Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Harassment

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If information is deleted but not redacted, is it "still-existing"?

[edit]

WP:DOX explicitly covers "still-existing, self-disclosed posted information", and also covers redacted or oversighted information. It does not seem to explicitly cover personal information that was self-disclosed on Wikipedia, then promptly deleted, but not redacted or oversighted, and which is still visible in the page history. Is such deleted information considered to be still-existing, or would raising it (in a sock puppet investigation, for example) be considered to be outing? Nurg (talk) 23:27, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you go down to the subsection on "Exceptions", point number 2, it says: If individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums. So referring to it, with a diff, is generally not going to be treated as a policy violation. However, common sense should also be used, and it may still be a better idea to communicate such information privately, depending on the context and circumstances. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2025

[edit]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2025

[edit]

Remove "(for example, where Wikipedians know each other off-site and may inadvertently post personal information, such as using the other person's real name in discussions)" because this is WP:BEANS as they encourage people to post real name if known in discussions as they wont get blocked but still may get other sanctions such as iban for that violation. 49.179.69.111 (talk) 01:30, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to still-existing, self-disclosed posted information is not considered outing, and so the failure of an editor to have the information redacted in a timely manner may remove it from protection by this policy. I assume that the standard procedure for accidental disclosure by a friend of the editor in question is the same: quietly email a couple admins to revdel the outing, preferably sent by the editor themselves. However, if another guy picks up the slip-up and starts routinely referring to the user by their real name, that is at the very least going to be frowned upon and most, including me, will see that as a form of harassment, even if technically it's not exactly doxxing. The rules are not set in stone and if you intentionally behave like an asshole and try to lawyer your way through policies and guidelines, chances are you are gonna get sanctioned. While I would want for most policies and guidelines to be shorter, and in fact I started a compilation effort to make this goal happen, I do not see this passage as offending or a loophole. So  Not done but I'm not closing this edit request so that others can take a look - editing policies generally requires a bit of discussion. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:30, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. --Ferien (talk) 17:27, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a limited exception to WP:OUTING for off-site canvassing or advocacy

[edit]

For context, see this comment by an arb; recently there have been a lot of cases involving off-site canvassing or advocacy, which have led to ArbCom blocks; two people in ArbCom case either received sanctions at least partially affected by such offsite evidence, or had in the past. At least one comment on that case was redacted (the admin doing so said that they didn't think it should qualify as outing, but that it did.) The question of precisely what offsite stuff can lead to sanctions here is itself controversial (and ought to be discussed elsewhere), but it is clear that at least some stuff is leading to sanctions and that the OUTING policy is making it difficult to discuss or enforce. Therefore, I propose a limited exception to OUTING.

  • Discussion of an off-wiki account is not considered OUTING, provided both of the following apply:
    • The account does not contain, and knowledge of it cannot reasonably be used to obtain, any other category of personal information.
    • The account's primary purpose is for canvassing, advocacy, or discussion directly related to Wikipedia.

The intent is to establish a reasonable balance of potential harm vs. reasonable cause; the first point establishes that the risk of harm is low, and the second point establishes that there's a reasonable cause for discussion. Some people might reasonably disagree over whether the things listed in the second point should lead to sanctions, but it is clear that they sometimes do; the reason why it goes a bit beyond just canvassing is because otherwise people might argue "ah, yes, I ran a blog saying that everything in this topic area is wrong and biased, but I didn't explicitly tell people to edit." The criteria needs to be clear-cut for reasons I think are obvious. The second bullet point could perhaps be a bit more permissive than "primary purpose", but the intent is to avoid a situation where an account is outed for one or two posts - the intent is an account whose focus is so overwhelming that it raises WP:NOTHERE or WP:TEND concerns or something similar. --Aquillion (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support this. Seems a reasonable change that can help tackle canvassing issues but also providing some safeguards against outing private information by including primary purpose is canvasing and that the account has no private info on it in the proposal. GothicGolem29 (GothicGolem29 Talk) 17:00, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the mentioned admin who revdelled that comment dubitante, I'm glad that we're having this conversation, but I actually think your exceptions are too broad. If this were implemented, I'd've still had to revdel the comment, because that editor's blog includes a forename and a selfie, which are two other categories of personal information. I imagine you'd find something like that in most cases. Even something as simple as "I live in the US", if never disclosed on-wiki, would kill this exception.
There are two solutions to this I could envision. One is saying something like The account does not reveal the editor's non-pseudonymous identity or information that could be easily used to find that identity, if it has not been revealed on-wiki. That would cover the case I revdelled, but there's obvious line-drawing problems, and we just run into the fundamental problem that most people don't have great opsec and some people can find a lot from a little... I once spent four hours tracking down someone who'd sent me threats, triangulating based on gender and approximate age, two states they'd lived in, a common profession, and a common hobby, and was able to pick them out of a list of suspects in the end based on a cat picture. So, it's hard to say let's just open the door halfway.
The other solution is something I've been toying with for a while, which is focusing on cases where an off-wiki identity either explicitly identifies an on-wiki account, or has the same/similar username and reason to think they're the same person, and then in those cases drawing a distinction between saying someone is a specific off-wiki person and asking them about it. I'd jotted down the following rough idea shortly after the revdel you mentioned:

It is not a violation of this policy to ask a user if they are the same person as an off-wiki individual who has claimed to be the on-wiki user, or whose name or pseudonym is identical or very similar to the user's username or to a name or pseudonym the user has disclosed on-wiki, if this is relevant to determining whether they have violated any Wikipedia policy and there is good reason to think they are the same person. An administrator may weigh the plausibility of a denial or failure to answer in determining whether sanctions are necessary. But such questions should not be asked gratuitously, plausible denials should generally be trusted, and editors must not assert as fact that the user is the person in question. (E.g., "User:JohnDoeAcme seems likely to have a conflict of interest with John Doe, CEO of Acme, and his explanation for his username does not seem plausible" is okay; but "User:JohnDoeAcme is John Doe, CEO of Acme, but denies it" is not.) Editors may link to information about the off-wiki person published by that person or by reliable sources, if relevant to the alleged violation of policy, but may not link to third-party primary sources such as 'people-finder' websites or government databases, and may not repeat personally identifiable information that has not been stated on-wiki, even if disclosed by the off-wiki person. E.g. "User:JohnDoeAcme, are you John Doe of Acme? [link to LinkedIn page that gives location of Greenacre]", but not "User:JohnDoeAcme, are you John Doe of Acme, from Greenacre?"

Little rough around the edges but I think something like that is the best way forward. (Tangent: We should have a discussion about clarifying that "job title" only is an issue if it can be used to infer an otherwise non-public name; it's insane that we can say "John Doe works at Acme" if he has that on his userpage, but not that he's the CEO, even if the Acme website says he's the CEO.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 17:38, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Something that I think should be examined as part of this discussion (I'm as yet undecided on any possible changes to make) is whether the outing concerns can be adequately addressed by simply continuing our present practice of requiring that such evidence be submitted privately, instead of posted onsite, which might, perhaps, make changes unnecessary. I'm not saying that it really is unnecessary, but I would like us to be precise about why we would want to allow exceptions permitting posting something in public. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At least from my perspective, the main advantage of this change would be to make it easier for things to be handled, and especially for problems to be quickly discussed by a larger group capable of reaching a decision without the need for a lengthy and difficult ArbCom process. For some of the people who were sanctioned by ArbCom, say, the evidence was known to a lot of people for a long time; and given ArbCom's sharp reaction to it, it's likely those, at least, could have been handled much faster and more easily in a simple WP:ANI thread if we'd been able to just start one. If these things are becoming more common (and SFR, who is in a position to know due to ArbCom being the final stop for them and seeing evidence that other people don't, says they are) then we ought to try and have a procedure for them that can act quickly and without consuming this much time and energy. One distinctive trait about everything related to ARBTRANS in particular (from the lead-up to the case itself all the way through to the final decision) is that it dragged and dragged and draaaagged, and there's a wide array of reasons for this, some of which we can't really address; but if we can open the door to sending more obvious cases to ANI for a quicker resolution, it could reduce the workload on both AE and ArbCom, both of which are heavily overworked and often slow to respond.
A secondary advantage is that holding these discussions publicly (whether at ANI or AE or even ArbCom) will make it more obvious what's happening and what evidence leads to what results, which will help people gain a sense of where the lines are and what they ought to report; even if people can notionally send evidence in private, they need to know when to do so, which is hard when they never see what's going on (or whether, you know, some particular bit of evidence has been sent in already.) This is especially true because the extent to which offsite conduct is considered (and when and how) is still a bit unsettled and controversial; allowing at least some of it to happen publicly, when it is safe to do so, would make it easier to have that discussion, because we'd be able to point to examples and ask if the results are what people want. This ties in to the above because offsite conduct, being controversial, is precisely the sort of thing that I think admins often want to see a consensus on before acting over; yet the need to present evidence privately makes it harder for that consensus to emerge in any particular case, and makes it less clear whether a broader consensus or precedent exists on the type of conduct in question. Basically, running everything in secret has a ton of drawbacks, so we should strive to move towards transparency when possible. --Aquillion (talk) 01:20, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Harassment&oldid=1319999700"