Wikipedia talk:Private correspondence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Miscellany for deletion This page was nominated for deletion on 2007-12-17. The result of the discussion was closed as defective.

Contents

[edit] New proposal

Based on comments on the Durova arbcom from Mackensen and Jehochman. • Lawrence Cohen 19:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to reitarate my comments in the arbitration decision - I think the copyright issue is a cop-out. Raul654 (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The real issue is incompatibility with Wikipedia's GFDL licensing. "Only public domain resources can be copied without permission—this does not include most web pages or images." - Jehochman Talk 19:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This is, rather, a privacy issue, and a matter of courtesy. In particular, I don't want editors to be looking over their shoulder when they give confidential opinions about Wikipedia matters. We can do without the kind of witch-hunting atmosphere that would result from relaxing out longstanding policy against the posting of private communications. It would be heaven for trolls, and not much fun for anybody else. --Tony Sidaway 19:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems some of the Arbiters and a lot of the community disagree, though. Do you think User:!!'s posting here of a summary and snippets of Durova's evidence was acceptable? While Giano's copy/paste was Oversighted and removed, this posting from !! has stood. Clearly, if some reposting wasn't acceptable of private correspondence, this would have been removed as well. • Lawrence Cohen 19:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a particular view on how we word the policy yet, but I don't want to see people posting private emails on Wikipedia without good reason, and it's obvious to me (and from the evidence on the proposed decision page, to the committee) that posting Durova's email was a side-issue to the fact that she blocked an editor of high reputation whose behavior wasn't at all disruptive, and failed to justify the block except by vague references to discussions with unnamed individuals.
Obviously it's better to discuss potential blocks beforehand, there's nothing to be criticised in such activity, but if one does then block one had better be prepared to justify the action openly by producing evidence of user misconduct on-wiki, except in rare cases involving oversight, checkuser and other Foundation-controlled activity. I don't think a written policy on this matter is going to get much traction at dispute resolution, since it obviously isn't in Wikipedia's interests to condone the posting of confidential material. Each case, in other words, will be judged on its merits by the Committee. There's nothing we can write here that would be a definitive or even reliable guideline on when and how it is okay to post confidential communications, private correspondence, or whatever else that is normally treated as private. --Tony Sidaway 20:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Public posting on Wikipedia

Much of this is simply lifted right from Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova_and_Jehochman/Proposed_decision#Everyone_else, to start it out. • Lawrence Cohen 19:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

To the extent that this has validity it is redundant with the proposed arbitration decision or the broader Wikipedia:Confidential evidence. DurovaCharge! 19:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

To be fair this doesn't apply just to Wikipedia political or dispute resolution, but outside and other private correspondence. Also, ArbCom doesn't make policy, right? • Lawrence Cohen 20:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
There's also a problem that this proposal appears to be giving legal advice. DurovaCharge! 22:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
We can fix it. - Jehochman Talk 22:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Check now. • Lawrence Cohen 22:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delete

This proposed guideline does not add anything useful and is covered by common sense. I don't think it is needed. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Between common sense, the ArbCom's decision in the Durova case, and things said elsewhere I don't think we need an entire policy on this. Also agreed that the rationale isn't great - it's not a copyright matter. Wikidemo (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Instruction creep. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
True, but let's see how it turns out. We could learn something. --Tony Sidaway 20:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

To reply to the original Tim Vickers' post, yes this is just common sense. However, some Wikipedians don't have enough of it and claim that there are some "rules" involved and whistle blowing is sanctionable. It is sad that we have to codify ethics into policies. The reason we have to do it is that some don't have enough of common sense. --Irpen (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You do not write policies to describe common-sense actions. That is classic instruction creep type-thinking. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, what is common sense here? Obviously posting refactored or excerpted private correspondence is completely accepted. Giano's copy/paste posting was Oversighted by Cary Bass (or someone else?) from his talk page. However, !!'s posting of the exact same material in an alternate format was completely acceptable as public ArbCom evidence. • Lawrence Cohen 20:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If it was such common sense, we wouldn't be having a raging debate that lasted several days already. - Jehochman Talk 20:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The argument about letters and e-mails being covered by copyright law is pretty absurd. Copyrights are only intended to protect people from unfair commercial exploitation of their work. If every time you forward an e-mail from one person to another you break the law, then the law is an ass. This is simply a matter of politeness and social norms. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
What is your view on the fact that Durova's email, as copy/pasted by Giano, is considered unacceptable, but the alternate version of the exact same material as posted by User:!! in evidence is acceptable? • Lawrence Cohen 20:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Neither is illegal under copyright law. I am not familiar with the circumstances, so I don't know if either was a justified breach of our personal expectations that correspondence remains private. If it was wrong, this was a lapse of ethics. People should apply their common sense to each situation, this is not something you can write an effective or useful policy about. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
You'll never hear me say "instruction creep," but I think we are better not trying to fix the mercury here. I think we end up with bad results no matter what. Anything, accurate or not, will act as proof of what someone is allowed to do and simultaneously used to beat on people for doing what they should do. In other words, there is an element of WP:BEANS involved, and it also leads us to offering yet another alphabet soup citation that will get hurled with more violence than sense. I understand the impulse behind the page creation, but I do not think that we can do it, and I agree with Tim Vickers that we do not need to. Therefore, without the need, and with every possibility of disaster, I have to say that it's trouble all the way around. I applaud the effort and the impulse, but I just don't think we do much good trying to weigh such things. Geogre (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Modifications

I made several modifications. First, I added the plain obvious thing that we are dealing with the social norms and ethics here rather than copyrights and other law-related issues. Unless disclosure violates a contractual pledge and constitutes a contract breach (a legal issue), there is no legalese here to talk about. We are dealing purely with ethics-related issue here and this should be stated from the onset.

Second, I eliminated the suggestion that was implying that posting to Wikipedia Review is more acceptable than to Wikipedia. Posting anywhere is unacceptable in most save very few circumstances and when those circumstances are met, we are better off cleaning our own house than aiding WR in any way.

Third, I modified the ArbCom section to show that snitching to ArbCom is different from posting to public but less different than some think. Forwarding private stuff to ArbCom violates privacy too. The main issue is whether the violation is warranted rather than the method of violation (ArbCom, Wikipedia post or Wikipedia Review post)

Finally I added a reminder how to avoid any embarrassment whatsoever. Has Durova done nothing inappropriate, have our #admin IRCers said nothing inappropriate, we would not be having all these rage in the first place. --Irpen (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent changes. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree, and I'm dismayed to see some user or other employing logging out to try to evade 3RR in reverting. Geogre (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Durova arbcom in see also

I readded them (Jehochman had pulled them out earlier). At the least, the link to !!'s evidence section seems directly relevant, given that was a clearly acceptable use of private correspondence on Wikipedia. • Lawrence Cohen 21:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware if linking to Arb cases in this manner is standard practice. A link to the arbitration might help people to understand the circumstances which led to this policy's creation. Linking to a specific part of the arbitration is probably overkill, unless there's a really pressing reason. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General cluelessness of the original version

It ignores not only a core Wikipedia principle, respect for anonymity, but also many previous arbcom statements like email is outside their domain and that evidence that reveals identities should be submitted as confidential evidence. This was the most ill-advise bit of pseudopolicy in some time. I've fixed it to reflect how things are traditionally done. 64.237.4.140 (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Where did my bare bones initial draft or the subsequent expansions by Irpen, WAS, and Jehochman advocate or enable outing identities in any way? Please cite the text that did so? Also, please remain WP:CIVIL, which is mandatory. Thanks! • Lawrence Cohen 21:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Not only was it flat wrong you apparently didn't take the time necessary to actually find out the preferred method for confidential evidence, but it was a recipe for disruption and legal threats. 64.237.4.140 (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Please login to your account. Your acting like that is most disrespectful. --Irpen (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tony's changes, and anon IP

Starting a section to discuss this before we start warring in a silly fashion. Lets figure out consensus, rather than going by lone opinions. • Lawrence Cohen 21:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoever it is is now susceptible to a block. Let's please avoid such horrors. No one benefits from peevishness, and I simply hate touching that button. Geogre (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Several of the changes make a lot of sense. It certainly isn't ok to revert to a grammatically incorrect version. More importantly

  • telling people "don't put things in writing that you don't want to turn up" is silly. It doesn't belong in any policy document. Putting it there only allows people to wikilawyer after they do wrong.
  • the "secretive culture of the arbcomm" doesn't belong in a policy document - culture is culturel it's subject to change. We can't make rules based on the culture of a small group, a culture that we can't control. In addition, of course, it's unverifiable. Guettarda (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Amazing that you wanted to go back to the anon's version, though, instead of leaving the changes that make a lot of sense. Saying that one should never write in e-mail what would does not want to be public is an ancient nugget of wisdom. The point is that nothing may be used to reason on-Wiki actions privately. Wikipedia was not set up that way. It was set up on the model of the open slate. Therefore, retreating to irc to have "private" talk about things to be done on Wikipedia is inappropriate, but so is insisting on all discussion being by e-mail. The specifics surrounding the Durova case is that she uses e-mail for positively everything. This means another attempt at irresponsibility, or at least unindictability, and an attempt at making one's actions seem more mysterious, more magical, and more impersonal. The attempt here is to say, "E-mail won't give you those things." If you use it inappropriately, count on someone making it public. The same is true of irc. The same is true of blogs. The same is true of anything used to increase opacity. Never think that you can be private and secret if you send it or show it. That's the long and short of "secret" evidence. I think the statement should be done in blinking letters. Geogre (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

A small addition to what Geogre said. That ArbCom has a secretive culture is an undeniable fact. Saying so is not its criticism in any way. Both its bashers and its fans agree on fact. The matter at hand is why forwarding to ArbCom is less privacy invasive and the reason why is the ArbCom's secrecy. Oh, and thanks for logging in. --Irpen (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Off wiki

We're not regulating off-wiki conduct. If users want to violate each other's privacy by forwarding emails, that not our concern, up until the moment they post on wiki. - Jehochman Talk 22:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expectation of privacy, mail forwared to ArbCom

I agree with this edit. If I send a private email to Irpen about George, and Irpen turns and mails it to ArbCom, Irpen has now breached the privacy between us by bringing who knows how many third parties into my private conversation. The same principle would apply whether Irpen forwarded that mail to ArbCom, User:Whomever, or his mother. • Lawrence Cohen 22:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Really? If Arbcom requires to share this information, for example like federal athorities, should it not comply? You send it is not yours anymore. So do not send what you do not whant shown. We are not some underground hidden society, like some Cabal of the lower house of chambers, we are not BlackOPs, we are not some Fraternity of Brotherhood. We are transperent orgonization bound by principals and law of the society. We do confirm to WP:NPOV and that is what differentiates us from all the rest. Honest and True to the Core! Igor Berger (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This is bullshit

We do not publish provate or confidential information. That's why ArbCom publishes an email address. Most especially, referencing a current case, we don't do it when the information is already with ArbCom in its entirety. And we most absolutely 100% especially do not do it when the primary purpose is to harass, intimidate or humiliate someone, for example by blackmailing them, as happened this time out. Which is why the proposal as written was a crock. Guy (Help!) 00:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I was working on a rewrite at the same time Guy, I've posted that too now. I removed all reference to copyright, mentioned that it's ok to post with the sender's permission, and I also mentioned that the AC can permit the forwarding of correspondence where it considers it appropriate. I think this may be more cognizant with established principles, but your wording looks pretty good too. --bainer (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


We do not publish private info, true, but only because it is socially unacceptable. For the very same reason, it is totally acceptable and appropriate under exceptional circumstances. The reason of what "happened this time out" is that this sneaky email was written in the first place rather than that it was forwarded.

As far as the policy goes, it is only clear about revealing RL identities. Show me the provision under which an editor who receives an email threat and posts it to ANI to request an action should be blocked. --Irpen (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

User:evrik was blocked for a month, later reduced to a week, for posting on ANI an email he believed was harassing. I believe the posting has been oversighted, but the matter came up in regard to a RfAr.[1] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Guy, you're spot on in your analysis and a little rude with the language, both as I've come to expect. I approve of both short versions, and don't approve of the philosophizing meta-speaking long version, which seems to leave some room for people to take it upon themselves to decide that it's okay. Everything here is a social decision. Language is a social act. That doesn't mean we can't take an absolute approach to banning breaches of the social code. Allow people to publish private email at will according to their own determination that the sender did something wrong and all hell will break loose. No, a harassing or threatening email should not be published either. The best approach would be to forward it to a trusted admin, or else post in AN/I that you've received a threat without reposting it, and take it from there. Wikidemo (talk) 01:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Guy's version is a big improvement. I have doubts about attempting to post private e-mail with the sender's permission, since publication here entails GDFL license. That seems like something Wikimedia's counsel should decide. Still seems like instruction creep since the Copyright policy could be amended and that's watched a lot more closely. DurovaCharge! 02:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
JzG's version is the only accurate version, previous versions were way out of step with established practice. Furthermore, the edit warring and piling-on by the originators of this proposal on those who tried to correct it was also way over the line and disruptive. I'm not going to speculate on motives publicly for creating such an obviously baseless proposal, but for anyone familiar with current disputes, there's little doubt as to the intent. This page bears careful watching for now on. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Versions prior to JzG's version were the accurate versions; JzG's version and similar recent versions are way out of step with current community consensus. Furthermore, the edit warring and piling-on by JzG and his meat puppets on those who tried to correctly represent current consensus is also way over the line and disruptive. I'm not going to speculate on motives publicly for edit warring in such an obviously baseless proposal, but for anyone familiar with current disputes, there's little doubt as to the intent. This page bears careful watching for now on. WAS 4.250 06:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you really mean that? It's a great feeling to know I have meatpuppets, I'd like to know who they are so I can make better use of them. I often feel as if I'm the Aunt Sally here. Guy (Help!) 23:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Any coin has two sides.

I have added the other side of this one to the proposal. What happens off-wiki, stays off-wiki, unless you ARE willing to bring it on-wiki. —Random832 04:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sorry I just womped it. Could you try to rephrase that? My concern is that use of private information is no big deal. People can consult tarot cards if they like, so long as they can explain their actions clearly and justify what they are doing with proper evidence. - Jehochman Talk 05:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
But when they refuse to do so (or they lie), there should not be sanctions against someone, who happens to know what their reasons actually were, disclosing it in their stead.—Random832 05:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
That seems to be the question of the day. Let us see how it is decided. We can also refer to Wikipedia:Confidential evidence that may already cover the point you wish to make. - Jehochman Talk 05:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to propose the wording "If a user refuses, on request, to disclose the basis for an on-wiki administrative action (stating that the basis was something on OTRS, a privately-made arbcom decision, checkuser data, or an OFFICE action is sufficient disclosure), it is presumptively concluded that there was no basis beyond 'i felt like doing it'." - basically something to clearly get across "private evidence is no evidence" (Except, of course, for arbcom/otrs/office/checkuser). —Random832 06:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If that belongs anywhere (and I don't think it does) it is not this page. --bainer (talk) 06:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
If someone flatly refuses to justify any action - from a minor edit right up to blocking User:Jimbo Wales and deleting the main page - then it gets undone. Simple. We allow mistakes, we expect mistakes to be swiftly rectified. Guy (Help!) 23:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree, that might be something more for Wikipedia:Confidential evidence, doesn't seem relevant to this particular aspect of policy. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

User:Bcorr/Plautus, acceptable or not? How's it different from what Giano did? (Note: I do, for the record, think that this is acceptable, but a lot of the reasons people are opposed to what Giano did would also apply here.) I think making a policy that says it is flat-out NEVER acceptable to post the contents of an e-mail is a mistake. —Random832 17:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes or no, is it acceptable under what you intend this policy to be? —Random832 21:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that page clearly violates the community norm against posting emails. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that page, and the fact that it has stood unchallenged for three and a half years, is a testament to the non-existence of any such community norm. This was at best an opportunistic attack on Giano, and at worst an attempt to prevent Durova's actions from being scrutinized.—Random832 00:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
User sub pages aren't seen much, so I don't think that is representative. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
It also assumes anyone knew about it. Guy (Help!) 23:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why I wrote the first draft - can you guys please just explain why one is acceptable, the other not?

I agree that straight direct posting (in its entirety) of an entire mail, *unless* its somehow open source, or posted to a public, open-source list, *or* you have permission is not a good idea at all. However, User:!!'s posting of excerpts and analysis of Durova's email in the ArbCom evidence clearly acceptable. Giano's posting was removed repeatedly, and finally oversighted, but the !! evidence was not touched. Why was the !! version acceptable? My view of the disconnect is that there is clearly room to do this, quoting a mail, analyzing it, and demonstrating who sent it. By that token, if User:Blah mailed me an offensive mail, threatening me, it would be wrong to directly paste it into an ANI report, but I don't see why it would be wrong to say User:Blah sent me an offensive harassing mail, with the gist of it/summation, on ANI. Please help me understand? • Lawrence Cohen 18:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The !! version is acceptable and Giano's is not because Giano is an easy target and no-one has the guts to attack !!. You're confusing political maneuvering with a consistently-applicable principle. —Random832 21:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Posting an email in full and quoting it directly both violate the presumption of privacy that the writer expects. Summarizing the contents of an email is different, and is allowable. Emails, IRC logs, forum postings, and other off-site communications should not be quoted as evidence in ArbCom cases unless they contain harassment that is part of the case. In those rare circumstances the material should be submitted to the ArbCom privately. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
So why was !!'s evdidence not removed? Lawrence Cohen • I support Giano. 22:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you think it should be? If so I suggest asking a clerk to do it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Thats a great non-answer. Maybe there should be a policy proposal that any and all policies are applied at all times evenly, for all users. Lawrence Cohen • I support Giano. 23:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Is your question about how this proposal should be written, or about how it should be enforced it in a specific, active incident? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My reaction

I have drafted a caveat on my userpage stating that by communicating with me off-Wiki any person is giving me permission to disseminate any content received, including copies of other correspondence contained therin (whose permission to allow use is assumed given to the correspondent). If you don't wish your "private" messages to me to be posted... stay away. LessHeard vanU 00:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that a disclaimer like that would have any standing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
You should be easily contactable by email. Please don't do anything to deter people who may need to contact you over an edit or conduct issue. --Tony Sidaway 00:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I've removed it. It represents a curtailment of the general ability of users to contact administrators, which, per long-standing community practice on the "contactability" of admins, is not acceptable. --bainer (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The person displaying that disclaimer is an admin? Yikes! --Tony Sidaway 00:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
People are free to contact me, and make any points they wish, by email (or whatever means) - but if they are going to violate Policy, or the Law, or Good Taste then I shall not allow bleatings of "privacy" or "copyright" to disallow me bringing the matter to the attention of the community. It is made clear near to the "mail this user". People bringing legitimate concerns privately may do so without fear. LessHeard vanU 01:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we can post "caveats" that allow us to violate policies. This is no more valid than if I were to post a caveat on my talk page announcing that WP:NPA doesn't apply to me. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
There is no violation of privacy in a cyberspace if that cyberspace is clearly labeled as a non-private space. WAS 4.250 06:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Nope, but my caveat makes clear that I will not allow a policy of "Private Correspondence" to over-rule my ability to combat other violations of the rules and policies. If someone conducts a personal attack on me or a third party in a "private" message then my admin duty is clear - the caveat clarifies that. I am not violating policy in the wording, I am stating that by contacting me the sender gives permission to disseminate such information (which would include the identity of the sender if forwarding other persons sensitive material). To quote Burke, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing". I don't intend to be muzzled in bringing violations to the attention of others. LessHeard vanU 10:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC) ps. my caveat gives me the ability, but not the requirement. It is a matter of judgement.
You appear to be saying that if someone wrote you messages like "You're a jerk", or "I'm actually a sock puppet and my other account is X", that you'd be justified in posting them verbatim in public, including the email address and IP headers. And that this is your right regardless of the views of the Wikipedia community, just becasue you have a disclaimer buried on a user page. Those alone seem like problematic issues. It leaves me wondering what would happen if the community disagreed that the email you posted was actually harassing, or felt that the sock puppeteer wasn't using them abusively and so shouldn't have had them disclosed. That approach seems to require too many value judgments, and it's simpler and easier all the way around to simply prohibit posting private emails across the board, with no allowance for opting-out via disclaimers. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
If someone messaged me to comment that they think I'm a jerk I would WP:IGNORE it, if someone admitted to being an abusive sockpuppet I would make a request at WP:SSP, or contact ArbCom, to ascertain the facts - as I would without this policy. You mistake my acting to make disclosure permissable to a declaration that I will in every and all instances post the contents of a message. Not so. I am reserving the right to post the material if I believe the situation warrants it.
In the event of me exercising this option, like any admin my actions are then subject to review. If I am found to have acted inappropriately, whether regarding the disclosure or the subject matter, then I am open to rebuke and sanction as the community decides. All I am ensuring is that serious malpractice or disclosure of information vital to the interests of Wikipedia cannot be suppressed by declaring that the content is private. LessHeard vanU 17:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
You cannot simply declare yourself exempt from policy. I have removed it again. --bainer (talk) 11:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
It's not policy, as there sure isn't any consensus for this page as written. But I'm pretty sure people don't think anyone should edit war over an admin's user page. R. Baley 11:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I have not exempted myself from policy. I have permission from any Wikipedian who sends me an off-wiki message to disclose the contents of their messages, per my caveat. Policy refers to the posting of messages without permission.LessHeard vanU 17:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tagged as policy

As the current form of words has long been an unwritten policy of Wikipedia, I've taken the liberty of tagging the document as policy. Changes to the wording should be carefully discussed with the intention of gaining consensus. --Tony Sidaway 00:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added the following:

Any uninvolved administrator may remove private correspondence posted to Wikipedia without the permission of the sender.

Please revert and discuss if you disagree with this change. --Tony Sidaway 00:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the addition you make is within what has been the practice. --Rocksanddirt 00:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
While I dispute that this has current consensus; I don't care much because posting short excerpts and paraphrase can accomplish the same thing. Someone sends "I will kill you" and I post "He said 'I will [murder] you' but he did not use the word "murder", he used a synonym that I am changing to "murder" to avoid breaking our idiotic clue-less rule on private correspondence." WAS 4.250 06:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
If there's a need to report it on-Wiki then the hypothetical email could be summarized as a "death threat". There's not need to quote the email itself. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsolicited mail

What is the situation with unsolicited mail? Supposing someone sends an unsolicited threat. Surely the recipient is within his rights to post it on Wikipedia if it's needed to show abuse. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

No. The nature of the email doesn't matter (after all, if it were acceptable to post email to show abuse, nothing would have happened to Giano), it's ALWAYS forbidden to post it. No exceptions, because if there were exceptions, this would have been the first. (To clarify - yes; real, credible threats of real-world violence are in an entirely different universe from anything to do with wiki abuse. But they should nevertheless not be posted to wikipedia, they should be forwarded directly to real-world law enforcement. Because, really, what are we supposed to do about it?) —Random832 01:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I see no reason that we have to respect the copyright and privacy of people who send us unsolicited threats. And most threats aren't things you can take to the police, so that's a red herring. Who is saying it is always forbidden to post e-mail, even if unsolicited, even if threatening? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
See Will's reply to me above, and Tony's comments all over. My belief was that User:!!'s unchallenged posting of Durova's email shows that this idea of never ever posting emails is something that a small group of people made up. Durova's mail about !! was pure harassment and borderline stalking, so that would probably fall under what you are saying. Lawrence Cohen • I support Giano. 02:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I think we're talking about different issues. I'm not talking about borderline situations where people have different views of the e-mails, as is clearly the case here. I'm talking about unambiguous cases, where a user threatens an admin who blocks him, for example. It's not a good idea to post such e-mails, but I wouldn't like to see it made against policy. If I'm in correspondence with someone and he threatens me, then that could be regarded as part of the private correspondence. But if a threat comes out of the blue, there's no reason we should have to respect the copyright. That's ludicrous, in fact. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the threat item would be better handled by forwarding to a) appropriate law enforcement, b) the foundation, and c) the arbcomm should the potential for the user to still be active exist. I can't think of a situation where it would be appropriate to post the threats here. I could be incorrect. --Rocksanddirt 03:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I had an interesting conversation with Seth Finkelstein about this. He is a expert on Internet privacy who I respect. My understanding of what he said is that:

  1. Email is generally private, except that
  2. Very ugly email might be post-able as an informal sanction, and
  3. Exceptional circumstances can override privacy, such as evidence of wrongdoing by people in power.

This is a perspective. - Jehochman Talk 02:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Jonathan. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 05:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
If someone sends an email so harassing that it merits on-Wiki action then it should be forwarded directly to the ArbCom. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 05:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
If I might comment a bit late, I think Slim's point is a good one to consider. Privacy is an important consideration, but is it absolute? – Luna Santin (talk) 01:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uninvolved admins

The same as admins aren't allowed to exert any special status at all when they are involved in a conflict (blocking, protecting, deleting) common sense that it should apply here to. Lawrence Cohen • I support Giano. 02:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

As I noted in my edit summary, we allow any admin to remove improper material, such as BLP violations, copy-vio, attacks, etc. Removal of privacy violations should be no different. Crum375 06:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll defer. What things are involved admins not allowed to do? Lawrence Cohen • I support Giano. 10:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IRC

I've removed IRC because it's not private and it's not correspondence. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 06:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you say the same about mailing lists, then? IRC, like mailing lists, has public and private channels. And much like with private mailing lists, posting IRC logs is extremely frowned upon. --krimpet⟲ 06:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
(ec) A misunderstanding, SV. Some flavors of IRC are definitely private. It depends if it's a one-to-one connection or a private room, or one of the more open channels. - Jehochman Talk 06:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
How are we defining a private channel? The admins channel, for example, is restricted, but as I understand it, anyone who's an admin may join. No one can tell an admin they're not allowed to register (so far as I know). Given we have well over 1,000 admins, that's not really private. I would accept that one-to-one should be covered, but where are we drawing the line? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 06:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
We draw the line with common sense. - Jehochman Talk 06:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Which is sadly in short supply. :-) Would you call the admins' channel private? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 06:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Not really. Anything more than 30 - 40 recipients will inevitably leak. - Jehochman Talk 06:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make the public/private distinction, it's going to have to be more precise than that. The admins' channel could have six people in it, or a couple of hundred. We can't decide whether it's private only after counting how many were actually there on any given occasion. So we do need a working definition of private. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 06:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Unless participants in an IRC discussion explicitly agree to release their comments under the GFDL, those comments can't be posted on-wiki, full stop. --krimpet⟲ 06:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Yup. - Jehochman Talk 06:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Could we see a source for this? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 17:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Even on a "public" IRC channel, you can know who is there at any given moment, so it's just like the mailing list you're pretending you don't own.—Random832 06:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The best way to look at this may be by focusing on the writer's expectation of public availability. On Wikipedia, we all know that it is disallowed to use IRC logs as evidence, and on WP IRC channels it's forbidden to log. Therefore, an IRC user has an expectation that the audience for his remarks is limited to the people in the channel. An IM chat has an even higher expectation of having a limited audience. Someone posting to a limited email list, even a large one, also has the expectation that their remarks will only be read by the subscribers of the list. OTOH, folks posting to a public, archived mailing list has no expectation of a limited audience, even if the list only has a few current subscribers. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Will, in what sense is it disallowed to use IRC logs as evidence? Posting chats may be discouraged by the people who run IRC, but that has nothing to do with Wikipedia. We can decide for ourselves whether IRC logs may be reproduced. And anyway the point for this policy is that an exchange in a public chatroom can't be regarded as "private correspondence," which is what this page is about. So if we want to say that some of it is private, we have to define what we mean. The issue of someone having an expectation that their discussion will remain private among the 400 people in a public channel, most of them anonymous, is clearly unworkable. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 17:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Historically speaking, most situations involving this sort of things have been to do with emails sent between users via the Special:Emailuser function. This is a channel of communication that's deliberately private, as opposed to user talk pages, and I believe has always been understood that way. I think the proper place to draw the line is at any channel where a user would have the same expectation of privacy; I would include any channel that a user provides to the community, for example if they listed their email address or instant messaging address on their userpage, or if they listed their IRC nick to facilitate private chat. --bainer (talk) 11:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I think we're getting in a knot for no reason here. If an admin wants to discuss a block with some people in order to ensure they are not making a call based on their judgement alone, then I don't really see why that should be a problem. It's explicit in policy that the final responsibility lies with the admin who clicks the button, and we all sign up for that, nobody is under any illusion that a block or deletion is unchallengeable because it's been discussed on IRC. There are several private mailing lists where admin actions are discussed, including lists for Arbcom and OTRS volunteers, there are IRC channels and there is private email. Any attempt to write a regulatory framework for those is going to fail. My company has spent a fortune on write-once storage systems for email, for regulatory compliance; Wikipedia does not use a common email system or enforce the use of any particular hosting provider for mailing lists, so even if we had the cash to do this (which we don't) it would be technically impractical. And in my view any attempt to stop private discussion is almost certainly going to have a detrimental effect by reducing the ability to get a sanity check or quiet CheckUser anyway. So we fall back to the original position: if you click the block button, you take the heat, exactly as for content edits. Guy (Help!) 12:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IRC's posting 'rules'

I was reading the IRC rules scattered around and searched for IRC in the AN and ANI logs. Since the "official" IRC channels are 100% seperate from Wikipedia and the Foundation, and have no legal or official relationship with them, isn't any rule made up by IRC operators unenforceable on Wikipedia? Their status as IRC ops is meaningless here, and their authority there, legitimate or illegitemate has no value here. If this is not true, can someone point out what policy on Wikipedia means their views on a 3rd party system carry any clout here? Lawrence Cohen • I support Giano. 17:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Whatever they want to do is fine, and ditto for us. Someone being an IRC op has no relevance on Wikipedia. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs)
What they say is irrelevant. The consequences of betraying their rules is that you might lose your access on their medium. IRC therefore can never stand in for on-site discussion, because it is 100% not-Wikipedia. This brings up, yet again, why Wikipedia links to it with pages. The present form of this essay, by the way, is ridiculous. I can only hope it's as fluid as I suspect it is. Mailing lists are not private, and there is no such thing as an open one, as opposed to a closed one, as all mailing lists have a list manager who approves those who join. There is, therefore, only the difference between a list administrator who welcomes all and one who does not. Once an e-mail is no longer really private, it's not private at all. Attempting to codify entre nous is not fruitful, and trying to enforce it is going to be another NPA -- all citation, no meaning, and enforcement without understanding. Geogre 12:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
A closed IRC channel is exactly the same as a closed mailing list. Privacy is expected. Logging is a red herring. Emails are routinely stored on local hard drives or in private webmail folders in exactly the same way that IRC channels are sometimes logged. Logging and storage of communications does not equate to lack of privacy. --Tony Sidaway 06:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
A private forum is a private forum, regardless of type. This policy need not concern itself with the particular mechanisms of the forum, beyond recognizing that the forum is (or isn't) private, and taking appropriate on-wiki action for on-wiki behavior. That's my understanding, anyhow. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested solution

I think it is clear that there is in fact no version of this that has been adequately thought through, and that common sense is the only real solution. The point of copying an email is to communicate information. That same information can be communicated without direct quotes. Game shows do it all the time. Any proposal of this nature simply turns straight forward communication into a game show like event where the audience is supplied with enough clues that they can accurately guess exactly what was said without it being said directly. This only increases drama. I suggest we let this proposal die. WAS 4.250 06:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

But since half the current arbcom mess is because of this issue, shouldn't it be detailed in a community accepted way? Lawrence Cohen • I support Giano. 08:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it is necessary to have this discussion. But there is no consensus and I don't think both sides are even listening. I think in the end it will simply be more drama of the BADSITES kind where one side says there are going to be exceptions and the other side says no it is black and white, we are obviously right, you are being disruptive for disagreeing. WAS 4.250 11:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
This proposal doesn't come out of the blue. People have been blocked for posting emails without the formality of an ArbCom case and without any controversy. It's an accepted norm throughout society that it's inappropriate to post private emails without the consent of the sender. We're not writng new policy here, we're just setting down in black-and-white the existing policy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
It is an accepted norm in society that privacy is valued as well as information sharing and that people use their POV in deciding which to emphasis at any given moment so any give person or entity will say that should have been kept secret/private for some things and that should have been revealed for other things. Making up hair-spitting rules that distinguish between the posting of Giano and the posting of !! (which excerpted and summarized rather than directly wholesale quoted) is unwise and in the end will only increase drama. WAS 4.250 11:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Will, that's what we're doing in this version. The first version I saw pretty much said the opposite, which struck me as a truly terrible idea. Stated as it is now, it represents a fair statement of existing policy and consensus. We can revisit this if we ever have a case where a credible allegation is privately emailed to ArbCom and they flatly refuse to deal with it - I think it's unlikely that will happen since Wikipedia is pretty much endlessly tolerant of dissenting viewpoints even if some ways of stating them are considered problematic. Guy (Help!) 12:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
It has been de facto policy for many years that it is inappropriate to post private correspondence on the wiki, and this page in its current version simple recognises that. The earlier versions here were a departure from that position. --bainer (talk) 11:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. It's a long-standing consensus position, and the reason for even having this debate is a misrepresentation of somethign one editor did that was openly acknowledged by that editor to be "for your entertainment". Apparently I am being disruptive and creating drama by saying so, though :o) Guy (Help!) 12:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
We should stick to the completely non-controversial issues. Posting e-mails with the consent of the author, or private chats without the consent of both parties. Discussion on an open IRC channel is a different thing entirely. Let's stick to "private correspondence" as most reasonable people would understand it. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 17:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I think perhaps the criterion should be "correspondence with reasonable expectation of privacy." Open IRC would fail, as would any message with a very large and/or uncontrolled distribution list. Crum375 17:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
That would rule out the admins channel then. I've been told it's regarded as a channel for all admins on Wikimedia projects, and considering that includes someone who's an admin on an attack site, there can't be any reasonable expectation of privacy. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
That is false. #wikipedia-en-admins is first and foremost a channel for English Wikipedia admins, hence the name; a few trusted individuals with reasonable purpose to be there, such as stewards, OTRS correspondents, and Foundation folks, also have access, but admins on other projects are not granted access the way en.wiki admins are. --krimpet⟲ 19:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Guy, what you're being is combative. This page is currently a violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND (if folks will only read that and look, they'll see that it's about articles, not people). "We have to strip all changes and make it say what we said was always there" is not an answer, since the page came from the fact that there was no policy and should be no policy. Wikipedia has no business telling people how to interpret privacy, even in terms of itself. It must protect its editors, and it must protect itself against legal threat, but neither of those is within a hundred miles of Giano's posting of a multiply-forwarded e-mail to a listserver with a dozen recipients, after being on another list server with as many. Something that has an audience already of 20+ official and then + 10+ unofficial may still be within a circle of trust, but it's nowhere near private.
The fact is that Wikipedia and e-mail are unrelated. That's why this particular e-mail ended up here. Because on-Wiki actions were being discussed exclusively by e-mail, and because the "privacy" was acting as a protection against scrutiny and review by any dissenting voices, it was a matter of time before one of those in the chain letter posted it. Privacy was unaffected by posting it or not posting it. Punishing a person for not keeping a secret is obviously and absurdly distant from someone who did not respect privacy. There should not have been the one, and there was none of the other. Geogre 13:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm prepared to believe that I might be excessively combative here. Maybe I have reason. Maybe it's not a good enough reason. But in the end, we should not post the contents of private emails. The truth is, no block was discussed off-wiki. Durova honestly never gave the slightest indication she was intending to block. ArbCom had Durova's email, and Giano had ArbCom's email address. I do not think we should publicly post private emails, because we end up holding people to Wikipedia standards for off-Wiki actions. That may be justified in some very rare cases, but for the most part, not. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
"we end up holding people to Wikipedia standards for off-Wiki actions." This is a misleading statement in the context of Giano's recent actions. In that case on-Wiki actions were being justified with off-Wiki information released to a relatively small group (I would agree with Geogre that the mailing list would be best described as "secret", not "private"). I would also agree that a person's off-wiki behavior should not be dragged into Wikipedia, but the incident that started much of this wouldn't fall under that category, IMO. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 22:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I've been repeatedly struck by how unshakeable are the opinions of those not on the list, as to its purpose, content and constitution. Let me run this by you: how likely do you think it is that a harassment victim would be prepared to share the intimate details of their experience on an open list or on the wiki? One of the reasons the email trail started was precisely because people did not feel comfortable baring their souls in public, not least because such debates have had a tendency to be hijacked almost immediately by individuals pushing some agenda or other. It's not clear to me how, precisely, we were supposed to handle the issue of how to help victims of harassment without gaining insight from private discussion of details of individual incidents. We have Jimbo along to keep us on topic. There are others who are not part of what one might term "the cabal" (TINC). Guy (Help!) 13:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you're confusing me with one of those people who wants to know everything about the mysterious list. People can discuss things secretly off-wiki all they want, and I imagine they do. It's not a big deal, and certainly not Wikipedia's concern. The trouble is when on-wiki actions are justified using secret information, hence much of the concern over the mailing list. If it had only been used for personal discussions of incidents, I doubt we'd be having this debate. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 23:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GFDL and private email

I've removed the stuff about GFDL mailing lists. Obviously this policy pertains to private email and where mailing lists are involved, only closed mailing lists. --Tony Sidaway 19:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

  • It's a red herring anyway. There's no evidence that the list in question is GFDL (the GNU logo on the list management page is because the software is GPL). I've been through the Wikia documentation for list admins, GFDL for list postings is not mentioned anywhere I can find. It would be very unusual for a list to be GFDL without explicit acknowledgement. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, I gathered that the claims that the mailing list in the Durova arbitration was publicly licensed were nothing more than wishful thinking, and ignored them. --Tony Sidaway 22:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Tony: you're flat out wrong. You should not be in the habit of ignoring long time editors' opinions because you have not been moved. Guy, you're possibly wrong and possibly right. Guy appears to know the evidence, and that's a good thing, but he is interpreting it. It is unwise to put your interpretation forward so strongly that no one else may be tolerated. It was more than a software logo, Guy. You might know this. The fact that we're still keeping secrets means that I can't tell how vigorously to oppose what you've said. However, I will agree only this far: a mailing list is already not private. Again, "secret" it might be, but "expectation of privacy" it cannot have. Geogre 13:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Geogre,

You are so right sir! That is the law in the U.S., as well as, the U.K. Further, Wikipedia cannot change the law; the tax status of the U.S. based Wikipedia cannot change laws that are for all people. Thanks and I will try to be…… Nice 15:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The mailing list in question is not GFDL-licensed, and is private. Statements by anyone, whether longtime contributors or not, don't need to be taken notice of if they're clearly unpersuasive and amount to repeated statements without evidence (to do other than ignore such statements would waste time and effort). --Tony Sidaway 16:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit disappointed to see Geogre wading in in this way; it's not at all in keeping with his usual careful and thoughtful approach. We don't allow copyright violations because someone thinks it might not really be copyright, you have to prove it's public domain. In this case there is no evidence that it is public domain other than a GNU logo on the Mailman interface, which refers to the software itself (as do the other banners). Guy (Help!) 23:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Geogre, the logo refers to the software. If the contents of all mailing lists using that logo were GFDL-licensed, there'd be no point in having the option of a private list. Your argument is that if you and I exchange a few e-mails, with me emailing you directly and vice versa, it's private. But if I set up a closed mailman list, adding you and me as the only members, and with no public archive, any exchange between us is automatically public simply because we communicated via mailman. That makes no sense. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 23:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
It gets even sillier than that when you consider that there's an awful lot of GPL-licensed encryption software around. The private keys generated would presumably constitute public information, as would all messages encrypted using the public keys. Moreover, authors writing books, articles and papers using GPL-licensed software would, by Geogre's reasoning, have automatically released them under a public license the minute they sent the work to a publisher. --Tony Sidaway 00:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Correct. GPL licensing of software does not apply to contents GPL applications. This is a fundamental principle of GPL. Crum375 00:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh and I forgot that this is covered in GNU's own GPL FAQ. --Tony Sidaway 00:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Explicit rules against reposting

I have added this:

A chatroom or channel that has an explicit rule against posting content elsewhere is usually treated as private.

This is in keeping with past treatment of content from such sources. --Tony Sidaway 16:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright issues

I believe there are copyright issues involved in reposting private correspondence. I know that J.D. Salinger has sued to keep his love letters private. The law in respect to correspondence is that the physical letter belongs to the recipient but the words belong to the writer. Thus, it was okay for the recipient to sell the letters at auction, but not to publish the content. See http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/salinger.html Sarsaparilla 23:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

With regard to email, this would make passing the contents on (which is publishing within the meaning of copyright law) a tortious activity. However I think we should be clear that the reason we don't want people posting private emails is that they are private, and their content on a public website like Wikipedia is only rarely likely to do anything except cause disruption by making public that which was intended to be private. I may not like what X or Y say in private communications about my Wikipedia activities, but the place to tackle them about such off-site behavior is, if anywhere, off-site. --Tony Sidaway 00:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think the copyright issue is that anything posted to Wikipedia is supposed to have been released by the author into GFDL or be posted under some fair-use rationale. Otherwise, it doesn't belong here. This seems like basically just a subset of our regular copyright policy. Sarsaparilla 00:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IRC rules

The IRC rules are irrelevant to Wikipedia, because we make our own rules. What matters is whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in any given exchange. If yes, Wikipedia should respect that as a matter of courtesy. If not, then not. There is clearly no expectation of privacy in a public IRC channel, and none (or precious little) in the admins channel, which is logged, and which non-admins take part in. However, clearly, in a much smaller group, there is such an expectation, and that should be respected. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If there is no expectation of privacy in IRC, there is no expectation of privacy on a mailing list. And the fact that people do log the channel is every bit as immaterial as the fact that people leak messages from your mailing list: i.e. if a channel that is known to be logged in defiance of rules against it has no expectation of privacy, neither does a mailing list that has a history of people leaking messages. You have a leak and you don't know who it is. So, clearly you're not going to expect things to be private - thus no expectation of privacy. I do agree with you on this and have made the appropriate changes to the proposal to reflect this. —Random832 06:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
We had a leak and I do know who it was. The admins IRC channel on the other hand is logged all the time by several people, and no one has any expectation of privacy there. There's no point in pretending otherwise. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 06:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Regarding IRC logs, have they ever been posted without a negative response? Aside from privacy one concern I'd have about allowing IRC posts (and this also applies to emails to a lesser extent) is that readers of the material may not be able to establish who is "speaking". Nicknames on IRC may be unrelated to WP usersnames, may spoof WP usernames, and can change from moment to moment. Further, fake IRC logs and emails are easily created so their evidentiary value is low. I don't see the benefit from posting them publicly. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The key distinction, I think, is in whether it's a private mailing list/channel/whatever. If "expectation of privacy" is indeed the deciding factor, here, what better indicator than the policies of whatever forum? Note that I do favor public or semi-public release of most information, but prefer to do so via policy reform when possible. "Murder happens a lot, so expect to be murdered" strikes me as a bad rationale. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No leaker's charter

I've reverted an edit by User:Random832 saying:

Another example of a non-private list is one in which it is widely known that there are people "leaking" the content of posts, regardless of any rules against it.

and:

or a channel in which it is widely known that there are people making and posting logs of activity, regardless of any rules against it

This would be a leaker's charter, enabling malefactors to obtain private information and then post it to Wikipedia with impunity. --Tony Sidaway 07:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This was SlimVirgin's proposal regarding IRC; I simply added it to the page and applied the same logic to mailing lists. And, if they're posting actual personal information, that can be dealt with otherwise under existing policy, rather than by making it so that it is against the rules per se to post anything that's from a mailing list or IRC. —Random832 14:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

As for a "leaker's charter", I think we do need one - it needs to be made clear when it is appropriate to post such things, rather than simply a flat answer of "never".—Random832 14:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

  • But the flat answer is "never" - at least until we have a credible case that ArbCom refuses to handle. If an email is sent by someone to ArbCom and ArbCom give it due consideration and say "no", do we then need the contents published in Wikipedia space in the hope of getting a different answer? Is there any evidence that arbitrators would refuse to handle a credible allegation of abuse with private evidence? They don't seem to bme to be shy of doing that. Guy (Help!) 16:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • True, we should define when this is appropriate, otherwise people will assume WP:IAR is the threshold.--Rayc 16:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reason

When deciding to bock or not the reason why the disclosure was made is critical. Any sensible decision has to consider if the person who discloses the information was responding to a death threat, or if they were just trying to embarrass or harass somebody. I have added this to the proposal. Tim Vickers 18:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle, but amended your addition to reflect that both the reason and the extent of the violation of privacy should be taken into account and weighed against each other. R. Baley 18:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the need. Length of block is always up to the blocking admin, with due regard to mitigating circumstances, and of course prevention not punishment. This is no different. Guy (Help!) 18:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Good point. Adding specific instructions beyond "may be blocked" is unnecessary. Tim Vickers 18:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I am hesitant to endorse a document as 'policy' if it does not take into account the reason for posting in violation of someone else's privacy in an explicit manner. Some reasons for doing so are better than others and this should be acknowledged in some way within the policy itself. R. Baley 18:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
What reasons are you thinking of? Could listing them cause WP:BEAN-type problems? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to list anything, just an acknowledgement that sometimes there are extenuating circumstances. I'm mostly OK with Tim's latest edit, and I understand that we walk a fine line between 'no exceptions'/banhammer and giving tacit approval by not wording it strongly enough. R. Baley 19:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Although I agree this isn't strictly necessary, I tried to reword this to make it explicit that people should use their common sense. Tim Vickers 19:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

[2] Sorry, I had no idea you had already made your policy! Giano 23:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh and Crum, don't attack with WP Point allegations unless you can substanciate them! Giano 23:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Seems a point worth discussing. Are there any circumstances in which this policy would not apply? It's still {{proposed}}, might as well hammer out such details, now. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Some do not seem to want to discuss just revert. Giano 08:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Potential for conflict with content policies

Unless I am mistaken, we are here to build an encyclopedia. That's what it says on the front page. The crux of this policy will prevent editors from inserting good-faith and contextually appropriate information into articles. The second point conflicts with another proposed policy, WP:SECRET. How about you folks get your respective acts together and build one policy, preferably one that cannot be gamed to affect the reason we are all here, which is building an encyclopedia? Risker 23:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

When would emails or IRC logs involving WP editors be considered proper material for articles? They certainly aren't reliable sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Can you guarantee that any living person is not a Wikipedian? I personally know five people who are the subject of a Wikipedia article, and three of them have edited here. So they are indeed Wikipedians. Should a quote from some writing of those individuals show up in an article, we would be violating a Wikipedian's privacy. Will Beback, we have already been through this nonsense on WP:NPA where those who supported the additions kept insisting that there would be no effect on mainspace. Guess what...

The second and third paragraphs of his proposal are already covered under the proposed WP:SECRET policy and the WP:HARASS policy respectively. So tell me...if WP:HARASS gets changed, which policy takes precedence? This one or that one? How does anyone decide?

If you really feel that this very specific point must be addressed in a policy, please put it in an existing policy that relates to privacy. But I will point out that it contradicts the Foundation privacy policy, in that the Foundation doesn't guarantee this level of privacy, quite the opposite. Risker 23:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't follow. You wrote "The crux of this policy will prevent editors from inserting good-faith and contextually appropriate information into articles." What reliably-sourced, verifiable information would be kept out of articles if emails can't be posted? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I find it hard to imagine any context in which posting this sort of stuff on articles might come up. In the unlikely event it did, it could probably be argued that the text is hardly so private after being printed on the front page of the New York Times (or wherever). – Luna Santin (talk) 00:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I can understand that, but then it was difficult coming up with examples of possible issues when we were expressing the same concern on the WP:NPA policy. Amazingly, there were several incidents directly relating to article space specifically referencing that policy, only one of which fell into classifications we had identified in advance. Who knows whether or not such a quote from an email or a private mailing list will be relevant to an article? We cannot judge that without the context of the specific article. Thanks to many of the people who have drafted this policy, we had almost 8 months of wrangling over NPA, it was discussed at Arbcom in various processes at least four times, took up endless ANI threads, and disrupted the building of the encyclopedia. Risker 01:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
If something is reliably sourced, it might be iffy to consider it "private." – Luna Santin (talk) 01:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Ignore all rules applies. If there is an-otherwise private email that is verifiable, reliably sourced, and vitally important to an article, then I'm sure there'd be agreement to use it. I can't imagine how that circumstnace would come to pass and I don't think we should sweat over a hypothetical. Regarding NPA, the wrangling over the wording has continued actively since 2004 and has been discussed in ArbCom cases far more than four times. Yes, disputes over policy do disrupt the project. Blaming that on "you folks" or "many of the people who have drafted this policy" seems unfair. Let's focus on the issues this proposal needs to address rather than on each other. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Case studies

[edit] Case study, Durova disclosure

A real world, example as it was. Could each of you explain your take on this? I just want to get a grip on how this is viewed, since I keep seeing conflicting views from all of you. I'm still not understanding why some hold the view that "no disclosure, ever, period, full stop, nada, bannable" are saying that in no form should anything be released, when it clearly is acceptable in cases.

For example, User:Giano II's wholesale copy/pasting of User:Durova's harassment e-mail was unacceptable, but User:!! posting samples and snippets from it in a form of case study expose here was completely acceptable. Why is that? If User:!!'s version is unacceptable, why is that, and why hasn't it been removed if this is accepted as a zero-tolerance policy for posting such information? Lawrence Cohen 23:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Definitely worth looking into. Taking an offline example, consider which is more severe: "Hey, Steve and I talked about your mother-in-law, the other day," followed by a paraphrased summary, or playing a taped recording of the full conversation. Likewise, news publications which regularly quote snippets of conversations with reporters might not post a word-for-word transcript of those conversations. I won't pretend this is an easy or universal distinction, but hopefully it's enough to get a conversation going. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Thats why I asked about this example often on this page, and it was why I wrote the first draft of this page. I saw extreme measures to remove private communications (Oversight, blocking by an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation who stated he was acting in an official Foundation role), and on the flip side, people completely embracing and allowing another user to post functionally the same material, which made no sense. On this page, half the people seem to advocate a bright line sort of, "Never do it, or you'll be banned," sort of approach, while others are sprinkling various clauses (IRC is allowed, its allowed if leaks are known in that forum, etc.). Its probably silly, but it needs to be spelled out. Exceptions are either allowed or they aren't. If they are, when? How? If not, something as serious as this should be written to be a "all users, no matter who you are, what you're posting, no exceptions, period, the end," since copyright may be involved.
!!'s posting is either allowed and the accepted policy, since no one has removed it, or else in the case of !!'s posting people are ignoring accepted policy and it should be removed, and he should have been warned to not repost it. Lawrence Cohen 00:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I would describe this as being one big fat gray area. On one hand, the email posting in that case wouldn't be allowed under this proposed policy. On the other, that particular situation is unlikely to come up again, since private evidence is unlikely to ever be allowed outside arbcom and checkuser in the future (and this whole fiasco is also a strong deterrent to any possible attempts to skirt the general principles regarding transparency).
So, the issue from this case is transparency. If transparency before the community is not being satisfied, is posting of this kind of information acceptable? Not really...but I think it certainly is a mitigating factor. I would say that !! took a far more diplomatic path in addressing the contents of the email without posting it verbatim, though. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 00:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Case study - MCB proposal

Thinking back, I have posted e-mail myself without asking the sender. For example, I got a proposal for a collaboration with our Wikiproject and posted the e-mail on the MCB talk page here. I didn't ask Andrew Su if that was OK beforehand, since it did not occur to me that he would object (he didn't and thanked me for putting it in the correct place for discussion). As the current policy proposal stands, I should be warned for this and might be blocked. Was this justifiable, or was it an ethical lapse? Tim Vickers 23:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It was a minor oversight. Indeed there was no need to publish the email itself but little harm was done. --Tony Sidaway 00:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Since you say this was an oversight on my part, you think this was wrong and a breach of Andrew's privacy? Tim Vickers 00:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Does the possibility of harm done by the disclosure play a part, then? Other editors here are saying there is zero tolerance rule for this. If the possibility of harm plays a role, who decides on that? Surely the author of the posted e-mail? Lawrence Cohen 00:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
It's against policy but the gravity of the breach of privacy in this case does not appear great. The important point is that it was unnecessary. You probably wouldn't be blocked. The policy as written currently doesn't say you would be blocked. --Tony Sidaway 00:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, is not against policy, since what we are discussing is still a proposal. Secondly, I think even removing the e-mail from the talk page would be an over-reaction. Indeed, making these kind of communications public where I am speaking for the MCB project as a whole is a beneficial act, and includes the rest of the community in decision-making. I think this is a case where the current wording of the proposal does not apply. Tim Vickers 00:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy isn't what's written down. Posting private emails isn't allowed. --Tony Sidaway 04:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
So you claim, however, since people don't agree on the text of this proposal, or even how to apply any one version, policy on this topic can't be described as enjoying consensus. Undocumented ideas that are currently disputed are not policy. Tim Vickers 04:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Case study - permission to use images, by e-mail

I've seen a few images here and there with comments from non-Wikipedians giving their OK to use emails, in the body of the image test page. Is this in violation? If not, why? Thanks! Lawrence Cohen 23:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. If someone gives his permission to publish the contents of an email originated by him, of course it's not a breach of privacy to publish that part of the contents attributable to that person. Whether it's sensible to publish on Wikipedia is another matter, which is not covered by this policy. --Tony Sidaway 00:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if I wasn't clear. One day while looking at an article about the meadow lark, you notice there aren't any good pictures to go with it. You go to Google Images, lets say, and find a great picture on lawrencecohen.com of a meadow lark, and email me to ask my permission. I say yes, Wikipedia can use it with such and such licensing. I've seen images (I can't find the ones, now) where the comments from the photographer giving permission were pasted right into the Image:Suchandsuch.jpg page. Is that acceptable? Lawrence Cohen 00:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Such letters are better sent directly to the Communications Committee (as I recall), who handle archiving permissions. There's no need to post it on the image page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, there is no need to post these emails on Wikipedia. Follow the process listed at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission#When permission is confirmed and the permission will be approved and archived in the OTRS system for eternity. Daniel 01:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Case study - Posting a harassing email

User:Evrik was blocked for a month, later reduced to a week, for posting on ANI an email he believed was harassing. I had removed the email myself, but the user was still blocked[3]. The matter was subsequently part of an RfAr.[4] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

--Clarification: I sent Evrik one email venting frustration over his behaviour editing an article. There was no harassment. Evrik decided to post that all over the place (reposting when I removed the personal info), including on the talk page of Will, who did nothing to remove it until Admin Fred Bauder got involved. The info Evrik posted was my real name, a google search of me and my personal email address. Evrik was initially blocked for a month, he lobbied and got that reduced to roughly 4 days which, although to short IMHO, was better than nothing. LordPathogen 4 December 2007 (UTC)

So what's your view of this proposal? Do you think we should prohibit posting emails like Evrik did or allow it? If your email had contained harassment, would that have changed the issue? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I think if an email contains a physical threat, it should be reported to authorities. If it is harrassment, it should be forwarded to an admin for possible user blocking. In no case, however, should a private email be publicly posted without the express consent of the parties involved. --LordPathogen 03:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Case Study: User:Bcorr/Plautus

For anyone who can see the deleted (by Will Beback based on a premature application of this proposal) history, this page speaks for itself. For everyone else: It's simply copies - full text with headers, of harassing emails sent by a banned (if i'm reading the timeline accurately, banned after sending the emails but before the page was posted) user. Was this unethical? Would the user who posted it have been blocked if this had happened today rather than almost four years ago? Does it make a difference that it was posted by the direct recipient rather than a third party? Does it make a difference that similar (but not always identical) emails were, according to User:Raul654/Plautus, sent to a large number of admins? —Random832 16:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

We already discussed this. Yes, I think it was improper for Bcorr to post those. The fact that a respected member of the community was dealing with a problem editor may have meant that he'd have been given a warning rather than a block. As in the Evrik/Lord Pathogen case study, if we allow editors to rely on their own judgment as to whether an email is sufficiently harassing to warrant posting in public then that would open the door for more problems. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, "we" (as in, you and I) discussed it above - I wanted broader input, everyone else seemed to have missed it, and it fits better in a section with numerous other "case studies".—Random832 19:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intent proposal

I think the crux of this dispute is intent. If a private e-mail is published on Wiki with the intent to harm, harass or embarrass the writer, this is wrong and the person who does this should be blocked. However, if this is done in a genuine attempt to help the encyclopaedia, the person who published it shouldn't be blocked. I have made a change to reflect this in the proposal, comments? Tim Vickers 04:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

All my emails to private lists or between myself and other users are privileged in the sense that they are sent with the expectation that they won't be published on Wikipedia. In that sense, I think limiting it will merely open us up to Wikilawyering etc. if/when someone is blocked. However, it is a well-made point that those using private correspondance to the ends you mention will be dealt with more harshly, so I added an extra word ("especially") which I hope is acceptable. Cheers, Daniel 05:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The "especially" is a good touch, directs the policy without exclusively limiting it -- there may be any number of circumstances we haven't predicted, both good and bad. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm still not satisfied with the current version. The version Tim wrote earlier was better (diff, with my additional edit). It gives 3 factors to consider when blocking/warning: 1) intention/reason for a post which violates privacy, 2) extent of the privacy breach (have we even considered more egregious violations such as phone #'s or home addresses?) 3) likely-hood of recurrence. These guidelines or factors should be self-contained within the policy even if the exact penalty cannot be. R. Baley 09:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I hadn't seen them (they were removed by JzG). My head isn't functioning properly at this juncture (stares bleary-eyed at clock), so I'll look at it in the morning, my (Australia) time. Cheers, Daniel 10:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
There was some discussion about it, above, as well (link). R. Baley 17:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I've added back in the wording of this diff. I also added in 1 other factor to consider: "harm done as a result of the disclosure." R. Baley (talk) 06:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The text re length of block etc. is generic for all blocks. Guy (Help!) 07:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting Guy, I'll re-factor to (try and) address concerns. R. Baley (talk) 08:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Edit is here. R. Baley (talk) 08:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
and removed again [5]. I'm uncomfortable supporting this as policy/guideline if it does not explicitly and accurately reflect the current state of the wiki-community. R. Baley (talk) 08:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Duplication is bad because it inevitably introduces inconsistency, which at best confuses people and at worst results in inconsistent application of policy. How to determine the length of blocks is covered already in the blocking policy, in the "duration of blocks" section. There are no advantages in adding much the same material here. --bainer (talk) 09:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. I linked WP:BP in the text,that should be sufficient. Guy (Help!) 09:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Many other policies offer guidance on blocking outside of WP:BP, why not this one? R. Baley (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please explain!

Why in policy proposal is this disruption [6] Giano 19:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason why this clause cannot be added "Unless there is a true need to achieve justice for an attacked and victimised editor in which case the editor posting must be aware of the risks he is taking, if this proves not to be the case" Giano 19:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know any of the background of this discussion, but to me, this addition has the strong appearance of being motivated by some kind of grudge. In my opinion, an addition written in what seems to be confrontational and crusading language is inappropriate. Tim Vickers 19:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

If an email contains material that needs to be shared with other because of a "true need to achieve justice for an attacked and victimised editor", then it should be sent to the ArBcom privately. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, you "all" seem to want it your own way, don't come crying and complaining when the policy does not work or is held up to ridicule in the future. Giano (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking that comes back to Ignore All Rules, as with any other policy/guideline. There is always supposed to be room for exceptions to rules, but there has to be good reason beyond WP:IAR. As a result, I'm not sure your line is necessary. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 21:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
On your own heads be it. I have been reverted twice. No more. You have my view. You dig your own trenches, be careful you don't fall into them. Giano (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedians or people in general?

Should this policy cover all people, or just people with a user account? For example, is it acceptable to post private information on a vivisectionist on the talk page of the Animal Liberation Front article? Or e-mails from a politician with whom you had an affair? I don't think these are acceptable, so I broadened the policy to cover "people", rather than "users". Tim Vickers 19:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, this is definitely a content issue. There is no doubt if we search around that such correspondence has indeed been included in articles. What if it meets the definition of "private" but has been published elsewhere first? Risker 19:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
If it has been published elsewhere by a reliable source then it isn't private. Tim Vickers 19:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Explain your logic there. We don't perpetuate copyright violations, why would we perpetuate something the encyclopedia specifically defines as a privacy violation? Risker 19:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
If a politician's e-mails have been published by a newspaper, they are no longer private correspondence - the correspondence has been made public. Consequently, adding the e-mails to an article on the politician has no further effect on their privacy. However, publishing such e-mails for the first time on Wikipedia, even just on a userpage or talkpage where WP:V might not apply, is a breach of this person's privacy. Tim Vickers 19:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
That sounds remarkably like a five year old saying "but mom, he did it first!" Either it is wrong to publish it here in article space no matter what, or it is acceptable provided it meets the content requirements applicable to the article. We do not publish addresses of individuals in articles either, whether or not they have been found in reliable sources, but that is specifically noted in our content policies.

Has this proposed policy been discussed at the Village Pump yet? Especially now that there is a clear content implication, I think more eyes are needed here. Risker (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Posted at Village Pump to invite additional participation[7]. Risker (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I feel it should be "people", simply to stop people gaming the system by posting an email - without permission - in which a WP correspondent repeats or paraphrases something by an editor or about an editor via a non-WP individual. Another case where we should not be appearing to give preference to wikipedians over other people. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
If it hasn't been published in a reliable source elsewhere, it amounts to original research. If it has been published in a reliable source elsewhere, it is therefore verifiable, and there can be no expectation of privacy. That's, at least, my opinion. Daniel 00:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree w/ Daniel's opinion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Well then, you'd better put that in the definition, because as the proposed policy reads right now, it would still include these emails/posts/whatever. There is no exclusion for those which have been published elsewhere prior to being included in a Wikipedia article. Risker (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and my opinion only applies to articles. If a Wikipedia user publishes emails at one of the various websites which generally hosts such things (I'm sure we all know the ones), and claims that they are "published" and therefore can be published on-Wikipedia, they should be cluebatted and hard. Daniel 00:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Would this cover th matter sufficiently?
  • Non-private correspondence include messages to open mailing lists which are viewable by all — although in that case it is better to link to the public post rather than post it on Wikipedia, as well as private correspondence that has been published in a reliable source.
That would replace the current footnote 1. Similar language could go in footnote 2 ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I feel people will still game that. Why not just say it doesn't apply to articles? Daniel 00:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I guess I don't understand what you mean by "it doesn't apply to articles". Can you re-phrase that? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The policy regarding not posting private correspondance doesn't apply to when that correspondance is featured as part of an article. However, of course, such inclusion of private correspondance in an article still needs to meet WP:V and WP:RS (and therefore not be original research), so one could it argue it's no longer "private". Daniel 01:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I see your point. Private correspondence can't be used in articles unless it has already by published in a reliable source regardless of this policy. This proposal only addresses postings in non-main space pages, where the limits of WP:V don't apply. That makes sense. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
That's putting it far better than I ever could :) Daniel 01:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) So a sentence stating "This policy does not apply to content in article space" would be acceptable all around? Risker (talk) 02:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Tim - I just wanted to be sure there was consensus before I added it in. I hope this addition will avoid some of the unfortunate misreadings of the WP:NPA policy that occurred. Risker (talk) 03:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm Ok with it, unless there is something being overlooked, so far I don't see any problems. R. Baley (talk) 04:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

IANAL, so I'd like to see a legal opinion on whether including a private message that was published by a reliable source without its author's permission, and we are aware of that fact, is a copyright violation. Crum375 (talk) 04:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking it over, instead of saying what it doesn't apply to, why don't we say what we intend it to apply to, and be silent on what it doesn't (to prevent gaming the system). I propose something like this:

"This policy is intended to apply to non-mainspace content; as other policies (which are applicable to article content) would preclude most instances of posting the type of privacy violations described here (WP:Game not withstanding).
What do you think? R. Baley (talk) 04:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep it simple and try this: "Normal content policies apply in article space. This policy does not apply to content in article space." The simpler the wording, the easier it is to understand. Risker (talk) 04:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
If we have a special policy for protecting private correspondence, we can't just point editors who want to know about article space in the general direction of V and NOR. Specifically, my understanding is that we may not post material in breach of copyright laws. So if we know the author did not give permission to the reliable source to publish his message, our posting it would violate the author's copyright. I can see that in such a case posting the essence or paraphrased version of the message may be OK, but not a direct copy. In any case, we need to give editors more direct information or pointers than just saying, "V is thataway!". Crum375 (talk) 04:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
(ec)I'm thinking that it's more of problem with source of the info, as opposed to where it's posted. If somebody takes info from a RS and posts it here, it's looked at differently than posting info you personally received through an email account or by subscribing to a private list. If the material is publicly disclosed . . .or published, the expectation of privacy is usually absent (or at a minimum, not very high). R. Baley (talk) 04:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I am completely unclear exactly why we are developing a special policy; frankly, it isn't necessary if it is a copyright issue because the copyright laws apply to all project space. Not only that, but much of it relates directly to the harassment policy. And, just to make sure that we have more places that we can manage to game the system, the section about Arbcom doesn't match up with WP:SECRET which is being developed separately. All in all, this policy is a classic example of instruction creep. But some people seem to have a great need for it, so I am just working to minimize the effect to the encyclopedia if it is going to exist. Risker (talk) 04:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
(ec)Not sure if we need this policy or not. I think there is some concern that some copyright vios are worse than others, and so they should be dealt with more harshly as a matter of deterrence. OTOH, apparently a large segment of the community feels that the occasional violation may, at the very least have mitigating circumstances (if not justify it altogether). R. Baley (talk) 05:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, I agree with R. Baley's point in his edit summary, that the simple exclusion of article space would open a huge loophole due to gaming possibilities. Crum375 (talk) 04:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I see where you are coming from, Crum375. At the same time, user conduct policies should not have the opportunity to affect the quality or the content of the encyclopedia we are all here to write; in fact, user conduct policies should only serve to enhance the ability to produce quality content. Gaming the system is already quite controllable under existing policies. Risker (talk) 05:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

(general comment and ec) Although I understand the sentiment, maybe we should just focus on applying this policy/guideline to wikipedeans, not people in general. Subjects of articles already have lots of protecting policies, and it seems to be to much creep to take into account all people. R. Baley (talk) 05:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the added rider "This policy does not apply to articles". It does. We don't put private emails (that haven't passed into the public domain) into articles. --Tony Sidaway 05:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This has to apply to people in general, it is just as bad to publish private e-mail of somebody who does not have an account on Wikipedia in order to harass them, as it is to publish e-mail from somebody with an account. Neither is acceptable. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking at it again, it could be interpreted to do that without compromising our ability to republish -in the relatively rare event some material were to meet other guidelines. If the private material is published somewhere, we can't really "disclose" it ("make known"). And it's not really "private" if the Washington Post puts it on their front page. That's how I read it anyway. R. Baley (talk) 06:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and the copyright issue in mainspace wouldn't apply if it's properly quoted and attributed as a passage from a reliable source, same as any other quotation is handled. IMO, harassment really isn't the issue here, as that's unacceptable no matter how it's done. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 18:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Policy how will it work?

Here's a question for you to debate? Suppose, hypotheticaly, I were to publish on Wikipedia recent emails I have received from the press and news-sites? In law publishing them to the Arbmailng list differs not from posting them here. I'm posting from Europe where I am breaking no law as I'm not using them to discredit or for personal profit. I merely want to share them for the undisputed benefeit of the site. Discuss. Giano (talk) 09:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

We should seek to obey not just laws, but ethics as well. What encyclopedic purpose would be served by publishing this hypothetical private correspondence on Wikipedia? What would prevent you from asking for permission to make them public, and why would you need to make them public if you weren't granted permission? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
If you have never seen how an "ethical" journalist can phrase a leading question, and you think in light of recent events there is no point highlighting such things for the benefit of the project, then so be it. Giano (talk) 10:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see what "ethics" has to do with this at all. With due respect, this is a global project involving thousands of users, each of whom has his or her own personal ethic, cultural ethic, and legal ethic. Where I come from, publishing, forwarding and otherwise sharing personal correspondence one has received is legal and considered perfectly ethical and within the scope of accepted behaviour, provided there is no specific constraint directly connected to the communication. The same is true in most western societies, in fact. Unless I've been missing something big, there is no ethical charter connected to this project. Risker (talk) 13:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm surprised if there are fields (other than journalism) where it's considered ethical to publish private correspondence without receiving permission from the sender. That said, WP does have different standards than journalists, different standards from scientists, and different standards than novelists. Wales has commented several times on the need to be ethical. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
That is a good point, so I thought I'd check what journalism ethics on the subject seem to be. The general consensus I found is that private correspondence shouldn't be published without permission, unless there are extenuating circumstances. Here are a couple of excerpts:
"A publication will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual's private life without consent"[8]
"Privacy is precious but if we use it to shield actions which undermine the common good, then the purpose of privacy itself- to allow the human being to flourish- is not served."[9]
This isn't to say that we should just take a page from journalism ethics, but there is some reason to consider this, I think. I found a general consensus that privacy is valuable, but not a universal shield from deserved scrutiny. As a result, journalism ethics seems to say that if something should be public knowledge, and the only way to make it public is through publishing private correspondence, then it's justified. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 21:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
When a journalist publishes private correspondence in a reliable source then we can use it on Wikipedia. But we aren't journalists. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I've said as much in the previous section. My point is simply that it isn't necessarily unethical to publish private correspondence. ArbCom's responsibilities should make it unnecessary to make such things public on Wikipedia, but that doesn't make it unethical by default. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 00:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On ethics

"When private correspondence is required as evidence in an arbitration case, permission should still be sought from the original correspondents, but in certain circumstances it may be acceptable to forward the correspondence via email to the Arbitration Committee without that permission."

Why is this ethical violation endorsed with a qualifier, but it is considered unethical to post such correspondence on-Wiki? Private is private, there aren't, according to the discussions here, degrees of privacy. If I mail whomever, and they post that mail to Wikipedia in public, it is then a violation of my privacy. If they forward that mail to anyone else without my express permission (including Arbcom) it is just as much a violation of my privacy. Why do we endorse this? It is wrong. Lawrence Cohen 14:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Lawrence, this discussion has nothing to do with ethics and everything to do with information control. In most western societies, correspondence is considered open and the recipient is free to do with it as they wish unless there is a specific claim of confidentiality or privilege directly attached to the communication. A policy that will affect Wikipedia in ways that cannot be forecast is being developed because a post to a "private" listserve was made public - but the vast majority of listserves don't have confidentiality clauses attached to them. If the post was forwarded to a party outside of the authorized recipient, then there is no way for the outside party to know that there was a confidentiality clause attached.

It is always a bad idea to develop policy from exceptional cases, rather than the mundane. As the saying goes, hard cases make bad law. More particularly, this policy overlaps so many other ones that it will do more harm than good. Risker (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with that. Much of this policy proposal seems based around the one unique incident, which was ethically ambiguous to begin with, IMO. I've been considering what the general principles regarding this policy proposal are, and I'm almost ready to post my thoughts, but I think I'll start a new section for it. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 17:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
While the writing of this proposal follows an ambiguous case, there have been previous cases where the unwritten policy of blocking for posting emails has been enforced. I'm not aware of any part of western society that condones publishing private correspondence without permission. Does Risker have a source for this sweeping assertion? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in responding. I think most examples in this list[10] would count. But if you want some real-life examples, I'll tell you about my personal and business inboxes. My business email has a confidentiality statement built right into my main signature line in a way that trying to remove it removes the whole signature (I have an alternate signature line for non-confidential posts, such as asking a colleague if they want to meet for lunch). I receive email from 6 different mailing lists requiring registration, two of which are by invitation only, and one of which is strictly confidential and all posts clearly denote that. Of the non-confidential mailing list posts, I have no hesitation in sending information to colleagues if I feel it will be of interest to them. Our organization has a policy *requiring* that any communication perceived as threatening to an individual or the organization *must* be brought to the attention of Security. On the personal side, if one of my friends sends me something funny, there's a pretty good chance I'm going to forward it on to someone else without permission from the sender. My mother regularly photocopies letters from distant relatives and sends me copies. All of these activities would violate this policy, and they are all normal, every-day activities. Many of these same principles can be applied on-wiki. Risker (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
ADDENDUM: This is the confidentiality statement from my business email signature, with any organizational identifiers removed: "This communication is intended to be received by the individual or entity to whom or to which it is addressed. It may contain privileged, proprietary, and otherwise private and/or confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any other use of this email by you is prohibited." --Risker (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unworkable

This clause [11] is unworkable, impossible to implement and enforce. You are writing a charter to create opression. That is not even enforcable by law. Giano (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

If a user sends another harassing and insulting e-mails, the person who receives them should be able to show these to the Arbitration Committee, even if the person who sent them refused permission. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Then their needs to be support for that specific clause; the blanket wording basically meant that ArbCom can see any private data it wants to, regardless of who was mailed what. It can't possibly work that way. Lawrence Cohen 21:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I undid it here. If the accepted belief at this time is that no private correspondence can be posted "on wiki" for a variety of legal and ethical reasons, the policy can't endorse a backdoor around those same ethical standards. Lawrence Cohen 21:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid Arbcom is as much subject to the law as any other place, you cannot differentiate between their mailing list and main-space Wikipedia. All or nothing. All you are succeeding in doing is saying anyone can email any vile threat to anyone, act upon any vile email (see Durova's evidence) and the ultimately the Arbcom is powerless to consider it. If your interpretation is that the writer owns the email you cannot set the Arbcom above the law. That aint how the law works. Giano (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Which laws are you thinking of? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Now you tell me that? Giano (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Tell you what? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Which law or which country you feel this current thinking is based upon. At the moment it seems to me to be very inconsistent. Giano (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Some (not me) have proposed that it would be a violation of copyright law to publish someone's writing without their permission. But in that case forwarding the letter to others (such as the ArbCom) wouldn't be the same as publishing it publicly. I haven't seen any other laws mentioned. I think this proposal is grounded more in pre-existing WP norms and in commonly-held ethical values (though some here dispute that it's unethical to publish private correspondence). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
In all countries which impose such laws the Arbcom mailing list and the Wikipedia site are held as equal in law. Both are forums albeit one (we hope) more public than the other. This policy is interpretating "International legalisiplonk" to suit Wikiprdia's own requirements. That is inconsistent and cannot be allowed, it is meaningless and will result in complete confusion. Giano (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Which laws are you talking about? Copyright laws? Is forwarding a letter to a private email list the legal equivalent of publishing it? I don't think so, but I'm not a lawyer. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm ducking out on further comment here. I want it noted here that I feel this policy is baseless, and totally meaningless in any law. It is based on no serious ethical foundation and will ultimately serve Wikipedia ill, in addition, as it stands it can only further fuel rumours of secrecy and underhand behaviour by admins and the Arbcom by creating a "one law for us another for them" scenario. Such a policy as this needs to be abandoned and such incidents dealt with as individual cases as a when they happen. Giano (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so, but I'm not a lawyer. I think this sums up the validity of this silly copyright argument nicely.Travb (talk) 12:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Makes no sense

This ...

"When private correspondence is required as evidence in an Arbitration case, permission must still be sought from the original correspondents, and they are to be to notified that the Arbitration Committee is in possession of their private and copyrighted text, so that they may respond to the Committee on the matter."

... makes no sense. If their permission has to be sought, and they say no, there's no need to tell them the ArbCom has their mail, because it won't have it. If they say yes, they'll know that the ArbCom is about to be given it. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 21:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

With all respect Laurence, I agree with SlimVirgin, that version is gobbledygook and almost impenetrable even to a native English speaker. Use short sentences and say what you mean clearly. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if the wording is (and I agree it is) horrible. My intention is that the policy, which is defined by community ethics, can't at the same time provide a backdoor to the same ethical standards. Does that make sense? Lawrence Cohen 21:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Not really, no. :-) What exactly are you trying to promote or prevent? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 21:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry; my brain is out of sorts today. I've two concerns, which are at odds with each other.
1) If the policy is that no private correspondence is allowed on-wiki for a variety of reasons, and policy reflects what happens, then this page will say: you can't share private correspondence via Wikipedia, because by our standards it is not ethical. At the same time, the policy cannot include a big backdoor to ethics that says, "Unless you mail it to ArbCom!" Its like saying you're only ethically bound on-wiki. That makes no sense.
2) If something is submitted of yours private to the ArbCom, it needs to be a requirement--a hard requirement--that you are notified. Or else, how will you respond and be able to address the situation? I.e., if you, Slim, mail me, and I kick it over to arbcom-l, then either an Arbiter, Clerk, or I need to tell you what has happened. Or else, you'll be in a vacuum and unable to address my own or the ArbCom's concerns (or vice versa, if you kick my mail from me to you to them).
That is what I see a problem with--there needs to be an enforced mechanism of notification in place if private material is sent to ArbCom. It's a matter of simple fairness and ethics. At the same time, a policy saying you can do that is at odds with our hardline stance that its not ethical to share private correspondence. Lawrence Cohen 22:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Does this new version deal with the problem, Laurence? Did I understand your objection correctly? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I tweaked it slightly. Even in cases of harassment, that can be subjective. I know its generally not, in real life, but it can be. Either way, its just not ethical to work in a vacuum. People involved need to be notified, so that they can deal with the situation on their end as is appropriate. My current version addresses part of my concern, but not the overall ethical hole in allowing an ethical clause, which feels distinctly wrong. Lawrence Cohen 22:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Lawrence, in my experience, the ArbCom really doesn't like to be sent private correspondence. I was in a case once where one of those giving evidence said almost the opposite of what she'd said to me privately, and it was a core issue. I e-mailed the sender and cc-ed Fred Bauder, and I asked for consent to quote from her e-mail, or even just refer to it. Fred replied, very sensibly -- no, don't even ask for consent, because it sounds like the kind of thing that's going to lead to bad feeling, and it's not worth it. And he was dead right.
I think in that spirit we need to say something about always evaluating whether the privacy breach really is worth the trouble, and whether there is any other way to sort the issue out. So I agree with Lawrence that, if we're against posting private material, we should be against sending it to ArbCom too (which is a mailing list of 28 people or thereabouts, and therefore not leakproof), except in the most serious cases -- threats, and such like. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
You've described my concerns about the conflict here much more eloquently than I have, thank you. If it's all-or-nothing, we need to say so. If it's all or nothing* with an asterisk, there needs to be a mandatory Arbitration process that requires the involved parties to all be notified by someone so that they can all deal with the issue privately, if material is sent to ArbCom (see what I wrote below to Tim). Lawrence Cohen 22:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, the problem is that two ethical imperatives sometimes conflict: the right to privacy, and the right to be protected against harassment. Which is more important is dependent on the circumstances. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Just on the note of notification, it can't possibly be any harm to notify the involved parties that their materials have been shared. If its an actual legitimate case of harassment, then a Clerk or Arbcom member can notify. So if I harass you by email, and you send it to Arbcom, you obviously I'm sure won't want to deal with me. There surely isn't any reason for someone to not notify me, though, so that I can be aware of what may be happening to allow me to contact Arbcom. If my harassment is a legitimate case, then I'm probably not going to be around Wikipedia long anyway. If it's a possible borderline or non-harassment case, then its only fair and right to give the involved parties a chance to legitimately defend themselves in private. Lawrence Cohen 22:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The members of the ArbCom, in addition to acting as a body to hear formal requests, can also act as admins cleared to handle confidential information. Ideally, it'd help if they were better at acknowledging confidential evidence. If they could designate someone to be the secretary and handle incoming items, issuing receipts and notifications it would make cases like this easier. For example, if I received a nasty email that I thought was actionable I could send it to the ArbCom with a cover letter explaining my complaint. Depending on the circumstances I might CC the sender. In any case the ArbCom's designee should contact the sender to notify them that a piece of evidence concerning them has been received, to confirm its authenticity, and to ask for any explanation. ("User:X forwarded an email that he felt was harassing. Did you send it and if so do you have any explanation?") However this isn't an ideal world and we can't tell the ArbCom how to process the information it receives. That leaves the responsibility for notification entirely with the person who shares the correspondence. As LC says, if it were a case of harassment the recipient may be reluctant to contact the sender directly. I think that in most cases this shouldn't be a problem. We could make a generic template that could be used to minimize the dramatic issues ("I have forwarded to the ArbCom an email you sent to me because I believe it contains evidence of a policy violation. Please contact the ArbCom at AC@WP.ORG in that regard.") Further, we don't need to post actual emaisl or IRCs logs when we can just summarize the contents. No one here is saying that it's wrong to go on ANI and report "User X is sending me threats through the mail, including a vivid description of her plans. Has anyone else gotten one?" ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Good point, I've added a sentence to the first paragraph advising people to just summarise things in their own words. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Makes sense?

Private correspondence, such as private e-mails,[1] instant messages, or chats in private IRC channels,[2] should not be posted on Wikipedia, or by email to the Arbitration Committee without the consent of the original correspondent(s), except in cases of clear or obvious harassment.
When private correspondence is required as evidence in an arbitration case, or is forwarded to the Arbitration Committee, permission should be sought from the original correspondents, whose consent is required in all but the most egregious of cases, such as serious personal attacks or unambiguous threats to the project. Any such text should be e-mailed privately to the committee, and must not be made public. The authors must be informed if their correspondence is forwarded to the committee to allow them a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations.
In the event of private correspondence playing a role in any on-Wikipedia administrative actions, any such evidence must be made available to administrators upon request from other administrators. If such evidence is claimed to be not releasable to all administrators, those administrative actions should never be performed without the prior consent of the Arbitration Committee, after they have reviewed the private correspondence in question.
Users who post private correspondence or disclose other people's private information,[3] especially in an attempt to intimidate, harass or attack them, may be blocked from editing.

Please review this version. Lawrence Cohen 22:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I had to change that since it says in the first sentence that you can post private correspondence on Wikipedia under some circumstances. The new third paragraph is very unclear, perhaps that is best left to the Wikipedia:Confidential evidence discussion, rather than being repeated here. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, wasn't my intention in the wording, obviously. For that other bit, isn't it common sense that if someone is blocked on administrator-level information, any administrator should be able to review this? Are some admins more trusted than others? If it is information above admin level, individual admins shouldn't be dealing with it anyway and should be handing it off to the ArbCom, right? Lawrence Cohen 23:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Whatever the argument, there is no good reason for covering an area that is being discussed elsewhere. This risks two self-contradictory policies being produced. I'd recommend removing this paragraph. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh noes! It's growing again! Minor point: the person sending it to ArbCom should really be the original recipient. We don't really need emails passing round until someone decides to shop the sender. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with that, completely. Lawrence Cohen 23:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"Publishing private correspondence deprecated..." - what does that mean? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tony's removal

There is a new paragraph saying:

In the event of private correspondence playing a role in any on-Wikipedia administrative actions, any such evidence must be made available to administrators upon request from other administrators. If such evidence is claimed to be not releasable to all administrators, those administrative actions should never be performed without the prior consent of the Arbitration Committee, after they have reviewed the private correspondence in question.

This is unacceptable. Private correspondence is private correspondence. It will not be made public or shared with anybody who isn't permitted to see it. Many actions every day are carried out by OTRS volunteers on the basis of private email and the volunteers are absolutely committed to maintain confidentiality.

Moreover any individual may engage in private discussions about Wikipedia, as he may discuss sport, science, the House of Commons, the Supreme Court or whatever he is involved in. Sometimes those discussions play a role in the decision-making process. However those discussions cannot be shared because of privacy. Action on-wiki must be justified but that doesn't mean that we need to countenance the breach of confidentiality.

Accordingly, I will remove that paragraph. Please discuss and reformulate. --Tony Sidaway 23:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Rewording what I wrote originally in response to simplify it. The intention of that paragraph was that if you cannot justify your administrative actions with backing evidence to any of your admin peers that requests to review it, you cannot perform that action. In that case, you need to get Arbitration to review and approve the action ahead of time. Is this incorrect? If so, why? Lawrence Cohen 00:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Such discussion belongs at Wikipedia:Confidential evidence, not here. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That proposal doesn't really cover private correspondence, though. You shouldn't be performing any admin actions based on evidence that can't be shared. Forward it to ArbCom if you feel your ethically allowed to, notify the parties involved privately, and don't dare touch your own buttons and leave it to ArbCom to handle if they feel its appropriate. Lawrence Cohen 00:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Lawrence, "evidence that can't be shared" is a synonym of "confidential evidence". It would be most productive to discuss confidential evidence on the page devoted to discussing confidential evidence. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Tony, on the same note that we don't endorse any breach of confidentiality, does this apply to sending mails in breach of confidentiality to Arbcom? See the discussion above, in regards to "ethical" versus "ethical*" Lawrence Cohen 00:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I do think this probably belongs, if anywhere, on Wikipedia:Confidential evidence, a policy that I trust will not breach Foundation policy. --Tony Sidaway 00:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paraphrasing

I really disagree with this inclusion, because paraphrasing is really more disruptive than posting the original mail. It leads to inaccuracies and incorrect paraphrasing, which in turn leads to a dispute about the dispute, which is disruptive. Furthermore, misrepresenting someone's comments while directly attributing those comments to them (as you would if you said "X said, via email, that ...) could lead to very serious concerns about the integrity of second-hand evidence and cause widespread gaming and disruption. Daniel 02:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I was intending to cover the situation where X sent Y an abusive e-mail and Y goes to AN/I and says "I got a message from X that threatened me and said if I didn't stop editing the article on Pokemon he would come around my house and steal all my cards. What should I do?" Perhaps "summarizing" is the wrong word, substitute "describe in general terms"? Tim Vickers (talk) 02:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
That should only be afforded to the most blatant of situations, like as you mention. The contents of any email sent in good faith/by an established contributor shouldn't be disclosed in my opinion, either by direct quote or by paraphrasing. Daniel 02:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
In some circumstances yes, in others no. There are many circumstances where this is absolutely fine - "Steve was saying he found the bacteria article a bit confusing the other day, could you have a look at it and see what you can do?" or "Samantha told me that you're not feeling very happy with life at the moment, is there anything I can help you with?" This is moving into a large grey area where common sense and politeness are your only guides and isn't something a policy can or should try to deal with. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use as evidence

I removed the part saying that the correspondent's permission needs to be obtained before submitting correspondence as evidence to ArbCom, and replaced it with the original formulation that the ArbCom's permission is needed before submission. The ArbCom should have the final say over what evidence is submitted to it, and the senders of, for example, harassing emails, should not have any kind of veto over whether the emails are taken into evidence. --bainer (talk) 03:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

Since we are now down to two sentences, having a separate policy seems absurd. What do people think about just adding this as a sub-section to Wikipedia:Privacy? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a guideline, this is a policy. They cover matters that are distinct, though related. Wikipedia:Privacy is advice on how a Wikipedia editor may protect his own privacy. This policy is a declaration of the circumstances under which use of private correspondence is permissible and the conditions pertaining to such use. --Tony Sidaway 19:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think a lot of people's objections to this proposal would be solved if it was a guideline, not a policy. After all "A guideline article is any page that: recommends actions that editors should either take or avoid; and reflects consensus. Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." This seems very close to what we are now discussing, particularly the realization from the case studies above that, although it is discouraged as a general course of action, not all posting of e-mail is harmful and it is occasionally beneficial. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

One of the core differences between a guideline and a policy is that users can be blocked for violating a policy, bit not for breaking a guideline. Users have been blocked for posting private emails, so it is a de facto policy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
That's just not accurate. The 1st 3 behavioral guidelines I checked included info on blocking (if the guideline was violated). The 3rd one had info in the nutshell (link). Otoh, the difference between any policy or guideline and an essay, is consensus acceptance by the wiki-community (have not seen evidence of this myself). For the record, I might support as a guideline, but not, at this point, as policy. R. Baley (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
It clearly is policy, as it derives from WP:C and the Foundational privacy policy, as well as being referenced in arbitration findings. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
What on earth does the Foundation Privacy Policy have to do with anything? Which section of that policy are you referring to? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
This is not a policy, it's a proposed policy. And, to return to the start of this thread, when we're making things policy that consist of two sentances we'd probably return to root-cause analysis: It appears that this is desired as policy in some quarters so that it can be used to block those who violate it. Instead, this should at best be merged, more appropiately simply tagged as rejected. We've got plenty of social enforcement already that covers this, no reason to codify it to this degree. - CygnetSaIad (talk) 02:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
WP:IAR. The shorter a policy is, the less ambiguous it is and the less amenable it is to wikilawyering. Guy (Help!) 09:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Note that the basic idea behind this has been de facto policy for ages, it's only being written down to replace a proposal that would have represented a radical departure from established norms. --bainer (talk) 11:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
This much is true. Guy (Help!) 12:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I've restored the policy tag. In its current form, this is not a mere proposal. --Tony Sidaway 16:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Get a grip, Tony. This is not an official policy and has never been. It has been a practice of some individuals at some times under some circumstances. To become an official policy requires community consensus. There isn't community consensus. I have reverted you. Risker (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the argument that this has always been de facto policy, do we have examples of people having been blocked for posting private correspondence, other than Giano? I recall private e-mails being posted many times and no action taken at all. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 16:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I find Risker's claim that it "is not an official policy and has never been" quite extraordinary. Do you simply mean, Risker, that it has never been written down before? Moreover there is obvious strong consensus for this written form. Policy isn't what's written down, and this will still be policy whether it's written down or not.
In response to Slim Virgin, the current form of the policy does not require that someone should be blocked for breaching it (nor is there such a requirement in any of our other policies that proscribe certain behavior). That a very highly respected editor who breached it was blocked, included in an arbitration case, and very narrowly escaped severe remedies is very, very strong evidence of how seriously we take this policy. It is therefore as well that it be written down so that in future there will be more clarity. --Tony Sidaway 17:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
So are you saying Jimbo's mate blocked me for something that has never been written down? Giano (talk) 17:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Who is Jimbo's mate? Yes, you can be blocked for disruption even if nobody has written down something proscribing your particular act on the wiki. Policy is descriptive rather than prescriptive. --Tony Sidaway 21:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Bastique is Jimbo's mate Tony, I'm surprised you didn't know that. It seems one can be blocked for all manner of things these days - even speaking German. Which is why this policy is flawed. Giano (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Bastique is an employee of the Foundation, not just our mutual friend. You can always be blocked for disruption. Speaking German is not disruptive. You're not making a lot of sense, really. --Tony Sidaway 21:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
(response to Tony) But can you think of any other case? As I see the Giano situation, the context of the block was repeated posting in a way that became disruptive, and was viewed as one of a series of personal attacks on Durova. And the fact that he escaped any sanction is actually evidence that we don't take the posting of private e-mails seriously.
The posting of private correspondence in and of itself has not been something that anyone has ever been blocked for, as I recall. In fact, I recall cases of repeated posting of e-mails containing personal attacks, in the hope of prompting an apology from the attacker -- and there was not only no block, but no admin objection at all. Many times I've had e-mails I've sent blocked users posted, and there was never any additional sanction on them for doing it.
I'd also hate to see someone blocked for re-posting personal attacks on themselves that they saw in IRC, even in the admins channel -- which is closed in theory, but which large numbers of people have access to, so there can't be any reasonable expectation of privacy there. It really would be the ultimate injustice if you see yourself being trashed in a quasi-public IRC channel in front of scores of people, but when you try to draw other people's attention to it to ask for help or resolution, you're blocked if you quote what was said.
I'm not trying to be difficult, but if this is to be written down as policy, it needs to be a good deal more nuanced than it is. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 17:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Except the IRC channels are unofficial, so the wiki is not the place to complain (rather, complaints should be directed to me). However, I agree that there are obviously those who are concerned that the Arbitration Committee doesn't care about this (it's not true, but it certainly seems to be the case that people distrust us). That is the thing to be fixed, not arbitrarily down-grading innate policy to mere 'guideline' status.
James F. (talk) 18:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
SlimVirgin is entirely correct. These problems would be avoided, at least in part, by any final text we produce being a guideline that can be interpreted flexibly according to circumstances. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Not really, ArbCom has found several times that posting private data is unacceptable, it's probably best to be unambiguous. Guy (Help!) 18:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Slim Virgin is making vague gestures at what she claims is frequent posting of private emails without objection. Perhaps some diffs might help to move this discussion on. --Tony Sidaway 21:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Tony, you can't expect me to spend several weeks tracking down examples of private e-mails being posted without a block. If you're arguing that this has always been a de facto policy, I think the onus is on you to show that people have been blocked for it, or otherwise warned/penalized, in the past. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Meanwhile we should probably tag this as policy. Attempts to repeat the antics that led to the Durova arbitration will probably lead to further blocking, and editors should be warned of that possibility. --Tony Sidaway 21:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Since you have requested examples, from my edit record I can remeber Talk:Enzyme#Expert_review, Talk:Nicotinamide_adenine_dinucleotide#Outside_review and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Molecular_and_Cellular_Biology/Proposals#Proposal_from_Novartis.2FGNF. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "#wikipedia-en-admins is not private": arbcom rulings?

Geogre has said (alongside a rather nasty accusation of lying against some other editor) "Admins is not private, according to prior ArbCom rulings."

This sounds like something we can settle now. Which arbitrations case and which rulings? I yet won't go into the question of whether that channel is private to any degree, I want to get this extraordinary claim out of the way first. --Tony Sidaway 21:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Tony, nothing other than communication between two people is private. If you blow a horn on IRC insisting that it is private is ridiculous. Same applies to posting to email list, especially if you don't even know the subscribers. If you email anything to me, it would be private, I promise (unless it is a threat of course or something but any reasonable email would be private.) BTW, I emailed to you once, long time ago. Did you pass anything out from that personal email by any chance? --Irpen 21:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Could we stick to the current topic, please? I want to get this out of the way, first, before we discuss the different nuances of opinion on privacy. Has the arbitration committee ruled that #wikipedia-en-admins is not private? If it has then it will settle the uncertainty created by Geogre's stout declaration that arbcom has, in fact made such a ruling. --Tony Sidaway 21:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
You add a very personal question to your statement. I recall no communication from you, but I do not share private communications. --Tony Sidaway 21:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
It was a while ago Tony. And then some IRC regulars knew something I emailed to you. But no big deal, there was nothing secret there, I just wondered how they know. As for the Geogre's correction, it is more fundamental than ArbCom ruling. Open-ended communication cannot be private. Private stuff is between individuals. In one writes a letter and mails it to a person, it is private. If one posts a sign on the property which is not even his but merely has restricted but still wide access, especially with no clear access rules, one cannot possibly claim the content of that sign was meant to be private. --Irpen 21:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I did not and do not pass on private communications from you or anyone else by any medium.
I'm aware of your opinion on the status of mailing list communications. Here I want to address a claim of fact made by Geogre. Is it true or not? --Tony Sidaway 21:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Tony, I don't know about previous ArbCom cases, but this analysis by some ArbCom members says that Freenode has no rules against logging, so it's not clear where the idea came from that IRC conversations were to be regarded as private. The ArbCom analysis says: "The prohibition on logging of #wikipedia-related channels is a matter of tradition within each channel, and is not a Freenode requirement. The Freenode web site states: 'If you're publishing logs on an ongoing basis, your channel topic should reflect that fact.'" (See Wikipedia:IRC_channels/Personal_views_regarding_IRC#Present_IRC_organization.) It's therefore up to Wikipedia to decide whether the logs may be posted or not. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
It's beginning to look to me as if there is no arbitration committee ruling to the effect that the admins channel is not private. --Tony Sidaway 22:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
And likewise, none that say that it is. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 23:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
A closed, invitation-only, IRC channel would be difficult to represent as non-private--however much one or two people would like carte blanche to splurge purported logs from that channel on this wiki. --Tony Sidaway 23:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Tony, please AGF: no one is talking about carte blanche to splurge things. A channel with scores of people in it, admins and non-admins, with invitations available to around 1300, cannot seriously be regarded as private. No reasonable person would have even the slightest expectation of privacy in there.
What caused you to change your mind from saying that you yourself would be publishing the logs, to arguing that it's private and people should be blocked for posting them? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 23:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
IRC users can only join the channel by invitation, and the right to invite is limited. Under current Wikipedia policy, it's private. --Tony Sidaway 00:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Sheesh! And logs pop up and WR, WT and ED! Private all right. This is ridiculous to write a policy that would imply that the users should post from such logs to the malicious sites if they want to blow the whistle only because the parties guilty for this house being not clean like it that way. We should clean our own house. Period. --Irpen 00:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Leaked emails from mailing lists also pop up on those sites, that shouldn't mean Wikipedia should allow it, should it? —Random832 21:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IRC reform

This is a good opportunity to make a start on some IRC reform, which just about everyone agrees is needed. Tony, I remember when #admins was first suggested, you argued strongly against the privacy issue, and said you yourself would be publishing the logs. The excessive insistence on privacy for that and other Wikipedia channels has resulted in a horrible atmosphere, with people being routinely trashed in front of their peers, which has a widespread pernicious effect on and offwiki. It also leads to most editors and admins not wanting to be involved with the channels, which in turns leads to problematic users being able to operate with no, or little, resistance.

Making it clear that Wikipedia does not regard IRC conversations as private (except in an unambiguously private channel) would be a good start. If it were made clear to everyone that anything you say could end up being posted on Wikipedia, with sanctions on Wikipedia for problematic behavior, it would make a big difference to the atmosphere. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 23:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Slim, join the camp. It would, what, seventh attempt? Won't work for the same reason as the last ones. Secrecy breeds corruption and desire for more secrecy. --Irpen 23:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
This isn't the place to discuss IRC reform. I suggest you forward your thoughts on those matters to the people who run the various channels. --Tony Sidaway 23:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
It isn't up to the people who run the channels, and anyway it's not clear who does. According to Freenode, they have no representatives on Wikipedia, and according to the Foundation, Wikipedia does not support any of the group contacts. So we seem to have a no-man's land, which I think we need to take back. Tony, I don't believe that you support any of the trashing of people that regularly takes place in these channels — I don't believe that anyone of goodwill supports it, even if you're strongly pro-IRC. Doesn't it make sense for people of goodwill to put aside their differences to resolve the issues? One way to put a stop to it is to make clear that Wikipedia does not regard those discussions as private, and this is the place to decide that issue. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 23:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
One of the problems I have on this talk page is that most of the people I'm discussing matters with are ill-informed. Geogre thinks there's an arbtration committee ruling that says #wikipedia-en-admins isn't private (and even stoops to accusing someone of lying for suggesting that it is), Slim, you've just told me that I once threatened to publish private logs, and Irpen believes that I shared the content of an email he sent me with someone else.
Do you see what I'm getting at? Each of those is an unsubstantiated (and probably false) statement that is prejudicial to the reputation of the other person (a personal attack, if you like) and each is made out of ignorance and, perhaps, wishful thinking. This is, in short, a rerun of those quite scurrilous and baseless personal attacks on members of arbcom-l last week.
In the circumstances, I think it's best if I don't encourage this sort of behavior by responding to your suggestions, although normally I'd be happy to respond to the suggestions. I'm faced with a situation where every time I respond in good faith, another baseless personal attack on myself of someone else slips out from the person I'm granting my time to. So no, on this occasion I won't give your suggestions the merit they may otherwise deserve, because this discussion, it seems to me, isn't about a serious suggestion, but rather an effort to blacken the reputations of your fellow Wikipedians. Please reconsider your approach to Wikipedia. You may not intend to make these baseless attacks, but this does not alter the fact that you, and Irpen and Geogre, are making them. --Tony Sidaway 00:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Tony, I'm sorry if you saw when I wrote as a personal attack. I have a very clear memory of you arguing strongly against the creation of #admins, saying that if it ever got up and running as a closed channel, you would personally publish the logs somewhere. That's my memory from discussions on wikiEN-l. Perhaps I'm totally misremembering. If so, I apologize. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, to focus on the main points, and this is my understanding of them (please correct me if I'm wrong): (1) Freenode appears not to have a Wikipedia group contact, as far as Freenode is concerned; if we want one, we have to elect one; (2) the Wikimedia Foundation has apparently said it currently does not support any particular person as a Freenode group contact; (3) there is no Freenode prohibition on posting logs.
Given the above, it is up to the people editing this policy to decide what the policy should say regarding IRC logs. There is no de facto policy on that point. Perhaps we should throw it open to the Village Pump and elsewhere? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If the IRC channels, their operators, and all that are persona non grata and have zero authority on Wikipedia in regards to IRC, and IRC has zero authority over Wikipedia, per the Foundation's lack of statement, can't the community simply elect their own rules and policies over how IRC is handled on Wikipedia, and the IRC operators then have zero say over the matter? Beyond participating as Wikipedia editors, I mean. Their "role" in IRC would have no additional weight or value. That is, a statement made by a Freenode group contact or Freenode operator as a group contact or operator is meaningless on Wikipedia, no more than if say an admin on Uncyclopedia or Wikipedia Review tried to issue proclomations here.

That is, they are a 3rd party website or service, and their internal rules, policies, and politics are meaningless to Wikipedia and have no value or authority here. Lawrence Cohen 01:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct, though in addition I understand that Freenode has no formal group contact on Wikipedia, though I'm taking that from the ArbCom analysis I linked to above. So the Wikipedia community can elect a group contact, appoint operators, and decide on the rules and policies. That would definitely be the best way forward, in my view. IRC can be very useful if you need quick feedback about something, but the dangers of it are clear; there's no question that we need some kind of reform. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Informing the other party(s) that information is being sent to Arbcom

So, if an editor receives an email from someone and that email makes it apparent that the individual is behaving in a way that would require sanction, but the email is itself necessary evidence - are we really expecting people to say "Oh by the way, Mr Stalker sir, I am just forwarding this on to Arbcom". The approved police response is to not respond to harassing email in any way. The recent "strengthening" edits are just making this all that much more absurd and unworkable. Risker (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point, Risker. I corrected that strange assertion. Also, it implicitly asserts that forwarding to ArbCom is the default step. It is wrong. Violating privacy is a serious matter rarely justified. Forwarding the private correspondence to ArbCom is still violating privacy. And if ArbCom mailing list includes members deemed untrustworthy by a significant slice of community, the members of such community are understandably hesitant to believe that they can trust it. But this is a related, but separate point. --Irpen 23:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Irpen, we can't argue that private correspondence (e-mails, IRC) is always between just two people. It seems we're going from one extreme to the other here, with others arguing that IRC channels, no matter how huge, are private just because someone says they are. The truth lies somewhere in the middle, and there isn't going to be a hard-and-fast-rule. The issue resolves to whether the people engaged in the correspondence have a reasonable expectation of privacy, using the proverbial Man on the Clapham omnibus. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I rather doubt that the Man on the Clapham omnibus expects messages sent to a group of people (whether on IRC, a mailing list, or just a cc email) to remain confidential, unless there is an explicit confidentiality statement attached. Of all the mailing lists and cc lists I am on (both personal and business), there is only one that I expect to remain confidential, and every single message is marked "private and confidential" at minimum. Risker (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nuthsell

If the nuthsell has any connection to the text of the guideline, I don't see it. It needs to be significantly rewritten to make sense.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, currently (Publishing private correspondence deprecated, and using private correspondence to conduct Wikipedia business is illicit.) the nutshell is an incomprehensible mumbo-jumbo of words that does little to clarify the page. --Reinoutr (talk) 07:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The second half of that is garbage added for no obvious reason. Oh, wait, no, the reason is obvious, just wrong :-) Guy (Help!) 07:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Guy, Wikipedia contains a huge amount of private data. It was bad enough when you were trying to prevent publication of emails, but data covers far too broad a range of information. Risker (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I think you'll find that information not in the public domain is pretty heavily proscribed on Wikipedia in general. What specific examples do you have in mind? Guy (Help!) 15:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
If conducting wikipedia business in private is illicit then wikipedia should stop having a link that allows emails to users. Of course all the old cabals would continue but there would be fewer new ones. --Blue Tie (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm not sure I like this as it currently stands.

I have three issues with this proposal as it currently stands 1) We appear to be basing this concern not on copyright (which the rational that seems to have been used in the Giano case) but based on some other rational the basis of which is not at all clear to me. 2) The definition of private is vague and it is unclear to me whether by this wording Giano's behavior would or would not be acceptable (the email in question certainly had been forwarded to a variety of people well before he posted it). 3) Dispute resolution and dealing with vandals do sometimes require posting of emails. This policy will make that much more awkward. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, the Nutshell included "using private email to conduct Wikipedia business is illicit" whcih is patently false, as this would make OTRS and ArbCom unworkable. Also, if an email gets forwarded without the consent of the sender, that does not make it any less private. The simpler and less ambiguous this is, the better. I know some people are very keen to reverse-engineer support for what Giano did, but I think it's pretty clear that ArbCom and others found it unacceptable. The "single reader" comment is also problematic; would anyone disagree that an OTRS email is private? It has many readers. Ditto a leak fomr the Arbcom list - private, should not be leaked, but has multiple readers. Guy (Help!) 07:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Horseshit, Guy. Using private e-mail to conduct Wikipedia business is illicit. OTRS is not private e-mail, but Wikimedia based. ArbCom should not be relying on private e-mail, either. They should be using their mailing list. They should also not be using that to conduct business, but rather reasoning everything out at the workshops, proposed decisions, talk pages, etc. In fact, they would do their jobs much better if they didn't use any discussion of cases anywhere but on Wikipedia, as then fewer cases would have workshops going 90% one way and then have remedies 90% an unrelated way appear.
    • If an e-mail gets forwarded without permission of the sender, that's too bad: it merely illustrates the fact that no e-mail is private once it is sent. You send it, and the recipient has it. It ceased to be "private" the moment it was communicated. You are always at the mercy of the people you mail things to. If they pass it on and on and on, the 9th in line is not responsible for the "breach of privacy." I would in fact say that OTRS is not private. It is privileged. Multiple readers means there is no privacy. OTRS is privileged by strict legal definition. Arb-L is not. Your e-mail is not. My e-mail is not. The Pentagon's e-mail is not.
    • Let's use words in at least rough accord with their meanings, if possible. "Private" does not mean "I would rather my enemies not see it." A girl wearing a miniskirt may wish that the disgusting bum not stare at her legs, that only the cute guy at the coffee shop notice her, but she can't select her viewers. Geogre (talk) 10:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Those are interesting, and very passionately argued, opinions. Do not mistake your opinions for fact. I'd also like to point to a fundamental internal contradiction in your statements above. On one hand, you regard decision-making through private discussion to be "illicit", on the other hand you say that there is no privacy anyway and it's just too bad if an email gets copied and spread around. If it's arguably true that we can't do anything about the latter (well actually we can, and we do) it's certainly true that no matter how many times your pass your opinion, and even were all of Wikipedia to agree with you and we passed a policy on the matter, we could not force Wikipedians to be influenced in the decisions of matters on Wikipedia solely by transactions and statements made on the Wiki or other sanctioned public forums. If I discuss an article with my wife and she points out some severe and insoluble problems and says "why not have it deleted?" there's absolutely no way you can stop me considering that suggestion, even if you knew about it, and even if it were the case that such business were "illicit". --Tony Sidaway 11:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It works two ways, JzG. Same as publishing private correspondence onwiki is frowned upon and was only forgiven when any reasonable person would have seen that it was the right thing, conducting WIkipedia business off-line is frown upon with similar exception. OTRS and ArbCom obviously fall under such excemption. IRC and unofficial email lists do not. --Irpen 07:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

More: and this has always been an ethical issue rather than the policy one with the exception of RL identities which has always been a policy issue. Don't try to make a new policy to reflect your views. If IRC rules prohibit logging, enforce it there. Wikipedia has nothing to do with IRC. --Irpen 07:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This is great, actually. The suggested policy called "Private correspondence" should cover both how it should be treated wrt posting to WP and how its usage wrt to Wikipedia is totally irrelevant and contradicts both the spirit and the letter of our policies. This page should cover both. No proivate correspondence may justify an on-wiki action. Use it all you want but when you make a wiki-action, explain yourself onwiki such that there is no room for assumptions. Those two are unrelated and should not try to regulate each other. --Irpen 07:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The wording that says that there's no expectation of privacy if there are more than two correspondents is not very sensible because it would make even arbcom-l and the otrs system (where all items can be viewed by anybody with an otrs login) effectively public.

I know that one or two people have passionately defended that position on the talk page. That doesn't mean that it's a tenable position or one that can ever command consensus on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 08:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Indeed. It seems there is an attempt to conflate two issues, that of posting private data (not allowed) and that of off-wiki collaboration (explicitly allowed in some cases, but deprecated in other cases and cannot override on-wiki consensus - a more complex position). Conflating the two adds confusion to something that's pretty simple: don't post private data. The comment about off-wiki discussion probably belongs at WP:CANVASS rather than here, since that's what was alleged (falsely but with considerable persistence) in the Durova case. Guy (Help!) 15:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    • "Private data" is far too broad, Guy. If we are not to permit private data, you will have to change your user name, as will anyone who uses their real name. Risker (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • In what way is that private? Guy (Help!) 19:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, onwiki actions have to be justified offwiki all the time. People working for OTRS have to do it; OFFICE has to do it; admins with BLP concerns have to do it; admins coordinating anti-vandalism action do it on IRC; people working for the MedCom coordinate via IRC and e-mail; the ArbCom does the same.

The danger of this is that sometimes action is taken or proposed against good editors out of malice, or based on very faulty evidence. We've all seen examples of this, particularly on IRC. The solution is reform and increased mindfulness, but we can't insist that all IRC and other offwiki coordination of legitimate admin action be stopped. That would be neither possible nor desirable. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS is just a small and narrow case of illicit use of off-line communication. Other uses include organizing a "clean kill" of an editor by planning it over #admin by two admins with others watching or planning "getting rid" from an editor through "a slow and grinding process that looks like an ArbCom to me" at the same channel by a sitting arbitrator and an "arbitrator emeritus" with another arbitrator and admins watching and one of the participants of this discussion honorably (I'm not sarcastic here) telling them that this would be an extremely bad idea. Same applies to stalking contributors WR style and organizing special "investigation lists" to coordinate such activity. This all flies in the faith of several policies WP:STALK, WP:BATTLE, WP:BLOCK, WP:AGF and is indeed illicit. If we are to have a separate policy piece devoted to such correspondence it should tackle the problem from both ends and address not only publicizing but also using it. --Irpen 19:36, 10 December 2007 (


I've certainly seen allegations (unfortunately on-wiki, and fortunately much less frequent than at one time) of malicious attacks proposed on a particular IRC channel. However there seems to be little evidence to support these claims. I speak as someone who hangs out on the relevant channel quite a lot of the time. In any case, reform of such venues would be a matter, as I've remarked before, outside the purview of Wikipedia.
Especially in the case of a closed IRC channel devoted to legitimate discussion of Wikipedia affairs, it is to be expected that activities on Wikipedia will often be discussed and the subjects of those necessary discussions will not be pleased about the fact and will make efforts to compromise it. This is not a good reason to cave in to their efforts by declaring the closed channel to be public rather than private. I'd think it was obvious that such efforts should be deprecated in strong terms. --Tony Sidaway 19:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Tony, please, the evidence has been posted in multiple places. I've also seen you in various channels while it's been happening, so come on. Look, it's time for all people of goodwill to get together to sort this out in a way that leaves everyone satisfied. You're an experienced editor when it comes to WP, IRC, and all the other private and public means of communication, so your help is needed.
Irpen, you raise some good points, but the solution is increased mindfulness among good-faith editors, who have to be willing to monitor their own behavior when engaging in private correspondence, and also must be willing to eject the consistently bad-faith users — and there really aren't many of them. But the solution is not to try to ban offwiki coordination entirely, because it's just not workable, and it's often necessary. Not just desirable, but necessary. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd put this down to paraoia, pure and simple. I recall that Giano once made a number of accusations, and even stooped to posting purported transcripts. We really shouldn't save in to that kind of abuse, and falsely accusing people of wrongdoing on, of all things, the admins IRC channel, the basis of such "evidence", is really beyond the pale. Slim, I'm surprised at you. --Tony Sidaway 11:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, excellent points. What I see here is two groups of people who are very committed to Wikipedia, in their different ways, having those differences cynically exploited by people who are committed to damaging Wikipedia. And we (self specifically included) don't seem to have any way of dealing that other than helping them right along. It's a problem alright. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Paranoia. No one is manipulating me or Giano. I can vouch that I am not in any contact with those bad guys and they are not sending me any illicit info. We can well keep our own house clean and have nothing to be afraid of if only we not try to write policies that would almost explicitly say that in order to expose the abuse veiled by the frivolous demand of "needed" secrecy, the evidence should be given to the very those bad guys who would happily publish it. But whoever tries to deal with those problems onwiki would get blocked. Protecting female editors from harassment is a very narrow exception, along with any communication that involves checkuser data. The thought that some "very committed editors" are digging through my contributions to try to find anything to expunge me makes me puke. Evidence of this has been posted and I don't only mean the IRC chatter but digging through all my contributions and dumping stuff into a secret database to unload at the opportune time. And this is done also by what you call "committed editors" you see around a lot, JzG, not WR stalkers. No one should be investigating me, Giano, or !!. No one should organize the on-wiki actions off-line (save exceptional cases above) and no one should try to claim impunity for doing so by attempting to write new nonsensial policies that would make such activity legitimate and combating it a blockable offense. --Irpen 23:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Tony, I am aware that you disapprove such conduct. It was no one but you who said to cut it on #admins when a sitting arbitrator was discussing with an "arbitrator emeritus" how to "get rid of Irpen through a slow a grinding process" with another sitting arbitrator watching. I am not aware whether you have been around when a "clean kill" of Giano was discussed by two notorious admins (one of them has been later desysopped by ArbCom) but please no "allegations" talk. The "investigations list" where the results of the Wikipedia Review-style stalking of editors was dicussed is a fact, not an allegation either. --Irpen 19:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Slim, I agree that it is sometimes necessary but there is indeed a rather limited set of circumstances. No one calls for making OTRS or ArbCom IRC public. There is a good reason to discuss nuts harassing and threatening female editors in private. But this is used to classify the illegitimate use when other things happen at the same medium. Recently, it was said elsewhere onwiki that Durova was alarmed by a mass-harassment of female editors by email and this impeded her judgment. It appears to be another fairy-tale. --Irpen 20:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw that claim made by another editor. I'm not aware of anything fitting that description, so I assume it was a misunderstanding.
As for the investigations list, I'm also not aware of any WR-style stalking of editors there, though I'm not subscribed to it now. Would you mind e-mailing me more details?
I agree that admins "investigating" accounts need to be very careful not to cross the line into unjustifiable scrutiny, which is why I'm advocating that people involved in these activities be constantly reminded of that by their peers. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 20:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • "I saw that claim made by another editor. I'm not aware of anything fitting that description" - OK Slim, so who is lying - you, Durova or Alex Bakharev on Jimbo's own page [12]? (I have a hard copy of that claim. just in case someone decides to oversight.) Giano (talk) 20:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
So, no nasty wide-scale email harassment but this was invoked as an excuse. I don't even think the person was lying in sense of deliberately saying non-truths. When one devotes his/her full time to investigations, the mindset shift happens and the person starts to honestly believe in nonsense one invents. Are you saying that the "report" on !! did not demonstrates that he was stalked the WR-style? "Being constantly reminded" won't work as explained in the buetiful Bigfoot proposal. This should just stop. There should be a list investigating real harassment, a serious problem without doubt, but the rest is just playing games. All these "secret" rules to identify socks are either bullshit or trivial or both (that is some obvious rules still often give false positives.)
If we are hammering out the policy on "private correspondence", it needs to address both how its privacy should be treated wrt to onwiki posting AND what use of such communication amounts to illicit conduct. This should be dealt with in the policy devoted to very this specific issue and not WP:CANVASS or whatever. --Irpen 20:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Irpen, one of the three was lying to influence Wikipedia policy. Which one. No ifs and buts - who? Giano (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
On who is lying, see above. Please do not mix Alex into this. He is the person who would never do a dishonorable thing. --Irpen 20:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Um ... and I would? All I can do is repeat that I'd not heard any such claim before I saw it from Alex. It's possible, indeed likely, that it's a misunderstanding rather than a "lie." This is what happens when A tells B who tells C, and so on. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 21:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I never said that you would, Slim. My take on what happened is below. I simply protested Alex' being brought into this. I thought I was clear (below) that you did not do anything wrong either. --Irpen 21:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Thinking more of it and since Giano always demands open and clear answers, I will state openly what I wanted to imply. My view is that Durova, blinded by months of wiki-police work, started to invent and believe into things that were just not there. That's how a "nasty wide-scale email harassment of female editors" appreared out of the blue. --Irpen 20:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
There's an element of truth in there, but there is also good evidence that female editors have been targeted due to their gender, and the naturally geeky nature of Wikipedia is also definitely less friendly to female editors than it is to male editors. The attacks on female editors, particularly off-wiki, take a predictable, adolescent and in many cases entirely unacceptable tone. You have only to look at the things ED said about Phaedriel, who is the epitomy of niceness. Women tend to feel more threatened by publication of addresses and other such privacy violations; it is not right to simply dismiss this. Guy (Help!) 23:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
JzG, I said clearly that I would never object to the restricted access list devoted to preventing of the harassment of female editors. But what does it have to do with this ugly "investigations list"? Why was the harassment list devoted to this narrow and important topic turned into an "investigations list" to a degree that they had to be split to steer off harrassment-unrelated traffic? In what way are those secret investigations of editors at secret e-lists or IRC anything but illicit?
We've had an IRC-organized "complete reviews" of editor's contributions to find out whether there is any reason to "ban this guy"! (BTW, "that guy" has not done anything disruptive). We've had the IRC-organized series of pokings of Giano because "we need a clean kill" until joyous "now we have something". Why should "that guy", Giano, myself, !! be investigated in the first place at some secret list, IRC or the hidden file where selected excerpts of my contributions are held? This has nothing to do with protecting women from harassment, privacy issues or any other legitimately secrecy! Using private correspondence for such activity should be addressed in the policy called "private correspondence" if you want to regulate its usage and nowhere else. --Irpen 04:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Look spare us the histrionics and the crap, Which one is lying - Durova, Slim or Alex? Giano (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Very possibly, I'm delightful Slim. Now to the matter in hand. "she [Durova] had reasons to believe that there was an active wikipedian involved into sick email harassment of female wikipedians (obviously it was not User:!! but she had thought he was). " Is this true or not? Just answer the question! Giano (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • What's the relevance in this context? That suspicion was not, as far as I recall, shared with me, as a founder member of that list. I don't think anyone's disputing that Durova was more paranoid than was justified, but this seems to be going beyond that into the realms of speculation. Guy (Help!) 23:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry?...Guy? was someone addressing you? Or can you just not bear missing out. The question is to Slim, Alex or Durova. Do you happen to be called by either of those names? Giano (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I have misunderstood Durova during her chat. At any rate I should not made public the impression I got from the private chat from her without her checking it first (that would save me from embarrassing). I have retracted my statement, please ignore it. That is it. There was a good faith misunderstanding but if you really need a lier her lets it be me Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Per Giano's request for input

Alex Bakharev did not inform me that he intended to post to Jimbo's talk page until he had already done so. I immediately asked him both on-wiki and off to withdraw the statement, and he has. His post is mostly right, but errs on a few points, and I immediately sent !! an e-mail to clarify that I had never accused him of harassment and would have cleared up that confusion in advance if I had known that's what Alex perceived.

Allow me to point out two threads started by other Wikipedians today.

Whether or not you place any faith at all in my words, those threads demonstrate that harassment does happen. The e-mail list was called cyberstalking. Dig into my user space history and you'll see glimpses. Google me and you'll find more. Per WP:DENY, I really don't want to discuss my experiences, and some of you wouldn't believe me anyway. Yes, it affected my judgement last month. I realized that in retrospect. There was a particularly bad spate of it. What got under my skin wasn't so much the harassment itself as the responses of some of the people I relied on for help. DurovaCharge! 00:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

To elaborate on that, here's an unsolicited comment from a reporter who reviewed the situation as it stood last August, before the heat turned up.
I spent a few hours yesterday trolling through some of the posts placed by those detractors. The experience made me sick to my stomach. I saw eerie reminders of the Kathy Sierra incidents which culminated in Kathy’s decision to step back from writing and lecturing late last March. Malicious statements about Durova’s sexuality, intelligence and “obsession” with iconic women throughout history (she takes her pseudonym from one such woman) are laced with derogatory statements about her and women in general. That ain’t cool folks. I am not going to share those statements or the names of the people who made them today. They are readily available with a bit of research. I am however going to reiterate my call for all forum and blog administrators to take a heavy and unwavering line on comment that crosses into personal attack and insinuation, especially if the comments are misogynistic in nature.[13]
DurovaCharge! 00:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Not to put too fine a point on a small item but it says right there that "Durova contacted me to arrange an interview." Thus while the exact wording might have been "unsolicited" the content probably doesn't qualify as a man-on-the-street sort of unsolicited response. < -- section deleted -- > - CygnetSaIad (talk) 06:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I had contacted him earlier and that turned into an interview. I had no idea he would follow it up with that blog post. These comments completely surprised me. DurovaCharge! 07:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
"What got under my skin wasn't so much the harassment itself as the responses of some of the people I relied on for help." I thought you said they were all "positive to entheusiastic"! Giano (talk) 10:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Apples and oranges. DurovaCharge! 10:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
why not just cut the wit and answer the questions? You keep saying (or confusing people into thinking you are saying) you want to tell your side of the story. Yet you refuse to voice any replies to any questions. Do you imagine we are telepathic, or are you using some strange semaphore or is it simply that you have nothing to add which will elaborate on the mess you created. If that is the case, and I suspect it is, it would be better if you went quietly off to write a few pages for a few months - that is what we are supposedly here for not running a second rate detective agency. Giano (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Giano, what I do expect is that people be consistent in their principles. Last month I failed to assume sufficient good faith. If there's a lesson to be learned from that, we should all be more generous in supposing good faith of others. I came to this talk page at your invitation and when I arrived here I saw that you had been insisting one of three people were lying--not misspoken, not mistaken, but lying. I assumed good faith and supposed that your loyalty to a friend may have blinded you to the likelihood that Alex Bakharev's withdrawal of his statement per my request suggested better motives than you ascribed. And in good faith I supposed that friend might not have informed you of the clarifying e-mail I had promptly sent him. Of the three people you were ready to call liars, all have responded. The occasion was an honest miscommunication. Normal Wikipedian practice at this stage would be for you to strikethrough the accusation of lying, but instead of doing so you proceed with other insinuations. No thank you; I have fulfilled your original request by coming here and now withdraw. DurovaCharge! 16:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
That's fine Durova you withdraw. It is clear from your statements and email to !! that you deny saying that to Alex. Alex has admitted you did not say it to him and that he posted saying that you had. What is there for me to strike through? Giano (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is That A Naked Emperor?

The elephant in the room here is that no-one disputes that in general sharing private communications with anyone without the that persons consent is impolite and should be discouraged.

No-one would dispute that in general not sharing it or sharing it with permission is better than informing someone that it will be shared and sharing it.

No-one would dispute that informing someone that the private communication is being shared is better than not informing them and sharing it anyway.

No-one, ok one might dispute this, but consider it a rhetorical flourish. No-one would dispute that it's better to share private comminications privately than make private communications public.

So you have an escalation depending on how threatened, abused, bothered, annoyed, intimidated someone is by the sender and their perception of the senders bad faith.

Going from not threatened, abused etc at all in which case there's no real justification for sharing those private messages without consent at all.

To the next step on on that scale where it's justified to inform them that say the message has been forwarded to arbcom or something.

To the next step on the scale where it's justified to share the message with arbcom or perhaps even law enforcement depending on the nature of the communications without informing the sending party.

That's where this proposal is so far, but for some unfathomable reason there's a view that sharing an email privately is a violation of a different kind to sharing it publically rather than just merely one of scale. Given that emails can chain around into every nook and cranny of those counted among the informal elite at such velocities that time slows down for them. The difference is only really the difference between sharing someones secret diary around the neighboorhood block or the whole town.

So what am I getting at?

If there are private communications floating around that demonstrate some kind of abuse where the people who would normally be the ones to turn to on the issue have a conflict of interest this policy leaves no way to resolve it. The problem then becomes a dirty little family secret swept under the carpet that cannot ever be acknowledged even though everyone knows and will remain for ever unresolved causing more problems. The abuser in question of course facing no consequences.

At that point you hit the final step of the scale. Disclosure in the publics interest. This is what's commonly known as whistleblowing.

Good organizations encourage internal whistleblowing because if they don't they turn into Corrupt Bureaucratic Clusterfucks. (And for that matter to avoid bad press from whistleblowers not handling things within the organization and instead going to the press.)

Corrupt Bureaucratic Clusterfucks punish and crack down on their whistleblowers because whistleblowers will expose that the organization is a Corrupt Bureaucratic Clusterfuck.

I don't know whether this was its intention, but as it stands this policy is in effect a policy to gag whistleblowers.

Now wikipedia is a good organization, and I'm sure no-one wants it to turn into a Corrupt Bureaucratic Clusterfuck. So if policy is to be made to protect private communications from public disclosure, then equally strong whistleblower protections must be made because sometimes public disclosure will be neccesary and if it can't be handled internally within wikipedia then the only option for a whistleblower will be to take it off wikipedia and go to the press etc. - V (talk) 04:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There should be, within this policy, a stipulation for whistleblowing to the public arena. DEVS EX MACINA pray 04:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a political experiment. Public whistleblowing is to be strongly discouraged because it exacerbates disputes rather than resolve them. If in your opinion the arbitration committee, Jimbo, etc, cannot be trusted, then there are other ways to contribute free content that don't involve them. The most famous of these is Citizendium, but there are a few other wiki-based encyclopedias around. --Tony Sidaway 11:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
If wikipedia isn't a political experiment then why make it one by doing something that's never worked before, making it policy and assuming that the magic issue resolving fairy is going to come down and sprinkle magic issue resolving pixie dust all over it? You can look all you want and you're never going to find a single example of discouraging whistleblowing creating a more effective less pathological organizational culture. So why experiment? Whistleblowing is extremely rare even when protections are in place because in practice whistleblowers always suffer consequences. It's a last resort for people who deeply and truly care about the organization and don't have any other options left. Most people would just throw their hands into the air and find something else to do than go through the hell that whistleblowers do. If things get to the point that whistleblowing is occurs. Then firstly, it's going to happen no matter what, it's just a question of whether it's going to happen on-wiki or through the media, and if it's through the media then that just increases the risk of the problem not being resolved and increases damage to wikipedia's credibility. Secondly, exacerbating disputes is the least of your problems, because it means there are far worse things than disputes going on... There are actual real problems... What whistleblowing does is resolve these problems that otherwise can't be resolved.
As far as trusting Jimbo or arbcom goes, I don't know why any one else is here, but as far as I'm concerned I'm contributing free content to an online encyclopedia run by a non-profit. Tomorrow Jimbo could be hit by a truck while crossing the road. Arbcoms membership changes. My only concern are whether or not I can trust that the non-profit behind this online encyclopedia is stable enough that it will continue distributing free content indefinitely and whether or not I can trust the varied stakeholders in wikipedia as a collective. I feel I can trust those, and as long as I do I'll contribute. Faith or the lack thereof in Jimbo or arbcom simply doesn't enter my calculations. - V (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In the real world this is a question that has been addressed. Someone bound by obligations of confidence - either towards their employers or towards state secrets - usually has a defence where they break that confidence to inform the proper authorities - the police, judiciary, an elected official. They usually do not have a defence where instead of pursuing those avenues, they choose to contact the press. "Whistleblowing" is not an absolute right and one should consider to whom the whistle is blow. It might be one thing if the police, judiciary etc. took no action and one later contacted the press but it is more difficult to justify them as a first port of call.

Moving to the Wikipedia context. Private correspondence could be sent to Jimbo Wales or ArbCom. In the Durova case it appears that ArbCom (as body) received the email after it was posted on-wiki. It would have been different I think if the proper channels had been exhausted first - that someone had emailed the evidence to the ArbCom list and after a reasonable period of time (say a week or two) had received no satisfactory reponse. But proper channels should I think be explored before the information is published in the most dramatic manner possible. WjBscribe 17:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have much of an opinion about how corporate whistleblowing should work. In the case of Wikipedia, blowing the whistle on-wiki to the body of Wikipedia editors seems like an eminently reasonable thing to do. These are, of course, the main stakeholders of Wikipedia. It's hard to see how it would be harmful.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 18:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
"... the proper channels had been exhausted first - that someone had emailed the evidence to the ArbCom list and after a reasonable period of time (say a week or two) had received no satisfactory reponse. But proper channels should I think be explored before the information is published in the most dramatic manner possible." Well those would be provisions for whistleblowing right there. Anyone want to work something along those lines into the policy? - V (talk) 18:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The term "whistleblowing" presupposes that there is something to blow the whistle about. Wikipedia is an obsessively open community. Insisting that decisions be justified openly is enough. We can't stop people discussing Wikipedia matters with their wives, husbands, brothers, sisters, girlfriends, boyfriends, work-mates, friends, neighbors, email contacts, e-friends and the like. We can't insist that all those discussions will take place on the wiki. We don't need to, however. An act that doesn't have consensus cannot succeed. --Tony Sidaway 19:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
"The term "whistleblowing" presupposes that there is something to blow the whistle about." Hunh? No it doesn't. The act of "whistleblowing presupposes that there's something to blow the whistle about. I'm not sure I understand the relevance of what you're saying here. For example oversight removals of text occur all the time and by their very nature can't have consensus, and having provisions for whistleblowing as a last resort isn't insisting that all discussions take place on-wiki. - V (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
WJB, it should be remembered that it was read as implied in Durova's initial comments at ANI that the email had been seen, and endorsed, by at least members of the ArbCom. While this was not correct, and was subsequentley clarified as such - certainly the latter point of endorsement, it may not have been known by those reading Durova's comments; therefore it would have appeared that that avenue had been exhausted. The point being, there can be instances where it is believed the internal processes have been exhausted and there are still serious misgivings - there needs to be an implicit recognition that WP:IAR allows those channels and procedures to be bypassed in resolving important issues. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
It was seen, but was not endorsed by anyone who has been named, and certainly was not endorsed as anything other than an accurate identification of a returning user in any message I ever saw, as a participant in the list(s) about which so much inaccurate speculation has circulated. Guy (Help!) 15:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
During the height of the controversy, Durova persistently claimed that there were additional e-mailed exchanges not on-list, in which "about five" users specifically responded (responses ranging from positive to enthusiastic) to the idea of blocking !!. She has not to my knowledge retracted these claims. It's certainly not unreasonable to assume that, if this in fact happened, at least some of the users involved were arbitrators. —Random832 15:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The request by Durova that any queries/qualms about the block should be referred to ArbCom certainly gave the impression that both the block and the relevent email had been sent there and was approved. Not so, and reasonably promptly clarified, but sufficient cause for some to believe that that was not an avenue worth pursuing and that more public methods were required to overturn a bad block. I really am not trying to justify (or vilify) the recent past, but am trying to make people recognise is that there must be a license to sometimes go beyond the "appropriate" channels where it is believed that they are not serving their purpose. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Sure, gave the impression, but as ArbCom made perfectly plain, it was a false impression. And the block was speedily reversed. Hard cases make bad law. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Would the block have been overturned so quickly, and clarification regarding "approval" been so swift, had there not been the hue and cry/bewailing and beating of breasts? I suggest, perhaps not. In any future incident there still needs to be the ability to raise concerns in a manner which prompt the appropriate responses... errrr... promptly. Public disclosure can do that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, it didn't take ArbCom to clarify that. I did so myself on the first day at ANI as soon as the speculation arose, and I expressed the clarification repeatedly. I made multiple mistakes and am very sorry for them. Yet I reversed the block myself in 75 minutes and, as my arbitration evidence shows, I was always proactive about correcting the rare block errors I see, regardless of whether the community paid attention. Please do not compound my actual faults with wrongs I didn't commit. DurovaCharge! 00:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Durova where is my edit here [14] if you regret saying something you strike through it, you do not pretend it did not happen! Do not revert me ever again - is that quite clear? Giano (talk) 18:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you missed my edit summaries. They clearly state that I had moved my comment to a user talk page.[15][16] I have no wish to engage in conflict with you, Giano, and if you refrain from reverting my edits you have no need to fear my interference. DurovaCharge! 19:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, but as always with you, you only provide half the story for instance which talk page? Not that it matters because you should have struck through not reverted, and certainly not reverted my comment. When you finally desist from your continued habit of attempting to re-write history that I will happily disengage from all contact with you. Giano (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Here is the diff of the post to user talk, which was the next edit I performed two minutes after moving the comment off this page.[17] Please assume good faith, Giano, and please let this rest. DurovaCharge! 21:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe I identified the source of the clarification above, just that it did come. I suggest that Guy is stating that ArbCom later confirmed that any impression they had endorsed was incorrect. I really really am trying to move this discussion away from this past instance and to potential future events. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A few case studies

I want to discuss a few case studies. They are based on the real-world cases but I intentionally changes a few details to keep privacy of participants. Also there are hypothetical courses of action. Alex Bakharev (talk) 13:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Case 1

A problem user posts highly POVed statements as facts. When another user, a teenager, reverts the changes, the soapboxer sends the boy a letter threating to start a court case that would leave the boy's parents without their home. The boy is frightened, he is a medium-level user who knows a few admins and WP:AN/I but not how to submit mails to the arbcom mail-list. Alex Bakharev (talk) 13:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Case 1a

The boy reads the present proposal, interpret it as he cannot share the frightening E-mail with anybody (there is no arbcom cases openned yet and the permission from the harasser is highly unlikely. He leaves wikipedia in fair and disgust. Bad guys win...

I do not think this is a preferred variant. The policy should explicitly state what to do if you received a harassing email or a threat. If we want it to be dumped on arbcom then we should give the exact email for the arbcom mail list. We should explicitly advice that the user might contact the arbcom even if the case is not opened yet. But do we really want to dump any problem email on arbcom? Alex Bakharev (talk) 13:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Case 1b

The boy forwarded the email to an admin he knew previously. Admin has checked the facts and banned harasser per WP:NLT, he also posted on WP:AN/I that he has banned such and such user and any admin wanting to review the block can ask for copies of the documents.

Was forwarding of the E-mail to a simple admin (not an arbitrator or checkuser) allowed? Was forwarding the Email from the blocking admin to the reviewer allowed? Was posting about WP:NLT on the WP:AN/I allowed? If so it should be stated in the policy Alex Bakharev (talk) 13:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Case 1c

As the admin has learned from the E-mail, the blocked soapboxer was a minor celebrity interesting for the media. The admin hasnot published it onwiki but published in the NYT.

There was no breaches of the current policy but it seems to be a bad decision. Should we state the admins who got copies of private info in the course of their official duties are obliged to keep information confidential either on or offwiki. TYhe breach of fidelity service should be desysopping. Alex Bakharev (talk) 13:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Case 1d

Frustrated teenager decided to post the content of the threating email (removing the address) on WP:AN/I. Should we block the boy? Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Answer to all the above: {{helpme}}, clueful advice dispensed. Problem averted. But sending an email you received to an admin in order to stop abuse is not a violation of privacy. The admin should know it can be sent to ArbCom or indeed the office or OTRS. If an admin receives a copy of an abusive email and blocks an abuser, then ArbCom is the logical avenue of appeal anyway. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    But sending an email you received to an admin in order to stop abuse is not a violation of privacy. - that is precisely what this proposed policy does not say. —Random832 13:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Case 2

An experienced user obtained a copy of a semi-private message from an email-list. The message outlined a "secret sock-identifying policy" that essentially recommended blocking every suspected multiple account even of users exercising their right to vanish. Discussing of the erroneous policy obviously benefited the community. Should we shot the messanger and block the whistleblower?

  • A bit far-fetched. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not think so. Maybe we should have some whistleblower protections stating that in the cases of obvious public good it is possible to publish exerts from the private communications and warning about danger of misjudgement? Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Which leaves the door wide open because everyone thinks it's of pressing importance that their particular example gets published. So: they can send it to ArbCom, as suggested by the present wording. If ArbCom thinks it's of pressing importance then they can take the heat. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    • The problem with it is that not everyone completely trusts Arbcom (it is difficult to please everyone). Another problem is that Arbcom mail list consists of 28 very busy people who can easily to overlook even important problems. I guess we have the publicly available Evidence and Workshop sections for a purpose. Secrecy breeds idiocy, secrecy breeds misunderstandings, secrecy breeds rumors. I guess Durova's case is a good example of all three. Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • If they don't trust ArbCom, WP:OTRS or any individual admins, I suggest they are probably in the wrong project. Guy (Help!) 18:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Guy - are you deliberatly provactative or just very stupid? Giano (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I would try to avoid personal attacks, but while I deeply respect many Arbitrators I would not trust my life on them. To many of Arbcom decisions I monitored were IMHO wrong and even right decisions went into existence the torturous way after weeks of deliberations with many arbitrators on the both sides of obvious decisions. What is more important the internet (or biosphere as its face) does not seem to be trusting it either. Of all the responses I have seen to the idiotic theRegister article only a few devoted Wikipedians seems to reject this conspirological monstrosity. Wikipedia as a project is already shrinking who would implement our dreams if the people would see us as yet another greedy corporation ruled by a hidden cabal? The best way to stop it is to stop behave like one Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New case today - Elonka RFA

Please see: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Elonka_3#Abusive_messages_from_Elonka. Lawrence Cohen 16:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Just coming to bring this up. An interesting case, particularly since we can't confirm authorship. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Unlike the Durova case, where multiple verified the message was authentic. Just wanted to post it here, as it's right in line with the discussions on this page. Lawrence Cohen 17:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Interesting case. Should we take the complainant's word for it? One way forward is if Elonka concsents to posting the content with the private information in the headers (ip etc.) redacted. Another possibility is the involvement of a trusted third party. A better alternative all round is for Elonka to withdraw at this point and then take the matter to ArbCom or an RfC where context can be more fuly evaluated; it's hard to combine RfA and a shitstorm. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
And now there's another poisoning of the well going on down at the bottom of the talk page about alleged deleted evidence. Go see. Perhaps their needs to be a note that alleging inflammatory "private evidence", which can't be disclosed, is an action that can bring sanction. Otherwise, people can pull trump cards like this repeatedly on avenues with a limited duration like RFA. Lawrence Cohen 22:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
You'll never stop that kind of crap, I think. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
For the RFA I guess the applicant should just blankly allow publishing all the wiki-related private correspondence [s]he is authored. At any rate if Elonka will find a way out of the drama I would vote for her Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Under a Privacy Policy, any off-wiki discussions that were not published at large could be banned. I would not be in favor of people standing for RfA being required to give permission to publishing such things to bypass such a rule. However, I also believe that (as someone further above) said: Secrecy leads to idiocy. I have seen too many instances of this in my life and in history. It is so true it should be carved in granite or cast in brass. So wikipedia should also have a sense of openness. As a result I would favor a policy that says something to the effect that: "Any posting of private communications not related to wikipedia editing is forbidden. Any posting of private communications for the purpose of harassment is forbidden. Any posting of private communications unrelated or on a tangent to the topic is forbidden. And Any posting of private communications to your talk page is forbidden. However, in instances where the community is placing its trust in individual by conferring tools and privileges upon them, private communications may be posted under fair use and reasonable verifiability restrictions if necessary". Something along those lines. In short, I do not believe that publishing private emails and log chats should be just given a clean pass, but I think openness in the community and elimination of cabals (particularly cabals with powers) should be encouraged. for now though, the only policy that applies to such things is copyright. This policy has no community consensus to it--Blue Tie (talk) 15:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't taken action on this case because I wouldn't be impartial - I previously nominated the candidate for adminship. However, it seems to me that posting off-wiki communication with an attempt to discredit an RfA candidate seriously undermines the RfA process. Were the content very serious, it should be forwarded to ArbCom who could order the suspension of the RfA while the evidence were considered. Anything less serious than that simply should not be posted given its inherent ability to subvert the process. It seems to me that an appropriate response in future would be to delete the offending material and block the editor who posted it until the conclusion of the RfA as a response to their attempts to disrupt it. WjBscribe 17:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

As I have said below, the politeness and appropriateness of offwiki communications is absolutely essential for an admin. Nasty offwiki communication is a very valid reason to oppose a candidate. Thus, paraphrase of a communication should be absolutely allowed. Decision to allow or disallow the exact reproduction of a communication is possibly a privilege of the candidate. Still I will be very skeptical of an admin-candidate who would try to suppress reproduction of his or her communications (unless a really srious privacy issues exists) Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Email and IRC

Unless anyone can come up with a reason to treat the two mediums (in the abstract - not specific instances like one particular mailing list vs another particular channel) differently; when you make an edit to the section applying to Email, please make substantially the same edit to the IRC section (or vice versa). —Random832 19:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

But there is no need to use the same wording, which makes the page look silly. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 21:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure it could be worded differently for each with the same meaning, but the versions I've seen at least before today (haven't looked closely at your changes today) that have had the two sections substantially different have tended to be skewed in the direction of declaring one or the other to be inherently less private. I do understand (and even, to some extent agree with) your position that #wikipedia-en-admins in particular has somewhat less of an expectation of privacy than your mailing list, but it's sometimes come across as saying that IRC in general is less private. And this is by no means limited to this - I've seen versions where mailing lists are declared less private than IRC, too (i don't want to go digging through the history) —Random832 21:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I guess what bothers me is when you bring up the fact that the IRC channels are "logged" - how does the fact that W-R users are coming into the channel, secretly making logs, and posting them to Brandt's website reduce the channel's "expectation of privacy" any more than that people subscribed to a mailing list are leaking messages to people reduces that list's expectation of privacy? —Random832 22:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Is nobody ever going to grasp the single fact that the rank and file editors do not want to be discussed off wiki. If they are discussed, then they want to know about it - and quite right to! There is no excuse for discussing matters of wiki. If there is/was an editor who raison d'etre was stalking lady Wikipedians is he more likely to be deterred by secret emails from the likes of Durova and stalking by the equally deluded famous five? or will he feel more threatened by open conversation of his conduct on Wikipedia? The Arbcom have their mailing list which is private, as is right and proper there is no need for anything further. There is no excuse for anyone to be secretly prattling about their peers anywhere. We are all here without exception to write an encyclopedia not concoct theories and vendettas. If one wants to do something useful and adding to the content is beyond one then one write an advice page for female and other vulnerable wikipedians on avoiding and handling a threatening situation. The problem, here is too many have all been allowed to rise above their wiki-stations none of us are above any other editor - being an admin is no big deal, that seems lately to have been forgotten. In stead of wasting time here we should should all be writing pages and building an encyclopedia. Giano (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Giano and wish that I had said it as clearly as he did: "Is nobody ever going to grasp the single fact that the rank and file editors do not want to be discussed off wiki. If they are discussed, then they want to know about it - and quite right to!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue Tie (talk • contribs) 08:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think what is important is the number of participants, not the media. There is a difference between private E-mail/private chat between two people/meeting eye-to-eye and 1000 persons mail list/1000 persons chat/1000-strong conference. There is also a difference with the privilege communication you can access only with some non disclosure agreement like I presume checkusers, arbitrators or OTHRS. Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

  • There is no excuse whatsoever for a bunch of admins and editors sitting about discussing their peers in secret and then squealing with indignation when others don't like it and the truth of their rubbish theories come to light or a not acted upon. The Arbcom are appointed to discuss Wikipedia matter and may do so in private - all others can either write a page or voice their opinions openly on Wiki. That way they may be inclined to think before posting. Giano (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • You think. But Jimbo is on the list, and sometimes drops by the admin IRC channel, and the OTRS list is also full of admins discussing editors' conduct, and actually the normal outcome is either no change (blatant abuse) or averting an error. Only one case has been cited where an admin appears to have dran an invalid inference form silence, and for some reason that is being portrayed as a problem of private correspondence, where actually it is a very obvious case of one admin's bad judgment. I fail to see why we need to make it bigger than it is. Guy (Help!) 20:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes we all know Jimbo is on that list, was that not why he was so cross with me? He did not come out of it well did he? Giano (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • ....and what is more, it about time Jimbo awoke to his responsibilities to the general editors rather than his chosen cliques and began to lead by example rather than intimidation. Giano (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • That's one interpretation. Another is that every single person who was on that list and spoke up is not actually lying and the list is innocent, but Durova is a dunce. I can see why you'd prefer to believe that everybody is evil and lying and Durova is innocent though. Oh, wait, no I can't actually. Guy (Help!) 00:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On discussion/paraphrasing vs verbatim reproduction

I changed the tone of this paragraph back while adding clarification of what should NOT be discussed/revealed - my intent in adding it is that it's already quite clear (from the fact that he received no sanctions, and sanctions for him were never on the table at any level) that there is no consensus to forbid posts along the lines of !!'s evidence (a lengthy paraphrase of the email that started this all off) in the Durova case; and any version that does purport to forbid similar action is flawed. The line that exists in consensus, and that should be explicitly drawn in any attempt to put that existing practice into writing, lies at worst between what Giano did and what !! did. —Random832 19:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

(copied from SV talk) With [18], you stated you were reverting one specific thing, but instead you reverted all my edits back to a previous version, without voicing any objection to my other changes. In particular, you've wiped out the entire section on paraphrasing. For now, I've restored it to the state from before you reverted, but left your wording in the IRC and E-mail sections (though I'm not sure they're very well in sync at this point) and tried to incorporate your changes in how the sections ought to be ordered.—Random832 21:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't quite get the point of that section. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 21:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Because without it, I give it a month until the rest of the policy is used against someone who simply e.g. says they got a harassing email. —Random832 21:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Since some people don't think this should be on the proposal, I'd like to start a discussion here on whether this should be included, and how it could be better said:

The scope of this particular policy is actual verbatim reproduction of private correspondence. However, when an email, IRC chat, or other private correspondence you have received contains sensitive information<NOTE: Examples of sensitive information would be IP addresses or other personal information; the identity of the person sending the email if they wish to remain anonymous; etc.> or is from a privileged source (e.g. OTRS, checkuser or arbcom, etc), you should exercise extreme caution in discussing the nature or, in some rare cases, even the existence of such correspondence, and keep in mind that other policies may apply.

Keep in mind, also, that, with or without the verbatim content, a report of having received an email is not verifiable<NOTE:Even though you know you received the email, anyone else has nothing but your word. And, someone could have faked the email to you in the first place>, so you should not make unqualified accusations against either other editors or other living persons on the basis of an email or other form of private correspondence purported to be from them.

Thoughts? —Random832 21:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec)

It says:

The scope of this particular policy is actual verbatim reproduction of private correspondence. However, when an email, IRC chat, or other private correspondence you have received contains sensitive information[1] or is from a privileged source (e.g. OTRS, checkuser or arbcom, etc), you should exercise extreme caution in discussing the nature or, in some rare cases, even the existence of such correspondence, and keep in mind that other policies may apply.

Keep in mind, also, that, with or without the verbatim content, a report of having received an email is not verifiable[2], so you should not make unqualified accusations against either other editors or other living persons on the basis of an email or other form of private correspondence purported to be from them.

It's not clear how this fits into the rest of the text. And some of it doesn't seem to make sense -- of course saying you received an e-mail is unverifiable, but so what? What is the point of us saying that? People are not going to stop saying they received an e-mail because this page tells them to. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 21:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess the second paragraph is really just an extension of NPA and BLP (which it links), but I figured since this page is on the subject of reproducing and/or talking about email contents anyway it fit. The first paragraph is what I'm more concerned about. —Random832 21:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

As for "what is the point of us saying that" - the point is to discourage people from doing it, isn't that what this page is for? —Random832 22:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be quite a radical departure for us to say we're not even allowed to say we received an e-mail. Basically, this whole thing boils down to courtesy and common sense. Sometimes it'll be appropriate to mention e-mails, usually not. We can't legislate for every single eventually. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Common sense isn’t all that common. The whole reason for this is that common sense broke down. You don’t think Giano was using common sense? Common sense doesn't need to be written down; it's the edge cases where “common sense” fails to give a consistent answer from one person to the next, that need a written policy. —Random832 00:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, true. I just think it'll be very hard to say to people that they ought not to say they've received an e-mail. But if you want to re-add something, I won't revert again. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 05:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, it is crazy not to allow people to say that they received mail from somebody. There are a lot of times we make judgment if we want to believe a user based on a non-exact evidence. No checkuser investigation, no sockpuppet investigation based on the analysis of contributions, copyright status and the subject of self-made images, etc. - all are based on non-exact evidence that would not probably stand in courts. Still we act on our assumption which users we trust and which are not. Most people would not directly lie and would confirm if they sent E-mails if they indeed sent them.

Consider case of Elonka's RFA. Polite handling of Email requests from problem users is a duty of any admin. We should not dismiss complains in that regard. DG might say I have received a nasty E-mail from Elonka full of swearing words and I am asking Elonka to allow me publish it in full. Then Elonka could either deny she ever sent something to DG, or allow wikiposting with explanations from her side or reasonably explain while such an email cannot be openly posted. The RfA participant could then decide who they trust. Putting the E-mail through an Arbcom while it does not have an Arbcome level harassment is a sure way to not clear the matters in time for the RfA Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal: Any e-mail explicitly discussing Wikimatters loses all expectation of privacy.

I'm firmly in Giano's corner on this one. I don't know how it should be worded, but in my opinion, any e-mail sent explicitly to discuss matters relating to Wikipedia should be fair game, unless there are serious real life safety/privacy concerns (e.g. real names, locations, other identifying data, etc. used in the e-mail). In the event that such an e-mail is reposted, protocol should simply be that the names of those parties who are not involved in the e-mail exchange should be redacted. There's simply no valid reason that two or more editors should be discussing WP matters off-Wiki. Though the Durova case highlighted the issue, there have been other, lower-profile examples of this as well. And who knows how many bad blocks have been upheld by off-Wiki "canvassing" to support them at AN/I? Mr Which??? 00:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There are many good reasons to discuss Wikipedia-related things in private. We can't, and shouldn't, prevent people from meeting in person, speaking on the phone, using email, IRC, IM, or shortwave radio and discussing Wikipedia. Nor should we make a rule that people have no privacy when discussing Wikipedia. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not to invade the privacy of editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
As I understand MrWhich, he is not proposing to forbid personal communications. He is proposing not to repress people for disclosing personal communications. The current proposal not only forbids me from telling anybody: "I once met Will Beback and he stated a great idea", it also forbids me from telling anybody": "I once met Will Beback". It also states that if I want to propose the great idea onwiki and for some reason Will Beback is not available for contacting, then I have to receive clearnce from Arbcom. I find this limitations unusual and counter productive Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
It forbids nothing of the sort. My additions making that explicit (that it only applies to verbatim content; not discussion _about_ an email) were only removed because it supposedly goes without saying (and since it apparently doesn't, I'll be working on a better way to phrase it to put back in), not because it's not a valid distinction to make. —Random832 14:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
(to Will) I categorically deny that there are any non-real life related concerns that need to be discussed privately. Specifically, the mess Durova caused would have been expressly avoided if she had simply exposed her nonsensical methods to the light of public scrutiny. In a general sense, it just makes for a more trusting, collegial environment if we know that there aren't secret police discussing "evidence" gathered against WP editors in private forums, over e-mail, or whatever. There's simply no demonstrated need for this. Now discussions that could impact people in a very negative way in a REAL LIFE sense certainly DO have an expectation of privacy, and should be treated that way. Mr Which??? 13:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I would disagree with your wording, though. Simply discussing Wikipedia elsewhere isn't a problem. A lot of people do that, and there is no reason for us to concern ourselves with it. In Giano's case (since that seems to be your main concern), the problem wasn't that discussions were going on elsewhere, but that specific ones weren't happening on Wikipedia when they should have been (which relates to the Wikipedia:Confidential evidence proposal). As a result, it really shouldn't be necessary to even discuss an email, or other correspondence, except when it directly relates to on-wiki actions. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 17:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps a better phrasing would be that "any off-Wiki discussion relating to on-Wiki actions has no reasonable expectation of privacy." One way or the other, there should be absolutely no ramifications for someone who "outs" cabals of editors and admins performing secret investigations into fellow WP editors. None whatsoever. Mr Which??? 17:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This proposal is of course a non-starter, to the extent that it isn't necessary to argue against it. So I won't bother. It's simply absurd. --Tony Sidaway 18:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't a "personal attack", Tony, it was calling a spade a spade. The way you behaved in calling my proposal a "non-starter" and "absurd" was, in fact, arrogant. That's not a personal attack, it's an observation. Either participate in the discussion or remove yourself from it, but refrain from simply insulting the ideas others put forward. Just because you think something is "absurd" doesn't mean it's true or that it's "not necessary to argue against it." Stifling dissent is definitely not cool at all, Tony. You'd do well to stop trying. Mr Which??? 20:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The proposal is a non-starter because nothing on this or any other Wikipedia page can disconnect people from their right to privacy. When somebody sends an email to another person, it's normally private, unless they give permission to publish or there's some sort of exceptional circumstance. - Jehochman Talk 20:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes indeed, exceptional circumstances. Like when Giano published part of the mailing list post. Risker (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Tony, since you've deleted Mr Which's reply to your very patronising remark about how you won't "bother" to argue against his proposal, I suggest you delete or cross out your remark itself as well. Please focus on the politeness of your own posts and don't worry so much about scanning other people's for "personal attacks". Bishonen | talk 20:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC).
Yup. Per normal Internet expectations, that Giano post would be allowed. However, Wikipedia has tighter rules, which we can occasionally ignore. Thus, we have a very debateable situation. - Jehochman Talk 20:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
(EC to Jehochman) No one who is discussing other editors off-wiki should expect, nor do the deserve, any privacy for those conversations. Why should WP condone such cliquish behavior? The current state of affairs with regards to policy not only condones this behavior, but actually encourages it. This needs to be changed. Mr Which??? 21:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
There's no way that Wikipedia can, nor should it, control totally off-wiki behavior. I dislike gossip, but that doesn't mean there should be rules to fight it. Posting private email should only happen when the situation is unique enough that Ignore All Rules applies, IMO. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 19:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notification of submission to Arbcom

I just made this addition. It really seems like common sense, and a matter of simple decency. If someone's correspondence is forwarded to the Committee, there is no legitimate reason they shouldn't be notified to allow them to deal with the matter in a timely and fair fashion. Is there any honest reason this would not be a good idea? Lawrence Cohen 07:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're dealing with mail from someone who's harassing you, the last thing you'd want is to have them contacted. So it's better to say people ought to be informed as a matter of courtesy when it's reasonable to do so, or words to that effect. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
In a case like that, though, why wouldn't it be a good thing for Arbcom to notify them them that they're effectively on notice? I don't know if this is an ignorant question. If it was pure unmitigated harassment (sexual, threats, etc.) the person should be banned immediately anyway. But, in case it is something that is possibly borderline or an eye of the beholder sort of situation, that Arbcom would have to sort it out. I don't see why an Arbiter or Clerk shouldn't notify them. Why would it be a good idea for them to not know the Committee was investigating them? Lawrence Cohen 19:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the concern is that they would "shape up" until the metaphorical "heat" is off - or start over with a new sockpuppet - thus avoiding getting caught. —Random832 04:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is it within ArbCom's mandate?

Someone has to ask the most obvious question here. If "private" information is sent to Arbcom, what do we expect them to do with it? They do not have the mandate to open their own cases, and as a committee they should not be banning individual editors. Yet, dependent on the nature of the information provided to them, there may be fiduciary duties for them to act - for example, an email showing clear stalking behaviours. I think this may require a further clarification of the Durova decision. Risker (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom has sanctioned editors before without opening formal cases, when presented with confidential evidence. For example, when Runcorn was exposed to be running sockpuppets. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relevant RFA: Status of TruthCrusader block review?

Status of TruthCrusader block review?[19]

Whatever the actual facts case may be this description brings up an interesting edge case. The purported sender of the harrassing emails can't produce them if they didn't send them. If they didn't send them then they by this policy they obviously can't give permission to disclose them on-wiki, but their punishment indicates that they are the sender of the email then that indicates that as the owner of the corrospondance they can allow its publication. I'd suggest anyone who's been working on this proposed policy watch this case with interest because it may clarify a few things. V (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "e-mail this user"

You know that link on user pages. Corporations can and do vet internal emails. What's the situation with Wikipedia? Is email sent via this "e-mail this user" open to scutiny? Martintg (talk) 05:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It is probably related to the location of the email server. In this case, wikipedia is not serving up the email but only the email address. If we do not want people to have email about wikipedia privately, this email link should be deactivated. However, I believe we do want that. Certainly I do. However, I do not believe that email should be protected from scrutiny if it is a matter of concern related to trusting an individual with authority or powers and emails that person has sent out show a bad side to them that they hide in public. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I hope what the emails sent via "e-mail this user" are logged and are available to developers (and maybe checkusers). If they are not logged they IMHO should be . Does anybody know wheter the emails are logged or not? Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
This sounds like a very damaging suggestion. If we were to deliberately set out to deter editors from communicating with one another via "email this user", the best way to do it would be to state that such communications were monitored. --Tony Sidaway 05:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I think there are many kinds of communication including harassments, threats of violence, threat of legal actions, canvassing, soliciting sexual contacts with minors, etc., etc. that indeed should be discouraged Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Former Arbitrator quotes from and offers IRC Log to explain actions

Folks, this proposed policy just has to stop right now. When an arbitrator emeritus is making direct quotes from, and offering to produce IRC logs to explain his actions, as Dmcdevit does here[20] (without any of the formalities of asking other parties, etc.), then it is pretty obvious that this proposed policy does not have the support of the community. It's time to call this to a close. Risker (talk) 03:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

When I lasted checked, we weren't saying IRC logs were private, unless from a private channel (i.e. one set up for just a few people). SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 03:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
This was a private conversation, from my understanding, between Dmcdevit and a steward. Risker (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I think a problem only arises where one does not have the agreement of the other party (or parties) to post the discussion. Presumably Dmcdevit has either asked the others for their consent or does not believe they would object. WjBscribe 03:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
He might also be posting only his own comments. Of course he can post copies of what he has said. - Jehochman Talk 03:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous mail

I do not think that anonymous harassing mail should be protected under this policy. The reason is simple: there is no one to get their permission for the disclosure. The anonymous here means people who could not be identified with either their real names or wikipedia aliases. Emails signed by wikipedia's aliases of people who deny their authorship should be considered anonymous Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Other issues aside, what's the purpose of posting an anonymous email? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Suppose somebody get harassed by anonymous people and wants community to investigate, suppose somebody got spam and thinks it related to his wikiediting, suppose got a trojan and suspects it is related to wiki and wants to warn people, suppose somebody received an anonymous mail canvassing for a wikicause (RFA,AFD, RM, RFC) and wants closing admin/bureaucrat to take canvassing into account. Suppose somebody got an email from alex_bakharev@somewebhost and I want to clear my name and prove I am not the author and investigate the matter. I can think of dozens similar variants but it becomes more and more WP:BEANish Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ready for approval?

This proposal seems mature now and major revisions have stoppped. Is it time to move it forward as a policy? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely NOT. This should be unceremoniously thrown on the trash heap rather than approved. It is absolutely chilling to individuals wishing to report abuse, and absolutely must not be formalized in policy. Risker (talk) 23:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's one opinion. Obviously, other people have a different opinion, as shown by the blocks of people that have posted private mail. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I respectfully point out that it would be absolutely unacceptable to be "approving" a new policy which has been opposed from its very first writing and has consistently failed to reach consensus at the one period of the year where the majority of editors and admins are only on Wikipedia for very brief forays, if at all. It is disrespectful of the community to propose that this be passed now. There has never been anywhere near a consensus that this policy is required or appropriate. Most blocks referring to "private mail" have been for disruption or harassment, which are already reasons for blocking. However, what this policy permits is established users and administrators carrying out email correspondence to harass and belittle other users, with no reasonable avenue of quick appeal to the person harassed. Yeah, sure...they can take it to Arbcom. If they can find Arbcom. If they aren't terrified because they're supposed to notify their abusers before doing so. It is a license to abuse people via email. We have already had reported today an episode in IRC where a female admin was harassed, belittled and verbally abused - with others in the channel doing nothing. Nothing. What possible reason does that admin have to believe that Arbcom will take action (when Arbcom says that is outside of their control)? Give me a break. Risker (talk) 23:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Concur with Risker's aversion to seeing this rot become policy. Mr Which??? 23:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Can you provide a link to the thread in which the community rejected this proposal? If there hasn't been a definitive rejection then a properly-publicized straw poll may be the best way of gauging community opinion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I strongly reject object to this page as policy or guideline. Historical and rejected tagging is more appropriate. As for a thread, this whole page is an example of no consensus. R. Baley (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
This is already policy. We could tag it, I suppose. --Tony Sidaway 23:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
It is not "already policy," Tony and you know that. In the past, people who have published private correspondence have been blocked for other reasons, such as repeatedly doing it or doing it to harass people. Risker (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


Rejected by community - Actual current and past behavior on Wikipedia does not and should not conform to this proposal. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to be picky, but I wasn't asking if folks approve or reject this proposal. I was asking whther it's time to seek input from the community about whether this proposal is ready for the approval process. Since major edits seem to have ended it appears to me that there is consensus on the basic text. The next step would be hold a straw poll, one which draws in the wider community. Given that some folks may be pre-occupied due to the holidays, it may be better to wait until after the first of the year. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Not to be picky, but this whole talkpage should show you that the "community" has rejected this as "no consensus to add as policy" repeatedly and soundly. There's no need to bring it to the wider community when the people working on it don't even agree. 23:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) There is NO consensus on the basic text. There are those who want this to be a policy and those who think the entire text should be marked historical and rejected. The timing of your proposal is completely unacceptable, Will Beback. You want community input, let's talk about it on January 2, 2008, but not before. The majority of editors in this community will be spending very little time on Wikipedia in the next 10 days. Risker (talk) 23:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

As I wrote above, the straw-poll would be better timed after the holidays. While there are some editors who've expressed disapproval on this page, policy is not determined by the views of a few. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
...policy is not determined by the views of a few. Exactly. New policy requires at least a consensus of the editors who have worked on the proposal. This does not have even that. Mr Which??? 00:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
If every policy required the agreement of every editor WP wouldn't have any written policies. Anyway, we can have a straw poll in January and se what the community thinks. If the proposoal is truly without support then we can mark it rejected and move on. But a few editors saying they don't like it doesn't determine the community's viewpoint. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Likewise, a few editors saying it is necessary does not determine the community's viewpoint. I seem to recall exactly the same "it's already policy/widely accepted" arguments being made for the addition of the WP:BADSITES policy and the corresponding changes to WP:NPA - both of which it turned out most definitely did not have the community's support. Let us not make the same mistake again. Risker (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, we did find agreement on the issue and amended WP:NPA to include linking to harassment. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and there had never been a dispute about that. It took over six months, multiple RfAr discussions, page protection and a major policy being labeled as disputed and/or locked for half a year before some people accepted that the community did not accept the idea of banning entire websites. There is no dispute about the publication of private correspondence for the purpose of harassing people either. It is already covered in the existing policies, and there is no purpose or benefit in having this separate user conduct policy; in fact, all these separate policies create traps for users because it is nearly impossible for people to be aware of all policies at all times, especially when they change more often than the average fashion model. Risker (talk) 00:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
As an alternative to tagging this as policy, we can decide not to go for endorsement. It will still be policy. --Tony Sidaway 01:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
It is not policy; people have been blocked for disruption or harassment in relation to posting emails, which are already existing reasons for blocking people. But Tony, please explain something to me. The email address that I have connected to my username is linked ONLY to my account and the wiki-en-L and foundation-L mailing lists. So if I get an abusive or harassing email on this account, it has to come from some Wikipedia-related source. But many people have email addresses that do not directly link to their WP usernames, so it is not always obvious who has sent them. If I get a harassing email - let's say someone emails me and calls me a bitch and a bastard and denigrates me in other ways - what do you think I should do? Is it outrageous that I would want to get some input from Wikipedians about this, or warn other users that emails from that particular address have been used for abusing editors? Come on, Tony - this is a free ride for anyone to send editors hate mail without any chance for the recipients to respond. Risker (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
You're all about helpful suggestions, aren't you Tony? It's always a good idea just to declare something "policy", even when it's hotly disputed. Good form. Mr Which??? 01:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit flummoxed by the above. If people have been blocked for abusing this policy, how can one argue that it isn't policy? Or am I, as I suspect, not reading your meaning correctly?
I do think that posting copies of abusive emails on the wiki is something we'd have to think long and hard about, before we condoned it in general, if only because Wikipedia isn't a forum for the discussion of email abuse, though there are many other issues there that we probably don't want to codify as part of a written policy. The best we can hope for here, I think, is for editors to continue to use their commonsense and not post private correspondence to Wikipedia, and as in the recent arbitration case let the arbitrators do their job. This is why I say that the current written document (give or take the odd recently added sentence) is policy. --Tony Sidaway 02:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Tony, I am afraid you are being deliberately obtuse; it certainly comes across this way. Posting an email to harass someone is harassment and is covered under that policy. Repeatedly posting something that one has been asked not to post is disruptive, and is covered under that policy. Posting an email once that demonstrates that the receiver has been harassed, intimidated or abused, or (in the case of benign emails) has been amused or enlightened, has not historically resulted in a block. Some editors have now taken to posting on their talk pages their personal policies with respect to emails (i.e., that they will *not* consider them private communications and may elect to post the email in part or in its entirety) in order to address reasonable concerns from this policy. I have received abusive emails on my Wikipedia-only email account; in that particular case, the abuse was so egregious that I went right straight to the police. I notice that suggestion isn't even included in this policy. However, if the abuse had been less egregious, but was otherwise harassing, you are saying that I could not have brought this to the attention of the community. I ask you bluntly - why are you supporting a policy that protects abusers and harassers? Risker (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
If you receive mail that you think is inappropriate and requires on-WP action then you can refer to it without quoting it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
That is sheer silliness. Direct quotes make a huge difference. To require an abuse victim to paraphrase his or her abuser, and open him/herself up to attack for being "too sensitive" or reporting a situation that "isn't really harassment" is to revictimize the victim. I will put it bluntly. Editors receiving sexual solicitations should be able to report them directly on-wiki. They can be redirected, but should never for a second have to fear that they will be blocked or be considered to have broken policy for reporting that they have been abused. Someone who receives an email indicating they are being stalked should not have to be afraid that they will be banned from Wikipedia for posting the message here and asking for help. Disparagement of editors on IRC or via email should not be sanctioned by threatening the disparaged editor (or any other outraged editor) with blocking. There is no official, well documented, easily accessible method for reporting abuse such as this. Until there is - and it may require a WMF-level policy and practice - people should never have to fear that their ability to edit Wikipedia is dependent on them having to keep their abuse secret. Risker (talk) 05:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Can you provide an example where someone has been harassed and needed to publish a private email in order to get a satisafactory resolution? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering about this too. --Tony Sidaway 07:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I do have an example in mind; however, I am waiting to hear back from the person who was victimised before I add the diffs here, as is consistent with my position that victims should not be revictimised. Given the season, it may take a few days for the victim to respond. Risker (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

For an example of the commonsense more-transparent behaviors that are in fact the community norm I show you from [21]:

"Perhaps it's a good idea to forward or post the emails? Initially, Scott sent Adam a 'legal threat' by email. Then Adam posted it on the Cuba talk page. Then I lobbied successfully to get Scott blocked indefinitely. So, the Sgrayban case demonstrated that WP:NLT applies not just to the Wikipedia namespace but also to Wikipedia email. 172 | Talk 06:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
If you want, you can go ahead and forward them to my account, and I'll review them to see if I can make a case for an indefinite block based on the emails. 172 | Talk 06:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)"

The whole "quoting email" thing is a misunderstanding, anyway. Privacy is about privacy of information, not the specific formatting of that information. Sometimes the fact that an email was sent at all is private. Sometimes, only some specific fact is private, like a real life name or a password. The most superficial look at the redaction of classified papers will show that what is private/secret varies widely from the fact that something even exists to a mere redacted number. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

In that instance, the response to the person posting the email was that they should send it to an ArbCom member or clerk, or to a Foundation member.[22] Posting an email on an article talk page, even to complain agout harassment, isn't helpful. The recipient could have easily said, "I received an email that threatens legal action. What should I do?", and he would have received the same answer, "forward it to an official who can act on it". There was no need to post the actual message, which included the name of the sender and the name and address of a 3rd party included in the letter. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, the posting of the email itself was controversial. See User_talk:Jdforrester/Personal_Archive_1#Recent_ban_of_User:Sgrayban. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requests for Additional User Privileges

Not sure about this:

Where private correspondence is cited as evidence against an editor for additional user privileges (such as RfA, ARBcom Elections, or promotion to Bureaucrat), or the revocation of those privileges, the existence of such evidence should be first asserted without posting it. Only if the community demands evidence should the email contents be posted and then only after the original correspondents' consent has been requested as a matter of courtesy.

If I read it correctly, the intent is to enable editors to cite private correspondence as their reason for opposing RFA and whatnot. I would suggest that we consider the chilling effect such a loophole would have on private discussion of Wikipedia matters, which are still very much part of our dispute resolution process. --Tony Sidaway 02:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I have considered the chilling effect and that effect is EXACTLY what I want to occur. Private communications that are insulting, harassing, targeting or in other ways offensive to the project should not be encouraged or have protection. I am not saying we should outlaw them, but they do not deserve protection and if a fear of their revelation helps prevent that obnoxious behavior that is a GOOD thing. See Giano's comments about how wikipedia editors do not want to be discussed behind closed (cabal) doors.
Alternatively, we could keep that part out but not have this be a policy. I'm fine with that too. --Blue Tie (talk) 03:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia editors may not like being discussed behind closed (Wikipedia Review) doors either. But we don't have a rule against gossiping off-site. As for this proposed provision, it seems to say that the "community" can demand private emails be posted, but it doesn't indicate how the "community" expresses this demand nor does it provide any real recourse to the writer of the private communication. Requesting permission from the writer is only a formality, as it appears the mail could be published even it the writer denies permission. I don't see why private correspondence should be treated differently from other private information. We don't have similar provisions that allow the community to demand the real names or email addresses of editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not saying that gossiping off site should be outlawed. I agree it does not say how the community should ask for the evidence and that is a weakness to what I wrote. But I figured.. "Hey put a stake in the ground and see if it can be improved". I will give my bias on this matter: I do not think that emails affecting the project should be considered private if even ONE of the people involved is willing to reproduce it or pass it on. And I do not think that there is any legal liability about this if it is done correctly. I am opposed, even in cases of egregious conduct, to revealing real identities though, if the person does not want their real identify known. I would oppose that very strongly. --Blue Tie (talk) 03:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
What I find problematic about Blue Tie's reasoning is the presumption that all private conversations are partaken of by some cabal or are obnoxious. It is for this reason that I think he casts his net here far too broadly. Perhaps some refinement is necessary. --Tony Sidaway 03:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I do not presume that they are all obnoxious. In fact, I doubt that to be the case. I suppose that a few are though. We have seen examples. However, I would not argue that my wording could be improved and even the implementation I considered here might be somewhat awkward. But I do not want someone penalized under the conditions of the Durova incident. To me we should have "Sunshine Laws".
Incidentally, though you disagree with the proposal (and I can understand that) you have been a real considerate editor and I thank you for that. --Blue Tie (talk) 03:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, what is it that you think should be mentioned in RFA's and the like? I notice that one administrator threatened to block DreamGuy if he repeated his posting of a purported private email from Elonka during the latter's third (and successful) RFA, and this seemed appropriate to me. It seemed to me that there was no way to establish the provenance of the alleged comments so it were better that DreamGuy had held his tongue. It really doesn't show Wikipdians up in a good light when they make such accusations.
But enough of my opinion, what would be your attitude to DreamGuy's actions? Is that the kind of thing that should be condoned by policy, so long as the poster says has asked for permission (whether he has actually received permission or not) ? --Tony Sidaway
First, I actually have no idea of what DreamGuys actions really were. I tend to dislike the idea of running around like children tattling on one another. But that happens to go both ways. I dislike gossiping behind closed doors also. I would like both things to be so distasteful and unpleasant that neither of them happen except in extreme and unusual cases. We should be editing articles not over-worrying about other users to the point of discussing them in secret backchannels. I recognize that there may be exceptions but when there are, we should still not behave in a manner that would be embarrassing if made public. So I think it is a good thing if we are in a situation where we never know for sure and so we are on our best behavior. For some of us, even our best is not all that good. --Blue Tie (talk) 13:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't mean to discuss "secret backchannels" (whatever they might be), but rather a situation that seems to match what your proposed wording says: to wit, DreamGuy claims that he and Elonka discussed matters online (I believe from context that it was google chat, a form of instant chat based on the gmail webmail system), and he, DreamGuy, felt that Elonka said something unacceptable that he, DreamGuy, felt was so relevant to Elonka's RFA that he simply must post the purported content of the discussion on the wiki.
So it isn't gossiping or tittle tattle, I hope I make it plain, it's the content of a private discussion between Wikipedians, one of whom decides to publicise that content. Myt question was: what would be your attitude to this? Would you agree with the administrator who threatened to block DreamGuy? --Tony Sidaway 14:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
To me it seems a little tattle tale-ish and disgusting. But I do not think that means it should be verboten. I would tend not to agree with the admin who wanted to block DreamGuy and in fact, I did aggressively oppose. (I thought the issue was an email sent spontaneously -- which I do not believe has any presumption of privacy either). However, (if I were an admin and I am not) I would delete the statements and THEN threaten to block reposting of the quote did not support the allegation. I would consider THAT to be disruption to the point of vandalism. I should be clear.. though I want openness, I despise the nature of some of these disputes. --Blue Tie (talk) 14:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I think we're fairly close in our views on this. I also despise the element of tittle tattle about this kind of intercourse. Too many times I've seen extremely weak conclusions drawn, as is evidently the case in the Elonka matter. Yet the damage is caused, in my opinion, by the making of stateemnts based on representations of the content of private discussions. The acceptance of such behavior seems to me to be a much graver danger (and one that is moreover palpable) to Wikipedia than anything that was supposedly said in private and to a limited audience. If I say "I have proof that Blue tie called me a nasty name in email", it's difficult to prove or disprove, and moreover it presupposes that you are not at liberty, in private discussion, to express your opinion freely. That final presupposition, I think, is one that we should regard rather warily. I suspect that as a community we will have to agree that Wikipedia's interest in public disclosure do not extend far beyond the horizons of the wiki--where precisely they end is an interesting question but not one we're likely to find substantial agreement about (and therein lies the problem of the proposal). --Tony Sidaway 15:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


Maybe we are close. Not sure. I think that a person should be able to accuse. I think that if they accuse they should be permitted to support it (actually it should usually be insisted upon). I think that the ability to support should not be limited to on-wiki activities IF the evidence involves wikipedia activities. (Non-wikipedia disputes should not come over here). If the evidence fails to support the accusation, the accusation and the evidence should both be removed. But there should be no censorship prior to that point. Again, these kinds of things are awful and its good not to encourage them either. But when they are needed, they should not be forbidden. --Blue Tie (talk) 16:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


I think the accusation is the problem, really. The presumption that Wikipedia can or should control private expressions of opinion that aren't directly related to Wikipedia business can be an insidious one. Today it might be over whether Elonka did or did not say something impolite to someone in gmail discussion, tomorrow it might be over whether you called me a nasty name in email. Where does it stop? If you say "drat that Jimmy Wales" to your significant other, is that something that we need to discuss if you're running for RFA? I get what you're saying--that editors should use their own discretion and abuses are then treated according to their validity. You probably won't be surprised to find that I believe that's the situation we have right now. We'll always differ on the question of whether this or that posting is justified. However the corollary of discretion is this: that the onus is on the poster to demonstrate that his post is necessary. Historically, few have been able to pas that high bar, and individuals who tend to post have proven woefully poor judges of what is acceptable. So I do think we're fundamentally in agreement, though we may be seeing different sides of the same coin. --Tony Sidaway 18:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I've not thought about this aspect at all really, but maybe it's time for the IRC channels to become officially logged as part of the process. Then when needed an authorized user (limited) finds the appropriate section of log for it's purpose. Similar to CU there would have to be rules (no fishing, no posting out of place, and such). I think other stuff should stay out of RfA and RfB and such. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unacceptable at any rate

So, let me see if I have this right:

  1. People who have chased away dissent and used protection are happy with the page's contents
  2. People who have edited this constantly assume that they have a feel for how things are outside of this editor base
  3. People want this RIGHTVERSION to be merged or made policy, because it's sure to be accepted?

Let me make it very clear that I regard this form as the wrong version, that there are large numbers who have not edited here because they do not believe that any form should be made, and that, if it were to say the perfect things in the perfect manner, there would remain the problem that many (I would say "the community," but that would be ridiculous presumption) don't think that there should be a policy at all.

In fact, I would say that:

  1. This page began as a way of limiting the use of "private" and "secret" means.
  2. It was begun to try to outline the areas in which it is permissible to broach expectations of privacy (not privacy).

A good many people do not believe that there is a way to precisely figure these things and so stayed on the sidelines. However, as soon as this effort began, Tony Sidaway and other esteemed spokesmen of All began ripping the page apart to say that it should exist to say that no one must ever share anything that anyone has ever thought was or should be "private." Despite the lack of finding in law, the readiness of real world examples of the needs for whistleblowing, the frequent appeals of people to stop all the edit warring, things went ahead. Now the people who want more chrism on the divine foreheads think it's in good shape? Well, I'm glad they're happy, but I'm terribly sad that they believe that they have a majority, much less a consensus, point of view, because they do not.

If they really want to hear from the community, post to the Village Pump and AN, and let's watch the thousands of voices weigh in. I can assure anyone involved that there will be no consensus. Geogre (talk) 13:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me reiterate that I for one would be equally happy if we had no written policy on this at all. In my opinion the form of words is superfluous. The longstanding policy on this matter does not need to be written down; it was only begun [23], as I understand it[24], on the suggestion of one of the departing arbitrators in the Durova case[25], who was responding to a statement in opposition to current policy. The suggestion was also made by Jehochman, whose contribution was acknowledged [26].--Tony Sidaway 14:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Geogre, you always manage to say what I'm trying to say, but you do so much more eloquently, and in a more thorough manner, than I hever could. Tony has completely ignored that the initial purpose of this policy was to outline when it was acceptable to publish ostensibly "private" correspondence. (For instance, if someone were to call another user a "bastard bitch from hell" on IRC, one might be able to publish the IRC logs to prove this, when the offending editor claimed ignorance as to whether they said it or not. Or when incredibly weak "evidence" was circulated to a mailing list in support of blocking an established editor as a "ripened sock." Those seem like acceptable times to publish "private" correspondence.) That aside, this attempted end run around actually ascertaining community opinion on this runs counter to what WP is supposedly about. Mr Which??? 15:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


I don't ignore that the policy was an attempt to get agreement on when posting private correspondence is permissible--indeed I explicitly acknowledge that in my above comment. That we have failed to reach substantial consensus on when this is permissible is also evident. --Tony Sidaway 15:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


What happens if the majority of Wikipedia editors decide current practice isn't right? Doesn't their new majority consensus become the new policy? That is, if enough of a majority of vocal people make a decision, doesn't the community simply have to get in line? Didn't that happen with the spoiler templates? If dozens or a hundred people decide that a given practice isn't right--lets say, spoiler templates, or how posting of private correspondence is handled, and say: "no, this is the new way," doesn't that become the de facto new policy and method? If some minority don't like it, aren't they out of luck? Lawrence Cohen 15:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

If we reached consensus that it was possible to prescribe when posting private correspondence was permissible, and could agree on a form of words, then that would be our new policy. I suggest that the first thing to do would be to make such a proposal of change on the Village Pump and see if it enjoys much support. So far we've had little success but this could change if we widen the number of people discussing the matter. --Tony Sidaway 15:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, no, I understand on consensus. I just mean, if so many people disagree with the other side, what is the historical ratio generally before the opposition becomes irrelevant and it becomes de facto policy? Surely there must come a point where the other side's views simply become, well, irrelevant, due to being that no appreciable number of users agrees with them in the present day. In other words, at some point, the views of one side in any conflict cease to carry authority, since they're simply flat-out outnumbered, and if it doesn't violate a rule that is outside of English Wikipedia (Foundation rules) the resisters have to back off or they become disrupters. If enough people said, "You can post private material sometimes," or "You can't post private material ever," eventually the other side has to suck it up and move on or they'd the be ones subject to the bans and blockings for resisting. What is that point historically? Lawrence Cohen 15:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
If we had consensus then I think we'd know that we had it and we wouldn't be asking "what percentage is required?" When something works, it just works. --Tony Sidaway 15:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I understand that. What I'm asking is, you kept referring to your supported take as being policy, even if it's not written down. What I'm asking for clarification on is, if a version that is contrary to what you say is the accepted de facto policy comes to be supported by many more people than your view of the policy, doesn't your view become null and void? I.e., if hundreds decide its OK to do what Giano or George support, wouldn't it simply be the de facto policy, and thats that? Lawrence Cohen 17:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, put it this way: not one word of the current policy is due to my editing, but rather it seems to be the result of a collaborative process. And yet it seems intuitively to me to conform to the way I and others have treated private discussion. And I absolutely do agree with you that if instead we arrived at a form of words that supported Giano's and Geogre's point of view, then that would be policy, and recognisably so. De facto policy is the only policy we have. The rest is just words written on sand. --Tony Sidaway 19:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Totally understood, on that. I was just trying to express and get clarification, if the majority of people decide here one way or the other that you can, or cannot, post private correspondence, the other side really has little choice but to continue to push to change it to the other stance. That is, even though you and others are against it, if the majority decides otherwise, that it's acceptable, well, that is what it is. And vice versa, on the other hand. Policy can be changed by any large enough or vocal enough group, right? The reason I was asking is that a few comments seemed to be here on either side along the "case closed" sort of stance, which seemed absurd. Lawrence Cohen 19:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that the very idea of this policy is unacceptable. I find myself agreeing with significant portions of it, for instance the part relating to ArbCom. The notions that we ought not to violate privacy whenever possible, that there are extenuating circumstances in which we need to violate it anyway, that asking and getting permission first whenever possible is goodness, that if we can't get permission we should at least notify... these all seem like good notions. Perhaps I'm misguided but I subscribe to the idea that if I participate in something where a condition of participation is that I not reveal what is said, why then, I ought not to reveal what was said!... or choose not to participate. There is a lot here that I don't agree with, (and more importantly, that the community itself doesn't do currently, which means it isn't policy... policy here is descriptivist not prescriptivist for the most part, with certain limited exceptions) so I don't think this is "done" and ready to tag as policy.... I think more discussion is needed. Maybe this is one place for prescriptivism, but I have my doubts. ++Lar: t/c 15:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Lar, I'm not sure that we don't need some manner of description of what to do on this idea, but maybe a "policy" is the wrong way, maybe a guideline is more appropriate? In any case, after scanning much of the discussion here there does not seem to be much aggreement on the idea, scope, or language at this time. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the issue can be examined rationally and legally, and the conditions and situations where supposed privacy needs to be "violated" could be easily worked out. However, in an atmosphere where Tony and others have edited only to say that it is policy (which can't be cited) that nothing private may ever be put on Wikipedia rules out honest discussion. We all know where this page started and why. The "why" was a pretty good one, in fact. It is not possible and it certainly isn't wise to ignore that, to say that there never was a good reason, and then to proceed. The only way is to recognize the legitimacy and the reasons why something that, in one context, is not allowed, is allowed in another context. What is it about the context? Well, again, it's possible to go forward, but not if we have foot stamping and point blank denials that there is anything but a blanket ban on undefined and undefinable "private" talk. (Yes, I fully suspect the motives of those people as well. I do, in fact, think that they're acting out of personal interest rather than project interest. That makes me more likely to write them off, but the only way forward is for everyone to put a chain on their id and at least pretend to rationality.) Geogre (talk) 16:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll agree that you have a point there, just saying "no further discussion needed, this IS policy already" without making it clear what some of the nuances are (there ARE loose ends here to be sure) may not be helpful, and I'd endeavour to work with you to try to get something that codifies practice (with a dash of "what we thought ought to be the case") if you want. But I won't go quite so far as to cast aspersions as to motives. ++Lar: t/c 17:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The aspersions aren't much of a reach. Long histories are involved. One of the people actively, if not hyperactively, editing this page to say, "No, never, no, no" has been arbitrated for saying very nasty things on IRC and then had that go forward when logs were made public. That person is, incidentally, again in trouble for the same thing, and again the issue has arisen of, "If I prove it, I'll have to post the logs." It's not much of a stretch to believe that that editor has vested interest in saying that there are no circumstances when "private" material may be posted to Wikipedia. Another active individual is the "owner" of an IRC channel and has said, on Wikipedia, that it's his to do with as he chooses, that he doesn't need to listen to anyone about it. That user is, incidentally, right now exhibiting such striking WP:OWN violations over "his" page describing "his" IRC channel (even protecting it to keep dissenting long-time users from editing, but without a request for protection and with being an involved user), that I don't think these are aspersions as much as they are disqualifications. Geogre (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and cast them, I'm merely saying I won't myself cast any, it's not usually my style. I'm reviewing my own private log of that particular channel (if it's the incident you speak of) to try to determine just wtf actually happened there, something seemed way off. I'm rarely on IRC these days, and I wish I hadn't been busy in another channel while it all went down so I would have seen it in time to say something. But all that aside, I'm just saying I think there is something useful that could be made of this page, even if there are areas that not everyone agrees about. You and I differ in some matters, and have common ground in others (I suspect far more of the latter than the former). For one thing, I hardly ever say "never", the real world is too complicated for that, and I suspect you feel the same way. ++Lar: t/c 18:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps there's a way forward from this that doesn't involve veiled accusations of wrongdoing and self-interest. It seems that we all do have an intuitive grasp of the fact that there is a privacy issue here, and although there may be extreme viewpoints such as "mailing lists are not private" [27] and "I have permission from any Wikipedian who sends me an off-wiki message to disclose the contents of their messages" [28] in practice those voices have not prevailed and are unlikely to prevail, simply because we do, most of us, recognise that the author of the viewpoint is sacrificing accuracy for simplicity. Instead we're really just discussing whether it's sometimes in the interests of Wikipedia to breach privacy. The current written document is probably that closest approximation to the consensus view, although we each individually may have problems with it. We all seem to be agreed that evidence of egregious behavior can be considered by the arbitration committee at its discretion. Do we need any more than that?

[edit] So - who gets blocked in this example?

Please think about this carefully. Kneejerk reactions are unhelpful. But let's be honest - somebody will get blocked as a result of this. The question is - should it be the sender of the email or the poster of the email?[29] Risker (talk) 19:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

What email? The edit seems to concern an edit war on a talk page about waterboarding (whatever that might be). --Tony Sidaway 19:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh I see you gave a "diff=cur" link. Presumably you're referring to the outing of John1951 as User:Windybear. That's a very depressing example of the abuse of privacy. We appear to have lost a good, well behaved editor because somebody else couldn't keep their personal demons in check. --Tony Sidaway 20:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fork This!

Ok, so here is how I would approach it.

  1. Material provided with an expectation of privacy should ordinarily be respected and kept off of Wikipedia.
    1. If we look at the analogy of postage, we see that intercepting mail and tampering with mail is a crime in most jurisdictions, but there are no laws against forwarding received postal mail freely.
    2. The exception to this is when there is a legal classification attached to a document ("classified," "top secret" and other designations).
      1. Things can only be classified in the interests of "national security" in the U.S. (a demonstrated belief that making them public will damage the nation's security)
      2. They may also be classified when the documents put lives in danger (a demonstrated reasonable belief that knowledge of the names attached would mean murder) <Note that these are the equivalent of our OTRS and BLP. When the site's viability is at stake, we have our own version of "secret," and the same is true of personal identities.>
    3. If anyone takes private material, then such an act is stealing. Hence, "hacking" and the like is illegal, and it would be illicit on Wikipedia to go to get the private material.
      1. If I send you an e-mail saying that I have a bomb, you own that mail and may do with it as you choose.
      2. If you go searching Google Groups for anything I might have ever said on a newsgroup and find that, in 1991, I said that I was going to blow up my house, you have unreasonably derived something.
  2. If you broach the decorum of privacy by spreading around what has been e-mailed to you, then you are a bounder. You are reprehensible. You are not, however, violating any laws. As has been seen in the case of "Brad the Cad" and others, once an e-mail is sent, it has been sent.
  3. If you violate the rules of Freenode by logging and posting a log of an IRC channel, then you have violated Freenode's rules, but there is not and must not be an attempt by Wikipedia to make acts on outside websites germane to Wikipedia editing privileges.
  4. E-mail and IRC are not legitimate methods for formulating Wikipedia actions.
    1. They are good for establishing communication, sharing information, and they will be used in any case.
    2. They are, however, not Wikipedia, and Wikipedia actions must be justified by discussion on Wikipedia.
    3. Office decisions, BLP concerns, etc., are, in fact, documented on WikiMedia servers. They can be retrieved. They can be examined. They are not open to any and all, and they should not be, but they are also a minor fraction of a fraction of Wikipedia actions.
    4. Blocks, in particular, must conform to the blocking policy, and therefore there absolutely must be explicit, coherent, and full justification of blocks made on Wikipedia. Even "blatant vandal" is documentation on Wikipedia.
  5. If any user on Wikipedia accuses another of being a sockpuppet, role account, vandal, or troll, then acting on that charge must be:
    1. Reviewed on Wikipedia
    2. Documented on Wikipedia
    3. Acted upon by an uninvolved administrator who must document the action on Wikipedia.
  6. If users violate the above by using "private" methods for coordinating, justifying, or extending blocks, bans, or any other curtailing of editing privileges, then those users abrogate the privacy. Because they have done by "private" means what should be public, it is useful and laudable to correct that misbehavior.
    1. Anyone who makes public "secret" material that is, in fact, properly public is not violating secrecy.
    2. If a person is whistle blowing by making a matter public, he or she is not betraying trust.
    3. If the material that has been kept off Wikipedia touches upon identities, IP addresses, BLP matters, or anything of that nature, then it should not be made public, as that is not covered above.
  7. ArbCom is not mother and father. It is not the teacher in the room. It is not the proctor. It is a dispute resolution body. If arbitration is underway and material evidence has been "private," that evidence should go to ArbCom's mailing list. If, however, there is no arbitration underway, then there is no reason to send ArbCom unsolicited mail.

Bottom line: don't do blocks by "secret" means, and don't be naive or dishonest enough to say that e-mail is private. If it were private, you wouldn't have sent it. Once you send it, it belongs to the recipient, and you are at the mercy of the recipient. Geogre (talk) 20:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Forking discussion

I can get behind almost all of this, and I find it terrifically well organised material to boot. Two nits: 1) I think there are rare extenuating circumstances for which the reason for a block should not be publicly discussed, but for those circumstances, there is the arbcom mailing list. ArbCom is charged with, among other things, receiving and acting on information too sensitive to be public. That's not exactly "on wikipedia" traceability but it nevertheless is accountability and tracabiity. (this contradicts your #7 a bit, as well as #4.4) 2) If I send you a note saying "I have something to share, but before I share it you have to promise not to reveal it further without my permission, or I won't share it with you", and you agree, and I send it, and then you reveal it publicly, you're in violation of privacy. Regardless of what the law says. (this contradicts your #2 a bit) I think it's as important, or more, to do what's honorable, and to expect others to do so and even censure them for it, if they don't. I do not subscribe to separability or compartmentalization of actions. But those are quibbles rather than major differences and if your text were adopted wholesale I'd be fine with it, it's close enough for me. ++Lar: t/c 20:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
On your #1: ArbCom is not supposed to be a court that initiates its own cases, as it is supposed to resolve existing conflicts. However, I agree that there are some select cases where ArbCom may need to act without full transparency on Wikipedia. I wouldn't deny that, and I tried to get at it with (now made more explicit) the analogy to when governments use "Top Secret" classification.
On your second point, I agree that, if you get me to promise, and then I break that promise, I'm certainly a rascal. I deserve to be hooted. I should be excluded from all polite company (seriously). However, in practical terms social groups exact their own revenge on people who abrogate trust that way. If I'm sharing your comment about loving "hot Asian lesbians" in the admins channel, then I'm obviously being outrageous: all I can do with that is try to hurt your reputation, and I should be vilified for breaking your trust. If, on the other hand, your confidence is that, secretly, you're Willy on Wheels, then I may feel that the consequences are so severe that I have to break confidence, and the community, by itself, will not pillory me. In other words, people will react on their own in these cases, but, in any case, these are bad form and bad behavior rather than Wikipedia matters. In either case, I shouldn't be blocked for my behavior (unless I'm making an attack page or something like that, obviously).
The biggest thing is that several people, and I do not want to name names, have sought to cut down the size of the room somewhat. They've been annoyed or discomfited by this user or that and wanted to block. Because they don't want the discussion, or because they don't want to be contradicted, or just because they're acting out of passion rather than reason, they have sought out forums for block discussion that are smaller than the general Wikipedia pages. They've used IRC, and ArbCom has ruled that that is not proper. They have used e-mail. ArbCom has not quite ruled on that, although I can't see how it could rule any way but against that, too. The point is that, if the rationale is sound, it can survive wide scrutiny. If it isn't, then no one should be blocked. Since "Durovagate," I've noticed more people wanting to do everything by e-mail. That is no answer.
Sure, people e-mail. That's great. Sure, some things have to be done privately. That's regrettable but understandable. However, we have to be transparent, because the rules we use against Bobo-da-Troll today will be used tomorrow against us. Geogre (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


Once again I'm amazed by how close we are to one another on these matters.
I'll go along with everything above except the following:
  • If users violate the above by using "private" methods for coordinating, justifying, or extending blocks, bans, or any other curtailing of editing privileges, then those users abrogate the privacy. Because they have done by "private" means what should be public, it is useful and laudable to correct that misbehavior.
Perhaps it's because I don't understand what it's intended to encompass.
Let's give a real world example. In deciding whether a Wikipedia admin action needs to be taken, I'll often discuss the matter with many people, mostly off-wiki.
According to Wikipedia policy, with rare and tightly distinguished exceptions that don't concern us here an action stands or falls on whether it can be justified on wiki (and in my experience it's rare that my decisions are countermanded on-wiki so I don't think it's a big deal). Now it's extremely unlikely that any of my correspondents would breach the privacy of our discussions, nor is it any concern of Wikipedia's that I discussed a matter with X or Y (who might not even be Wikipedians--yes, I do sometimes consult friends who are competent in various fields). The only legitimate concern is whether the action is actively justified and defended on the wiki. Each of us makes the decision in his head and most admin actions are the result of individual ("unilateral") interpretation of community standards.
Are my discussions with third parties fair game? If so, what relevance does it have to Wikipedia? Assuming a block, page protection, deletion, undeletion or other administrative action is justified by policy and prevails on the wiki, what relevance does the fact that I privately discussed the matter with my brother-in-law, who formulated the justification, have to Wikipedia?
Or have I misunderstood how this clause is to be applied? Are we likely to be in the market for mind-readers very shortly? --Tony Sidaway 21:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Why would anyone betray your confidence? Let's take it as a given that the people who do that, even the ones who do it wrongly, have a reason for it. The "nyah-nyah" crowd aren't our concern. If your decisions do stand up to scrutiny, there's no reason for anyone to mention your off-wiki communications. If, however, you say, on IRC, "We've got to find a way of banning all the sources of drama. People like Esteemed, Sociable, and Irrascible should die," then you have obviously violated three or four Wikipedia policies, but, more to the point, you have established that whatever you do will be in pursuance of a private gripe. You'll be proving that you're not uninvolved when, two weeks later, you block one of the persons, it'll be pretty obvious that, whatever you say on-wiki, you've said other things off-wiki that call your judgment into question. Anyone hearing both would say, "Step away from the button! Let me look at this, instead."
In other words, no one is going to post publically something "private" unless there is cause for it. Otherwise, it's simply not an issue. We're all free to chat with each other. What we shouldn't be doing is trying to organize 3RR circles, voting blocks, block shopping, etc., by private means. If someone has access to such evidence, then it is evidence of a policy violation. If you, for example, say, "I never did that, and you can't prove it," then you're making it necessary for the proof to be lodged on Wikipedia.
I'm trying to avoid naming specific instances, but generally no one will want to post something publicly unless it's germane. If it's germane, it probably should have been public in the first place. If someone is just maliciously or capriciously putting things up, then that's going to be blockable for other reasons than "it was private." Geogre (talk) 21:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Let's suppose my decisions didn't stand up to scrutiny. Why is it conceivably material that prior to effecting an administrator action I discussed the matter with some chap on IRC, my teacher, my sister, or a passing gorilla? Either my decision is accepted or it is not.
Now you suggest a hypothetical situation in which a person makes unreasonable demands("People like Esteemed, Sociable, and Irrascible should die")
Obviously this kind of thing takes care of itself. Do we care about the reasoning of someone who removes references to the Gunpowder Plot from an article about Guy Fawkes Night? Do we need to know? In practice we do not. If they're being silly their off-wiki reasoning is no excuse.
So again I ask: why is their purported off-wiki behavior relevant? This seems to me to be a recipe for nastiness of the sort we saw in the recent Durova case, where ridiculous and silly and obviously false accusations were made about a perfectly innocent anti-bullying mailing list. I'm sure we're all a little ashamed about the false and sometimes quite vicious accusations that were made against those good people during the case, but what have we done since then to ensure that such false and damaging accusations are never made again? --Tony Sidaway
I'm sorry? What about the ridiculously silly and obviously false accusations against a perfectly innocent editor? We should be doing more to prevent THAT from happening, rather than any perceived slight against a mailing list, whilst created and operated with the best of intentions, clearly was in the wrong? DEVS EX MACINA pray 04:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

There is such thing on wiki like conflict of interests and good faith and they are relevant. If before a block some chap on IRC said "At last we have a reason to block our enemy. We need an admin who can make a clean kill" and a couple of minutes later the guy was blocked by an admin present on IRC then the conversation is relevant. If the guy would have said "Such and such user was incivil, I have a history of conflicts with him, so please somebody uninvolved make a look" it would be absolutely relevant as well.

In real life a recipient of a correspondence has the rights to do almost anything with it. You have to make your party sign a Non disclosure agreement to limit their rights. If you suspect your party would abuse your correspondence then just not send it to them before signing some formal agreement. Most people do the right thing with their correpondence and do not abuse it. I absolutely agree with Geogre that we have no reason not to trust users to do the right thing with the wiki related correspondence and enforce separate rules different from the real world. Said that we obviously should enforce privacy of information obtained by wiki-office holders due to their privilege status. Admins should keep private information they read from the deleted versions, they may obtain a lot of private info during e.g. some sockpuppeting investigations and the info should be kept private. The checkusers, arbitrators and OTRS people may have accessed even more private info and they should keep it private. Still most of wikiusers have no additional obligations whatsever. It might be useful to put guidelines outlining the best practice of handling private correspondence but it should not be a strict inflexible policy. Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

To answer Tony, if you are breaking Wikipedia policy and guidelines, intervention is necessary, right? If you "spam" talk pages by putting up "Vote Giano for ArbCom," you'll get cautioned or blocked. If you create a script to say, "Vote Giano 4 ArbCom" on IRC every :10, are you spamming? Would you not get any intervention/blocking? If someone wants to challenge the high votes Giano got while your script was running, would they be forbidden from making reference to your IRC behavior?
If the "private media" is being used for improper behavior, it becomes germane. The gorilla who told you to change "Guy Fawkes" to "Gordon Brown" is not a wikipedian, and hence it is sub jure. On the other hand, if you and ProjectYorkshire did so, then we would be looking at Wikipedia concerns that have been hidden behind the veil of "privacy." Blocking that way is inappropriate. Conspiring to block is wrong, and it's wrong in "private" and in public.
If we accept the ethical wrong of Wikipedians conspiring, then the next step is to say, "If you were sent an e-mail of such a conspiracy, either through list membership or directly, or if you have a log of the IRC session showing this conspiracy, then it is a propos to Wikipedia."
It's there that we have to be careful and decide "what to do with such material that is relevant to Wikipedia administration and when to do it." That is what this page really should have been doing, not arguing the basics of "never" and "always." Geogre (talk) 13:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
What we saw in the Durova case should be caution enough, I think, but if not then your language above is enough to remind us that we must always be on the lookout overreaching, declaring Wikipedia interests where there are none. Durova herself made a bad block, and we know it's bad because she was unable to justify it on the wiki. To turn that into a crusade against "conspiracies" and the like would damage Wikipedia, which is why I oppose the idea that posting Durova's email to that list (which obviously and patently gave absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing) was acceptable or would ever be acceptable in the future. There are occasions when breaching privacy is acceptable, but this obviously was not one, for there was no wrongdoing of any kind. --Tony Sidaway 14:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
<side discussion> This is a side discussion, you know. The reason I didn't post the e-mail was because I didn't really need to, but the reason I didn't provide an open paraphrase or summary of it is because throughout Durova had made, essentially, an argument of "I was told to do it." I rejected that then, and I reject that now, and I reject that every time. When Betacommand said "IRC said it was good" to block, my response was IRC can't do that, and either you're a fool or a knave to act on "IRC consensus." However, we then have pages like the admins.irc page that David Gerard has been ... exaggeratedly guarding ... that essentially say that that IRC channel is where all the cool kids are and where important things are decided. Durova used e-mail for virtually everything, and before the "Durovagate" episode I thought that was trouble. We can't be formulating on-wiki acts or policies or guidelines anywhere but Wikipedia. No "semi-policy," no "consensus of the people on the channel at the time who happened to be active," no "my listserver of really esteemed Wikipedians agrees," no anything but what can be seen, considered, and evaluated by the affected parties. This includes, incidentally, "I am important" claims. "I do secret stuff that's vital to the continued liberty of the free world" sounds to me like a challenge. If your importance comes from e-mail and mailing lists and IRC, then you are only of import there, not here.
<side still>However, Durova kept saying that such mighty secrecy was at the heart of ArbCom, that it was with ArbCom, that it was at the behest of ArbCom. Since arbitrators couldn't quite deny that (although they should have), because each one was unsure what the others were doing, and since they wouldn't quite deny it because they felt it was improper to get involved in something that might come before them, Durova was effectively gilding her actions with "trust me, it's important." That's the very problem with "privacy" of this sort. No one can know whether it's true or false or exaggerated or underestimated. That's why the list of people who actively supported her actions was germane (that turned out to really be none, and I knew from my own part that there was no actual "yes, do block" going on, so, in fact, we do have the names of the active supporters -- none). It's why the case had to be made public -- because she was asking everyone to assume good actions not assume good faith. She was assuring all that there were better reasons than they might ever know. Well, that kind of "trust me, I'm the government" doesn't come naturally to an old punk like me, and it doesn't come naturally to the GNU-inspired populists of Wikipedia. Geogre (talk) 14:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Geogre has a right to his opinion, yet it is distinctly unfair to explain it by making a caraciture of me. I never did claim that I was told to do it, and when people construed that I immediately clarified that and continued to do so until it became obvious that I was not being heard and further repetitions were pointless. The assertion that I used e-mail for virtually everything is quite far from the truth. I don't recall using it with Geogre, for example, and since we rarely interacted he is really not in a position to estimate how much of a role e-mail played in my actions. I never used IRC. I did not even enable my own account e-mail until people started voting against me at RFA for the lack of it. When I saw that I had erred I promptly corrected it on my own initiative, extended apologies, and pledged improvements. The really corrosive dynamic has been how many people attributed statements and opinions to me I had never professed, and how readily Wikipedians who ought to have demanded diffs instead picked up and embellished those distortions. If there's a lesson to be leaned from my own mistake, it's that we should all assume more good faith of editors who have a track record of positive contributions. DurovaCharge! 16:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I apologize if you feel that I was engaging in caricature. I also never suggested that you employed IRC. On the other hand, this issue is when and where "private" matters may or should be broached, and in that respect both the use of e-mail and the use of IRC are alike. In that respect, anything done by these methods that violates our policies may, or may not, be susceptible to the breaking of privacy: it depends upon the level of action. My comments about your case were in regard to assuring people that your actions "were approved." When that happens, we have two choices: 1. believe that there was approval, 2. call the person a liar. That puts the community in an untenable position. As for the rationale you offered, it is possible to go back in time and look at exact language and argue semantically whether it was explicit or implicit claim, but that's not important. If you were only perceived to have made such claims, and even if only by those outraged at you, then I apologize for saying that you explicitly made them. Nevertheless, whenever there is a "trust me: important people are with me, but I can't reveal them" involved... and it has been done with "I was on IRC with Jimbo, and he thought I was invaluable to the project," as well as, "I was on admins, and everyone thought I should block," as well as "I posted to a secret mailing list of current arbitrators, and they agreed"... the situation for us as a community is identical: the material cannot justify, exonerate, or be cited for any Wikipedia action, and if such claims or practices is preventing examination and fair evaluation, breaching the "privacy" is appropriate.
I have no interest in insulting you, Durova, and no intention of doing so. I had and have extraordinary difficulty with conducting business behind the scenes, but I bear you no ill will and would avoid making specific reference to any user, if I could. The specific people aren't an issue for a page like this. The specific practices are. Geogre (talk) 17:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Geogre, I never did assure people that my action was approved, and framing that attribution in quotation marks without diffs is thoroughly inappropriate, because I never said it. From the moment people construed such a thing I did my best to dispel the notion. What actually happened was option 3. a meme took on a life of its own. Your analysis also contains a rather serious logical flaw. I don't blame you for it personally; the community has been making the same collective error for weeks. I've been waiting for things to settle down enough that rational discussion becomes possible. DurovaCharge! 18:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
It's true that a lot of discussion about blocks and the like occurs off the wiki. I know you don't think this should be permitted, however it is permitted. If you want it to not be permitted, I think it's acceptable to argue for a change of policy. I don't think it's acceptable to condone the breach of privacy simply because you don't agree with existing policy.
There is no problem with privacy. We recognise that the arbitration committee makes decisions and deliberations in private, and we welcome this because we know how toxic the atmosphere would be if such decisions were made publicly. Other groups obviously also engage in private discussion, and that is good, although those groups do not have authority, as the committee does, to impose decisions on the community. --Tony Sidaway 15:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, dear. Now we're going backwards. Tony, discussion of blocks should not occur off-wiki, if it can't appear on-wiki. If it can appear on-wiki, then someone who reproduces the off-wiki talk won't be doing any damage. Geogre (talk) 17:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Even if I were to agree with you that it was wrong to discuss Wikipedia matters off-wiki, it would obviously be impossible to enforce such a rule. Moreover, the block was discussed on-wiki, found to be based on unsupported speculation, and lifted. --Tony Sidaway 17:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redrafted

I have redrafted this proposed policy in keeping with the current discussions and comments on this page. Comments are welcome. Risker (talk) 16:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

That appears to be a different proposal entirely. I suggest that we move your draft to a separate page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it's much more in keeping with the initial spirit of the proposed policy. Mr Which??? 18:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, MrWhich is correct, as is Risker. The page began much more aligned with how it is now than it was before I began my "Fork this" discussion. However, some very... spirited... editing took place that effectively chased people away. I know that I was appealed to to help out, and, because I've said all along that any page is an attempt at fixing the mercury, I was reluctant. Frankly, I was also conflict averse, but there is a limit. For me, that limit was when the now adulterated page was being proposed as acceptable for merging into policy (thereby avoiding, consciously or not, the approval process). The page really did begin with an eye toward setting forth the circumstances when revealing the "private" is warranted. Geogre (talk) 18:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Going back to that, the fact that User:!!'s posting of Durova's harassment email is still posted in the Arbcom evidence publically, and no one has redacted it, isn't that explicit evidence that saying "no posting of private correspondence, ever" is false? Lawrence Cohen 19:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Part of the logic behind the redrafting is in response to Jimbo's post to the #-admins page, where he advocates civilized behaviour and notification all the way up to him if administrators witness improper behaviour[30]. Risker (talk) 19:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Since the two are bleeding into each other, I should point out that the garbage at en.admins.irc has to do with there being no guidance to editors after the much-cited "Giano affair" of over a year ago. In that, the guilty wanted Giano blocked, banned, and burned for posting IRC logs. The result was that ArbCom tried to rule that IRC needed regulation, and David Gerard essentially said that they needn't listen to ArbCom. After that we got new ops, and after the issue broke out yet again with an example of "blocked by unanimous consent of IRC," there was another new set of rules.
Please stay with me, because it is sadly relevant. The current RfAR is because Giano privately shared logs from IRC that prove horrible behavior by a non administrator at en.admins. So, here is "private" material that has been sent "privately" to people who deny that there is an offense. It is, in fact, by the rules, such as they are, and yet arbitration opens.
The problem with cloaks like this is that it allows people to believe that nothing is happening. Forget, for a moment, any individual bad actor or bad act. Exonerate all. With evidence being controlled in the name of "privacy," the general user base cannot assess things honestly. People are edit warring at that page because they really believe that there has never been abuse, and they can think this because they haven't seen any. Therefore, they are eager to support a page that says that all is well and all has always been well. The invocation of "privacy" on IRC logs allows IRC users to believe that whatever they have personally seen is all that there is to see.
No one wants to say that there is no privacy. It should be practice #1 to never share. It should be rule #2 to assess the need for sharing. It would even be a recommended thing to say, "A discussion of the need to share the private information should be documented and open for comment." Maybe that would help us. Geogre (talk) 13:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is nuts

As this proposed policy is written, a user subject to harassment would have no recourse because any correspondence related to the harassment could be splattered all over the site and beyond. An admirable concern about secret blocks and the like has now been carried to the opposite extreme in a zeal for openness at all costs. Raymond Arritt (talk) 07:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No shit. This is conceptually FUBAR, at the moment. Marskell (talk) 08:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey guys, I'd be just as happy to dustbin all versions of the proposed policy and have it marked obsolete, but given the alternative version where some teenager could be banned for posting on ANI that some dirty old man was sending her disgusting emails ("look, here's what he sent me" - copy of email), or worse yet would be terrified to complain because she could be banned - well, this is the opposite direction. Frankly, it is in line with the laws and ethical practices of every Western country I could find - if you send a message, control of the message belongs to the receiver.

There is no perfect answer to this one. As I write this, an RFAR has just been initiated that turns on behaviour in the #-admins IRC channel. If Arbcom accepts the case, I would fully expect them to request and review that evidence. Except of course that some people think it should be "private." And some of the editors and admins involved do not have access to the channel or its logs, so are not in a position to present or test evidence relating to them. One cannot help wondering if the egregious behaviour would have occurred had the individuals involved been aware that anyone could post the logs on-wiki. On the other hand, I am sure there have been some things discussed on that channel that really do reach the confidentiality level where posting them on-wiki would indeed lead to a privacy breach.

The happy medium would be to expect people to use good judgement and be very conservative in posting, without writing a policy. But we all know that some editors would get indef blocked and others would be saluted for posting exactly the same information, depending on who happened to be around and noticed. Of the two alternatives, I much prefer putting people on notice that if they are talking about activities they are considering or plan to take on-wiki, their exchanges will not be shielded. Risker (talk) 09:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Below. Marskell (talk) 16:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Upside down

Someone edited this recently and completely changed the point of it, to say basically that there is no such thing as private correspondence, which is clearly false. So I've reverted to a version from a few days ago. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 10:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

This is clearly an argument proceeding from extremes. That on-site decisions such as blocks should not be made through private correspondence is perfectly fair, and this should say as such if it's to go forward. But Risker's version essentially eliminated the idea of private correspondence entirely and did not adequately address BLP or STALK issues.
We also need to decide whether this is meant as a kind of admonishment or as an enforceable rule. Given the nature of the media, the latter is difficult. Marskell (talk) 16:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
It was changed boldly, back to the original intent of the proposer. Mr Which??? 16:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus?

That anyone sees "consensus" here is amazing to me. Mr Which??? 19:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Well then, let's ditch the whole thing as unworkable and get on with writing articles. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two alternatives

As each of the alternative versions has received varying levels of support and opposition, I have placed both alternatives onto the project page so that they can be more easily compared and discussed. This is in keeping with the process that was used at WP:Confidential evidence, a similar proposed policy based on the same case, ably led by FT2. Neither version has achieved consensus at this point. Let's see if we can find an Alternative #3 that achieves a middle ground and is not strongly opposed by people who view this issue from opposite ends of the spectrum. Risker (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I support this option. It makes much more sense than pretending there's consensus on one of the versions. Mr Which??? 22:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I also support this proposal which offers a concrete route forward. Alice✉ 23:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I've removed this. We can't reach consensus by presenting the discussion as a dichotomy. It gets in the way of convergence. --Tony Sidaway 23:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
And I've readded it. We can't reach consensus by pretending the discussion isn't a dichotomy. Mr Which??? 23:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Mr Which, there is no point in adding a proposal that has zero chance of becoming policy. Any proposal that says there's no such thing as private correspondence regarding WP is clearly wrong, and no reasonable person will accept it. Continuing to add it looks like an attempt to kill this proposal. If it's killed, please note that the status quo ante will continue, viz. that no correspondence that is even arguably private may ever be posted to Wikipedia. Given that you oppose that position, you're shooting yourself in the foot by supporting an extremist alternative that has no realistic hope of changing anything. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I have asked FT2 to stop by this page and explain the process of using multiple variations on a single proposed policy page in order to find a consensus point. I specifically have not asked him to comment on any of the content of either proposal. The fact of the matter is that neither proposal is likely to reach consensus as each is too extreme; but it is very disappointing to see obviously involved administrators edit warring, when we have just had an arbitration case filed in relation to similar actions by other admins trying to keep a page in their various preferred versions. Everyone needs to take a giant step back here. Risker (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Would a split be any easier? As the two positions are diametrically proposed policies, they might as well be completely separate. -- Kendrick7talk 00:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm rather appalled at the warring that followed my action in removing the split. It was only intended as a suggestion, and the edit warring that followed was obviousy completely contrary to any concept of consensus (and I'm absolutely not pointing the finger at the person who immediately reverted my edit, that was fine and we could have discussed it). --Tony Sidaway 02:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page Protection expires at midnight - 7 minutes from this message

I would request that the page is not edited while protection is up. I would respectfully ask that there is no reverting afterward, unless there is a real consensus to do so, for the immediate future. Since I have made a few comments in the earlier days of this discussion I am now going to recuse myself from further interference. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I can almost guarantee that within a few minutes after protection expires, the version with only one of the two proposed versions will be reverted by someone. Mr Which??? 23:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
LessHeard, you've made 14 comments on this talk page in favor of a particular position. That means you shouldn't use your admin tools in relation to this page -- not even for seven minutes. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 23:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, give it a rest Slim. There's no consensus for anything on this page, and having protection placed on it was well within the bounds of a proper admin decision. Mr Which??? 23:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
The page was protected for 13 minutes??? I don't understand the motivation for doing such a thing. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
To calm waters that were beginning to churn, would be my take on it. Granted, with Slim's above comment, I'd assume that the waters will start churning again shortly. Mr Which??? 00:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Not quite, SV, I have no real position on this proposed policy since anyone who contacts me off-wiki gives me permission to reproduce the content - per my caveat. However to allay any misconception is why I am now recusing. I have made a request at WP:AN that an admin or two keep a look out on these pages. If you want to bring up the proprietary of my actions I think that would be the place for it.
Raymond, I temporarily stopped an escalating/nascent edit war that threatened to go wheel shaped... LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I understand that, but 13 minutes? That's not nearly enough time for the combatants to simmer down (as we have seen). But I could understand it being protected for a few days. Given how divisive this has been I'd rather blank the page and then protect instead of protecting on one version or the other. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Blank and protect! Good call! Not one I could have made even if I had considered it, having some input a fortnight ago, but it may have been the best situation. As it was some time was bought for an uninvolved admin to be contacted. Hopefully there will be no requests for sanctions regarding the edit war, since the potential of losing too many articulate proponents of various viewpoints during the enforced truce is pretty apparant. Anyone really wanting blood is welcome to comment here; my block log is suspiciously empty and I am going off-line now (beddy byes!) - a two or three hour block will likely bolster my public image no end... ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection request

I requested protection after this kept flashing up on my watchlist. I made this page initially based on what I saw on the Durova Arbitration. I'm sort of surprised by how polar everyone is on different ends here. Why not just leave it protected as it is now for a few days, to force people to talk rather than revert? I say just leave it locked down till 1/1/08. Discussion is better. If anyone doesn't discuss, and goes right back to revert warring, it will be obvious who has no respect for their peers and can have their "views" devalued. Lawrence Cohen 00:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you guys stop? Lawrence Cohen 00:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

  • There's no consensus for either version. Why should Slim and her crew be allowed to revert to only their version of the proposal? Mr Which???
How about you all just stop and discuss instead? Lawrence Cohen 00:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Quit the insults for god's sake. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I never insulted you, I'm just saying lets all stop the RVing and talk instead. I insulted you...? Lawrence Cohen 00:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
"Slim and her crew" isn't an insult?
Look, I give up here. You have no hope of getting that silly "there is no private correspondence" thing through. If you want to behave like schoolchildren, go right ahead, but it'll change nothing. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
That was Mr Which that wrote that, not me. He didn't sign it and it looked like I did. Lawrence Cohen 00:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, that makes sense. I was surprised when I saw it seemed to be from you. My apologies. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
No apology needed, it did look like it was me saying it. Lawrence Cohen 00:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • No insults. I just made a prediction, and it came true, that's all. Mr Which??? 00:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Whatever your insult or non-insult was, would you mind signing it? It looks like I said it, when I clearly didn't. Lawrence Cohen 00:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Done. Sorry for any headache it caused. It was a simple observation of what appears to be the case on this issue, especially given that Slim reverted within minutes of the protection being lifted. Mr Which??? 00:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing it. And poking people with sticks still doesn't help anything get done, FWIW. Lawrence Cohen 00:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
This entire section neatly sums up the situation here, IMO. Can you all please quit with the personalized campaigns and get on with fixing the issues here? This is the second time in 24 hours that I've had to lock something down due to the actions of people on all sides who really should know better. It's so unbelievably immature - Alison ❤ 00:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
It's a Mr Which Hunt! *Dan T.* (talk) 14:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

Fully protected for a period of 1 week. After 1 week the page will be automatically unprotected. - absolutely ridiculous. Posting word-for-word from the last debacle --> okay, folks. I'm a regular WP:RPP patroller, as many of you will know. I've not, to my knowledge, ever edited the article before. I've no interest in who-did-what-to-which-revision but I know an out of control article when I see one. This needs to stop. To that end, I've fully protected the article against editing for a period of a week. This is no more nor no less than I would do with any other article and, as with anything other dispute, please, please work towards consensus on the talk page here. All of you should know this stuff already. If there are any changes to be made in the interim, please use the {{editprotected}} template here so everyone can see it and judge accordingly and, hopefully, a neutral admin can hop in an do what's needed. If anyone does otherwise, I'll be less than impressed - you all know the rules - Alison ❤ 00:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Good call. --Tony Sidaway 02:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
And now JzG has gone and effectively wheel-warred by editing using his admin powers, and he's far from neutral. DEVS EX MACINA pray 12:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
This has been resolved now, as Guy has self-reverted and is discussing the matter here now - Alison ❤ 18:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC

Will the outcome of this play a role here, as one of the topics at stake on this policy is IRC logs? Lawrence Cohen 00:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I think so. This is all the more reason to have both possible alternate versions directly available for review on the main page. Mr Which??? 00:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I could be wrong, but I think arbcom is unlikely to interfere in an ongoing policy formation discussion. --Tony Sidaway 02:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I meant the other way. Whatever decisions come out of that case, in regard to IRC logs, playing a role in what the community decides to do with release of private correspondence in the future. Lawrence Cohen 02:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I knew what you meant. I think that the ongoing discussion at the RFAR/IRC case may well have some fallout for this discussion. Mr Which??? 02:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there will be any surprises arising from the channel logs. I don't think this case is likely to convince the arbitrators that it's a good idea to abrogate our respect for privacy. --Tony Sidaway 03:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • So you think that's what this is about? That those who oppose your preferred version of this page wish to "abrogate our respect for privacy"? Bad faith much, Tony? It's not about that at all. It's about allowing users who have been "beaten up" by bullies, (whether over e-mail, mailing lists, or IRC) the ability to post freely the evidence of the misconduct, without having to seek the bully's permission to do so. Mr Which??? 11:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What a f--king joke.

I give up. When an admin abuses his power in such a way as to promote one version to the exclusion of the other... and combined with some "other issues", well Wikipedia has officially gone to hell. I won't go with it. Leave this shit for guys like JzG to f-ck up by abusing their admin tools to the exclusion of us little editors that don't have that priviledge. Good luck to all who wish to actually help this project. I'm done. Mr Which??? 12:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

JzG replied to my comments that he had not noticed that the page was protected. Even if he doesn't self revert it should not matter, the version that it is protected in does not mean that that edit has consensus or is correct - it's just where it was when protection was applied. Discussion should continue here, and WP:AGF stretched just a little further so that issues can be addressed before protection lapses. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm out of good faith with JzG. Hell, I'm out of good faith for this whole damn project. Good luck, LHvU. I truly think you're one of the "good guys" in this blasted project. Mr Which??? 13:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, I am in agreement with you! ;~) Best wishes for the future. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Mr Which, since that was your starting position I'm not exactly surprised you're "out of good faith", but I think I know why I did not see the protection message; I came to the article from diffs and it either did not show up or got lost in the mass of pink. Either way, the present version is a joke. Guy (Help!) 13:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • And an edit summary of "Self-revert to the fatuous version, since that seems ot be what everyone wants, though God knows why since it is a joke" on his reversion to the version with both alternatives available further confirms my view that JzG has exhausted all the good faith he has been extended. Mr Which??? 14:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you so much for your kind words. It is fatuous. A version of the page that says two completely contradictory things, one supported by policy and prior ArbCom rulings and one saying the opposite, inserted for God alone knows what purpose. It doesn't get a lot more fatuous than that. Guy (Help!) 15:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The community is permitted to change policy, and to make new policies that would not support a past arbcom ruling, so your claim that not being "supported by policy and prior ArbCom rulings" is a problem is incorrect. Furthermore, "supported by ... prior ArbCom rulings" is itself patent nonsense, since arbcom rulings are based on policy, they do not and cannot support policy [in the sense of being a reason to have a policy a certain way or not]. —Random832 16:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is ridiculous

As soon as protection lapses, I'm tossing this up on MfD. No consensus is ever going to emerge from this train wreck, much less a coherent guideline or policy. Jtrainor (talk) 13:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless the proposal below flies, I am there with you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus wording proposal

How about simply

"Publish and be damned"

for a wording that all parties can subscribe to? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

  • This is for values of consensus which include completely ignoring ArbCom, right? Guy (Help!) 13:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    • ArbCom doesn't make policy, by its own admission. The policy-making process is done by the community and is not bound by anything ArbCom may have ruled on in the past, as their job is only to interpret the policy made (and revised, and unmade) by the community. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    • There is never going to be consensus for either variant, because both are intractable and unworkable. There seems little likelihood that a version can be constructed from the two versions. "Publish and be damned" allows for individual cases to establish what limits there are on privacy against transparency, providing that there are individuals brave/passionate enough to test those limits, in the full knowledge that such instances will be used for that purpose. In the absence of those examples the status quo, publishing such content without permission is not well regarded, remains. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I've heard of Publish or perish, but you seem to be advocating "Publish and perish"! *Dan T.* (talk) 14:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
        • It depends on the quality of the material presented, and the bravery (the honourable cousin of stupidity) of the presenter. Salacious piffle will be accorded the short shrift it deserves and the editor concerned decried. Material reproduced that galvanises the community into investigating the circumstances of the matter over and above the circumstances of publishing it obviously (in my opinion) has a right to be seen, as long as there are those willing to test that instance. The consequences to the person making that judgement will form part of the decision. That is recognised in my proposed wording. It never was never going to be an easy option, which helps protect the assumption of privacy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
          • Sorry, but this has the potential for great harm. Raymond Arritt (talk) 14:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It's also the precise opposite of what we should be saying - and what we did say until the latest hijacking of this page. People should not publish private data on Wikipedia. It's rude, it may violate copyright, it's been identified as problematic in a number of ArbCom cases interpreting policy as they are bound to do, and the fact that a minority appear to be fanatically devoted to the right to publish private information (presumably because they think they, like Giano, can get away with it) should not allow us to believe it is anything other than a seriously bad idea. Guy (Help!) 15:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Guy, the cry of "per ArbCom/MONGO" was heard throughout the BADSITES fiasco - until it went back to ArbCom (and even then). One persons perception of how the ArbCom might interpret their considerations into the construct of policy does not mean that they are right. ArbCom follows community, and this section of community is split over this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
...and when Guy found that the ArbCom ruling didn't give him a bulky-enough bludgeon to use against the hated "attack sites" and their supporters, he went back to them with a long rant he called a "request for clarification", but was disappointed to find that the ArbCom had no interest in acting on it. But he'll still cite the ArbCom as if it were holy writ whenever it suits him. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Dan, you are still beating the dust that blew over the bloody smear where the dead horse once lay. Is there no debate so tenuously linked to BADSITES that you won't drag the rotting carcass of that debate from its grave once more?
LessHeard: the fact that policy has been misinterpreted in the past is precisely why guidelines are needed. The ArbCom rulings on MONGO were mis-applied in a few cases, absolutely correctly applied in others. Here, we have no credible examples of mis-applicaiton of ArbCom's interpretation of policy. Publishign private data on Wikipedia violates policy and copyright law. The de facto policy, since forever, is don't do it. It's not been mis-applied because it's pretty straightforward and unambiguous. It is worth taking the time to tell people where they can take private communications if they consider there is a problem, and that is what this page can do. Or it can go, and we'll carry on as we always did, which is not to permit the posting of private data on Wikipedia without consent. Guy (Help!) 19:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative 2

Alternative 2 is fine except for a couple of things: prior ArbCom rulings, specifically in respect of email and IRC, copyright law, which makes no presumption that material may be republished, and civility, which strongly mitigates against publishing private communications without consent. Apart from being illegal, uncivil and a violation of ArbCom findings, the idea that nothing should be considered private is just fine. The present version of the page is farcical and any editor acting on Verison 2 is likely to find themselves blocked or banned in short order, so I suggest we rapidly form consensus for removal of that bogus line of reasoning. Guy (Help!) 14:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You're getting rather close to violating the No Legal Threats policy yourself. Shouldn't the Foundation counsel be the one to weigh in over what may or may not be illegal? *Dan T.* (talk) 14:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't be absurd. Noting that private correspondence is covered by copyright is not a legal threat, it's a statement of fact. Guy (Help!) 15:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Except that it's not a statement of fact. Legally, when one sends a letter to another, the letter belongs to the recipient, not the sender. The same applies to online "private communication." Copyright doesn't apply, and it's not illegal to post such communication, no matter how much you want it to be. Mr Which??? 15:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Exactly right, Mr. Which. -- Kendrick7talk 21:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid some people may be living in an era that has long since past when it comes to privacy. In many major cities it is nearly impossible to walk in any public place (including parks and sidewalks) without being captured on multiple security cameras. The email that I send from my computer will course through potentially dozens of other stops on the way to its destination, and some or all of my message can be read by people anywhere along that path - and when I hit "send" the email belongs to the recipient, just as if I had mailed a letter. My MSN chat will be recorded in several locations. IRC channels are inevitably logged by someone who has access, and of course they are recorded in servers as well. Indeed, I cannot think of a means of communication currently in use that provides the level of privacy that some seem to be seeking. A single issue of a tabloid magazine is more likely to be read than any of the classic novels - many of which were allegorical gossip in their time. Let's stop romanticising please, and either work out a reasonable middle ground or call a halt to this. Risker (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

  • But that does not make it legal, or morally right, to publish private data on Wikipedia. Two concepts are being conflated here: a general caveat, that one should be careful what one reveals (valid advice); and the policy on private data, which has always been, de facto, that one should not do so. Guy (Help!) 19:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless someone here is a lawyer, and in particular one who specializes in copyright, then it really isn't appropriate to attempt to give legal opinions. I am not a lawyer. I did, however, study writing in graduate school where a course in relevant law was required curriculum. If the things I learned there are correct, then some of the editors at this page have been confusing physical ownership with intellectual property rights. If Stephen King sends me a free copy of his latest novel all I own is that copy of the document, not any underlying right to republish it or relicense it under GDFL. What some participants here are attempting to claim is that e-mail is an exception to this. If I'm not mistaken, Steve Jackson Games, Inc. v. United States Secret Service established that the same basic intellectual rights apply to electronic communications as to other media. Since I am not a lawyer, though, this is mere speculation and not legal opinion. I have grave concerns about many edits and arguments periodically advanced at this proposal and strongly suggest an actual lawyer be consulted. DurovaCharge! 21:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you be more specific as to the relevance of that case? -- Kendrick7talk 21:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
To be clear, the claim is being made that the copyright for all correspondence, electronic or otherwise, belongs to the recipient; and the examples given have been the fact that people generally have the right to publish books of letters they have received without the consent of who wrote the letters. If the same principles apply to electronic as non-electronic, this actually supports that claim. Incidentally, based on the wikipedia article, the issue in Steve Jackson Games, Inc. v. United States Secret Service does not appear to have been copyright. —Random832 21:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Random, you seem to be arguing that one violation of copyright strips the creator of intellectual ownership and legitimizes later violations. That goes against everything I learned on this subject. I suggest that several editors here are attempting to overrule copyright law via this policy proposal, probably in good faith ignorance, and it would be very good to get a professional opinion about where the lines actually are. Bear in mind that Wikipedia policies and practices generally err on the conservative side of copyright. As I attempted to explain to Ilena of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal, who was the successful defendant of the Barrett v. Rosenthal case itself, cutting edge challenges to existing free speech principles are best made on one's own private website, and defended in court at one's own expense. WMF would likely be overwhelmed with suits if site policies were equally daring. I have never made any legal threat, actual or implied, and make none now. This is simply an observation. DurovaCharge! 22:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
No, I am not arguing anything. I am rephrasing an argument others have made which you are not understanding properly: the argument is that copyright of a letter (i.e. something specifically written to communicate with someone) does not belong to the person who writes it, but to the intended recipient. They are claiming that this is well-established, and that your idea that someone who writes a letter owns the copyright in this letter is, in fact, the "cutting edge challenge to existing free speech principles" here. —Random832 22:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Demolition

This obviously isn't going anywhere and has turned into a colossal waste of time. I'd hang a MfD on the thing but don't want to do that if many others object. What say you? Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

See "This is ridiculous" a few sections above. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Do it! Set it on fire, raze it to the ground, and SALT the earth. Nothing useful will come from this and there are going to be long-term reprecussions due to all the freakin' drama as it is. Jtrainor (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no need, incidentally, to wait for protection to expire - placing an XfD notice on a page for which an XfD debate has been started is simple housekeeping, so any administrator may do so, on their own or in response to an {{editprotected}} request. —Random832 16:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alernative #2 split to new proposal

As no one objected to the idea, I've split alternative #2 to WP:COFF. -- Kendrick7talk 21:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I never saw the idea proposed; I have an objection - it's not a good idea to have two separate contradictory pages addressing the same issue. Also, this segments the dispute and creates the risk that two different consensuses will be arrived at among two different groups of editors. I've redirected the talk page to avoid this. —Random832 21:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I also object on the same grounds - although it would be the lesser of two evils if the censors and "shoot-the-messengers-on-sight, concentrate-on-the-editor-not-the-edit" get their way.Alice✉ 21:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
But the proposals are completely different, so of course it makes sense to keep them separate. Are you actually suggesting we could stick a policy tag on the current proposal and be done with it? I mean, I don't really care; with no policy, alternative #2 wins by default, which is the version I support. -- Kendrick7talk 21:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
The point is that this is still under consideration. See WP:Confidential evidence which is also in draft, and in fact has four versions on the project page (or it did yesterday). The purpose is to generate discussion. So far, unfortunately, most of the discussion has been about edit warring. Risker (talk) 21:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
(2xEC, @Kendrick7) No, I'm suggesting that only one or the other, not both, can become policy, and we need one place to decide which one (if any) it will be. —Random832 21:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Obviously a new proposal would override the version which reached consensus first. There's no reason we need to follow the example of WP:CEV per WP:BURO if the alternative here is going to be an endless edit war. -- Kendrick7talk 22:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Any more thoughts on this proposal? Everything survived the MfD, and we come off protection tomorrow in an hour. If the edit war resumes with endlessly deleting Alternative #2, I'm going to push for the split as the only reasonable way forward. -- Kendrick7talk 23:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, pretty much what I expected. I've split this back out then. I don't have email, so I leave the advertisement up to supporters of the proposal formerly known as alternative 2. -- Kendrick7talk 18:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] mfd

{{editprotected}} As you might have noticed, I've nominated these assorted proposals for MFD (to be marked historical, but there's a precedent that stuff has to go through mfd for that to happen). I could be seen involved, so if someone else could put the mfd tag on this protected page? —Random832 22:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. Sandstein (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

MfD closed as defective. . .link here. R. Baley (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] tag as rejected?

any objections? —Random832 15:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Not here. I really don't see anything useful coming from this proposal. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 22:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd like to suggest the "sister" version of this also be tagged as rejected as well. Neither version was the right one. Risker (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support as creator of this page. I already tagged this one as rejected. I'm sorry I created it, but there seems to be no consensus support for any of these versions. Lawrence Cohen 22:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
(ec) WP:COFF is really only a day old. I believe it represents the status quo anyway if both versions are rejected, right? -- Kendrick7talk 22:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
As I said before, the problemw ith calling it rejected is, posting private data will still get you in the shit. So actually we do need a guideline. Guy (Help!) 23:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Getting one with consensus support has turned out to be the trick. Lawrence Cohen 23:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course posting "private data" should get you in trouble per Wikipedia:Harassment which is the only (??) relevant active policy defining privacy currently in effect. -- Kendrick7talk 23:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Also the foundation privacy policy, copyright and GFDL. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Those apply, respectively, to identity, publication, and ownership. None of them is directly or automatically adherent to IRC or e-mail. The Coff page is basically sound in its view, but all anyone should hope for is a guideline, not a policy, because of the danger of speaking categorically. I'm pretty sure that a categorical pronouncement of any sort will be wrong. Geogre (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] For the future

I remain convinced that we shouldn't try to fix the mercury by being precise. Any universal statement is liable to be a straitjacket or a cosset. However, if we ever want to go forward, we should probably work in tiny pieces, like a Socratic dialog, and try to establish whatever things we can all agree upon. After that, we can find out where we split. If anyone falls back on a blanket statement (none/all, never/ever), then he or she is essentially blocking the project's work. We would nearly need to start on a series of "Do you like me yes/no" sorts of steps just to isolate when and where and how much we diverge from one another. Polls are evil, voting is evil, etc. etc., but we could at least start with bedrock statements and build from a foundation. As it is, I still don't think "rejected" is quite accurate, since the page hasn't ever gone up for approval, but "no consensus possible" is certainly true now. No one wants to let the BADSITES run wild, and no one wants people on IRC plotting to block people, and no one wants secret mailing lists, and no one wants trolls and stalkers empowered. If we start from there, we can take itty bitty steps. Not now, perhaps. Geogre (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)