Facebook does not; it's based on real names and identities.  Facebook is now the #1 social network (it passed Myspace in 2008).  I think there's been a social change; the sheer amount of dreck and spam associated with unlimited anonymity has worn everyone down.  The Facebook paradigm, that you really do have to identify yourself, seems to be on the way up. Wikipedia might want to get with the program. I'd argue, as a start, that privileged users (admins, oversight, etc.) should no longer be anonymous.   --John Nagle (talk) 06:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Having just been reamed twice by an abusive admin for a minor oversight, I agree! CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Internet research to prove alleged POVs

message: As this is a templated reason for blocking, I copied part of the "consequences" section of the NPA page here, editing appropriately. I thought this was on this page already, but perhaps someone edited it out. Editors who are pointed to this page should be made aware of the potential consequences of their actions. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consequences 

message: What are peoples' thoughts for this policy including something about what is not harassment? This is, with no exaggeration, the most abused policy on Wikipedia. It started out with good intentions: to protect victims of genuine harassment. But it's being used by most editors to mean "someone disagrees with me!" Which belittles and cheapens the horror of genuine harassment. The exact reason why we renamed wikistalking to wikihounding. Sceptre (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I like what I see so far.  The biggest wording issue I have is "a great amount of distress" which I feel is a bit too subjective. Basically everytime somebody abuses this policy they can just claim that it has caused them a great amount of distress, even if the claim is BS. I realise there can't be a matematical formula for what constitutes harrassment, but it should be a bit less subjective than it is currently. ThemFromSpace 20:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This addition seems like basic sense to me. Chillum 20:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:HA#NOT 

message: I would like to point out that User:ChrisO, a wikipedia administrator, recently attempted to change the wording of this policy . He is currently involved in an arbitration case for issues of misconduct and abuse of administrative rights . People have indicated that some of his edits might constitute or be bordering WP:OUTING , so editing the very policy he is accused of violating could be seen as gaming the system: "Editing a policy to support your own argument in an active discussion may be seen as gaming the system, especially if you do not disclose your involvement in the argument when making the edits." . It goes without saying that I oppose his change. --Radjenef (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Posting of personal information 

message: There is a new option under Special:Preferences that says Reveal my e-mail address in notification e-mails.  Do we need to add a note somewhere letting people know that if they click that, other people can see their email, or is it self evident? MBisanz talk 16:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My first question would be to ask what a notification email is, and where the sending of such notifications is logged.  Risker (talk) 17:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I presume it has something to do with E-mail me when my user talk page is changed, maybe the email address of the person who changed the page?  Maybe we need to flag down a dev to find out. MBisanz talk 18:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes, of course. I have the "notify me when a page on my watchlist is changed" feature ticked off on meta, and you are right, it does include the email address of the person who changed the page if it is available. I think the page needs to be changed to say "include my email address when other people are notified" or words to that effect.  Risker (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done at MediaWiki:Tog-enotifrevealaddr. MBisanz talk 03:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New option 

message: Discussion about policy subcategories for several pages, including this one. As far as I know, this doesn't make any difference, except as a help to people trying to browse policy. - Dank (push to talk) 03:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WT:Policies_and_guidelines#Subcats]] 

message: In video game lingo, "griefing" is a term used for players who annoy and disturb other players. How about moving the page to Wikipedia:Griefing? Ciarlone (talk) 21:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd draw the line at using euphemisms such as that, because examples of wiki-harassment can be equatable to real harassment. Not all, but some, c.f. User:Amorrow. Sceptre (talk) 10:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Griefing already exists. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 17:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming this page to avoid problems with the real concept of harassment 

message: A previously indefinitely blocked editor has been following another editor around to AFDs for several months. Calling him names in the AFD like troll, which has been reverted by a friendly admin when this personal attack has been removed. 
Unfortunately the editors who are supposed to stop this abuse, the previously indefinitely blocked editor has done a lot of work for them, so they look the other way. This emboldens the editor, making him harass/stalk this editor even more. It has gotten to the point that the majority of the AFDs that this editor has gone to the previously indefinitely blocked editor follows. 
RfC seems out of the question, because of the drama that it will cause and the attacks that this editor will have to endure. ANI has not worked for the same reason. 
Writing this, I think I found my solution: compile the evidence, and give it to a uninvolved admin to sternly warn this  previously indefinitely blocked editor that if it continues he will be blocked. 
What do you all think? What other options do I have? Ikip (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you should consider an RfC/U, actually. Get the issues out on the table,  presented as neutrally as you possibly can, and get them dealt with. (I know who you are referring to in the above, and I guess I'm one of those you think is looking the other way). The thing about an RfC/U is, of course, that sometimes the issues aren't completely always what one thinks they are. In this particular situation it is my view that there are multiple parties who need to change approaches, not just one. ++Lar: t/c 16:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks for the suggestion lar, anyone else? Ikip (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: An RfC/U may be premature if there has been little dispute resolution attempts before.  I think your solution is on the write track: compile the evidence and take it to ANI. --Ronz (talk) 17:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continued Harassment in AFDs 

message: Several editors have alleged that one editor has pages about themselves on main space. These editors continue to say that this editor is the editor in the main space pages.
The only case I am aware of  similar to this is another editor, who changed his username, and everyone no longer can call him by his name, etc, and he continues to edit pages within his sphere of work. It appears like he has some strong admins which support him. Absent strong admins buddies, what can I do? 
Can't these edits be removed immediately and reported to WP:Oversight? I see this is not a 3rr exception. Wikipedia:3rr#Exceptions_to_3RR.
How does WP:COI fall into all this? Ikip (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I only take situations to WP:COIN where there is very clear evidence of a conflict of interest (e.g. the editor has admitted to being a specific individual that has a clear coi, the editor has used an ip address from a company with a clear coi). --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:OUTING]] 

message: The essay Wikipedia:WikiBullying needs to be improved and expanded. --Atomic blunder (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiBullying 

message: The section just added Wikipedia:Harassment#Bullying seems to go too far. The evaulation of whether something is a warning or a threat as well as the evaluation of whether a block is unjustified are far too subjective, and far too easy to game. Admins can, and should, give warnings about behavior. Nine times out of ten, the person warned is going to see the warning as "unjustified" and is going to reply unhelpfully (it takes a big person to realise they erred, for a more typical example encounter, see  :) ). If the matter is taken to AN/I and the warning or block endorsed, that's that. If it isn't, this page's statements aren't going to help. That's not to see that there isn't misuse of tools by admins, up to and including harassment of folk, which needs attention. Just that I don't see this section as helpful. ++Lar: t/c 13:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how long the Threats section has been in the policy but it was very similar in August 2008, over a year ago: . Wikipedia has dispute resolution processes to resolve disputes over whether something is justified. --Atomic blunder (talk) 14:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am referring to your changes:  ... not to how the page was in August 2008. You've reorganised some material and added a whole new section on "bullying". As I said, I think you're incorrectly positioning admin warnings and other legitimate admin actions as bullying when they usually are nothing of the sort. As for " Wikipedia has dispute resolution processes to resolve disputes over whether something is justified" ... um... this is the starting place to discuss these changes, so I'm not sure what you're driving at. If you can't show a consensus for the changes then they may well be changed back because I think they're distortive. ++Lar: t/c 16:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I reworded it and removed the word "justified" and "unjustified". --Atomic blunder (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm dubious, the whole section seems off kilter somehow, and a minor tweak may not be enough to fix it. ++Lar: t/c 19:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not going to correct harassment/bullying if you don't address it publicly. --Atomic blunder (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bullying 

message: I suggest adding: sexual orientation, religious belief and political affiliation (read "or lack of" in each case). — Alan✉ 14:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  further additions to WP:OUTING 

message: An interpretation question: <BR> Is it still OUTING when no personal information is directly revealed, but specific Google search terms are given that directly lead to finding the personal information? Manning (talk) 01:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indirect OUTING 

message: Please see WT:NLT#Moving one section. - Dank (push to talk) 21:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding one section 

message: Reading over the enforcement policy pages WP:VANDAL, WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN, I'm seeing more overlap with this page than overlap from WP:CIVILITY.  We're having an RfC at the Village Pump on what sidebars to put on policy pages, and I think that makes it more important to put things in the right subcats, so that readers will be encouraged to contrast and compare pages within the same policy subcat.  Are there any objections to moving this page to the enforcement cat?  I'm about to start a related discussion at WP:NPA.  The main point is that, with the exception of WP:HARASS#Dealing with harassment (which could perhaps be merged with WP:CIVIL#Dealing with incivility), everything this page discusses is block- or ban-worthy. - Dank (push to talk) 17:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enforcement cat? 

message: In case anyone is interested, I've kicked off discussion about an idea I've had about incivility blocks. Currently it's hard to get a consistent blocking policy in terms of warnings and blocking times, I'm hoping that this proposal can get some traction to make this more clear. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 06:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related policy proposal - incivility blocks 

message: I have just seen this (see 1st comment) and am aware of other instances where this has happened to me. We really should find a way of doing something about this kind of behaviour. NBeale (talk) 07:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revenge AfDs as a form of Hounding 

message: An editor has posted a legal threat on my talk page. I sent him a warning but other than that I am not certain where to take this. If this person proceeds with this I will walk away from Wikipedia completely as this is not worth it. The issue at hand is the user attempting to insert himself into various articles including Gene Clark. Although there is some evidence that he was a session musician for Clark in 1968, beyond that I am uncertain about his notability as there are few reliable sources. I have only dealt with the Clark article although he has inserted himself into a number of others as well. I haven't edited the Clark article since Aug. 2009 and the editor's name still does appear in the article, so I'm not certain what his issue is. In any case, I would like to either take this to the proper channels or ignore it completely but I'm not certain where to take this. <FONT COLOR="#000000">freshacconci</FONT><FONT COLOR="#B22222"> talk</FONT><FONT COLOR="#2F4F4F">talk</FONT> 17:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to do about an unambiguous legal threat? 

message: Is connecting personally identifiable informations that already publicly available on and off-wiki to identify a person a form of outing? PII can be a simple username. Sole Soul (talk) 11:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno. The whole "outing" policy is kinda dumb, in a way. In practice, hardly anyone is going to connect the dots; most outing occurs when someone makes an ill-advised decision to reveal their personal information and then decides later they want it redacted, in which case, it's their own fault that they got outed. Tisane (talk) 16:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Yes, definitely: if editor X posts any information that connects any dots regarding editor Y, that is outing and X should be immediately blocked. The outing policy is not dumb: it is essential to avoid nasty battles and real-world damage. Johnuniq (talk) 00:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Theoretically. But if someone wanted to, for instance, start a website devoted to revealing the true identities of Wikipedia editors, and allow users to post the results of their detective work connecting the dots in reference to various users, we could do nothing to suppress the information, and anyone who wanted to google that user could find it. So really, all we are doing is preventing users from talking about one another's identities on Wikipedia. Thus, the second point you raise about avoiding real-world damage is rendered less persuasive. As to avoiding nasty battles, well, you have a point there. Tisane (talk) 01:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is connecting the dots a form of outing? 

message: Am I the only one who finds it odd that the shortcuts leading here include HA and HAR - also known as onomatopoeia for laughter? Just sayin.--Tznkai (talk) 22:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, I know what you mean, but it's not particularly amusing... WackyWace talk to me, people 14:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortcut 

message: I would like to draw your attention to a wikiharassment tactic that is not a problem (so far as you know) yet; organized wikistalking/wikiharassment.
Drawing parallels with the non-wiki phenomenon which Wikipedia refuses to acknowledge the existence of, organized wikiharassment would be wikiharassment performed by a large group of people, such that no one person appears to be engaged in wikiharassing behavior.  So a large group of people would take turns vandalizing the edits of a single user, for example.
Do you think this is a problem, or might be a problem in the future?  How would you deal with it?Jeremystalked (talk) 03:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organized Wikistalking/Wikiharassment 

message: This is currently not covered under WP:OUTING - threats to "out" another editor, such as this edit. I've warned that editor not to repeat such threats or they will be blocked. Are such threats generally treated the same way as the offence itself? The section needs a slight reword to make it clear that threatening to out an editor is also unacceptable. Mjroots (talk) 05:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that is an oversight! There is not even a mention in WP:NPA that threatening outing is prohibited. I'm confident that many admins would readily block an editor who (after a warning) made a second threat. In general, we should not try to list every dumb idea, but we should spell out that implying personal information may be revealed is a very serious threat. I guess it may not quite fit WP:HARASS, but it definitely is an attack breaching WP:NPA. I also don't like the "uninvited invasion of privacy" wording at WP:OUTING because the "uninvited" may suggest that outing is ok if the target said anything that could be interpreted as an "invitation". I might try some new wording later. Johnuniq (talk) 07:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:ANI notified so that other admins may contribute. Mjroots (talk) 09:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In my personal opinion, threatening to out someone is harrassment, plain and simple. It can be used to bully and suppress other editors, thus we should not tolerate it, it isn't the sort of editing environment we want for the project. I support any rewording to make that clear here, as it does strike me to be an oversight in the original wording. --Taelus (talk) 09:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Proposed addition to text "Threats to out an editor will be treated as a personal attack and dealt with accordingly." Mjroots (talk) 09:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been bold and added threats to out an editor to WP:NPA. Mjroots (talk) 09:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, I'm going to be bolder and add the proposed text to WP:OUTING too. Mjroots (talk) 09:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I support these changes as well. SilverserenC 09:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

text: For what it is worth, I don't like this policy defining what is oversightable, as that is defined by WP:OVERSIGHT which is backed by meta:Oversight, etc.  This policy page can not add new criteria which are not clearly within those enumerated at WP:OVERSIGHT. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

text: How did that ANI conclude?  The edit in question has not yet been suppressed. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Threats of outing 

message: The relationship status of a couple of editors has come up in a couple recent ANI threads.  There has been some concern about outing, and I think it would be helpful if this was clarified in the policy essay.  Assuming that this information was not provided on wikipedia, if someone discovered that one user was married to another user, would that information be considered Personal Information for the purposes of outing?  If so, could this be explicitly added to WP:OUTING?  If not, could this be clarified in some way in the essay? aprock (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it is a form of outing, but it is already covered by the "personal information". We should not try to specify every form of harassment, partly because of WP:BURO and WP:BEANS, but mainly because there will always be some new way to reveal personal info on another editor. However, in the case you are probably thinking of, at least one user did self-identify to a large extent (I have not looked at the details, but I don't think any "connecting the dots" was done), and it was a pretty blatant case of user X robustly supporting user Y in an ANI discussion, where the two had a close relationship in RL. I'm not saying it was ok (I have not examined the issue), but it was not a clear one-side-is-wrong case, and there were plenty of admins who could have followed up if they thought it appropriate. That's why we don't try to spell out what behavior is acceptable and what is not (it's the principles that should be followed). Johnuniq (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that being overly specific is a problem.  That's part of the issue.  Right now, the WP:OUTING section only discusses personal information in terms of contact information.  Broadening that description to include more general personal information would make sense if discussion of relationship status (or sexual orientation, race, sex, height, religion, political inclination, etc...) is considered outing when introduced by another editor. aprock (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship Status 

message: Out of curiosity, if a contributor edits an organization article under a "real name" registered identity and an individual with that same name is on the organization's employee roster, is it outing to note that? What if phrased simply to mark upon the coincidence without drawing conclusions? It seems by the letter of the law that it would be so (can't reveal job titles and work organisation), but I rather wonder if it's against the spirit if there seems to be no effort whatsoever to avoid self-disclosure. (Cannot supply a diff, because it didn't happen. Well, rather, I'm sure it has happened. But not that I'm aware of. :)) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm curious too, because I am aware of a particular instance of this where I ran into COI and copyright issues. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

text: That sounds roughly like the events that led up to Wikipedia_talk:COIN#Yet_more_COI_vs_OUTING.  I can provide more detail via email. --John Vandenberg (chat) 17:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-self disclosed 

message: Under posting personal informationm, it includes: "It also applies in the case of an editor who has requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found."  Why is this protected? This seems easy to abuse, where the new user could agree with his old comments, especially e.g. regarding policy, style guides, etc. which often refer back to older material and precedent. Was stalking the main issue? Argel1200 (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the rationale behind protect users who changed their name? 

message: What's the proper procedure to raise the issue of possible Conflict of Interest of a user without Outing them in anyway, since a particular user may edit under a pseudonym? Just wandering.radek (talk) 00:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid to say that there is little that can be done. If the editor is making POV edits then address that issue directly.   Will Beback  talk   00:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, it's more of a question of notability and undue weight.radek (talk) 00:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's an article that seems non-notable, then that can be addressed with a request to show proof of notability, and if that seems insufficient then AFD would be the ultimate arbiter. If you suspect COI then you might remind the user about the guidelines for participating in editing and in AFD discussions. As for weight within an article, that's covered by WP:NPOV#Due and undue weight. Issues and POVs should be included with weight proportionate to their prominence. Depending on their relationship to the topic, COI editors may with to either minimize the negative and accentuate the positive, or the opposite. Whichever it is, COI editors typically find it difficult to respect NPOV, so it's best to focus on that rather than the COI itself. COI editor also typically have unverifiable inside information, and that shouldn't be allowed in an article without proper sources.   Will Beback  talk   01:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good advice, thank you. For sake of privacy I'm going to leave this alone for now anyway.radek (talk) 01:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  COI and Outing 

message: I appreciate that this is a bean-sy comment, but the horse has already bolted on that front. This page makes no mention of what happens to banned users engaging in harrassment. --WFC-- 05:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banned harrassers 

message: During the discussion of a proposed move of Talk:Plymouth, one user has added up what they believe are the nationalities of contributors (it is unclear on what basis this has been done) and posted these numbers, this has then been used as a factual statement by others in the discussion. Is there any established consensus on how far we can go with synthesizing user pages? I have highlighted this as a possible breach of WP:PRIVACY, on the basis that this highlights minority nationalities, puts pressure on users to declare their nationality or constrain discussion contribution based on nationality. I have drawn a parallel with how limiting discussion to contributions from users based on race or nationality would be unacceptable and counting !votes in this way may result in the same type of marginalization. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 12:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synthesis of user nationalities (or other personal data) 

message: I added a section  on accusing others of harassment, adapted from WP:AOBF. Rd232 talk 02:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe add also that this kind of dispute about who is harassing who the most should be brought to - which forum?? Sometimes it's in mind of beholder, sometimes accusation wildly exaggerated or even false to draw attention from other issues. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accusing others 

message: When does posting results from WikiScanner conflict with WP:OUTING?
--Kevinkor2 (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: An issue with Wikiscanner is that it simply presents correlations, and has many false positives. However, when it's working best it can provide clear evidence connecting an account with an IP. A classic example would be someone posting on a talk page while logged out, then logging in to sign. It is not outing to point to such self-identifications.   Will Beback  talk   00:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiScanner and WP:OUTING 

message: I've become confused with the policy on outing and I need clarification on a few points.
#The policy states that "Personal information includes legal name, ... home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, ... or other contact information," But there are templates in common use that are designed to reveal exactly that. :Template:Shared IP gov, for instance, is designed to allow users to identify individual IP editors as government employees. :Template:Shared IP edu acts similarly although there is no explicit bar under outing against revealing a person's school. Is the prohibition of revealing information about workplaces limited specifically to direct references to the workplace's address?
#For a person's address, at what point does it cross the line? Can you identify an editor as a national of a particular country? Can you specify the region or town? Can you specify the part of town?
#The policy states that "if an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, their wishes should be respected, though reference to self-disclosed information is not outing." What if Editor B has posted personal information on name and workplace ("I am Ethel Carter and I work as an administrative officer for the State of Georgia's Foo-County Correctional Facility at the intersection of Bar and Baz in the city of Qux") and then later redacts only a portion of it such as Editor B's workplace address? Assuming that Editor B's real name, "Ethel Carter," is still available for use as a non-redacted reference, would it violate the outing policy for Editor A to use a "shared IP gov" template to identify an IP edit made by Editor B as having originated from the State of Georgia's Foo-County Correctional Facility and then to communicate with or about the templated IP User while referencing Editor B as "Ethel" (her non-redacted name)? Provided that Editor A doesn't explicitly connect the dots that "Ethel" works at "the intersection of Bar and Baz in the city of Qux, GA," is this acceptable behavior?
#Using the same scenario from the previous question, what would happen if Editor B had redacted both her workplace address and the name of her workplace? Would it have violated the outing policy for Editor A to have used the "shared IP gov" template to identify the IP address as belonging to Foo-County Correctional Facility of Georgia and then to talk to or about the templated IP as "Ethel?" Is there such an offense as implicit outing?
#What is meant by redaction? What if Editor B creates a vanity page for herself with all of her personal information and then the page was nominated by a third party for AfD and deleted? Has she redacted the information? If we assume not, then shouldn't it still be sufficient for her to verbally declare certain information as redacted?
#Surely Editor A couldn't be punished for having referenced Editor B's previously self-disclosed personal information prior to Editor B's redaction of the information, but what's to stop Editor A from referencing his own pre-redaction references to Editor B? This seems like a loophole that is bound to cause problems.
#Who is responsible for seeking oversight subsequent to a redaction? If I've included personal information on my userpage for several years and others have referenced it as public information, then what happens when I redact it 2 years later? Is it my responsibility to seek oversight for all edits containing my previously-unredacted personal information or is it the responsibility of all users who have used this personal information to monitor me from now on lest I redact anything? If Editor A knows that Editor B has redacted a piece of personal information but that Editor C had made a pre-redaction comment referencing the same information, can Editor A still treat it as referenceable information as it appears in Editor C's public edit? Or is it sufficient for Editor A to be aware of Editor B's desire to silence that information? If Editor A does reference Editor C's message as an indirect means of outing Editor B, can Editor C be banned for outing as well?
#And what about banned editors? It seems to me that there is a prohibition against outing a banned editor as they are also persons, (potential) users, and (hopefully) non-editors, however if this is true it still seems like a somewhat less-than-obvious category and so shouldn't it be made explicit as in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found?
Any help on these questions would be most appreciated. -Thibbs (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There are all kinds of "if" scenarios. For the unusual ones, people can come here and ask. For ones that are more frequently, like the one I just put in per my proposal at talk above, something has to be put in policy. Do you have a specific pressing question you personally need help with?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My questions address obvious holes in the current policy. Considering the drastic consequences of violating the policy (an immediate block), I believe that there should be no uncertainty involved. All of the scenarios that served as bases for my questions are easily conceivable and some of them occur on a near-hourly basis (see e.g. Q's #1 and 2). It is quite unfair to hold editors accountable to this degree for failing to understand a poorly-written piece of policy. My hope is that by gaining answers to some of these questions I can help to draft an improved version of the policy. If you wouldn't mind, I'd love to hear your thoughts on some of them. -Thibbs (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but I haven't read all of the above. It is pretty simple: an editor must reveal no information at all about another editor. If editor X learns something about editor Y and later is concerned by Y's behavior, X should seek advice before revealing anything about Y. For example, if it is a COI issue, X might post a generic message at WP:COIN, possibly identifying the article and saying that X has reason to believe that another editor has a COI, and seeking advice on whether to reveal what X knows. Another approach would be to find an administrator with an interest in the area of concern and email them with an outline of the problem. There are exceptions: if editor Y put their real name on their user page and six months later removed it, it might be reasonable for X to point to the disclosed name if there is a reason related to improving the encyclopedia to do so. Gratuitously using Y's real name would be harassment. If X reveals personal information about Y and later decides that was a mistake, X can email a request for oversight (see the box at the top of WP:OS). Johnuniq (talk) 02:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me clarify that I understand the basic idea behind the policy and I don't need a general summary of it. I am interested in receiving answers to the specific questions I have asked above. These questions delve into areas that the written policy (as currently drafted) does not cover. I am not asking for anyone read through and think about all of the questions if they do not wish to but I would greatly appreciate it if some editors that are familiar with the policy and its enforcement could clarify some or indeed any of the questions I have raised. By receiving answers to the questions that I asked, I hope to help draft an improved version of the policy that clarifies these issues. This should improve the degree of fairness with which the heavy penalty is applied to people accused of outing. -Thibbs (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A template that identifies the location of an IP address is just a convenience: it displays no information that is not publicly available, and it specifically is about a shared IP (so it says nothing about an individual editor apart from pointing out what is publicly known about an IP address). Suppose editor X noticed that editor Y had once acknowledged editing while logged out, so X could determine Y's IP address, and then later X were to say "you are from SomeSchool" (determined by the IP). That would be mild harassment; repeating it would be definite harassment (exception: on an appropriate noticeboard, it would be ok for X to ask whether it would be appropriate to reveal certain information if the information was related to improving the encyclopedia). I think the other questions are covered by my earlier view: an editor must reveal no information at all about another editor (with certain exceptions that are best dealt with by asking for assistance as I mentioned–there would be no benefit from trying to document the precise conditions for this, see WP:BURO). Johnuniq (talk) 06:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Re banned editors (but see WP:BAN to note that a "ban" is very different from a "block"): On an appropriate noticeboard, and when dealing with a long term problem editor, it is common for people to talk pretty plainly (i.e. there are exceptions to what I earlier said). However, normal editors (I think that includes everyone who has commented here so far) should be very careful—that is why I was earlier saying that contacting someone experienced is the best procedure. It is not possible (and not desirable) to document exactly when it is ok to reveal information about an editor (see WP:BURO). Email an admin active in the area of interest if you are concerned. I do not think anyone should worry about having revealed personal info about a long term problem editor, provided that real damage has occurred (e.g. the problem editor has performed more than, say, 50 vandal edits over a period of more than a month). At places like WP:ANI, people do not care much about a problem editor who has just added naughty words to a few articles (and outing such a person would be a bad idea). If someone has really caused significant trouble over an extended period, more blunt approaches may be required. Perhaps one might look for an admin who is active at WP:AIV and email them if worried. One important point: It is best to not talk to a problem editor; just revert their edits, including their comments on your own talk page. Engaging a vandal gives them a purpose and feeds their ego; you will never find the magic words to convince them to change their behavior (they will probably grow out of it, but that won't occur because of reasoning). See WP:DENY. Johnuniq (talk) 06:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't say that I agree that there is no benefit in trying to be more precise/exact about which revelations can lead to blocking and which are acceptable but I can now see that this appears to be part of a deliberate choice rather than simply and oversight. As such, I'd have to gain consensus for clarifying the instructions before gaining consensus over how to clarify them. As I am too busy at this point to make the case for clarification, I'll concede the point. Thanks for your explanations. -Thibbs (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification sought