Wikipedia talk:Harassment/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Can other site accounts ever be linked to

This thread was archived on October 20. Closing as stale. Scolaire (talk) 18:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article has contained the follow text for a fair amount of time "Posting links to other accounts on other websites may be allowable on a case-by-case basis."

With respect to providing links, one reason to do this would be:

a) someone posts a job offer money for article X on Elance

b) an editor notifies WT:COIN of that fact and provides the Elance link as proof, people than watch the article that does not yet exist

c) someone on Elance wins the job, creates a new Wikipedia account, and than creates the article.

This is something which is done on a regular basis such as in this example here where I added the following note in 2015:

Here we have someone who is buying an article on Anthony LaPine. They have already bought an article on HipLink and this sock created it UserJuliecameo3 who is already blocked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email)

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Support the allowance of the above practice

Support as proposer Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Support This is an excellent idea Doc James ! KoshVorlon 19:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Support. I'm mostly thinking of cases that have nothing to do with COI. A new account, User:Blah (unusual handle, not a real name) makes insensitive edits to Black Lives Matter. Someone brings him to AN/I and googles the name, and finds that Blah runs a Ku Klux Klan blog. It would be unfortunate to expect editors to wear blindfolds in that situation, forced to rely on "focus on content." We have never not allowed that kind of obvious connection to be made. I don't know when the idea developed that we can never in any circumstance link account names on Wikipedia to account names off it – that every example of "Blah 1 = Blah 2" is outing, even without real names – but it's relatively recent.
This is where common sense kicks in: don't do it to be unkind, don't do it without very good reason (e.g. disruption that is otherwise difficult to handle), and don't do it to be lazy, i.e. think of other ways to deal with the issue first. If the link is going to reveal a real name that an editor hasn't volunteered, find another way to handle it. Discuss the connection without posting a link. But if a new account, User:JSmith, has made only two edits, and they are both promotional edits to Smith, Inc., then we ought not to regard it as outing to ask "might you have a connection to the John Smith who runs Smith, Inc.?" In such cases, it's always better to use conditionals: "if you have a connection to Smith, Inc., then our COI guideline applies," but if someone does specify the connection, that's a case of no harm no foul. And we should always be allowed to ask: "Are you Mr. Blah of the Ku Klux Klan?"
Rather than remove the "case by case" sentence, we could pad it out with examples that most would agree are harmless and harmful. Or we could change it to "Connecting accounts on Wikipedia to accounts on other websites is allowable on a case-by-case basis, but do not post links if they lead to a real name the editor has not volunteered." SarahSV ^(talk) 20:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Agree completely User:SlimVirgin the current wording is not very good. We need to hammer out when it is and when it is not allowed with specific examples. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
support very good idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
support Where editor with username 'BDave' edits article 'BobDaves Finance' and has a public linkedin/facebook etc profile 'BobDave CEO@BobDaves Finance' linking the two a)does not violate outing as their identity is public, b)is comnnonsense. Prohibiting making connections through publically accessible and self-declared information is laughable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
@Only in death: Are you absolutely 100% sure that "BDave" is "Bob Dave" not, for example, "Brian Dave", "Bob Dave junior", or "Bethany Dave", etc? If they are the Bob Dave who is the CEO, are they being paid to edit Wikipedia or are they doing it on their own time? If you get it wrong then you are breaching the outing policy whether there is an exemption for paid editors or not. Also, why is it necessary to out them? If "BobDaves Finance" is notable and their edits are neutral and appropriate, you've just outed a good editor and harmed the encyclopaedia. If their edits are non-neutral then just revert them and discuss the matter on their talk page - blocking them if they continue. If BobDaves finance isn't notable then just delete the article and explain why on their talk page. In other words, what benefit does treating "user:BDave" differently to "user:RD601101" bring to the project? Thryduulf (talk) 12:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Best practice (and used currently) would be to post on the user's talkpage 'Are you the BDave <insert link to profile> who works for XXXX - be aware of the policies regarding COI editing'. It is not in any form of the word 'outing' if someone is registered under their own obviously linkable name, so anything that rests on the assumption the above is outing is erroneous. Outing is where you reveal someone's undisclosed identity. Currently the outing policy is wildly at odds with the way wikipedia operates both technically and culturally - another (current) example being: a SUL user self-identifies as person X on another language wiki (and their name is easily identifiable from their username) however on EN-Wiki because they have not self-identified here, we cannot make the connection - despite the reality being if you are a SUL user, anything you say on any wiki is linked to your identity *here*. The technical implementation of SUL automatically means when you log in with a SUL user you take responsible for all your comments on all wikis. It is not 'different identities'. Its the same identity in multiple places. Its completely bonkers. There is privacy protection (and anyone who has actually read anything I post on the subject knows I am hardline when it comes to privacy) and then there is public/private data. Quite a few policies here (primarily COI) rely on public but undisclosed data, the 'outing' section of the policy relies on a distinction of public/private that bears no relation to the correct usage of such, and the harrassment policy in general is concerned about privacy protection - which is not the same as correct use of public info. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
There is no COI policy. It's a guideline, which happens to say "do not reveal the identity of editors against their wishes; Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over this guideline."- Mr X 13:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Well fortunately in the case that sparked this, the editor revealed their own identity by their choice of username. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
"Are you <insert link>" is not good practice, and even if it's "used currently" it's not allowed here--hence the block. SarahSV's proposal leaves the link out, and that's much more acceptable. But saying that the user has somehow identified themselves as "this particular Bob Dave from this particular company" if their username is BDave, that goes too far. They have suggested an identification, maybe, but that's not the same. Drmies (talk) 23:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
--Andreas JN 466 12:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Specifically, the public professional profiles and service advertisements of paid writers and PR/marketing staff contributing to Wikipedia on behalf of their employers or customers should not be protected personal information. Andreas JN 466 10:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Tony (talk) 12:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Support, with additional examples of innocent/acceptable practice. Coretheapple (talk) 15:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Support but I would like a ~~quantifier~~qualifier, e.g. ...but only when it is clearly in the best interests of the project. Obviously outing as a form of harassment is not acceptable. But sometimes there is a clear need to breach privacy to some extent, and some cases at WP:COIN are in my mind clear examples of this. Just like violence being generally prohibited by law, but in some cases violence used in self-defense is allowable. And this is what this is all about: defense of the integrity of the project. COIN is a serious risk to it, and this should be taken into account. It is acceptable that all outing is treated as it is now (blocks and oversight) but also it should be acceptable that there should be allowable defenses against it, in my view. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Mrjulesd, that's a qualifier, not a quantifier, and it's no more precise than the previous/current vague wording, "case by case". Obviously Jytdog thought he was doing it in the best interests of the project, and yet here we are. Drmies (talk) 23:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Drmies yes that is a qualifier, I stand corrected. But my point is that cases should be seen and treated differently depending upon the motive behind the outing. If it is a good-faithed attempt to protect the project I feel it is very different to simply getting revenge (e.g. a content dispute). Quite what form this takes will probably lead to an new rfC, but this rfC may need to pass in order to get there. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 23:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, Mrjulesd, didn't mean to be this pedantic, but it's an important thing: I find this RfC pretty much impossible to read, and I really have no idea what is being proposed. Judging motive is indeed qualitative; it can't be measured, only judged. But from the point of view of the person being outed, that motive is irrelevant, and if somebody is outed by someone they might experience real-world harm regardless of motive. Good faith doesn't mean you'll always get it right, and as an ArbCom member I am concerned about the cases where someone may get it wrong. For the life of me, I don't see why it would be a good idea to link stuff, unless it is to make a COI argument ad baculum, which surely is not where we would want to go. Outing is to be a bright line, in the sense that if you do it, some serious shit might happen, as Jytdog now knows, unfortunately; this case by case phrasing, which as far as I can tell has no basis in any real consensus at all, is just ridiculous and an invitation to testing the boundaries. And I don't think anyone but one single person has argued it came legitimately out of that discussion (even though many seem to think language like that should be in the policy)--yet here we are with a talk page full of comments and that stupid line still in one of our policies, and its removal being contested. I wish my article edits had that kind of lifespan, where basically we say "it stays in there because it was put in there". Anyway, I should go do something else; I don't think this whole talk page is going anywhere. But thanks for clarifying, and for indulging me, and I do appreciate you giving your opinion. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 00:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
@Drmies: I am not sure why you keep claiming the "case by case" wording has no pre-existing consensus. Considerable discussions were held about it, recently, on this talk page. See Wikipedia talk:Harassment/Archive 8, Wikipedia_talk:Harassment/Archive_7#.22Case-by-case.22 and I am pretty sure there is more discussion throughout Archive 6 and 7. You may disagree with it and those reasons may indeed be compelling but, as of now, there is solid consensus for the wording. Jbh ^Talk 01:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Paid editing is not a bright line. It is perfectly allowed and encouraged when done via a properly set up WiR. Enforcement of our rules requires judgement not bright lines. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: well I know "bright lines" make it simpler for everyone, especially the oversighters. But are they always in the best interests of the project? Take WP:NPA for example. I've seen personal attacks take place without any admin action taking place, because they are fairly mild in nature. There is some degree of lattitiude. Egregious PAs usually lead to blocks. My point is some degree of flexibility can help, and is commonplace in the application of policy. And it is generally a good thing. Maybe some degree of latitude should be attached to WP:OUTING? When it seems like a very justifable approach to the difficulties of COI editing? That is my pov on the issue, it would make outing policy more in line with other policies in my view. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 12:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Support Some thoughts -
1. "Harassment" is something that does harm, and not an arbitrary procedural label that is automatically applied to certain actions. If a person is not harmed by an action, then that action should not be called "harassment" only as a matter of process or because similar actions have been harassment in different circumstances. I encourage caution in making harassment accusations and to reserve the term "harassment" for instances in which a person feels harassed. It is worthwhile to protect people from harassment, and some vulnerable groups may be harassed and not realize it. Still, if an informed person understands a situation and does not feel harassed, then actions should not be called "harassment" only to comply with an arbitrary definition.
2. The Wikimedia community should not design processes which direct community members to feign ignorance of public information. Sometimes well-publicized information off-wiki comes to be common knowledge by participants in Wikimedia projects. The nature of Wikimedia projects is to bring the most public information from other websites into Wikimedia projects for sharing. At this time I will not say that hidden information about other people should be brought into Wikimedia projects, but I am comfortable saying that when an individual self-discloses information off-wiki with intent to publicize that information and make their identity and online publishing activities widely known, then sometimes it is appropriate to bring that self-disclosed, publicized, admitted connection between that off-wiki identity and on-wiki actitivity into Wikimedia projects.
3. There is some confusion between legal obligation and community customs in this discussion. I would prefer to discount anyone playing lawyer here, until and unless the Wikimedia Foundation lawyers choose to step in and force a legal practice in the community. Until a legal ruling is forced on the community I think I will be viewing any discussion made here as a discussion about community customs. When the discussion seems legal, I think that gives undue weight to some points and bars some people from giving their opinion for fear that they are not fit to speak up in discussions about law. I wish that people here would not talk about the law, unless they are speaking for WMF lawyers.
4. Both support and oppose votes are motivated by a desire to defend vulnerable Wikimedia community members. Many people speaking on the opposition side are opposing to defend individual Wikimedia contributors from being personally harassed in the traditional sense. Many people speaking on the support side are supporting to protect the Wikimedia community from corporate bullying. The two sides are not communicating directly to each other. The opposition is wanting to defend individuals from having their personal lives exposed. The support is wanting to protect the vulnerable from powerful, offensive corporate influence with a longstanding history of extremely disruptive (harassing!) paid thoughtful and intentional attacks on the Wikimedia community. I support protection for Wikipedians vulnerable to harassment, and a vote either for support or oppose can have that same motivation from different perspectives. It is not accurate to say that recognizing and noting corporate influence is traditionally defined as "harassment". Corporations cannot be harassed in the same way that individuals might be. People acting in official capacity as representatives of corporations should not be imagined entirely as vulnerable individuals. Corporate representatives do their jobs with the expectation that people might address them personally as representatives of their employers if they identify themselves as corporate representatives acting on behalf of their employer.
Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Support - This is very much essential. Many, many times we have had redlink "User:JeanDaux" creating and editing an article, and oh look! Jean Daux is the PR/guy/manager/director of some little startup/company/NPO tha he wrote the article about! Resolving COI requires research, and I hate to say it, but if an adult isn't smart enough to not to create and edit their own company's articles, they're not really "a vulnerable member of the community". This ability will not affect anyone who is genuinely here to help the encyclopedia and edits within policy. If JeanDaux admits his role as is required by COI, then don't need to go looking for him on his company's website. However, what generally actually happens is that Jean Daux won't admit who he is until he's threatened with a block, and then he just goes away and we delete his article because it doesn't meet policy and never will. That's not "harassment" - that's preventing damage to the encyclopedia. I'm not sure of you all realize this, but there are hundreds of sites that mirror our content. and we have a duty to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia because of that. That's what all of this is about, and if we allow the content here to be hijacked by people with their own agendas, then we might as well tell WMF to close up shop. MSJapan (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Support, but for my part, there is a disconnect between the text of the rule and what you've said it is for, which is investigating/demonstrating commercial public relations work. I support, but I want the text to to be changed to be narrow, such as "...on a case-by-case basis, specifically to demonstrate or aid the investigation of commercial public relations editing". Herostratus (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes agree. This is just one possible example of when linking should be appropriate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Support – Blue Raspberry makes a number of very cogent points. I also agree that the wording needs to be clarified to state which "case-by-case" bases are appropriate, and the addition proposed by Herostratus seems a good start. Mojoworker (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Weak Support with clarifications of what "a case-by-case basis" is, as the !oppose voters below raise VERY IMPORTANT points about protecting wikipedians from real-life harassment. There is much discussion here, getting into tl;dr territory, but my primary concern is that, for example, linking to someone's LinkedIn profile with, for example, an edit summary (that would require revdel or oversighting to remove) that said "KKK member" absent any proof of the same, needs to be stomped and stomped fast. While that example is obvious, less obvious examples would be this block, which, if memory serves, occurred due to an outing attempt against another editor for having a COI involving their participation in the WikiCup. My point is that a mere allegation of "COI" should not be a "get out of jail free" card. Montanabw ^(talk) 01:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Weak Support - since I think in obvious cases of COI editing it would be useful to facilitate discussion if people aren't so unsure of where the boundaries for outing are. But I should say that in my experience of NPP, very few COI editors with obvious usernames explicitly deny it - the point at which this might become useful. They normally just either admit it or abandon the account and/or switch to editing from an IP. I do think people should also be careful to remember that anyone can make up an account with any name if they want to embarrass someone, and we should always take that into account. But that's something that can be handled on a case-by-case basis. Blythwood (talk) 05:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Support. Yes of course. This is a no-brainer. We need to know if someone has a COI. Softlavender (talk) 06:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Support — providing evidence of undisclosed payed editing is tantamount to actually having a functioning community. Opposition is frankly absurd, utopian and extremely naïve. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Support I have gone into detail on this topic in earlier discussions but essentially Wikipedia is much bigger and important than it was in the past. We are a PR and SEO target, probably in the top 5, and we need to be able to fight UPE. Paid editors are already violating our terms of use and have chosen to make money off of the project and therefore should not be able to use our policies to shield their violation of the WMF ToU.
Much like AGF, WP:OUTING is not a suicide pact. If we do not recognize and deal with UPE then we might as well just call the project a wiki-YellowPages and not an encyclopedia. Jbh ^Talk 11:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Common sense. As an aside, this has clearly been canvassed on the functionaries mailing list. Jenks24 (talk) 17:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Long overdue - this is a vital anti-corruption measure, and it is an abuse of privacy concerns to pretend otherwise. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Support: I was opposed but there is way to much lawyering in opposition and many were blown out of the water with the Note from Wikimedia Foundation Legal. Comments like "...a few promotional editors slipping through our grasp." is scary. "IF" you pay me to do a job I have a VERY good incentive to do a very good job. If getting my paycheck means learning how to slip through cracks and of course bend a few rules, and it is not going to be my fault if I am persistent enough to cause a voluntary editor or two to stop editing, OR Wikipedia keeps ensuring that I have a big enough crack to slip into by lax policies and guidelines, certainly unclear ones, then I have still done my job ---pay me! I am not talking about any editor that follows the "rules" but we are having this discussion because obviously nobody every breaks rules right? A little allowance here, some there, mirror sites likely started because corporate money would like to buy Wikipedia or run it into the ground. Is this possible? The only ones that would say no are lawyers, paid editors, COI experts, and of course Big corporations. It is the "job" of those of us "little guys" to ensure Wikipedia, that includes the volunteer editors, are protected. Since the powers that be fight any form of registration (even though the entire internet world has some minimum requirement), that would give privacy if used by the same editors involved in privacy concerns, then we have to find a happy medium that MUST protect our editors and not subject them to possibly being blocked or banned for doing the right thing.Comment by User:Otr500
Support these type of links are clearly evidence that needs to be considered in paid editing cases. We can't turn a blind eye to evidence publicly posted by people who promise to do paid editing. Outing=the linking to real world identities, is not necessary. In the case that a link would identify the real world person, e-mails to an admin (or to the WMF) should be used instead. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Support Per Bluerasberry and Orangemike. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Strongest possible support - I've linked people between cross site accounts on arbcom pages multiple times. One case involved Wiki-PR, the other a gamergator. I don't remember the gamergator's name offhand, but it's in my arbcom case against me (even though it was a block linking real names and offsite acccounts unanimously upheld and still in place as an arban that would never have been accepted or actioned if it wasnt filed by an ex-arb and contained multiple falsehoods suggesting voting arbs did not review the evidence. WTT claims that I said I wasn't up for recall - my RFArb pae said the exact opposite, but WTT is clearly right. It skipped the whole chain normally required to go to arbcom, and ignored plenty of stuff like the fact tht initial admonishment they cited was two weeks after I got the tool set, involved someone at risk of suicide with two cops in my office - and I used the wrong button/phonenumber, but seriously, two major mistakes that far apart? Yeah, in large part that's why I've been around lately little The gamergator block, though cited against me, was unanimously endorsed as a good block by arbcom in an earlier case, and frankly, I don't think anyone thinks revealing the account of one of the owners of Wiki-PR did any harm. If I recall, the community ban that passed on them, which named both individuals, was text I directly wrote actually made it in to the Cooley C&D. I don't have their DB - even their old DB of articles - but we have at least 5000 articles from them still, and at least at the time of the SXSW pinata I had a journalist send me another crop of articles with proof they had written them, that I G5'ed under the ban and sent to the office, which expressed significant interest (me even invoking the uanimous cban could arguably be outing the banned accounts, since some used 'names that could be real.' Overwhelmingly the names used on E-Lance and similar sites are fake - I've seen less than five paid editors use their real names off the top of their heads across all platforms I frequent.
Anyone remember the DMOZ? And how it was useful before taken over by commercial spam? When was the last time you used it? That's where we're headed if we don't get paid editing under control - I'm literally intending on making a backup as WP as it is today in anticipation of that. Credibility we've gained with the public, media, and academia, if we don't get this under control? Gone. Because everyone willin to tackle it is either being driven away, or made unble to do so.

I'll write-up a userpage tearing apart the previous arbcom's decision based on a combination of flimsy evidece, a serious error I made that was taken with care after I was approached by a CU clerk asking to take a look at a CU case that involved an EDU course that I unblocked after >24 hours with the consent of the clerk - while still suffering from the tail end of encephalitis which meant I lacked perfect memory (the oversighter agreed it was the correct choice, performed wrongly, and saw it worth a two sentence reminder) - I've since reread every policy we have multiple times while losing the encephalitis, yet can no longer use the tools in an edu setting, which has killed a couple dozen classes as well as grants. (I had more than half a dozen reasons to in edu settings; email if you'd like to know them as it's getting off topic,) and no longer delete the hundreds or thousands of paid articles I could in five hours, or block obviously connected accounts. Arguably even if I got the bit back I would be unable to even enforce the unanimous cban that I wrote that passed unanimously if it was someone who 'sounded' like the name might be real - or track down using the same methods WiliamH, Dennis, etc used to delete many WikiPR articles (excepting WilliamH's use of CU.) Btw, I bet you can guess why an excellent crat active on Wiki-PR suddenly left his tools and retired. Last time I kept track - there were at least 30 paid editing outfits. Any guess as to how many there are now now that most of those who could take care of them and track them are gone, deliberately discouraged from doing so or no longer capable of doing so? User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page}
Support proposal. Support desysop of any admin that has ever blocked someone for doing what is done in Doc James' hypothetical example. Geogene (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
It occurs to me that the logical conclusion of that would be to desysop pretty much everyone who has been on ArbCom for the past two years. Just saying, mostly as it relates to how policy administration and community sentiment may be out of synch. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Then I'm lucky I'm not blocked, because I've actually linked to Elance "Wikipedia Editor Wanted" adverts before. Which is not at all like linking to a social media profile, because you aren't even linking to anyone's personal information. And it's amazing that anyone wouldn't see that difference. Yes, this RfC is showing how out of touch certain oversighters are, and this situation will prove untenable if it persists. Also lucky: they're intelligent people and can learn from this. Geogene (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Indeed you are lucky, because enforcement is haphazard, unpredictable, and often irrational. You are absolutely right that the situation is becoming untenable, and also that collectively we are intelligent enough to figure it out and fix it. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Support I join the comments above. Not just because the opposition seems based in a fallacy or fantasy about the world, but we have clear evidence that the wild-scaremongering of extremes by the opposition has not come to pass, since this has been in the consensus policy for over a year, and a quarter. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Support per Onlyindeath and Andreas. Based on personal experience dealing with COI editors, to never permit posting links is absurd. If a PR professional edits in areas they are professionally related to under their name, and they have a public profile acknowledging their employment as a PR professional, prohibiting any mention of this on-wiki renders WP paid-editing and COI policies and guidelines toothless. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 00:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Moved here from Oppose. But let me be clear. I absolutely oppose the "case-by-case" language. Policy of this sort needs to be clearer than "case-by-case". So I am not supporting that. But I think that it is a ridiculous misreading of the intent of protecting editor privacy to declare that linking to Elance/Upwork is outing. See below at #Section for discussion of a specific case for what Elance/Upwork really is. We are not talking here about linking to an editor's Facebook page. So I sort-of support allowing the link described above, and I oppose treating it as a violation of policy. However, I also believe that we need to have a mechanism for privately emailing evidence of COI and undisclosed paid editing. And I believe that handling the evidence privately is much more desirable than posting it on-site. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks User:Tryptofish I do not think anyone is a huge fan of the "case by case" language. We need to qualify this for it to be useful. The volume of issues make it a little hard to handle privately. If we had a group interested in doing this work privately than that would be a start. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

As time has gone on, I still feel basically as I said just above, but I increasingly feel that having a clear and unambiguous policy about what can or cannot be posted on-site is more important than making allowances for COI investigation. Thus, if the community decides that there is not a consensus for something like the proposed COI mailing list, then I think that the logical conclusion needs to be a bright-line prohibition against posting anything remotely like outing, even if that makes it much harder to enforce the COI guideline. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Support If someone is openly editing Wikipedia for hire, they should understand that this information is not protected. II | (t - c) 06:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Support: Even as a long-term e-privacy activist, I have to say that the COI policy and the ToS can't really be enforced otherwise, the community has long tolerated the linking of public acts on other sites (this is our main mechanism of exposing meatpuppetry), and it's nuts to suddenly railroad someone for doing what we expect and need to be done. This is especially disconcerting when so many even in the admin pool do not believe the policy is being interpreted correctly to support things like blocking Jytdog, trying to revert policy clarifications, and otherwise changing how the community interprets and enforces these policies and principles, without a really broad and certain change of consensus to go to such an extreme. (As for the exact wording, I trust that any clarifications or example can be edited in later since nothing we write on WP is set in stone forever; this RfC is about the general principle, not about copyediting.) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 17:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Support. But, as other users, I have concerns about the consequences of mistakes, prejudged opinions or attempts to discredit a user. And for this reasons, I think we should be cautious. We must find a method to avoid this and to prove the allegations, as for example what has been proposed: by email communications. I think there has to be a way to prove a COI, in the same way that I think when it can not prove it or is evident that there is not a COI, users that continue accusing without evidences should receive a warning. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Support. On the whole, in spite of a few valid concerns expressed in the oppose section by some highly respected colleagues, I think this has to be done. Blue Rasberry sums up pretty much my own opinion both on the proposal, and on the way the voting is going. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Support, mostly per Tryptofish. This practice is often useful. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 02:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Support because I believe, instead of removal, we could expand it to include specific cases where it can be used (ex. on the AN), or, perhaps instead there could be some sort of email system to email the pertinent info to the correct people. That way, it's not publicly available, but we still have the information needed to make a case for something (like paid editing). -- Gestrid (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Support there's way too many situations where doing the right thing is blocked because of arcane scenarios where something is obvious but we're not allowed to actually say so. It creates an unreasonable and unfair burden to have to explain one's actions but not be allowed to give all the evidence. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Support per Doc James .Clearly working for hire and in clear violation of TOS and in most cases involves socking.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Support case-by-case in spirit. I do believe the language must be changed, but it should not be deleted without a replacement that further explains the idea with more clarity such as at Wikipedia_talk:Harassment#Flowcharts. Hence, support rather than oppose. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Support per Doc James, SlimVirgin and Blue Rasberry. There are circumstances where such linking can be appropriate. I seem to recall few complaints about the Wiki-PR outing, for instance. Neljack (talk) 13:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Support per Tryptofish. EllenCT (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Support It is not harassment when the purpose is the protection of the community and the readers. The COI affected user can protect their privacy by making a COI declaration. The person who is free of COI is automatically protected, because to falsely connected with with a COI issue is actionable harassment. One of the main issues here is that only a few admins or editors understand what COI is, yet alone how it should be managed. One way to be sure to help protect privacy is to do a screen capture, and edit out the surnames of the user(s) and links to the page. Travelmite (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Support on the basis that this is a necessary step to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia; the privacy considerations in this sort of disclosure do not cause harm to anyone (except in the sense that it may indirectly result in financial loss to those whose business interests rely on defying the WP terms of use and our WP:COI policies, by making it much more difficult for them to effectively do so.) My view is very close to that expressed by Blue Rasberry I refer to his comments above or further explanation. . The notions of privacy expressed in the opposition are faulty in two respect: they greatly underestimate the harm to the principle of NPV that is done by the existing over-restrictive interpretation of policy, and they greatly overestimate the possible harm to the justifiable privacy expectations of editors; the net result is to give an advantage to the bad faith editors without benefiting or protecting those who edit honestly. DGG ( talk ) 23:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Support When investigating cases of COI, proof is usually asked. If there is a blanket ban on linking to any external site, we might as well close shop at COIN. The problem of deciding what should or should not be linked is something which can be discussed. In fact, a white list of sites which can be linked to is useful (and can be specified instead of using the term "Case by case" basis). But totally removing the ability to link external sites means we are giving undisclosed paid editors a significant advantage. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
— Scott • talk 00:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Support Per SMcCandlish, the opposes here are a worrying interpretation of policy and serve to protect COI editors. Information that an editor has chosen to publish publicly is public. shoy (reactions) 14:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Support The policy says we cannot link an editor's private information offsite if they haven't already done so. Fair enough. In Doc James' example above, he posted the information before they became an editor and registered an account. At the very least, as wikilawyering as this sounds, he's in compliance with policy. But, furthermore, I support an change to policy regarding sites like elance and freelancer.--v/r - T P 19:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Support. The information the already public (but may be not on Wikipedia) should be treated as public not as private. Ruslik_Zero 18:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Support DGG's argument is convincing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Support. You shouldn't be prohibiting editors from saying something without a damn impressive reason. The rationale against reporting an offer of pay for editing contrary to Wikipedia's terms and conditions is anything but impressive. The case given above is especially clear-cut: you certainly can't be "outing" an editor who hasn't even signed up yet, solely by reporting that someone created an opportunity for someone to profit by breaking the rules. More generally, Wikipedia and particularly ArbCom's focus against outing is misplaced: they offer too much protection to people claiming "secret" identities (that are not secret, since otherwise they need no protection) while offering not nearly enough protection to people who, whether their identity is secret or not, should not have it brought into the conversation because it is irrelevant. And I should add that one of the support votes above, using someone's KKK affiliation to disallow them from editing rather than looking at their behavior and contributions on-wiki, is exactly the sort of thing we should not be doing. We are not God; let's turn away from judging people in favor of judging edits and paragraphs. Wnt (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Agree that issues around political affiliations no matter how distasteful they may be should be dealt with based on the edits made. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose the allowance of the above practice

Quite frankly, this is BS and feeds into a siege mentality. This issue can be dealt with via our existing NPOV, Speedy Deletion and Socking policies. This whole clause and the idea that some harassment is ok needs to go --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 19:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
It is not acceptable to link undisclosed, private information to an editor's account. —DoRD (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia.". That includes (links to) accounts on other websites that are not disclosed on Wikipedia. Per Guerillero NPOV, speedy deletion, and socking policies can deal with any issues that arise from a non-neutral and/or non-notable article. If non-public information is truly required then the minimum necessary information should be emailed to arbcom, functionaries or the WMF. Thryduulf (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
You do realize that in this example the editors account which eventually ends up being linked does not exist yet when the linking occured Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Why is that relevant? You are making a link between an account on Wikipedia and an account (holder) on another website that was not publicly disclosed on Wikipedia - something that is defined as harassment by the harassment policy. Thryduulf (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
The link is only formed after the job is accepted and the person creates a WP account. The linking occurred before those two events. I guess we could refer to this as "pre outing". So are CU's planning on handing out indefinite blocks for this? If so we better make it widely known as it is a common practice. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Linking one's personal identity to a Wikipedia account is considered harassment. (Unless he or she has disclosed the link on Wikipedia.) If for some reason the COI edits cannot be address on their own, a concerned member of the community can contact the functionary team privately to assist. Mike V • Talk 19:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
See my approximately novel-length comment below. There's nothing good that comes with leading people to believe they can post links that contain private/personal information about other people, because we know based on multiple other policies (and based on the oversight logs) that that's a lie - those things will be suppressed, almost invariably - and the people who relied on the misleading policy are going to be really confused when they do get in trouble for it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Permitting the inclusion of links to off-wiki identities on a "case by case basis" allows anyone to post a link to another user's LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, etc. profile in the name of fighting COI (or really in any instance that the user deems acceptable). It also permits the determination of which cases are acceptable, and which are not to be decided by literally anyone (from anonymous editor right up to Jimmy). Posting of personal information which has not been previously disclosed by the editor in question has never been an acceptable practice, and there are other means to handle these sorts of editors (as mentioned above). Sarah's suggestion may be leading to a reasonable compromise, but it would need to be expanded upon (or perhaps expanding "real name" to "not previously disclosed personally identifiable information" so it includes contact details, workplace, etc.). The blanket accepting of any linking off-site accounts to Wikipedia accounts as the policy permits now is wrong.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
No. One never needs to nor has to post a link to someone's external information to prove a point or win a conflict. One might want to, but that is no reason to do so. We have plenty of policies that cover non-neutral editing. Additionally, the serious consideration that if you edit under your real name that you are somehow voluntarily exposing you to outing would be laughable if it weren't straight-up victim blaming. Third, assume good faith still applies to all editors that aren't vandals. This dehumanizing of editors is pitiful and against the open, collaborative spirit that got us where we are now. Lastly, and to that point, as enough Arbitration decisions have pointed out repeatedly, Wikipedia is not a battleground and there is no war being waged here, no weapons are needed. We have tools to clean-up disruption. This "siege" and "us v. them" mentality is dangerous. Keegan (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Moving to Support section, but leaving my comments here, and it's really not as simple as support or oppose. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

This RfC is very confusingly presented (and rife with typos, to boot). If I understand correctly, we are being asked whether we support or oppose linking "case-by-case" to such external sites, and that's what I am opposing. However, I also oppose what the people at Elance are doing in the example above. It is completely worthless to have a policy that says you can do this "case-by-case", because nobody knows which cases are or are not OK. But there is a good alternative: email that information about Elance to a trustworthy admin or functionary, and simply say on-Wiki that there is a problem with undisclosed paid editing, and that the evidence demonstrating that problem has been evaluated privately. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
User:Tryptofish this is a discussion of if this one particularly case of linking can be done. Here is what I am referring to. Likely this will be used in the current arbcom case opened by a ~~supporter of homeopathy~~ a prior editor I have disagreed with to have me blocked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I looked at that ArbCom case request, and it's being kicked to the curb, as it deserves to be. On the other hand, I think that the edit warring that continues over the sentence on this policy page is supremely lame. I answered the RfC question as it was posed here, rather than in terms of the case at COIN. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Both what was posted here and what was in the case at COIN are the same. User:Tryptofish do you have different opinions on them? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Life is short. I'm not going to read the COIN case. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Doc James, I categorically reject your assertion that I am a "supporter of homeopathy". Either provide evidence to back it up, or strike off that accusation once you see this message. RoseL2P (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
That is how I interpreted your comment here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm shocked, in this day and age, to find that there's even a discussion of someone being a "supporter of homeopathy". Some of my best friends are homeopaths, and they can even get married now. E Eng 00:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment. As this RfC is progressing, I'm seeing a lot of experienced and thoughtful editors in both the Support and Oppose sections. This is not going to be a WP:SNOW discussion. Here, in the Oppose section where I have placed myself, I also see a large number of users with advanced permissions who are pretty close to beating their chests and proclaiming that this is an absolute law of the universe and they are going to enforce it no matter what editors may say. I also recognize that these people genuinely care about what is good for Wikipedia. So I urge them to come to terms with the fact that the community is not of a single opinion, and that it is not good for functionaries to legislate ("ArbCom not GovCom" and all that). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Sounds a bit like the response of the "Remain" campaign in the UK EU referendum! DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I'd hope that Wikipedia could do better than that! But then again, I'm in the US, and it's July 4, when we celebrate the brexit of 1776. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Per #Section for discussion of a specific case, below, where I have actually seen what is at Elance/Updesk, I'm having second thoughts, and I might end up moving to support. But, no matter what, I absolutely oppose "case-by-case" language. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
No. First, there is no existing consensus for the wording under dispute. The length of time that it has been in the policy unchallenged (silent consensus) is irrelevant now that it has been challenged. The previous RfC asked if the policy should be changed to include the words "including any other accounts on any other web sites". The result was "no" ( status quo). The sentence added by Doc James was out of process, and not a reasonable interpretation of the RfC result. The proposed exception has no place in the policy because...
- Unreliable: Usernames are not always unique. Anyone can create an account with anyone else's username on virtually any other website. As others have noted, there have been false flag profiles created on other websites used to discredit users.
- Not our remit: Our main purpose here is to build an encyclopedia, not comb the entire internet to try to connect accounts. Content decisions should be based on the quality of the content, not based on suspicions of what people do outside of Wikipedia. Our fundamental inclusion guidelines like NOTABILITY, and exclusion policy (WP:NOT) should determine what material is included in the encyclopedia.
- Policy conflict: WMF's paid editing disclosure policy does not give editors the right to violate WMF's privacy policy while acting on WMF's behalf. → Striking this because WMF's privacy policy applies to how the Wikimedia Foundation collects and handles personal information. - Mr X 18:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Vague and open to abuse:The proposed language is ambiguous and open to interpretation after the fact. The open-ended language invites abuse.
- Potential for harm: The potential for harm to real people outweighs the concerns about a few promotional editors slipping through our grasp. Outing can cause loss employment, online and real life harassment and physical harm, damaged or destroyed reputations, and exposure to identity theft.
- Mr X 21:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
No. The reasons why have been exhaustively explained by experienced oversighters. 1) It's harassment. Allowing a little bit of harassment, when you think the person really really deserves it, is not appropriate. "If we suspect you might have violated the terms of use, our volunteers may harass you"? No. 2) It's bait. Editors who see "case-by-case" and believe their case must be one of the allowable ones will get themselves blocked. 3) It's error-prone. We are not internet detectives and amateur "investigations" risk misunderstandings and falling for joe-jobs. 4) It never had consensus to begin with. The "case-by-case" wording was inserted on the basis of an RfC to remove a different phrase. It's the RfC-interpretation equivalent of original research. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I would say something long-winded, but, largely echoing Opabinia. The entire "Posting links to other accounts on other websites may be allowable on a case-by-case basis." sentence needs to be removed, because the number of cases this should ever happen are zero, no exceptions. Courcelles (talk) 00:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
No. The sentence needs to go; it needs no clarification. BTW, I have a hard time understanding what exactly is being proposed, other than "linking to Elance is OK". COIs can be discovered in many ways, and then can be handled in many ways. Posting identifying information ("links to other accounts" is really rather vague, given that there are many kinds of accounts that do not involve a "real" name, like LinkedIn does) is not one of those ways. "Case by case" is very, very unfortunate (though no worse than "occasionally be allowed") since it practically invites a kind of freewheeling. If we can't specify what these cases may be (and how on earth could we possibly identify all such cases?), we should not have that clause. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
No, essentially per Keegan and Opabinia regalis. COI editing is unwelcome, but can be addressed through other than via amateur internet sleuthing and outing attempts. I respect the good intentions of some of the supporters of this proposal, but in this case the means don't justify the end. - Euryalus (talk) 10:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
All of use except for staff at the WMF and the paid editors are acting in an amateur capacity here. The WMF states they do not have the ability to address the issue raised. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Then the answer is better WMF resourcing, not amateur vigilantes. I share your opposition to paid editing, even when declared. But I also share a community disquiet with outing. The reality of a clause granting "case by case" approval is very one thinks their "case" is justified and the damage is done even if they're subsequently found to be wrong. On discovering an editor who might be editing for corporate pay, you think it justified to pursue their RL identity and publish your findings. The next person might find (say) an editor displaying a nationalist or religious view, or an editor with strong views on human sexuality, and do the same. And so we enter the territory of genuine harassment. There's no ill will in your part, and paid editing is an absolute curse. But this open-ended clause is not the answer - in fact it risks more harm to the editing environment than the problem that it aims to solve. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
No As others have said, "case by case" is pretty useless and invites linking. As Euryalus says, the means don't justify the ends. Other excellent reasons for no are above. Doug Weller talk 15:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Agree "Case by case" is not very useful without defining what cases are appropriate which is why this RfC Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Then why is this RfC titled Can other site accounts ever be linked to? Clarify your RfC, if your true intention is to clarify what the case-by-case means, not whether or not it's allowed at all. Your section header says one thing, your text says another. Keegan (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Seriously, start a new RfC with a clear yes/no question if you're truly striving for unambiguity. If the RfC says no, there is nothing for you to clarify. Don't offer cases or examples to sway your audience. Is outing ever allowed? Yes or no. Keegan (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes that is what the text under the heading is for, it is to clarify the RfC by going into detail about one possible example of when linking to an external account maybe appropriate. If people say one can never link to an external account it is going to make WP:V impossible. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
No. Primarily it is an unnecessary, the-means-justify-the-ends invasion of privacy. Secondarily no amount of clarification would make it straightforward to enforce, and it would trigger innumerable time-wasting arguments about whether something should be oversighted. Finally, it's a significant burden on the oversighters, a group of editors whom we supposedly trust to do the right thing.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I locked this down in the The Wrong Version. There is no reason I have ever seen to link to an external link to try to show who one editor thinks another editor is. -- GB fan 23:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
We have ways to deal with this already through how many diffent policies. I am obsolutely opposed to other Wikipedians investigating other Wikipedians real lives. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I can't see a circumstance where it would be reasonably necessary for one Wikipedia user to investigate another off-wiki and in this case in real life. Added to that, posting this information onwiki in an attempt to force people to do things (either leave or disclose a possible COI) fits exactly the definition of harassment "to make the target feel threatened or intimidated ... to ... discourage them from editing. As far as I'm concerned it would be best to deal with the problem: if it's non-neutral/promotion editing then deal with that specifically (likewise edit warring for example) if they are editing neutral than (which usually it would be better to do nothing other than welcome them) a polite message pretty much quoting the first line of Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and let them make the decision. Suggesting/linking to/threatening to link to other accounts (ie out them) is wholly and completely unacceptable on Wikipedia and should be met with Oversight and (if necessary) Oversight blocks. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Per all above. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
could you give a reason, in your own words?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I remember making this edit, those are my words and my reason. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 18:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm very much for limiting the effect of paid editors and trying to get them to work within policy. But I oppose this because it is not clear to me that it is necessary to publicly prove that an editor was paid through a freelance site - it should be sufficient to contact a functionary with the evidence, and they can confirm it as appropriate. I'll be one of the first to stand up and say that our methods to stop paid editing are failing - however, I don't believe that the problem is that we can't link to the job ads. (As an aside, Elance doesn't exist anymore, having been merged into Odesk, so it may not be the best example). - Bilby (talk) 06:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - Opens the door for joe jobbing and provides fuel to the anti-paid editing fanatics that are keeping a permanent solution to this problem from being implemented. Carrite (talk) 16:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Interested to hear what is the "permanent solution to this problem"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Psychic flash! Some combination of User identification required to edit? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose as classic harassment. Two wrongs don't make a right. Deal with paid editing through sanctioning editors for NPOV editing. Jclemens (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
No as per Keegan, MrX, and OR. There is a real potential for chilling effects, ruined reputations, invasions of privacy, and - as a result - the worsened public image of Wikipedia. "Case by case" is far too vague and subjective, and would serve as a time sink for whether the outing is justified in one instance or not. We have COIN and SPI as proper venues. GAB^gab 21:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
No, the harassment policy covers everyone, including suspected COI editors. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC).
Oppose mainly per User:MrX. I believe this will encourage more witch hunts. It should never be acceptable for editors to connect real life identities with Wikipedia handles. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose I don't see the need to link to elance etc. If an editor finds evidence of potential undisclosed editing, they can just link to the articles being created at COIN. If we don't trust the notifier (very rarely is this the case) then they can be asked to email evidence to a regular at COIN, who can then confirm or deny it. If the elance links contain evidence of socking, then that can be sent to a CU privately. SmartSE (talk) 12:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose This is should NEVER be allowed. This could include private information on these sites like address, phone number, age, gender. Its inappropriate on so many levels to publish this information on wikipedia. This could have a huge negative effect on the project especially with editor retention. As DQ stated above I'm concerned about the real possibility of wikipedia becoming a breeding ground for massive witch hunts, and exposing people's identities. Our accounts are "anonymous" with our IP address restricted to only the WMF CU's Ombudsman and ARBCOM for a reason I feel as though our Real Life Identities should be the same. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose This proposal opens up a Pandora's box without much apparent benefit. I've identified and dealt with paid COI editors quite a few times, usually by associating their usernames with public off-wiki information, and never have I had to resort to linking to the information I found. It has always been sufficient for me to write something like, "It appears from your username you have a paid conflict of interest," and leave it at that. The equivalent approach for the Elance scenario would be to write "It appears from the timing and nature of your edits that your contributions were commissioned at elance.com." If the connection is obvious then any interested editors can do the research themselves. If the connection is disputed or isn't obvious then you can invite editors to contact you via e-mail. I'm not watching this page so please ping me if you'd like my attention. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
But then you get nailed for "providing instructions for finding off-wiki 'personal information'" and get done for OUTING based on that. There is a long discussion in the Archives about making this explicit by and editor who, I believe, got blocked for that very thing. Whatever the solution it must have three characteristics 1) It must address COI/UPE on Wikipedia (preferably by not saying 'fuck it' and sticking our heads in the sand 2) It must provide a clear method for getting actionable evidence to people who can make the blocks/bans/whatever 3) It must be consistent in application so you do not risk your editing career on the ideological position of the admin/functionary/whoever you report the evidence to. Jbh ^Talk 21:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Would you mind pointing me to that discussion in the archives? I'm concerned about it. I don't think the policy says anything about providing instructions for finding off-wiki personal information, and perhaps more importantly that's not what I'm suggesting. Saying "It appears from your username you have a paid conflict of interest," is a far cry from saying "Your username matches a name of the Acme's digital marketing director found at http://www.acme.com/about-us.html." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
It first comes up at Wikipedia_talk:Harassment/Archive_6#Proposed_clarification_of_Outing where the proposal to add explicit verbiage was rejected and bits of the issue show up in the following arrives as well. I believe the reason for the proposal was because an editor was sanctioned for "describing on-wiki how to find 'private information' that is off-wiki". I think @Tryptofish: can give a better idea of the particulars. Also, if you are interested I think all of Archive 8 and part of 7 have some very detailed discussions on ways to address both the "case-by-case" language at issue now and the tension between the mutually exclusive community value of NPOV/no UPE/COI and anonyminity. Jbh ^Talk 23:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, those are the correct links to past discussion. I don't want to go into particulars about oversighted material, but basically, saying something roughly like: "A simple internet search will reveal that the accusation by other editors here of meatpuppetry is true. Of course, please do not post anything more specific about that here, because that would violate the outing policy" was itself deemed by ArbCom to be outing, and resulted in an ArbCom block. The post did not contain any links, nor did it identify the internet page where the information would be found, nor explicitly state the search engine terms. It simply said that such a search would lead to results, and actually cautioned against posting links. However, such a search would also lead to other, personal and private, information, and the problem was that someone reading the actual post might be led to go and find that information. In those archived discussions about this policy page, I suggested that the policy should make it clear that even providing something like a "road map" to private information could be an outing violation, but there was a lot of push-back. This is why I think that the policy is too vague, and also that administration of the policy is haphazard and unpredictable. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I should add something else to that. In the archived talk, I asked some of the then-Arbs to join the discussion, since they were the ones who deemed the block to be appropriate. They responded by saying that it was obvious to anyone with clue. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - per Keegan, Mr. X, Courcelles and others. COI editing is a huge problem. This proposal is not the way to address it. Jus da fax 00:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose This is a bit of a confusing RfC, as it doesn't obviously ask a clear question. This section is "Oppose the allowance of the above practice", but the only practice I can see above is "Posting links to other accounts on other websites", which presumably makes the question "Do you support or oppose the allowance of posting link to other accounts on other websites?" I have to oppose that in general. An example is provided, but nowhere in the initial RfC does it specify that the question is limited to "Do you support or oppose this being an allowable example of posting links to other accounts on other websites?" Also, including the "is allowable on a case-by-case basis" is incredibly vague, and seems likely to encourage individual editors deciding when it is or is not necessary, only to have it later decided that it isn't allowable and be blocked for outing. As per previous oppose comments, there appear to be other mechanisms available for dealing with COI. --tronvillain (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Mostly per Fluffernutter's comment regarding superseding policies, but also due to some of the support comments. We're supposed to be a collaborative encyclopedia, but I don't see much option for collaboration when some editors take pride in engaging in opposition research. Also, a case by case basis, with no guidance on any acceptable cases, is merely ripe for cherry-picking and abuse. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose, never. Totally unacceptable under any circumstances. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose mainly per Opabina, MrX, Dr Fleishman and Drmies. There are people who enjoy the drama of witch hunts, or for whatever reason obsess over catching wrongdoers, like hall monitors in grade school, doing volunteer armchair detective work for WP. We don't want to encourage or give ammunition to them. As many have said, we should opt for less intrusive means of addressing COI editing. Dr Fleishman notes that it is actually a simple process that need never include outing or attacks. petrarchan47 คุ ก 00:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - per Opabina, etc. Wikipedia isn't a detective novel or an episode of NCIS. If someone is editing from an NPOV manner, get them for what and how they are editing, not who they are. (And if it's hard to do that perhaps you might understand how hard it is to deal with civil POV pushers... and work to develop better methods of doing so.) Ealdgyth - Talk 12:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose, mainly per Opabinia et al. This is one of those things that might seem like a good idea at first glance, but the more I think about how it would work in practice the more it seems like a huge mess waiting to happen. I've seen some pretty spurious claims of COI before, and if people start using stuff like that as an excuse to start outing people, we've just ripped a giant loophole in our anti-harassment policies. (As a practical example of how this could go badly wrong, I recall that during the Chelsea Manning naming dispute a handful of editors tried to argue that LGBTQ editors had a conflict of interest in the discussion; if people started thinking that this could justify linking to personal information, we've created an environment where LGBTQ editors will be scared to participate in discussions on LGBTQ topics for fear of being outed in both the on-wiki and off-wiki sense.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
User:TheCatalyst31 this is about linking to accounts on Elance that are running paid Wikipedia editing businesses. Linking to LGBTQ editors off Wikipedia accounts is not being proposed as permissible and all I imagine would agree this should not be allowed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
That's what you specifically mentioned in the intro, but a lot of the support voters already mentioned extending the concept to things other than paid editing (e.g. political causes), and that just seems like a road that we shouldn't go down. Even if my example was a little extreme (albeit something that I've seen indirectly suggested), I still don't think we should be giving a free pass to out other editors over their off-wiki affiliations of any sort. I agree that we need a better way to deal with paid editing, but we shouldn't open the door to potential harassment in the process. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose because I believe, instead of removal, we could expand it to include specific cases where it can be used (ex. on the AN), or, perhaps instead there could be some sort of email system to email the pertinent info to the correct people. That way, it's not publicly available, but we still have the information needed to make a case for something (like paid editing). -- Gestrid (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Gestrid support means "we could expand it to include specific cases where it can be used" while "oppose" means you believe external links to other accounts should not be allowed despite their use to deal with undisclosed paid promotional editing. Are you sure you are in the correct spot? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Oops. Misunderstanding. Moving my response. -- Gestrid (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I choose to disclose my real name, date of birth and location on my userpage. I think that's the appropriate thing for someone who edits BLPs to do, actually, but then I'm not a vulnerable person. Others are. Children edit Wikipedia... look, Wikipedia rules have to be really simple or they don't work. Therefore there has to be a bright line against outing people. Two wrongs don't make a right.—S Marshall T/C 22:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - On the basis of confused, conflicting messages throughout these threads and the text of the RfC. It's on the harassment page, so obviously only applies to people editing Wikipedia and not to people who have not yet edited Wikipedia or companies that want Wikipedia articles but have not edited Wikipedia. The title of the RfC is "Can other site accounts ever be linked to". The answer to that is yes, as is already reflected in "case-by-case basis". But the RfC isn't asking if that case-by-case allowance should be removed. The subsection headings regard specifically "the above practice", which, as written only involves linking to a profile of someone who is not yet a Wikipedia editor, for which this page is inapplicable. It doesn't address jobs taken by existing users, linking to the profile after the account is created, doing things like "remember that profile we linked to back here? looks like it's User:Example", and so on. So my oppose isn't to say that you can never link to an outside profile -- it's an oppose to a proposal which will have unclear consequences, based on different questions in the title and the text, one of which is already affirmed by "case-by-case", and the other doesn't involve active editors. Call me pedantic, but with something like harassment, things need to be really clear. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Rhododendrites, the RfC is about the "case by case" sentence and cites one example of when it might be needed. By opposing, you're supporting the removal of that sentence. I supported because I'd like to see some version of that sentence remain in the article (perhaps with examples of acceptable and unacceptable practice), not because I support the posting of someone's Linked-in account. I definitely don't support that. But I'm concerned that to make no allowance at all for posting information about other accounts goes too far in the opposite direction. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Struck my oppose, at least for now, as I haven't had enough time to follow this thread so don't want to influence it based on incomplete information. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose apart from anything else this invites black flag operations. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC).

Supplementary: I don't oppose the general idea that there can be links to external accounts, or even in extremis real life identities. I do oppose a vague wording such as "on a case by case basis". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC).

Rich, many of the support votes above acknowledge that the case-by-case wording is too vague. If you support the principle that links should be allowed in some cases, then you're effectively in agreement with what supporters are saying above. What's needed in my opinion is a follow-up RfC, as suggested below, to gauge and establish community consensus on the sorts of cases where links should or shouldn't be allowed. Regards. --Andreas JN 466 10:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - as long as we value the option for contributors to be anonymous, we should respect this possibility. I could imagine that one day the value we put into anonymity will decrease, but that is a much wider discussion than the one in this RfC. Until then, I oppose this proposal. It is badly worded, allows for a slippery slope, does not provide clear borders, and invites potentially harmful outings to our weakest community members. I am also worried about the trickle down effects this proposal could have. No, if we want to change our view on anonymity, let's do it clearly and openly, but not through small, border-shifting skirmishes. --denny vrandečić (talk) 15:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose and Support. I absolutely oppose the "clearly in the best interests of the project" and "case-by-case" and language. Outing of a chronic serial sockpuppet NPOV violator and harasser has been and remains oversighted because the user has friends in high places. Some of the accounts arent even marked as socks because of these friends. (Yes, they've been identified as socks by the relevant authorities.) I Support language that going forward, allows only certain paid editors to be outed in certain circumstances. What we're really talking here about an attempt to excuse behavior that resulted in the blocking of a chronically abusive and uncivil bully who covers up others sockpuppetry, has been blocked multiple times for outing, and topic banned and and whose block the proposer nonetheless (!!!) extremely strongly opposes.--Elvey^(t•c) 23:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose per the oversighters and functionaries above, who have described my thoughts exactly: linking to information not disclosed on-wiki by an editor is harassment and is not ok for all the reasons described above. I also have a concern that the outcome of this RfC will be used to add back the "case by case" language in the same way that this language was added in the first place - not as something that was agreed upon by the community and oversighters, but as an interpretation of the RfC outcome. I understand that this RfC is asking about the one scenario but it's also clear to me that this RfC is really asking if the "case-by-case" exception language can go back in because this one example exists. I also understand that there's a need to balance dealing with paid editing and harassment, but vague "case by case" language is not useful because there's no indication of which cases under which conditions might be acceptable. I hope that any exceptions to this HARASSMENT policy - ie, any exceptions that allow an editor to be outed - are determined via explicit discussion with oversighters, possibly followed by an RfC to ensure community acceptance. Ca2james (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Few issues with that (1) there is not universal agreement among functionaries about linking to sites were paid editing is taking place (2) the functionaries as a group have expressed the position that they have no intention of dealing with undisclosed paid editing at this point in time, when I sent them concerns of a bunch of cases a while back I received no response other than acknowledgement of receiving the concerns (3) the community decides policy and then abrcom is supposed to enforce it, arbcom is not supposed to be determining policy behind closed doors Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
The functionaries as a group are opposed to authorising "case by case" outing on-wiki. That's not the same as having "no intention of dealing with undisclosed paid editing." -- Euryalus (talk) 06:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Doc James, when did you send "a bunch of cases" to the functionaries "as a group"? I am trying to get a clearer picture of the history here, but can't find anything sent by you to the functionaries list since I've been subscribed (end of 2015), and the archives didn't turn anything up either. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Arbcom has previously states that they do not see undisclosed paid editing as a concern they need to be involved in or are willing to enforce. What is proposed is case by case linking to other accounts (specifically those involved in the business of paid editing). I do not call that "outing" seeing that those businesses and individuals members of those businesses want to promote the work they do. User:Opabinia regalis this was Dec 22 2014 and to the group as a whole. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Hmm. I cannot find any messages from you to the functionaries list at any time in December 2014. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah. I think you actually sent one case, to arbcom-l. Without, obviously, getting into the details, I endorse the response you received. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that on 11 July, I reported to Oversight a case of an editor's LinkedIn profile being revealed here and they said "no thanks". So we simultaneously have non-enforcement of what appears to me to be clear outing, non-enforcement of ToS by arbcom, and unwillingness of many members of the community to allow linking to profiles for good end-goals such as prevention of undisclosed paid editing. The worst of both worlds. Those who have argued here that "amateur" investigators shouldn't get involved, and we can just leave it to (fill in the blank), this is clearly not happening and not going to happen. - Brianhe (talk) 05:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes the argument that we should exclude "amateurs" is similar to what much of the rest of the world use to say about encyclopedia writing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

A few years ago when I reported an outing of one of my own accounts (from another website) I had the same response. Its a shame I didnt keep the emails I received or I would post the functionary (who is still active) response here. Since then my general experience has been to contact one directly rather than rely on people who clearly do not follow the same textbook. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Well-meaning but leads to vigilante justice and could easily be abused, to the detriment of a person's real life. --Rs chen 7754 16:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Per Mike V and Fluffernutter, and others. If you want to connect the dots, there is no reason why you cannot, or should not, do it privately. →Σ σ ς. (Sigma) 22:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused as to the title of this proposal and its content. I fear that they are two slightly different things but I will try to address the proposal as it seems to have interpreted by most of the previous comments. I think it is unwise to allow any form of outing to be used here on Wikipedia. I think our project has far too often (due to no fault of those commenting here, obviously) been the starting point for on and off-wiki harassment campaigns and this leads me to take a very skeptical view of the disclosure of any private information about our contributors as a net positive. I realize that at least part of the thesis of this proposal is that the targets of this disclosure would not be good faith editors but I fear the potential for erroneous disclosures targeting good faith contributors far outweigh the discouraging or policing effects it might have. One of the things I have noticed is that a non-significant amount of harassment that uses private information "misses the target", that is it ends up harassing a different (sometimes related, sometimes not) individual from the Wikimedian targeted. This leaves me with the worry that any attempt to disclose private information has a potential to miss its target and associate the supposed "bad-faith" editor with an unrelated individual. I also am skeptical that any such public disclosure is required to effectively handle these matters. I realize our policies dealing with privacy are sometimes confused and contradictory but I think as a whole we should strive to protect our contributors' privacy as much as possible due to the significant potential for harassment caused by contribution to this project. I know this is proposal is well intentioned but I think it would do a lot more harm than good. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 17:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
TL:DR: I am reluctant to support this well intentioned proposal because:

I fear the potential for mistakes in outing

I think public disclosure of private information is not needed

I think we ought to err on the side of (extreme) caution when it comes to such disclosures

Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 17:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. While I don't edit anymore, and rarely follow WP, this has way too much potential for harm. I was the victim of an outing, and suffered devastating real world consequences as a result. It's almost always harassment of an editor and can be handled in other ways. The fact that some self-appointed vigilantes want to allow outing under certain circumstances is merely allowing the camel's nose under the tent. Once it gets there, it will soon be entirely in the tent. So if you want to allow this, go all the way and require editors to provide their real name and information. Or keep it the way it is now. GregJackP Boomer! 23:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - Allowing this would create a huge gaping hole in the Harassment policy, effectively making the whole policy moot. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 10:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Strong oppose - Respecting anonymity is essential to ensuring the free exchange of ideas. There are still many places in the world where editors can be imprisoned, tortured, or killed for expressing certain ideas or for sharing certain facts. Outing can (and does) have very real consequences in the world outside Wikipedia. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

This is very over the top. There has never been a documented instance of this happening. Further, any editor that follows the sourcing guidelines is unlikely to edit an article in such a way that would make them a worthwhile target, because we don't publish OR here. Meanwhile, in the real Wikipedia, we get vanity and COI edits every single day. Geogene (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The academic community manages to have a free exchange of ideas without such absolute anonymity. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Considering the number of politically based no platforming situations I have seen in the academic community recently, I can't say I agree that they manage to have a free exchange of ideas. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I have a few responses to the comments from Geogene and Doc James (please also note that I have modified the indentation of the last few posts). First, with respect to the argument that "[t]here has never been a documented instance of this happening", see argument from ignorance; in fact, there are people who have commented in this thread whose real-world lives and careers have been impacted by outing at Wikipedia. I admit my comment was a bit hyperbolic, but we always need to think about the worst-case scenario. Second, there are many topics relating to law, social and political theory, gender issues, minorities, etc. where editors may write properly-sourced content that still exposes those editors to potential harm from social or political groups that disapprove of or disagree with that content. Third, anonymity helps ensure that all editors are placed on equal footing in the community. When we learn about an editor's gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. then our perspectives of that editor's contributions to Wikipedia become clouded by our inherent biases. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I fully agree with everyone that OUTING as a form of user harassment is a very bad thing. But this image of political dissidents being dragged off and shot because they were outed on Wikipedia, because our OUTING policy wasn't severe enough, isn't realistic and is likely to distort from an accurate image of the problems at hand. And I would also reiterate that content quality takes priority over all other concerns. I could show you examples of content being ruined right now because of vanity and COI edits, but I would be blocked indefinitely if I were to do so. We are here to write an encyclopedia. Strange then that I can't do that. Geogene (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

So, you couldn't link to an edit that would serve as example of content being "ruined" without being blocked indefinitely? Or is it that you can't prove that it's "ruined" without outing someone? I'm not sure how that would work. --tronvillain (talk) 23:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

It is impossible to identify a vanity or COI edit without incurring the risk of an indefinite block. Content is ruined as a necessary consequence of this. The question at hand is whether content or civility is more important, and where is the optimal place to balance the two. This is not difficult to understand. Geogene (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Many of us at WPMED us our real names and I believe we do a decent job which seems to indicate that anonymity is not as essential as some make out. Also we are not here to "freely exchange" our own ideas. We are here to summarize the best avaliable sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Please propose other cases for which practice on linking to other sites is unclear in further RfCs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment Ironically, our three (edited) opposers are Checkusers and/ or Oversighters who actually view private information as a course of their duty here on Wikipedia. Interesting! KoshVorlon 19:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Why is it ironic that users who work to uphold the privacy policy, have formally agreed to be bound by the access to non-private information policy, and deal with the harassment of editors are opposed to a proposal that allows users to breach those policies and harass other users? Thryduulf (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. If the functionaries had a motto, it would be "First do no harm". --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 19:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Except the privacy of every user with IP block exemption (not a small number) was violated on the flimsy basis that at some indeterminate point in the future *registered users with no history of problematic editing* may possibly cause some harm to wikipedia. Said private information is now unreliably stored in a number of locations. The reality is, those with oversight and checkuser access have to provide an absolutely minimal rationale for using those tools and while there is no independent audit trail to see if their use is in line with policy, their statements that they are concerned about privacy and harrassment issues are laughable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

And of course use not dealing with undisclosed paid editing harms many many people as it corrupts our content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Said private information is now unreliably stored in a number of locations. I don't know where you got that idea, but no, it is not. At any rate, this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. —DoRD (talk) 12:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Oddly enough given that private data is stored both on the checkuser wiki, the checkuser mailing list, and by extension, any email account used to access the mailing list, yes, private information is stored unreliably in a number of locations. Unless you are now saying that all private information on the mailing list is under the control of the WMF? (I know the answer to this, it isnt, this is a function of using mailing lists to conduct privacy-sensitive issues) But I was merely pointing out the folly of giving greater weight to people who have access to private information when they inconsistantly apply it, or rather, consistantly apply it if you consider they operate from a standpoint of 'my opinion is correct regardless of written policy on the matter'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment I certainly see nothing wrong with posting information when it's not linked or purported to be linked to a particular user ("Heads up, someone's requesting "positive edits" for Example on Elance (link), keep an eye on the page for COI editors.") But linking a specific profile elsewhere to a specific editor here is generally outing, unless of course that editor has already themself disclosed the link between the two accounts. There is nothing wrong, of course, with calling out that an editor does not seem to be editing neutrally, remind them that the TOU requires disclosure if they are being compensated, and if necessary calling more attention to the problem. None of those steps requires knowing or saying who they actually are. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Seraphimblade Yes and that is what is proposed in this RfC Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment Guerillero actually, I would argue that , at least in this user's case he was the victim of "siege mentality", and when the community try to discuss this, discussion was shutdown in not one area, but two.

DoRD "Posting links to other accounts on other websites may be allowable on a case-by-case basis." is still the policy. KoshVorlon 19:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment The alternative to the above is to send all evidence of UPE to ARBCOM, since our policies say that is the place for private evidence to go, and let them deal with it. I suggested a process which does that and allows editors to avoid NPA accusations when discussing COI/UPE issues based on off-wiki information below [1]. If they can not or will not then we collect what was sent to ARBCOM and send it to the WMF and let them deal with enforcing the ToU . Sooner or later one of those groups will get a clue and either set up a manageable way for handling these issues, will admit that Wikipedia is simply a massive promotional and SEO platform, or will end up banning every editor who is willing to work on fighting COI/UPE Jbh ^Talk 11:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

In that regard, please see #Need for a better mechanism for private reporting, below. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Note that Elance has changed its name to Upwork. -- Gestrid (talk) 23:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

What do the policies say, and which bind us?

[I had begun writing this before Doc James opened this RfC, but now that it's here, this seems like the most appropriate place to put it]

We have a tangled web of policies covering this topic, running from Meta level to local, so perhaps it would be useful if I lay out my understanding of how these policies stack.

Global Oversight policy. This is a "global policy", a type of policy that obligates all Wikimedia projects to abide by it. Local policies can expand upon global ones (for instance, enwiki oversight policy adds more categories of private information than the global oversight policy has), but cannot negate global ones (for instance, by saying "well, global OS policy includes phone numbers, but we really don't think those are important so our policy will say phone numbers are not suppressable").
- Relevant contents: "Removal of non-public personal information such as phone numbers, home addresses, workplaces or identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public, or of public individuals who have not made that personal information public."
- Priority: Highest. Cannot be overruled by local projects.
Local oversight policy. This is a policy that applies to the English Wikipedia. It inherits its authority and its minimum parameters from the global Oversight plicy described above, but adds more categories of private information and notes that suppression of such information is the "first resort" action when these appear on the project.
- Relevant contents: "Removal of non-public personal information, such as phone numbers, home addresses, workplaces or identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public. This includes hiding the IP data of editors who accidentally logged out and thus inadvertently revealed their own IP addresses as well as the IP data of editors without an account on request. Suppression is a tool of first resort in removing this information."
- Priority: High. Inherits the majority of its force from the un-overrule-able global policy
Local harassment policy. This covers many more categories of misbehavior than oversight policy does (we would not suppress, for instance someone wikihounding another person from one on-wiki discussion to another, because that's not private information), but its description of private information is adopted essentially from the local oversight policy. Even if this page were to try to overrule local oversight policy (by saying "posting links to people's profiles on other sites is ok even if those contain private information"), it could not overrule global oversight policy, which will continue to include "private information" in the list of things to be oversighted.
- Relevant contents: "Posting links to other accounts on other websites may be allowable on a case-by-case basis. However, links which are purported to contain non-public, personal, or identifying information (such as real names, workplaces, or contact details) will almost invariably be suppressed by a member of the oversight team; the editor posting the link bears full responsibility for it and risks being blocked from editing. Such blocks have been consistently upheld by the Arbitration Committee."
- Priority: Medium. Fully enforceable policy locally, but cannot overrule global-based policies.

What does this set of interlocking policies add up to, at the end of the day? It means local policies like WP:HARASS can be more restrictive than global ones like m:Oversight, but they cannot be less. We cannot have a policy on enwiki that permits something that global policy forbids, nor would it be advisable to have a local policy that tells people they won't get in trouble for something, when we know local functionaries enforcing a globally-obligatory policy are saying (and have said) that they will get in quite a lot of trouble for it, actually.

What does this fact mean for people's desire to share on-wiki links to off-wiki other accounts? It means that this behavior is subject to both enwiki and meta-level oversight policies, which in turn means that the only possible case in which you could be sure such a link would not be suppressed (and the poster potentially blocked) if you post it would be a case in which it contains none of the following that have not already been self-shared on Wikipedia: all non-public personal information, phone numbers, home addresses, workplaces, identity or real name of an anonymous or pseudonymous editor, IP of a registered editor, and contact details. Note also that this is presented not as an exhaustive list, but as a list of examples ("such as..."), which means that even if it doesn't fall within one of those specific categories but a reasonable oversighter would categorize it was "non-public personal information", then it's still prohibited.

Perhaps the most relevant of these to this discussion are "workplaces", "phone numbers", "contact details", and "identity or real name of pseudonymous editors". Think about the ways in which you would identify someone as being a paid editor or having a COI - what would you link to to prove those things? You'd link to something identifying their profession/work, and that connects the Wikipedia account name to that work-related link. You'd have to, or else you're not showing that they're being paid. So how does that apply to places you might want to link to when you feel you need to reveal someone's true agenda?

If you link to something like their LinkedIn profile, you're also linking to a page that has, generally, information on the person's workplace, their real name, and their position with their workplace. It will often also have physical location, phone number, names of professional connections, and political/hobby/volunteering preferences.
An Elance profile will typically be less detailed, but often contains physical location, real name (full or partial), a photograph of the person, and a detailed personal biography of the type rarely shared on Wikipedia. It will also contain a work history.
A "real name"-style social media account like Facebook will have practically every personal detail you could think of, from real name to physical location to mom's maiden name
A "pseudonym"-style social media account like reddit seems safe, right? Well, those will often have participated in threads related to their physical location (that post in r/SanFrancisco about buying a house on Lombard Street would be pretty revealing, for instance), employment (regular poster in r/Legaladvice without adding an "IANAL" disclaimer? Guess we know what you do for a living!), or sexual proclivities (let's not even go into detail here, but I assure you that most of what I can think of that would fall into this category is things I would unhesitatingly suppress on-wiki as "private personal information").
- But restricting links to stuff like reddit sounds silly, right? You're not linking TO their location, you're just linking to an account that happens to mention their location. Which is a nice academic point, but your disclaimer will do the person in question no good when someone follows your link, reads their post history, and discovers their life in enough detail to do things that could include doxxing, swatting, and doorstepping. This is a wiki. You are not the only person who is going to see/click that link, not even if the edit is immediately reverted, because hey! wikis preserve page histories!

So what's left? What type of account links can you post that aren't going to contain info covered by global and local oversight policy? Vanishingly few. Yes, there are possible cases. In a previous conversation about this topic, I gave the example of someone's reddit account which has only ever posted the word "awww" to r/adorablebunnies. That could exist. But how sure are you that that link you're about to add linking to someone's off-wiki profile is that safe? How sure are you really? Did you read all 10,000 of their contributions there and make sure there's nothing revealing? If so and you're sure there's nothing personally identifying anywhere in their account's history...then what the heck do you think it's going to prove to anyone on Wikipedia in the first place? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. So even if the link was not originally outing when it was added, if someone changes the content of the link such that it than becomes outing that is a blockable offense. This of course would make even using PMIDs potentially blockable as someone might add details afterwards that links a user to to a person. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

But also largely irrelevant in a lot of cases. The particular bit to note is "of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals" - it does not say 'all users'. In the case that spawned this mess, the user was neither pseudonymous or anonymous. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I could make an argument that being "JSmith" is not the same as making public "I am specifically John William Howard Smith" (given how many J Smiths exist in the world, us narrowing it down to a specific one and pointing to them is a pretty big leap), but more to the point, remember that global OS policy adds "...or of public individuals who have not made that personal information public.". Even if we accept that being "user:JSmith" makes one's name being "John William Howard Smith" "public", it is nevertheless the case that allowing that you are "John William Howard Smith" does not somehow entail that you are also choosing to make public on Wikipedia "...and I live in AnyTown, State, USA, am married to Jane Brown Doe, and work as an executive widget supervisor at ABC Corp, Inc. And by the way did I mention that you can call me at 555-555-5555, or email me at 'jsmithrockswithvanhalen@email.com', and I'm 62 years old?"

Even if we assume John W.H. Smith is as public a personality as Britney Spears, it's still pretty uncommon for "public" people to want to release stuff like their personal home address, phone number, exact city of residence, etc to a website that runs on the explicit principle of "anything you put here will be saved pretty much forever and can be copied, adapted, and reused by anyone, anywhere, also forever." Or to put it another way, if I'm a widget manager and create a page for myself on widgetsunion.org giving some detail about myself for my coworkers to get to know me better, are we to assume that the existence of that page also means that I am cool with my personal bio being pasted onto Wikipedia, or Encyclopedia Dramatica, or wehatewidgetpeople.net? People often share information in one context where they can be reasonably sure it won't be misused (linkedin or facebook) that they would never, ever share in another (say, reddit or wikipedia), and we do not have the authority to decide that their choice to limit that info to a smaller context don't matter, we're gonna splash that info all over our public pages and permanent archives. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm puzzled why it's thought personal information posted to Wikipedia is more likely to be "misused" than when it's posted on Facebook or Linkedin. Could it be the very privacy Wikipedia so values (wrongly in my view) is ripe for exploitation by those who would engage in such misuse (e.g. by making anonynmous threats to get an editor in trouble with their employer). Alexbrn (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

My personal feeling is that it's a matter of choosing one's own audience. For instance, if I post something on my facebook wall, I intend for it to be consumed by people who are my friends on Facebook - those are people I generally trust and know on a personal level, who I can safely assume are not going to, say, react to knowing my phone number by calling it at all hours to heavy-breathe into the receiver. However, the same information, copied to or linked to from Wikipedia, directs the attention of a very different audience to it - suddenly my phone number is had not only by people I trust, but also by people who have a specific editing grudge against me, by people who think talking on the phone is the best way to sort out an edit war, and by people who maybe just aren't clear on phone etiquette. If I put my current employer on my LinkedIn page, I'm doing that so potential future employers can see my employment background and perhaps contact my references; if the same information is posted on Wikipedia, sudden;y it's being consumed by an audience who would be more inclined to use it to call my employer and allege I'm satan. It's not that Wikipedia is somehow more vicious than Facebook, it's that what people here would tend to do with personal information about someone is almost never what the owner of that information intended it to be used for when they posted it on, say, Facebook. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I could add WP:COI to the list above, and note that it is a guideline rather than a policy. That places it clearly below all of the above. Although I guess I should also note that the prohibition of undisclosed paid editing is part of the global terms of use. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I also came across a relevant AfD case where a single source used in the article details the name of the leader of the researcher group who wrote the software where the editor that created the article just so happens to have the same user name as the lead researcher. The website is out of date so you can't find the person in the university directory, but we deal with AfDs all the time where there is an obvious COI with an editor editing under their own name where the sources being discussed will reveal personal information. I don't think people wanting to call these situations outing understand just how big of a change it would be to the community norms. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

That's an interesting link. For those who don't bother to read it, it's an AfD where the consensus seems to be "delete", and one editor points out that the username of the editor who created the page resembles the name of someone associated with the page subject. It seems to me that the "absolute" reading of the policy that some editors support would require treating that edit as a blockable violation, which common sense seems to me to be overkill. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Note from Wikimedia Foundation Legal

I've been asked to clarify how this discussion fits with the Wikimedia privacy policy. It is not a violation of the Wikimedia privacy policy for editors to post links to public information about other editors. The privacy policy applies to how the Wikimedia Foundation collects and handles personal information, as well as users who have access to nonpublic information. The underlying principle in our privacy policy is that respecting and protecting anonymity and pseudonymity is essential for encouraging free expression. Posting links to public information on other sites is a question of balancing this underlying principle, not a direct violation of the privacy policy. It's up to community consensus here to decide when the harassment policy should allow editors to reasonably link to public information on other sites. Thanks, Stephen LaPorte (WMF) (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks User:Slaporte (WMF) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

respecting and protecting anonymity and pseudonymity is essential for encouraging free expression ← interesting. This may be true, but it seems to me that enjoying "free expression" is not quite the same as "creating an encyclopedia". Most of what goes on here should be the drudgery work of finding good sources and summarizing their content to make articles. By creating a venue where "free expression" is core this privacy imperative actually encourages an environment where Wikipedia becomes something it should WP:NOT be: a place for people to "express themselves". In my view this privacy imperative is rooted in mentality of the early days of the internet where pseudonyms and anonymity were part of the counter-cultural vibe. Nowadays in Wikipedia it largely works against the interests of the project. Personally I would much prefer to see the principles of openness and transparency as core to the Project. Alexbrn (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Also easily proven to be untrue. There are whole swathes of policy, guidelines etc dedicated to restricting 'free expression' on wikipedia. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

"Free expression" is in terms of building the encyclopedia. It is so editors can edit topics or add viewpoints without fear of reprisal in real life (or even on-wiki which allows undisclosed alternative accounts explicitly for this purpose). Unpopular or controversial viewpoints may not be covered properly without anonymity or psuedonymity. "Free expression" isn't broader than the purpose of building the encyclopedia but efforts to remove anonymity or psuedonymity through linking to real life accounts stands in opposition to the goal of encompassing the sum of all knowledge. --DHeyward (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello Stephen. As a requirement of having access to checkuser and oversight tools, CUs and OSs must sign the WMF's confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information. In that agreement, the user must agree to [c]omply with the Privacy Policy; the Access to Nonpublic Information Policy; and any other applicable and nonconflicting community policy relating to nonpublic information. Non-public personal information is pretty well defined in the privacy policy. How is this proposal not conflicting with the privacy policy? I disagree with your opinion on the underlying principle in the privacy policy; there's nothing about "free expression" in the policy. What it does say is We believe that you shouldn't have to provide personal information to participate in the free knowledge movement. You do not have to provide things like your real name, address, or date of birth to sign up for a standard account or contribute content to the Wikimedia Sites. Only information collected by the WMF is covered under the "When may we share your information?" section. Please explain how a policy that allows editors to demand from editors non-public personal information (and to publish such information) that the WMF specifically says is not required for contribution to its site NOT in contradiction with the privacy policy. Risker (talk) 01:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

"Everything on the Internet except for Wikipedia" is not the same as "non-public information". If someone posts details publicly on Elance and those details relate to the breach of our policies IMO we should reasonably be able to discuss them on Wikipedia. It appears some are even against discussing those details if they do not connect a editor to those details, but many comments by functionaries are unclear. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

James, was I asking you or Stephen that question? I want to hear what Stephen has to say. Why is the WMF insisting that oversighters sign the confidentiality policy if the only non-public personal information that is onwiki is that posted by other editors, which the WMF disclaims? Enwiki oversighters use OTRS, which has a separate confidentiality agreement (its main application is to email addresses, in the case of oversighters, and is equally applicable to all OTRS users), but oversighters on most other projects don't use OTRS for receiving requests. It is as though the WMF has now said that it's fine from their perspective for oversighters to publicly repeat information they've oversighted; ironic given the fact that oversighters will regularly get requests to remove material forwarded directly from the WMF staff. As it was explained to me at the time the new privacy policy was included, the expectation was that communities would see that the list of non-public data was the minimum that was appropriate for oversight, but they could expand the list; unfortunately, that was a direct communication and it's not onwiki.

Attempting to link accounts on other sites to actions and editors on this site has been repeatedly shown to result in errors in judgement on the part of those doing the linking. Just recently I had to get a LinkedIn account with my RL name taken down - it's the fourth or fifth time there - and an ever-increasing number of editors have been accused (sometimes with external links) of being paid editors, ironically including some of the people who have commented on this page when really what we were dealing with was a good old fashioned editorial dispute. We used to have editors who looked at Elance requests for article fix-ups, check the article, and make appropriate edits without payment in order to thwart anyone from making money off Wikipedia. What happened was that those editors wound up being harassed and accused of being paid editors (even if they'd been around for a long time), and now nobody does this. Instead, we wind up with articles on important and notable businesses where salient data is out of date, significant information is not included, and disproportionately large sections of text are filled with frequently-minor allegations of wrongdoing. Hardly anyone will fix those articles because of the likelihood that they'll be accused of being paid by the article subjects, because of the willingness to assume bad faith when it comes to articles about business in particular. Meanwhile, we continue as a community to refuse to improve our standards of notability for businesses, thus keeping the door open for the Orangemoodys of this world to keep creating and charging for articles about businesses that would often not rate a mention in any other independent, unpaid industry-specific database or encyclopedia. I'm not saying paid editing is not a problem. I'm saying that the very actions being proposed here are directly related to editors avoiding editing articles that are suffering from entropy and biased editing. Allowing this kind of harassment has not had any effect at all on paid editing - well written paid articles stick around and the worst of the dreck gets deleted no matter what is decided here; this is simply encouraging people to use the harassment policy to harass people. Risker (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

A couple of points: 1) I question that UPEs can be considered as "...participating in the free knowledge movement..." 2) even as our rules exist, every editor in [:Category:Amature Radio Operators] is essentially un-OUTABLE because everyone who lists their call sign trivially exposes their full name and actual, physical address (not PO box but where they are physically present). (But I bet most do think of it.) So I think it would be useful to distinguish between volunteers who are to improve the encyclopedia as private individuals and those are here to use Wikipedia as a PR/PROMO/SEO platform. There is, in my opinion, a difference between off-wiki information being posted on-wiki to intimidate, "win" an arguement, or to harass and off-wiki but still public and, in the case at issue directly related to editing Wikipedia, information which is used to demonstrate a violation of ToU by someone who has chosen to make editing Wikipedia their profession. Jbh ^Talk 12:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

What other reason, besides winning an argument (even a COI argument), exists for posting outside information? Isn't there private methods to conduct SPI and ArbCom investigations that eliminate the need for on-wiki posting? --DHeyward (talk) 20:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

There is no mechanism that works. The guideline says send it to ARBCOM but we recently saw an example of how that leads to being permabaned as well. At best there may be an admin who you can email the proof to but they would get hell for "blocking on private evidence". Also, NPA requires evidence when you make an accusation so it is either get sanctioned for Harassment/NPA or Harassment/OUTING. An "argument" about an editor being a UPE is a different thing from a content arguement - essentially, in my opinion, by violating the ToU/PAID an editor is not a good faith member of the editing community.

I would prefer to see a formal method for submitting, validating and acting on off-wiki evidence but until we have that we need the "escape clause" to prevent BS permabans like the one that kicked this off. (Not that the OVERSIGHT/ARBCOM functionaries seem to be acting reasonably in that case, considering how divided the community is on this issue.) I backed away from dealing with UPEs because there seems to be no support from the Functionaries and inevitably one will ban you for "outing" or "opposition research" or whatever because the PAGs are patchwork. Jbh ^Talk 23:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Question about another scenario

There is another kind of scenario, where I have some ambivalence, and I'd like to hear from other editors about how they view it. (This grows out of earlier discussion at Wikipedia talk:Harassment/Archive 8.) Let's say that there is a concern about undisclosed paid editing. The editor who is suspected has voluntarily posted information about that editing at an external website, in a commercial context where the posting is intended to be freely available to the public, and thus was not intended to be private information at the time that it was posted. But they have not disclosed it on-Wiki. Their user name here is the same as the name used at the external site, and they say at the external site that they are editing here. Is it outing to link to that? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

There's no need to link to that.

"Hi there,

I'm Keegan, a Wikipedia contributor like yourself. I'm contacting you over some concerns I have over your contributions. In reading over them and looking to verify their contents, I believe that they are violating some of the important policies that we have here, namely that I strongly suspect that you might be compensated for your editing. Wikipedia's Terms of Use require that you provide notices if this is the case, and I'll assume good faith that you might not be aware of this. Here is where you can learn more about how to follow the Terms of User: <link>. I understand that I may be in error, but do be aware that assuming good faith only goes so far, and if your contributions do not change or there is not a notice to bring your edits in compliance with the Terms of Use, this account may be blocked from editing with or without further notice and appropriate evidence of potential violations of the Terms of Use may be sent to <people>. These matters are taken very seriously by Wikipedians, thank you for your understanding. ~~~~"

If the user protests, it's no different than sock puppets or vandals: give it the duck test and if behavior continues, block them and send your evidence to the Arbitration Committee. Leave a note in the block notice that ArbCom has information about this block. Been here, done this, got a drawer full of the t-shirts they hand out with checkusering and blocking promo accounts. I've never had to out someone, there is no need. Keegan (talk) 00:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Keegan, those are good ideas. At the same time, I wonder what is appropriate if an editor fails to do it that way. Is it really outing? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The problem I'm seeing with this approach is that it can violate WP:ASPERSIONS. We've made it clear whether through policy, guideline, or ArbCom that we need to provide evidence when approaching a COI issue. This is to counteract editors who like to sling around COI accusations simply because the way the editor edits doesn't match their POV (e.g. this edit doesn't vilify a particular industry so there must be a COI). We definitely need to balance OUTING and COI, but disallowing evidence while still posting these notices would run editors into trouble too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree that it's the same as WP:ASPERSIONS (which is an essay, not sure you can violate an essay). But, thanks for this, because it lead me to this: "When investigating COI editing, the policy against harassment takes precedence; it requires that Wikipedians must take care not to reveal the identity of editors against their wishes. Instead, examine editors' behavior and refer to Wikipedia:Checkuser." from Arbitration this past December. Please note that the approach that I take does specifically focus on the content and the user's behavior, not the user themselves. That is what is at stake here, the ability to go after a contributor over content. Keegan (talk) 07:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I remember pretty recently that WP:ASPERSIONS directed instead to an ArbCom finding, so in any case, aspersions are a big deal (see the ongoing mess in the GMO topic area). But Keegan, I repeat my question that was not answered. I agree that your approach is the best practice – but if someone fails to follow your best practice, is that really outing in this case? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes. There are some folks here that are forgetting, or will not recognize, that the vast majority of people using the internet are not aware of the difference between public and private. They are not aware that contributing to this website under their real name makes it open season to reveal avenues of off-wiki harassment. Treating people as "they should know better" is yet another form of victim blaming. Keegan (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

You are still not answering the question that I asked you. Please re-read the scenario that I described at the top of this section. I'm talking about a situation in which the posting at the other site was knowingly intended to be public, not a situation in which the person did not understand the difference. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

If the information was not linked to on Wikipedia by the person who posted it on another website, posting it by another user is not acceptable. Having a Facebook profile set to public != link to me on Wikipedia. Keegan (talk) 23:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, I get it that you feel very strongly and that you are likely to object to any kind of scenario that concerns any kind of link, no matter what I say. And I really do agree with you that your approach, above, is always much better. But I'm trying to tease out the borderline situations here, because the non-borderline ones are not what is difficult. So, I was not asking about Facebook. That's not what I asked. Per just below, let's say the website being linked is the company website of Smith's Widget Emporium, and the website says John B. Smith is the founder and chief operating officer of our company. It does not contain anything about John B. Smith's home address, home phone number, social security number, and so forth. It is obvious that the company intends the website to present a good face to the public, and there is no secret who their founder and chief is. I'm suggesting that such a link probably is not outing, and that the language of this policy needs to made sufficiently clear that users do not get confused about where the boundaries are. Because if you could look at what I actually said and interpret it as Facebook, then we have to conclude that it is too easy for things to be unclear. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

The difference between saying:

I think that you (User:JSmith) have a conflict of interest with the article you created, Smith's Widget Emporium. Please be mindful of our COI policy. vs.
I think that you (User:JSmith) are John Smith (see this LinkedIn profile) of Smith's Widget Emporium. Please be mindful of our COI policy.

is the latter will get you blocked, the former will not. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 09:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Kelapstick, I agree with that distinction, but it wasn't what I asked.

What if someone says (in between your two examples) "I think that you (User:JSmith) have a conflict of interest with respect to the Smith's Widget Emporium company and that it affects your editing of that page."?
Or: "I think that you (User:JSmith) have a conflict of interest with article you created, Smith's Widget Emporium, where it says that John Smith is the head of the company."?
Or: "I think that you (User:John B. Smith) have a conflict of interest with article you created, Smith's Widget Emporium, where it says that John B. Smith is the head of the company."?
And my question was not about a LinkedIn profile. I asked specifically about a commercial page where the information that is posted was intended to be public information. So: "I think that you (User:JSmith) have a conflict of interest with article you created, Smith's Widget Emporium. The company website, that is linked in the EL section of the page, says that the head of the company is John Smith, as does the infobox at the top of the page."?

That last example is really what I am asking about. I'll stipulate that it is better practice to do it per Keegan or per your first example, even in this situation. But if instead an editor says that last version, is it really outing? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Would it get you blocked, possibly not. Could it, yes. To what end does asking if they are the person listed on the company website serve. In this case, you are pretty confident in who they are, the user in question obviously knows who they are, you've suggested that they have a COI, they should understand why you think that. Why would you want (or need) to post a direct link between the user and their real life identity (not just their name, but which specific John Smith they are) on their talk page. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's an accurate description of current practice. In other words, most of the time, doing that will be allowed to happen, and then, every now and then, it will suddenly result in a block, and a brouhaha, and a Streisand effect. I agree with you that focusing on the edit and not the person is always better, but we have too many gray areas where commenting on the person nonetheless is going to happen, and what this policy has been telling editors is that it is a "case-by-case" matter. This is no way to run a policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Tryptofish, but I fail to see what's grey about #4 and Kelapstick's answer. "Would it get you blocked, possibly not" is not an expression of whether you'll get a fine from breaking this or that rule of traffic; it expresses that (but I don't want to put words in K-stick's mouth, which is full of Bacon explosion, probably) perhaps not all admins see these things as equally seriously or problematic, and that it is less obvious than placing a nice, blue link there. I do not see why it would not be OUTING--it's not disclosed on wiki, it's educated guesswork, it's putting information on-wiki that links an individual in the real world to an editor of Wikipedia. It's really no different from linking, except that you didn't put the link in there. NeilN, I believe this is what you and I butted heads over, and I think the simple answer remains "don't link"--whether "link" means supplying a URL or doing it in words. Drmies (talk) 23:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: do I understand you correctly that, when you say that #4 is not gray, you are saying that it clearly is outing (as opposed to clearly not being outing)? Does that then mean that, in my list of 1–4, all of them would violate the outing policy, and Kelapstick's second example is also a violation (I agree about that), whereas Kelapstick's first example is, as Kelapstick says, OK? If that is what you mean to say, then I'm having trouble finding the boundary between Kelapstick's first example and the rest.

And I really want you to understand why "perhaps not all admins see these things as equally seriously or problematic" is just as big a problem as is the ambiguous "case-by-case" language that I think we both dislike on this policy page. If we have something where one admin will block you and another will let it go, we have something that will leave the blocked editor feeling very misused by Wikipedia (here, I am talking about good-faith editors, who thought that they understood the policy, not passing trolls). It's the same thing as when ArbCom says an editor cannot be sanctioned for DS violations without having been made aware of the DS. This is why I think we need to do much better with current practice. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Drmies, excerpting our conversation:

Me: I'm curious to know if you would find it acceptable if Jytdog had said something like, "I know you work for xxx Corp. Please abide by our COI policy." without linking to external sites.
You: That's better. What was proposed as a question in the ANI thread was still unacceptable (for me--but I think most of my colleagues on ArbCom agree with me), as far as I'm concerned. If xxx Corp is the title of the article, I guess I'd be OK with it.
Me: I just had yet another look at WP:OUTING. "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes... work organisation" So the statement I suggested above, which you said was better, could lead to my indef blocking. There needs to be more clarity.
You: That this means Jytdog and others can figure it out doesn't mean it should be posted. I just don't see how it is unclear that one should not post personal information, why one should seek the possibly frayed edges of the policy.

I ended up with asking if you were withdrawing your "that's better" and the entire topic got removed shortly after. My basic viewpoint: If we're going to forbid any posting of such information, no matter how glaringly obvious it is, okay, make that clear (and decide if "google it" is a valid response to questions about how COI was found), and realize we'll have blindfolds on when dealing with COI. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

NeilN, I thought made it quite clear that that's how I read it. (And I don't read that one strange sentence that seems to have gained approval in some mysterious way.) But who's got the blindfolds--who's we? If you suspect someone from having a COI, of being Mike Davis or whatever his name was from the local Burger King, which has a Facebook page administered by Mike Davis, and they're editing the article for Burger King and sticking in inappropriate stuff, what more do you need? You said "we"--well, I said "you", Neil the admin guy. You can draw your conclusions and make your decision. If Jytdog has that evidence, he can do something similar by way of you, Neil, the admin guy, after emailing you the evidence. (I know Jytdog knows how to use email.) Or he can email ArbCom. Or whatever. I admit that it is not entirely clear who should be handling what, but as far as I'm concerned it's clear who shouldn't be handling it. Submit private evidence privately; it's not the community as a whole that needs to decide on the basis of non-public-on-wiki evidence if someone has a COI. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

(Responding to Kingofaces43.) That's a really good point. I've observed editors who are trying to deal with COI try to communicate with editors in the way that Keegan recommends, and then find themselves in a Catch-22 when the editor they approach complains that they are being accused without evidence. And I've also seen firsthand (even been on the receiving end myself) POV-pushers who allege COI without evidence. We have a contradiction: we do not allow posting information that establishes a COI problem if it is private, but we want to discourage COI accusations that are not evidence-based. On the other hand, I do think that private emailing of evidence (see the thread below) could be an ideal solution. If credible evidence is confirmed after it is emailed, then it is not a personal attack, whereas a failure to provide the evidence privately is the casting of an aspersion. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Per "posting information that establishes a COI problem if it is private" I completely agree with. But the rest of the internet apart from Wikipedia is simply not private. The rest of the internet is mostly public. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. The problem I see with keeping everything COI-related private for non-outing examples (i.e. editing under an actual name and showing the company affiliation without private addresses, etc.) is that we generally need input of the community to determine COI (and provide record of it). The process would need to reliably be used to tag particular editor as having a COI and what that COI is for the whole community to know. To be honest though, that's a formal process that I don't have a lot of faith in being maintained (though I am a fan of crow).

As for WP:ASPERSIONS, that did link to the one of the ArbCom findings, but it has since been moved to an essay that simply lists each of the ArbCom findings on the matter. So for example with kelapstick's examples[2], both examples can result in sanctions rather than just the latter under the current environment. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Editors who have had the good fortune of never having crossed paths with the GMO controversy can see at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Monsanto must be pleased an example of what Kingofaces and I were talking about just above. What I think is applicable here is that it isn't OK to make COI accusations without evidence, and so there is a need to be able to provide evidence while, at the same time, not violating the policy here. But not having evidence at all is not an acceptable option. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: As I think about this some more, I'm concerned that you may be redefining outing from "Posting another editor's personal information" to something like "posting too much supposition about another editor's personal motives". Please remember, the policy has always defined outing as pertaining to private information about an editor. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: um, ok, then please clarify what I asked you about, just above your exchange with NeilN in this section. It really sounds to me like you are talking about any information about editors, whether private or public. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm talking about information that is not disclosed on-wiki, which is the kind of information other editors should not disclose on-wiki. Sorry, but I don't get this. If you post stuff on-wiki to make the case that I am involved in, let's say, Abundant Seafood because you have discovered on my Facebook page that Mark Marhefka is my cousin, that's outing, no matter how much you argue that my Facebook page is public. But please note that our policy does not oppose private vs. public information; it talks about personal information. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Facebook (as I understand it) typically has personal information that is truly personal, and the information is typically posted in the expectation that it will be viewed by friends, rather than by any random passerby. I agree with you about Facebook. But I am asking about different kinds of situations than that. (And for some reason, users with advanced permissions keep turning it back to Facebook...?)

When you have a bit of time, please look back at the two examples that Kelapstick gave, followed by the four examples that I gave in response, and please tell me which of the four examples I gave are outing, and which are not outing.

And, in addition, please tell me if it is outing to link to a webpage where someone has said (credibly, not looking like a false flag) that they are editor so-and-so on Wikipedia and they are editing in a promotional way for money. Is that personal information? --Tryptofish (talk) 02:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Two cases and questions

1. Newyorkbrad. Thatcher In another universe, far away and many years ago (when some reason prevailed on Wikipedia and we did not see extreme examples of editors being blocked for doing exactly what has been allowed, accepted and permitted for years), there were two arbcases, somewhat related, where I submitted private evidence to arbs. NYB is well familiar with the horrific things that were said about me, the admin who overlooked those very visible posts about me when unblocking a now banned editor, and the reasons I submitted private evidence to the arbs related to the identity of the now-banned editor. I am hoping NYB can explain why, today, according to many extreme positions being advanced here, editors would apparently no longer be able to divulge to the arbs information such as I forwarded to them years ago. And, considering a group of admins was advocating against me in that case, where do we leave editors who are confronting the serious kind of defamatory and inflammatory text that was written about me by that editor? Defenseless ... ?

2. FloNight. And what do these advocates for an extreme position on OUTING say about this case? Was FloNight wrong then? Why is Jytdog blocked for what has always been accepted?

Please record me as being in support of a more reasoned approach to OUTING, as was taken in the past, and against these current extreme interpretations. This is the Internet, not a print publication. If paid and COI editors and stalkers and harassers are advancing their causes and cases on the Internet, then they subject themselves to identification. If we refuse to accept that, then we give the stalkers, harassers, COI and POV editors, editors for hire, etc, the run of the place. (Well, more run of the place ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Sandy, I am very glad that you raised these examples here. I looked at the second one, about the e-cigs paid advocacy editor who ended up banned. I'd like to additionally ping @Euryalus: because you closed the ban decision, and you've been commenting in this talk, so your opinion is interesting here too. It seems to me that there was a pretty clear consensus in that case, and yet the case arose from tracking down and linking to an editor's Twitter account. Myself, I'm drawing the following conclusions. First, this policy has not been as clear as it ought to be, and it really needs to be made clearer. Second, we have a serious problem with inconsistency in its application, despite how I keep hearing admins say that anyone with clue can recognize outing when they see it (true in the blatant cases, not so in some borderline ones). I have a bad feeling that whatever Jytdog did was really not much different than what was welcomed in this linked case. Inconsistent! And thirdly, it seems to me that the best solution that we are going to come to (besides clarification and consistency) is going to be to have a good way to confirm the existence of this kind of evidence privately, via email, instead of posting it on-site – see #Need for a better mechanism for private reporting, just below. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: It was a while ago and I haven't gone back through the diffs to reconstruct the issue; but from memory FergusM1970 was someone with a record of suspiciously promotional contributions who, when questioned, admitted he was an undisclosed paid editor. He was close to being blocked simply for unconstructive editing, but his admission was a factor in a community consensus that he be banned. As a passing janitor I enacted that consensus. I'll take your word for it that a Twitter account was mentioned, but I don't recall it being central to the reasons for the ban. In passing he was subsequently revealed to be a sockmaster and his sock accounts also blocked; but this was entirely based on behavioural evidence on-WP. If I've misremembered, please let me know and I'll go wander back through the diffs. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Euryalus: Thanks. After reading your reply, I looked again, and I see that the first time that the Twitter link was posted, it was actually posted by the editor who ended up banned, so later mentions were not outing. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: As I understand the current discussion, it is about what sorts of information may be discussed on-wiki (or, by extension, in other public venues). I don't think anyone is suggesting that information about ongoing situations involving harassment of editors, threats, etc. can't be provided offsite to the Arbitration Committee where necessary. I can attest from my time on the Committee that doing so is sometimes necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Forcing those who are being harassed to hide the fact IMO is not always ideal. Those being harassed should be free if they wish to, to discuss it openly as has been done in the past by both User:Keilana and myself. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: thanks for responding, and apologies for my delay (I don't participate more than necessary these days :)
The concern I have is over frequent references in these and similar discussion about the appropriateness (or not) of "sleuthing" off-site. In the first arbcase, I had access to information because the now-banned editor and I frequented the same off-Wiki websites, and the now-banned user mentioned something off-Wiki that she had also mentioned on-Wiki, which connected pseudonyms. Further "sleuthing", then, revealed information about some of the particularly horrific things she said about me on Wiki, and gave context to those statements based on real identity (not pseudonyms), which I submitted off-Wiki to the arbs. All of this after admins had acted quite dramatically against me, and said rather appalling things about me, in the face of of highly inappropriate attacks against me on Wiki. I cannot name the case at this point so many years later, but I seem to recall an arbcase where there were findings against an editor for "sleuthing" off-Wiki (maybe Transcendental Meditation ??) Dramatically inappropriate admin actions forced me into that corner. I am concerned about statements from some newer arbs who may not be aware of some of the "how we got to this point", and just how unclear some of these policies are, or how they have developed. The black-and-white of what caused Jytdog's blocking is not apparent to me, and I hope to not regularly see any good-faith editor forced into the corner I was forced into by being on the wrong side of a group of admins. (Reference Doc James post just above this.)
My next concern is that not all editors, when faced with the kind of admin cabal (yes, reference second arbcase you and I are familiar with) that I was faced with would be able to prevail. It took mounds of evidence, and months of work, with the help of numerous other editors who helped gather the pieces of evidence I needed, and I suspect I prevailed only because many arbs knew me and my work. How many would have given up? How much of this is about Jytdog not having built up the record and good faith among arbs that I enjoyed, so that I was paid attention to? How likely is it that if Jytdog had submitted confidential evidence to arbs, he would be paid attention to? I hope we leave room for enforcement against COI editing, paid editing, and trolls and other malicious editors that doesn't depend upon the goodwill one has among functionaries. Hindsight is 20-20, but had admins prevailed in that case, and had I given up, you (NYB) know what kind of editor we would have gained and what kind of editor we would have lost. Things are not always as black and white as some current arbs are presenting, and they were not black and white when Jytdog was blocked, nor is it apparent to me that I did anything different in the Fergus case (no, I did not investigate that he had first posted the Twitter info). I hope you are still providing institutional memory, because these situations do not seem to me to be as clear as some believe, and our wording could be improved.
I am not sure most of this clear to other readers, but I hope it is clear to you (NYB); this is the problem with off-Wiki evidence, and I hope others are not forced to endure what I did at the hands of admins in the face of egregious attacks against me. Please remember in the first case, well before you were an arb, you were the first and only to mention how unfortunate it was that the situation was not resolved quietly off-Wiki (to this day, one of the wisest posts I've read on Wiki). That wasn't possible because of admins acting against me, for unrelated reasons. I was drug through something that never should have happened, and it was resolved only via what these days is being characterized as "off-Wiki sleuthing". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I, too, am very interested in the answers to Sandy's further questions here. I have a lot of bad feelings about Jytdog's block, over what isn't public and cannot be understood by the community, and I share concerns over what might be present-day assumptions on ArbCom. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I wanted to respond to this subthread in particular to echo what NYB said above. This discussion is about posting information on-wiki when the user in question has not disclosed it. Harassment incidents can and should be reported privately to arbcom. (And are, with depressing frequency.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Opabinia regalis so has arbcom changed their position on whether or not they are willing to address issues of undisclosed paid editing? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I am confused by your threading. What is it about my month-old post about reporting harassment that prompted you to ask this question here?

You have repeatedly, over the course of this discussion, ascribed to prior arbcoms a position that I don't think they actually articulated, and the current group has not made any changes in its approach to this topic. It's possible this hasn't been effectively communicated. The point made in the past, which continues to be the status quo, is that investigating other editors over possible COI or paid editing and then sending off-wiki evidence of their identity to arbcom in support of that claim should not be expected to result in a block for alleged terms of use violations. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Elance and prevention

In thinking about the case example of this RfC, it occurs to me that there is a preventative approach that may be worth trying. Elance and Upwork are businesses that, in part, allow people to hire someone to put content on Wikipedia that the person wants here, instead of what conforms to Wikipedia's policies. That really is a very serious problem, and one that we should not disregard simply because we also value editor privacy. It would be better to prevent that kind of editing, instead of having to deal with paid editors after the fact, and prevention would completely eliminate any risk of outing. As noted above, the problem starts with an ad being placed, requesting a Wikipedia article about "subject".

How about, when an ad is discovered (and of course the ad does not out anyone), the page name gets WP:SALTed? If the ad is for adding material to an existing page, the page could be placed under semi-protection or pending changes for a while. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean as a preemptive strike or only after inappropriate editing has occurred? DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Salting would only work preemptively so we can infer that's what Tryptofish meant. - Brianhe (talk) 23:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Definitely as a preventative, after the ad has appeared but before the page is created. That's really the point. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

It occurs to me that if this was enforced and became widespread knowledge, it could be used by outside parties to (commercial) advantage. If Company A is about to release a product and Company B has a competing product, Company B could simply open an advert on Elance for a paid editor to write about Company A and/or their product and WP would immediately shut that article down. DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. I think that's overthinking the situation. It is very common for the scenario I described to happen, whereas your false flag scenario is going to be extremely rare. The benefits to Wikipedia would outweigh that concern by a huge margin. Besides, it is not Wikipedia's role to referee legal disputes between two companies, which is what this would really be. It's trivially easy to un-salt once the parties have worked it out on their own. Furthermore, in your scenario, no one responding to the ad would end up trying to create any content; presumably, no one would even be hired. So salting would have no effect, and again, it's readily reversible. In fact, if hypothetically we were to see an ad for someone to post defamatory content about something, the same approach would be beneficial. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The bulk of ads on Odesk don't mention the article name. Of those that do, many of those offering a contract are then soon informed by potential paid editors that they should remove all mention of the target article, so the article/business name disappears soon after the article is posted, or the posting is made private. The result of this would be a small drop in ads, potentially, but also a large increase in ads that don't mention the article.

But the core issue is that we permit paid editing with disclosure. Thus there is nothing in policy saying that we should prevent a paid editor from editing or creating the article unless there are other factors to consider, such as the editor being blocked or banned. - Bilby (talk) 10:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

That's interesting information, thanks. (For editors like me, who are not familiar with this business, Elance and Odesk are both now called Upwork.) Yes, I know about disclosure, but my point here is about prevention of undisclosed paid editing, so I want to keep this discussion on that track. So, I think you are right that what is proposed here will result in only a portion of the ads being prevented from having an effect on content here, although any reduction seems to me to be a good thing. Do the ads show who the entity placing the ad is? If so, we can assume that an ad placed by "Smith's Widget Emporium" is for a page by that name.

But what you say is interesting in another, rather ugly, way. It appears that a lot of this business is based on transactions with freelance writers who already know that their editing here is going to be contrary to policy. This is, indeed, a serious problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

What you are saying is entirely correct. I answered an invitation for interview for a job on Upwork and after discussion with the client, I realised it was for paid editing of WP. I did not realise that from the advert or the client's name - something people here need to think about. I declined the job because I know how badly paid editing is looked upon here. I actually feel the only way to deal with this is with internal regulation of WP in article appropriateness. Otherwise, it will (has) become an arms-race with companies finding different ways to advertise on WP but without alerting WP to this possibility, thereby creating more work to detect this possibility. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Is it possible to tell from who is placing the ad, what the intended content would be? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about the Odesk mistake, and no, no details about the client are provided beyond their country and/or city. On Elance there was an option for more detail, but on Odesk and subsequently Upwork that hasn't been included (with Elance now gone). You can occasionally get an idea from looking at past jobs, but the majority don't provide those details in previous jobs either, and those concerned with being identified may well create new accounts.

At the moment, most of the Freelance paid editing through Upwork is conducted by about 7-8 paid editors, of whom 6-7 are currently either banned or indefinitely blocked. Freelancer has some of the same editors and a similar number, as does Guru. However, while the bulk of the jobs are conducted by that group, a percentage of work is taken by first-timers who either have no prior Wikipedia experience or who do but are only taking one of jobs to test the waters, some of whom are well established. As far as I am aware, only one regular on Upwork is currently meeting (most of the time) the Terms of Use. - Bilby (talk) 23:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very helpful. So, at this point, I find myself wondering: why are we having an RfC in which the example is about linking to a post at Elance? I get it, that Upwork is the origin of problematic editing, but why would linking there involve outing personal information, if what is visible is already so constructed as to leave out anything identifiable? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I may have written that badly. There is no information about clients. Thus we can't know who the client is in most cases, as they need to volunteer that information in the job posts, so we can't be preemptive in salting the bulk of the articles. However, there is information about contractors. Each contractor lists a name and most include a photo and their general location. Linking to the contractor/editor would involve linking to personal information, and once the job is accepted the contractor is generally listed, so linking to the job would also provide access to the same details after they have been hired. - Bilby (talk) 00:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I had an account on Elance (since re-branded as Upwork) where I actively bid on work. I wouldn't begrudge Wikipedia the opportunity to observe and report on my account there anymore than I would the police surveilling a criminal gang planning a robbery. I much appreciate that Wikipedia has protected my private information when a malicious user has doxxed me and the instinct to respect privacy is admirable. That said, as a former paid editor for WikiExperts I don't think Wikipedia can afford to remain defenseless against paid editing. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

In #Section for discussion of a specific case, below, one can link through to actual Upwork postings, both for ads and for writers. It's now pretty clear to me that my opening proposal will not work. The ads are crafted to be too vague to be useful for salting pages. But the writers' profiles seem to me to be public, not private, information. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: I never migrated my account to Upwork but on Elance the customers were always very vague at the outset. I often had to ask for the subject so I could determine for myself notability. I promised a money-back guarantee if I had to turn down the job. There are plenty of "no questions asked" freelancers out there. Pretty much any work offer is for a non-notable entity so they'd likely end up at AfD anyway. Sometimes I get a laugh watching Wikipedians trying to write articles for subjects I was pitched and turned down. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry cases

This would seem to have direct relevance also to WP:MEATPUPPETry cases (maybe this has been discussed some, above, but there's a huge amount of material, and it all seems to focus on people editing about their own interests, or on being paid editors, not on meatpuppetry. I'll anonymize a real example. In an RfC about <ahem> the hyphenation of government job titles, editor XYZounds has been campaigning in favor of hyphenation, based on an alleged "standard" that is anything but. As the RfC swings against his position, a whole bunch of noobs show up and !vote for hyphenation. Someone notices that one Xerxes Yuill Zounds posted at the webboard of the organization publishing the wanna-be standard (which has not been widely adopted except in the EU), recruiting people to come stack the vote at WP. There should be no problem connecting these two events, and in that case there was not; the puppetry was challenged, confessed, and discounted, then the RfC closed against hyphenation per MOS:HYPHEN. (All these details are fake except it was a MoS-related RfC, and the fake details parallel real ones. The drama level was too high in the real case to even hint which one I mean, lest people start venting about it again.)
PS: As a former professional privacy policy analyst and activist, I do take the privacy arguments seriously, but I also have to take a practical approach, per WP:COMMONSENSE. This is much like trade secret; if a secret is out, it is out, and if one did not do anything wrong in uncovering the secret – if it was just exposed through the owner's negligence – that's just kind of too bad. The genie is already out of the bottle. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 21:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

A clarification on what this RfC would mean

So what happens if people reject Doc James' proposals, will the "case by case basis" bit be removed? Because I don't have particularly strong thoughts on Elance, but think the outing policy would be ridiculous without that line. I made a proposal a while back which I withdrew because an RfC was running on a similar topic, and I believe the OUTING policy should be revised, but I have no strong thoughts on the above proposals. Brustopher (talk) 23:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

If no linking to other accounts is every allowed, does this mean pubmed references are no longer to be used as they now contain links to personal accounts? Not only do the extreme positions on outing makes enforcement of our terms of use difficult but it also conflicts with one of our five pillars WP:V Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Hyperbole is not helpful here --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree completely an extreme stance on "outing" is definitely not useful to our projects. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

PubMed URLs do not contain personal information about a Wikipedia editor who has not voluntarily disclosed that information. Nobody's concerned about URLs that have "personal information" (if so, we'd have to ban nearly every reliable source on subjects like politics, sports, and BLPs); we're concerned about URLs that have "personal information about a Wikipedia editor who does not want that personal information to be posted on wiki". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Per "Nobody's concerned about URLs that have "personal information"" that is not what a good portion of the people in the above oppose group have written. A number appear to be saying no linking to other accounts ever. They have not been qualifying this by "you can link to other account when such linking does not connect a WP editor to that account when the link was made". In the pubmed example the Wikipedian who has commented of course has voluntarily disclosed personal details on pubmed. Is it up to the person using the url to than verify before they use that url that all those details have been voluntarily disclosed on WP before they use it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone in the oppose section is proposing a universal ban on external links. What is opposed is using external links to "out" editors' real life identities under the guise of clarifying apparent COI. I think you know this, in which case - as mentioned above - the hyperbole is not especially helpful. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Euryalus if those in the oppose section are not proposing a total ban on external links that contain account information than it would be helpful for them to say that. The question in this RfC was is this edit okay [3]. If the answer is no one can ever link to external links that contain paid editing translations than yes it does appear to be verging on a universal ban on external links that contain account information.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Doc James, the question posed in the RfC is absolutely not "is this sort of edit OK", and you are grossly misrepresenting this here, in your Signpost OpEd, and on the Wikimedia mailing list. The question that is being proposed is "are links to external accounts permitted to be added on a case by case basis". Your example is just one of the many sorts of links that could be added, but not all of them are related to paid editing. The inclusion of that clause permits anyone to add any link to any user for any reason they see fit, because there is absolutely no clear definition on which cases are permitted and which are not. Literally that clause permits someone to post a link to my Facebook page, showing that I have a conflict of interest writing about Beyoncé because one time I went to one of her concerts (actually I never have been to one of her concerts, and I am not fussy on her music). I know this isn't the intention that you have with this RfC and that your focus is on paid editing, but the clause that you added in 2015 (which was not part of the consensus of the previous RfC) actually permits anyone to add anything for any reason. What you have done is framed this RfC by posting a question, and then giving the least intrusive example that is possible, and ignored when several other editors have explained why this clause opens a Pandora's Box of opportunity for any user to out another user they are in conflict with, regardless of if they have a COI or Paid Contract. You are misunderstanding my (and most of the functionaries who have weighed in here) opinions on the matter, and you are confusing "letting paid editors have free reign of the encyclopedia" with "don't link a person's real world identity with their Wikipedia user account. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

User:kelapstick Not sure how you figure this "Posting links to other accounts on other websites may occasionally be allowed such as when those accounts are being used to transact paid editing" equals "permits anyone to add anything for any reason".

The current wording is not ideal I agree. It would help to clarify it with cases which are allowed which was sort of the point of this RfC. However many functionaries appear to have ignored the example I wished to discuss despite me providing it a bunch of times. The wording we have now is still much better than what many of the functionaries appear to be wanting which is "no links to external accounts is ever allowed even if the account linked to is not that of a Wikipedian, is harassing a Wikipedian, or is operating a WP related editing business". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Doc James That is not the question being asked in this specific RfC. This RfC is asking should "Posting links to other accounts on other websites may be allowable on a case-by-case basis." You should clarify the wording to what you are actually looking for, then start the RfC, because right now this RfC is about a clause that allows the blanket addition any links to be posted, regardless of reason. The whole reason that we got to this point in the first place has nothing to do with paid editing, Elance, or a WP editing related business. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

User:kelapstick so it is asking is posting links to other accounts on other website allowable when that account is publicly offering to buy an article on X. If this RfC closes in support of such a statement than we adjust the wording to say this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Another example - Say I wrote the article Stellarton Surface Coal Mine, and say for example I was a truck driver named Jim Bird who worked there (I am not, and I haven't), and my username was BirdMan. User:Example decides to look into this for some reason, any reason. They look up Bird+Stellarton+Coal. They find a LinkedIn profile of Jim Bird who is a truck driver. I was not paid by my employer to write the article. Is it appropriate for this user to post a link to this profile on my talk page, because they think that I have a Conflict of Interest? The current "case by case basis" clause, as written, and proposed in this RfC permits this. Understand James, I know that this is not the sort of thing that you are trying to permit, but as this is proposed, it's what is permitted.

Doc James I edit conflicted before getting your last message. If you want the wording to state "posting links to other accounts on other website allowable when that account is publicly offering to buy an article on X." than the RfC should be worded to state that. Right now it is not, it is worded to say "Posting links to other accounts on other websites may be allowable on a case-by-case basis." That is the exact wording in the first line of this RfC. Right now at quick count, eight of the supports are just blanket supports to the question proposed in the RfC, and the question proposed has absolutely nothing to do with paid editing, Elance, etc. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

No the current wording does not mean that is permitted. If this RfC passed we would change the wording to "posting links to other accounts on other website is allowable when that account is publicly offering to buy an article on X." Would you support that wording User:kelapstick? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

James, first off the wording absolutely means that is permitted. It says that links to external accounts can be added on a case by case basis, and there is absolutely no guidance on which cases are acceptable and which are not, which leaves it up to the individual editor to determine. Naturally every editor is going to believe that "their case is included" in what is allowed. Secondly, you can't start an RfC asking about one statement, wait for it to pass, and then change it to completely different statement. I am surprised that I actually have to state this, but since I do, I think it should be bolded, since it is important. Would I support the wording that you propose, possibly (although I would require a caveat to explain that COI editing does not automatically equate to paid editing). I am not going to commit to that right now, because that is not at all what is being asked in this RfC.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

As you wish. It does not mean that to me. To me it means that one can add links in certain cases but not in others. The wording originally read "Posting links to other accounts on other websites may occasionally be allowed such as when those accounts are being used to transact paid editing." but was altered.

I cannot obviously force anyone to address the question asked. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Who gets to determine which cases you can add links, but which you cannot. Me? You? A random IP? An extended confirmed user? An administrator? I ask because that is specifically the wording that you are asking to retain in the first line of this RfC. You added the line regarding paid editing (not the case by case basis version) based on this RfC. That specific RfC asked should (including any other accounts on any other web sites) be removed from the first paragraph of WP:HARASSMENT? The result of that RfC was "Consensus and practice say No". You then added, based on that RfC, Posting links to other accounts on other websites may occasionally be allowed such as when those accounts are being used to transact paid editing. linking to the RfC in that edit summary. So please, show me exactly where in the linked RfC there was consensus to add that specific line, because the RfC certainly wasn't closed with that as a result. So here we have the addition of a sentence to a policy, justified by an RfC, which does not support the addition of the line. This is exactly what you are doing here, asking one question, and when the discussion closes, making changes which are not at all supported by the discussion. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Kelapstick, the February 2015 RfC took place because someone added to the policy, without discussion, that links to other websites could not be posted. An RfC therefore asked: "[S]hould the policy extend harassment to include posting ANY other accounts on ANY other websites?" The RfC was closed with "Consensus and practice say No." To reflect that consensus, Doc James added "Posting links to other accounts on other websites may occasionally be allowed," citing paid editing, amended two minutes later by Hipocrite to "case by case basis." [4][5]

This RfC asks people to comment on the "case by case" sentence and offers an example of the kind of situation to which it would apply. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Sarah, the question asked was Is the blanket statement that 'any other accounts from any other websites should never be posted' consistent with the community's view? it was not Should we add the line "Posting links to other accounts on other websites may occasionally be allowed". Now I will cop it and agree that the two are pretty close in nature, and apologize to Doc James for my above snarky paragraph about that.

So as you say we have an RfC which is asking if we should retain the "case by case basis" sentence, which is in my opinion far to broad to be included. I have given an example of why I find this too broad. The response was No the current wording does not mean that [my example] is permitted, well if other people didn't think it meant that, we wouldn't be here today. We also have the statement (same link as before) If this RfC passed we would change the wording to "posting links to other accounts on other website is allowable when that account is publicly offering to buy an article on X." Which is downright absurd, because it appears that the intention is to have an RfC about retaining a sentence, and then if it passes, change the wording of that sentence to something completely different. If this RfC is to be about inclusion of a sentence that is about paid editing, the proposal should be framed around a sentence about paid editing, not broad permission to include links to external accounts as any user seems fit. I know I am repeating myself here a lot, but this discussion has turned into a giant wall of text that is difficult to navigate. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Kelapstick, I agree that this is a frustrating discussion to navigate. As I see it, the RfC is asking whether there is consensus for the "case by case" sentence, or perhaps whether there is consensus to remove it, which I suppose will be up to the closing admin. It is also offering an example of when it would apply, which we could add to the policy. I want to ask something about how this divide between policy and functionaries developed, but I'll post it separately. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Kelapstick, Doc James and Fluffernutter, apologies for the length of this.

What would be helpful is to find the origin of the idea that "links to other websites may never be posted." Links to other websites are posted regularly to stop spamming, sockpuppetry, other disruption, and undisclosed paid editing. An example posted above is this from December 2014, where a functionary linked a Wikipedia account to a Twitter account, for good reason. Several admins were involved in that discussion. No one objected to that link.

Compare that to the situation that led to the February 2015 RfC and the "case by case" sentence. The RfC was held because, in October 2014, GRuban added to this policy, without discussion, that links to other websites may not be posted. [6] He did this because Mike V threatened him with a block, after GRuban commented on a noticeboard and included a link to another site in which an editor had posted unpleasant material. The link was relevant to the discussion. The situation was that User:A (not a real name) used to edit as User:B (unusual handle, not a real name, old account visible in the contributions), and there was a User:B elsewhere posting unpleasant stuff. No non-public information was posted or available at the other site. Jdforrester told GRuban he had oversighted the post.

Perhaps there was a particular complication in that case that meant oversight was required. But GRuban's discussion with the functionaries left him with the impression that this was a general principle: no links to other websites should be posted, full stop. That's why the February 2015 RfC was held, and that view did not gain consensus.

The question is why the functionaries told GRuban this, when it's something that happens regularly. Where did that view come from? Has it been caused by confusion about the WMF's privacy policy? Several functionaries have referred to the privacy policy, though it covers only the way the WMF and users with access to nonpublic information handle personal information, [7] and that's not what's being discussed here. Any clarity on how this divide developed would be very helpful. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I am just dense, but I don't see on that page a link between a user and a twitter account. I see a description of a twitter account linked to a user. It is a lot of reading and I think I have reached my limit for that today.

As for the disconnect, from my perspective (not speaking on behalf of any person or group), as an oversighter, I am bound by our local oversight policy and our global oversight policy. The first purpose of oversight/suppression (per both policies) is:

Removal of non-public personal information, such as phone numbers, home addresses, workplaces or identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public. This includes hiding the IP data of editors who accidentally logged out and thus inadvertently revealed their own IP addresses as well as the IP data of editors without an account on request. Suppression is a tool of first resort in removing this information.

So if someone, on Wikipedia, links a user account to someone's real name, address, workplace, etc., and this user has not previously disclosed this information on a WMF project in the past, I am supposed to suppress this. If a user repeatedly performs these sorts of edits, they can get blocked. Our blocking policy even indicates one can be blocked for disclosures of others' personal information (which links right back here). If that blocking is in response to the user repeatedly posting personal information about other users which require suppression, they can be Oversight Blocked. So there is a functional disconnect between:

The Oversight Policies
Our local blocking policy
The harassment policy linked by the blocking policy

This disconnect is because the OS and the Blocking Policy say that we are to remove personal information added by another user (OS policy), and that user may be blocked for such infractions (blocking policy), but that really on a case by case basis, it's OK to add personal information about somebody (Harassment policy). So what's an oversighter to do in this case. Further to this, I, and all other Functionaries, have signed the Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information. Under this we agree to not reveal:

Nonpublic information. Nonpublic information is private information, including private user information, which you receive either through the use of tools provided to you as an authorized Wikimedia community member or from other such members. Nonpublic information includes "personal information" as defined by the Wikimedia Privacy Policy, IP addresses, and other personally identifying information that are not otherwise publicly available. It does not include information about a user that that user has made public on the Wikimedia projects.

The bolded section is the section referred to above, which is the data that the WMF receives. OK, I don't get any of that information anyway, so I don't have to worry about that. IP Addresses, sure, don't reveal IP Addresses over the course of a CheckUser run for example. Then we have and other personally identifying information that are not otherwise publicly available. It does not include information about a user that that user has made public on the Wikimedia projects. Right, so I can't reveal the personal information of someone if, say for example if I have suppressed it, sure I will go with that. But wait, we have a harassment policy that, as written now, actually allows the linking of this information on a case by case basis (and for all of my asking here, I have no answer on who gets to determine which cases are acceptable and which are not). So if someone connects someone elses real world identity (which has not been revealed on a WMF project previously), I have a mandate to suppress it, and they can add it right back, because our harassment policy permits it? What we have is a local harassment policy which is at odds with our local blocking policy, and our local/global oversight policy.

I am sure I haven't answered any of your questions, I will let smarter people than I talk to specific cases. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 04:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I do think that better wording could be worked out that would satisfy a large majority of the concerns expressed in this section. Let me suggest placing the following in the "What harassment is not section, next -to-last paragraph:

"Posting links to publicly posted advertisements (or responses to advertisements) for paid editing jobs is not considered harassment or outng unless the advertisement or response reveals the real world name, phone number, address or long-term employer of a Wikipedia editor."

I suppose that using the words "long-term employer" instead of the usual "workplace" might be considered unusual. I suggest it because almost any job might possibly be considered a "workplace," but that interpretation wouldn't make sense here. By editing for pay a paid editor voluntarily assumes the obligation to disclose those employers he writes for on Wikipedia (but not necessarily his full-time employer, unless that employer also requires him to edit Wikipedia). So the employers possibly disclosed would only be the employers that he/she is required to disclose anyway. "Employer", of course, is not exactly the same thing as "workplace," and it would be a stretch to call an employer that the paid editor contacts only by email regarding a 10 hour job a "workplace." Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad WMF's counsel clarified the official position on this, but somewhat surprised that it had no apparent impact on the privacy and freedom of expression sword-waving. If someone fears off-WP reprisals for what they edit here, they shouldn't reveal personal information about themselves here. If they're engaged in COI editing, they shouldn't be, and they're foolish if they do so under an obvious name. I made a conscious decision to edit under my real name, and it's one that most editors do not make, e.g. because they are directly beholden to a specific employer who might look askance on them editing something that mentioned nazis, or have living, conservative family members who might freak out if they contributed to an article on sexual practices, or whatever. If someone shows up under the login ID "McNuttsoJ" and focuses on editing the article about SnorkelWeasels Inc., and we see at snorkelweasels.com that the company PR officer is Jamie McNuttso, we have a duty to act on that information under WP:COI policy (whether people have overreacted and messed with the wording of the WP:Harassment page or not). Trying to WP:SOAPBOX and WP:FILIBUSTER by pushing this policy page into conflict with other policies also doesn't magically erase our need, under the WP:CCPOL, to make note of the fact that McNuttsoJ keeps making extremely questionable edits to the White nationalism and White pride articles when a "J.McNuttso" can be seen all across the Internet in forum after forum making crazy racist arguments for forced deportation of ethnic minorities out of the US and Europe. In both cases, that's not "nonpublic" or "private" information.

As I noted above, identifying when a self-identified user user posts a "come back me up on Wikipedia" message elsewhere is pretty much the only way to prove meatpuppetry (and we're seeing more and more of that especially about both socio-political matters and fringe topics). Another case is when someone, e.g. the founder of a new religious movement, pseudo-scientific practice, or other thing to promote is clearly editing WP articles on the topic under a nickname or alias they are known by in that "field" (either it's that person, or it's someone violating username policy to impersonate that person; either way it needs to be looked into). Given WP's prominence as global source of information, the pressure has never been higher for people to manipulate what it says for public relations and propaganda purposes.

I guarantee we're going to look back on this discussion in 5 or 10 years and ruefully laugh at how foolishly over-idealistic we were about "privacy" and "free expression" when neither of those things are actually implicated at all in these kinds of cases, on a private-sector, public-interest project to build a factual, source-based encyclopedia, which is not a forum. I was a professional civil liberties activist for about a decade, and I can't think of a single person in that line of work who would not agree with me on this. Just imagining that something is a privacy and free speech matter, because it seems vaguely connected somehow to such concerns, doesn't make it so. These concepts have a specific legal and ethical context and applicability which are not raised in cases like this.
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 19:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I largely agree with you. But interestingly, where you referred to WP:COI as a policy, it's actually just a guideline (a mistake I made once myself). Just goes to show the relative prioritizing as of today. Nonetheless, I very much agree about how things are likely to look in several years. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Closure of RfC

The RfC should probably be closed soon. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.