Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs) |
Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) →Other contact information: Note. |
||
Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
:* The off-wiki activity does not link to more real-life identifying data (real names etc.) than the on-wiki account does. |
:* The off-wiki activity does not link to more real-life identifying data (real names etc.) than the on-wiki account does. |
||
Depending on the combined presence or absence of these and other factors I can see that there may be a gray area between what is or isn't legitimate, but the strong statement as it is now certainly doesn't work. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 18:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC) |
Depending on the combined presence or absence of these and other factors I can see that there may be a gray area between what is or isn't legitimate, but the strong statement as it is now certainly doesn't work. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 18:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC) |
||
'''Note''': For further information, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=635924858 here]. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 19:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:05, 29 November 2014
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
IP addresses and outing
Wikipedia:OUTING#Posting_of_personal_information reads: Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not.
It doesn't mention IP addresses and in 7 years of editing I've seen editors discuss various accidentally revealed IP addresses (usually in regard to possibly or alleged sockpuppetry, and usually on article talk pages or WP:ANI) numerous times without anyone yelling harassment and demanding removal of material. (Though obviously some were mad it was discussed.)
However, if you look at WP:ANI history on December 27 a bunch of edits were removed because an editor accidentally revealed his IP address and then demanded that every post mentioning it be removed, which an admin complied with. The admin also left this message on an editors talk page, with his reply about his having reverted the editors deletion of his comment mentioning the IP address. It would help if the sentence clarified the above. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- The Oversight policy covers the removal of the IP address of an editor editing while logged out on request of the user. In addition, the privacy policy treats IPs as protected information, as they can sometimes disclose an editors' region, workplace, or (in some cases) even building or room number.
- If a request for removal has been received and acted upon, it should not be re-added without consulting with the Oversight team or AUSC. That said, the team isn't notified about every instance of an accidental IP disclosure, and I at least don't proactively look for such instances to suppress. LFaraone 04:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for info. I guess people don't request it often, though that may explain some of the mysterious crossouts I've seen from time to time that didn't seem to be vandalism related.
- If privacy policy does forbid discussions of accidental IP release outside of an SPI, few editors know about it. I'm ambivalent about advertising it myself since have had more problems with socks than an innocent person being hurt by an accidental IP release.
- Also, I assume that if someone starts editing as an Anon IP and then very publicly starts an account and makes clear what Anon IP they were and leaves that info public a few months or more, it's not a problem to mention it in an administrative noticeboard where that factoid might be relevant. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Geolocation and COI
Every IP's user contributions page has a Geolocate feature at the bottom. If this reveals that the IP address relates to a company, is it "Outing" to reveal that the address relates to this "work organization" ? Or is an IP address not considered "an editor", as it can be used by numerous different people? - This often comes up with COI editing, and I'm never sure if I am allowed to say "it appears from your IP address that you have a conflict of interest in editing this article" or not. - Arjayay (talk) 16:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Student editors and outing
Editors here may perhaps be interested in a discussion at WP:Education noticeboard#About outing students. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Sexual harassment
With substantial ongoing discussions of gender gap issues (see User talk:Jimbo Wales) it is striking that we do not mention the word "sex" in this policy. While clearly policies on sexual harassment vary widely and have been known to get out of hand, I think we send the wrong message to people who might have been harassed on this basis if we literally do not have the word in the policy. We never know what happens when people don't speak up based on what the text says.
I think a fairly moderate text might be
Sexual harassment
This policy applies to sexual harassment on an equitable basis when the offensive behavior is targeted to a person or group of people based on their sex, gender, or appearance. Sexual bullying and coercion, repeated unwelcome or spammed sexual advances, and other harassment meant to cause a hostile and discriminatory work environment are unacceptable. Additionally, sexual favoritism or the promise of rewards for sex are regarded as "WP:Meatpuppetry" and also contrary to policy.
This might go, perhaps, under User space harassment in the policy. Comments? Wnt (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- No, nothing extra is needed. If sexual harassment is mentioned, others will want their favorite harassment target mentioned, with the silly result shown at WP:NPA#WHATIS. For example, anyone found to have "spammed sexual advances" will be indeffed regardless of words in this policy, and anyone objecting to the indef on the basis that there is no rule against sexual advances fails to understand Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 00:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- Ordinarily, I might think the same thing. But I think it's true that there is a perception out there that Wikipedia is hostile to women. Now some of that we can't do anything about - for example, we rightly embrace WP:Not censored]], which also leads some to say we're hostile to Muslims, etc.; I simply reject those who say that censorship is a female or a minority right - but I don't see any reason why we have to rely on an unwritten policy for something that could be written out. There will probably be at least some people who read the policy and think that they're not protected from sexual harassment, and some others who read it and think they won't get banned for sexual harassment, and it wouldn't be bad to avoid these. I would like to give ground where it should be given so that we can preserve other policies where we ought not to compromise. Wnt (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- It's not unwritten—the nutshell says all that needs to said: "
Do not stop other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making threats, repeated annoying and unwanted contacts, repeated personal attacks, intimidation, or posting personal information.
" The lead has more that absolutely forbids anything that even approached sexual harassment. Johnuniq (talk) 01:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- It's not unwritten—the nutshell says all that needs to said: "
- Ordinarily, I might think the same thing. But I think it's true that there is a perception out there that Wikipedia is hostile to women. Now some of that we can't do anything about - for example, we rightly embrace WP:Not censored]], which also leads some to say we're hostile to Muslims, etc.; I simply reject those who say that censorship is a female or a minority right - but I don't see any reason why we have to rely on an unwritten policy for something that could be written out. There will probably be at least some people who read the policy and think that they're not protected from sexual harassment, and some others who read it and think they won't get banned for sexual harassment, and it wouldn't be bad to avoid these. I would like to give ground where it should be given so that we can preserve other policies where we ought not to compromise. Wnt (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- Well, as a fall-back, do you think it would hurt to put "including sexual harassment" after "repeated annoying and unwanted contact or attention"? I just think it would be sensible to let users know we are aware of complaints about the issue.
- I should add that the way I came to this in the first place was that I was going through WP:Civility stripping out all the dreck for a version WT:Civility/sandbox, and noticed that the present policy there actually lists sexual harassment as a separate kind of incivility apart from WP:Harassment, linking to the Wikipedia article on the term. I would like to lump them together and further trim the size of my proposed revision but I can see why the previous writer was unsure that this policy directly addressed the topic. Wnt (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- The problem is that if one type of harassment is mentioned, all the others have to be mentioned as well—do not harass young editors by suggesting they are inherently immature; do not harass old editors by suggesting they are past it; do not harass male editors by suggesting they would say that wouldn't they. And then all the sexual orientation and religious affiliation gibes that I barely understand; and more. Johnuniq (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- Well, nowhere in the text above did I say anything female-specific, so your comment on harassing male editors misses the mark. There's something at least a little different about sexual harassment in that it can involve unwanted advances and such. But it is indeed possible that some other sentence covering a broader variety of people would be better. Wnt (talk) 09:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- The problem is that if one type of harassment is mentioned, all the others have to be mentioned as well—do not harass young editors by suggesting they are inherently immature; do not harass old editors by suggesting they are past it; do not harass male editors by suggesting they would say that wouldn't they. And then all the sexual orientation and religious affiliation gibes that I barely understand; and more. Johnuniq (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Proposed addition to "Avoiding personal attacks"
There is a proposal to add a short paragraph to the "Avoiding personal attacks" section of the No personal attacks policy page. The discussion is Proposed addition to "Avoiding personal attacks". Your participation is welcome. Lightbreather (talk) 00:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Photographs as personal information
I was recently blocked for tweeting and linking to a photograph of an editor, though the photograph contained no name or other personal information, under WP:OUTING. I think it should be made more clear that photographs are verboten. Phil Kerpen (talk) 02:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Other contact information
Under Posting Personal Information there's the sentence: Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, other contact information, or photograph whether any such information is accurate or not.
What is classified as other contact information? As an example, Would it be accounts a person has on another site or forum? --Kyohyi (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Somebody recently added [1] "including any other accounts on any other web sites" to that phrase, without any visible discussion here, allegedly after off-wiki discussion on a functionaries e-mail list (which I haven't checked). I believe that clause does not have consensus in the present form and certainly doesn't reflect established practice. While I can certainly imagine situations where posting claims about other websites may constitute harassment, there are certainly situations where it doesn't. If somebody posts, say, on Wikipediocracy under the username of "Newyorkbrad" and states – on Wikipediocracy – that he is the same "Newyorkbrad" as the one here on Wikipedia, then no matter whether our on-Wiki Newyorkbrad has previouly also confirmed that identity here or not, I will have no qualms addressing him about it here (for example in order to find out whether it's really him or an impostor).
- Among factors that I believe commonly contribute to making open discussion of such identifications justified are the following:
- The apparent identity between the on-wiki and off-wiki accounts is deduced from data that was made freely available on either site (e.g. shared nicknames on both sites)
- The other site is being used by the off-wiki account to discuss Wikipedia matters, especially if it is done in an attempt to influence an on-wiki situation
- The off-wiki account claims to be a Wikipedia editor, and their statements and attitude (POV, cooperation with other accounts, etc.) appear consistent with those of the on-wiki account
- The off-wiki activity does not link to more real-life identifying data (real names etc.) than the on-wiki account does.
Depending on the combined presence or absence of these and other factors I can see that there may be a gray area between what is or isn't legitimate, but the strong statement as it is now certainly doesn't work. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: For further information, see here. Flyer22 (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)