Wikipedia talk:Harassment

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

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

Archives

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

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

"administrators have exactly the same right"

Sorry for the silly question. Why is this sentence centered and in bold? Doesn't it look too emphatic?

In case of problems administrators have exactly the same right as any other user to decline or withdraw from a situation that is escalating or uncomfortable, without giving a reason, or to contact the Arbitration Committee if needed.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The text was added with this formatting by FT2 in 2008.[1] It doesn't appear to have been discussed since. – Joe (talk) 11:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that if we want to emphasize this sentence, putting same right as any other user in bold would be enough. The sentence doesn't need to be centred, which makes it look as if it were attached to the template {{User difficultblocks}} rather than part of the policy. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(This is in the "Assistance for administrators being harassed" section.) I agree that it should be reformatted. It definitely should not be centered, and I also agree with limiting the bold font in that way. It should just be in regular text, below where that template is shown. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if it's actually necessary; the fact that it has never been discussed in 16 years makes me suspect not. It's obviously uncontroversial but it mostly just seems to reiterate the second paragraph of the section. --Aquillion (talk) 23:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably not really necessary to include that part, but there's nothing wrong with acknowledging that admins have the same rights as everyone else. In any case, there seem to be no objections to changing the formatting, so I made that change ([2]). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editing under one's real name

This has probably been discussed here before but I can't find it in the archives: if a user edits under their real name, and a Google search of that real name reveals an undisclosed COI, is it OUTING to reveal the knowledge of that connection? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know the name they're editing under is their real name if they haven't already outed themselves (as I have)?

But it's pretty common on AfDs to see article editors have usernames that appear to be related to the subject of the AfD, and often for that appearance of relation to be discussed by AfD participants or the cause for questioning whether that editor has a COI; for a recent example see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shirley Ho. I tend to think that instances of this sort should not count as outing because we have no more actual information about identities after the discussion than we had before, and because we do not even have a suggestion for connection that was not already obvious before. If we're going to discuss patterns of COI editing as problematic in AfDs (and we should), that discussion needs to not be hobbled by COI editors who never admit a COI and by rules that prevent us from discussing potential undisclosed COIs. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There may be some cases where a wikilawyer could claim otherwise, but standard procedure is that any attempt to draw attention to personally identifying information is WP:OUTING. I think I saw a recent discussion on some new thing to privately report concerns, but the old fallback was to email succinct evidence to the Arbitration Committee (see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee#Contacting the Committee). They are overwhelmed so a response may be slow. Asking what to do at WP:COIN may get a better answer. Johnuniq (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: Thanks for the feedback. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COIVRT exists and was, at least when I exited ArbCom 6 weeks ago, the preferred location for most such reports. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's permissible to connect a Wikipedia username to on-wiki activities: often a clear indicator of a COI is similarity between a username and the title of a biography said user has created. Extrapolating that to information not available on-wiki - or even on-wiki information that has clearly been removed at a user's request, even if it's still technically visible - is outing, and not permitted. If there is off-wiki evidence of on-wiki abuse, it should be sent to COIVRT, or ARBCOM, as appropriate. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Search for my name. You will find a lot of us. Doug Weller talk 17:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will probably return to this thread when I'm not headed out the door, but when you're at a Google search of that real name you're already in "private info" territory, unless they disclose on their user/talk page. Primefac (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In cases where it's the same name as the subject of a Wikipedia bio, Google search of that real name is entirely appropriate for editors of that bio or contributors to an AfD of it, even if it happens to also be similar to the name of an editor who contributed to the bio. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have a bizarre understanding of privacy on this project, if anything that comes up on a Google search can be considered 'private info'. – Joe (talk) 04:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do. I've run across the same thing with biographies, where people insist that information contained in reliable sources which are actually cited in the article is "private information" and inappropriate to include in the article. It is...bizarre, to say the least, but people do think that way. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have a project where people think that (in some cases) posting about something a person did with the same account is over the line and can be OUTING. Wikipedians definitely value privacy rights. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The arbs have heard a number of related issues at the ARB notice boards in the last year. With the creation of the COI VRT queue, and the fact that arbcom continues to exist, I struggle to see why you would need to publicly disclose that sort of connection. I remain of the opinion that if you are having to search outside of Wikipedia to connect the dots, that's still outing. Obviously we can't stop people from googling things, but we can stop them from posting about it.
Further, even if someone is using what appears to be their real name, that doesn't mean that it is their name. Nor is there a guarantee that you've googled the right person. Remember, on the internet, no one knows you're a dog.
Bottom line: if you think someone editing under their real name has a conflict of interest that they haven't disclosed, don't risk harassment in the first place: email the COI VRT queue. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In cases where a potential COI is relevant for determining the outcome of an AfD, is there any reason to expect this mechanism to produce a result within the timeline of the AfD? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for arbcom, only myself as an oversighter. In the example you gave above, it was framed as a possible autobiography at AFD, which is something anyone could guess at given the username of the creator and the name of the article. I see no semblance of OUTING there. Compare that to "The name of the creator is the same screen name that the head of communciations for this company used on WikiFoo" which would, for me, clearly fall into OUTING and I'd use the tools accordingly. Now what @CaptainEek's rosy COIVRT message elides is that the queue is backup enough such that by the time it figures out the COI elements, any AfD (even one relisted a couple of times) is likely to be over. But, crucially, there being a COI shouldn't, on its own, dictate an AFD: notability should. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein just to make sure I'm not missing something: aside from WP:TNT reasons, is there any reason someone's COI would be AfD relevant? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content is a reason for deletion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is that relevant to whether someone has a COI? If there is encyclopaedic content it should not be deleted, if there isn't (and there is no scope for any) it should be. Neither requires any knowledge about whether COIs exist. Thryduulf (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another approach that seems acceptable under this policy and that has been used a long time in COI cases is to politely ask the editor on their talk page whether they have a COI with respect to [name of article], but without saying why you asked the question. It doesn't mean you'll get a truthful reply, but it isn't harassment, and when the editor is acting in good faith, they may well understand the issue and quickly realize that they should fix the problem, which avoids the need for escalation. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to Trypto. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]