Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard

White space vandal returns, again

This time as User:2804:431:D718:C169:399A:5916:DF71:AD0C mobile. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

•  Done.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion

Given the length of the Incidents noticeboard, might it be prudent to add a link to the bottom of the page that links back to the top? it's getting tiring scrolling from the bottom all the way to the top. Jeb³_{Talk at me here} 21:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jebcubed: I use User:Danski454/goToTop.js --DannyS712 (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jebcubed: I use Ctrl+Home and Ctrl+End to do the same thing. --Blackmane (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

And in many browsers, just press Home or End to jump to the top or bottom. The focus has to be on the main window for that to work, so you might have to click somewhere in the text first, but not on a link. Johnuniq (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Cell phones and smart phones do not have a Home or End buttons(for page scrolling purposes). Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

ANI header revision: the RevDel conundrum

Folks keep coming to ANI (a very public and trafficked page) to ask for RevDels. While the first line of the ANI header already says Do not report breaches of privacy, outing, etc. and then includes the oversighter link, this doesn't seem to stop folks asking for RevDels. Perhaps the wording could be more clear/add something about how this is not the page to seek RevDels? Or include a link to the RevDel page so that folks can IRC/email an admin? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Often RevDel requests are about a behavior problems that needs addressing. They are actioned so fast will casual observers even be exposed to the info? Wikipedia is hardly the go to place to gather scraps of personal info (social media) or racist insult ideas (Youtube, Reddit) Legacypac (talk) 08:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

This is just banner blindness. The best you can do is remind them that they need to do Something Other Than Post Here. --Izno (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Part of it is. Part of it's because mobile users are crippled and aren't shown the editnotice. Part of it's instruction creep: measured in screenspace, the "You must notify whoever you're talking about!" etiquette box is roughly ten times as important, and the "Other noticeboards" box about twenty times as important as the unemphasized "Don't post revdel requests here" header. (Yes, I know it's bolded. So is most everything else in the header.) —Cryptic 16:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

IMHO ANI would benefit if the entire top banner were revised. Maybe start with a stop sign and a "stop – read this first before posting", and then a clearer flowchart of options than the one that's there–one that even a first-day new user could understand–followed by instructions for putting together a good ANI report (including diffs). I think a visual change to the header would catch everybody's attention and get people to read it, and a better header would better serve editors going forward. If there's any interest in this, I'm happy to sandbox a mockup and post a link here. Leviv ich 14:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich:I definitely support that. I think once something gets mocked up more folks could add input, and then there could be a RfC or something on it. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd go a step further. Revdel and emergencies are really the only things that are actually harmful to post on ANI, as opposed to just irritating-for-the-regulars, so they should be the only things emphasized at all. I envision something like:

Are you in the right place?
This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Do not report breaches of privacy, outing, etc. on this highly visible page – instead click here. To report a threat of violence, suicide, etc., click here. If you're just plain confused, ask at the Teahouse. To report persistent vandalism or spamming, click here. To challenge deletion click here. To request page protection, click here. To report edit warring, click here. To report suspected sockpuppetry, click here. Before posting a grievance about a user here: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility Consider first discussing the issue on the user's talk page Or try dispute resolution. Include diffs demonstrating the problem and be brief; concise reports get faster responses. If you cannot edit this page because it is protected, click here. Closed discussions should not usually be archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer.
Click here to start a new discussion. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. {{subst:ANI-notice}} is a convenient way.

Pink box from the edit notice; everything else from ANI's current header, with only the you-must-notify nag moved. Leaving the first two bullet points redundant to the pink box is intentional. —Cryptic 18:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

CaptainEek, How about an edit filter that warns users mentioning revdel at AN/I? That would be easy enough to implement. You'd obviously want to exempt admins (so they can say the've revdeled X). But a filter would be an easy technical solution to the problem. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 10:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I like that idea, I think my approach is what most admins do, go ahead and handle the request, but remove the thread, and maybe gently remind the user not to point to problematic material. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

This mock-up is longer, but perhaps "newbie-friendlier"? (Thanks to Capt. Eek for his help with this.)

Emergency matters and requests for content removal should not be posted here, as doing so will only draw more attention to them. Content disputes, sockpuppets, edit warring, vandalism, and conflicts of interest should not be reported here. Instead, follow the instructions on the pages listed below.
For help with...		Follow the instructions at...
Threats of self-harm (suicide threats), violence (death threats, bomb threats), etc.		WP:Responding to threats of harm
Removal of personal information and privacy breaches (suppression/oversight)		WP:Oversight
Removal of copyright infringement, offensive or disruptive material (revision deletion)		WP:Revision deletion (WP:REVDEL)
Content disputes regarding what an article should say		WP:Dispute resolution (WP:DR)
Improper use of multiple accounts		WP:Sockpuppet Investigations (WP:SPI)
Edit warring or violation of the three-revert rule (3RR)		WP:Edit warring noticeboard (WP:EWN)
Persistent vandalism or spamming by one editor		WP:Administrator intervention against vandalism (WP:AIV)
Persistent vandalism or spamming on a page by multiple editors		WP:Requests for page protection (WP:RFPP)
Paid editing and other conflicts of interest (COIs)		WP:COI noticeboard (WP:COIN)

This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. If you need help that is not urgent or chronic, and none of the pages listed above apply, please ask at the WP:Teahouse. If you have an urgent or chronic problem, and none of the page listed above apply, file a report here by following these steps:

If at all possible, first attempt to resolve the situation on the editor's or article's talk page, and: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility Or try dispute resolution. If you are unable to resolve the problem on your own, start a new thread here. The name of the thread should be worded in a neutral manner, and should refer to the page or editor at issue. Do not use wikilinks in the heading. Include in your report the following information: Page(s) at issue: {{pagelinks|PAGE TITLE}} Editor(s) at issue: {{userlinks|USERNAME}} Examples of edits at issue: Diffs of edits at issue Previous attempts at resolution: Diffs or wikilinks to attempts to resolve the issue at the editor's talk page, article talk page, or elsewhere Explanation of the issue: Explain the problem or issue, including any action you wish administrators to take You must notify the editor(s) named by posting {{subst:ANI Notice}} ~~~~ at their talk page. A ping is not sufficient.

Like/hate? Leviv ich 00:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

In no particular order,

1. My eye skipped right over the dark red header on my first reading, despite the stop icon, probably because it looks like a window title bar.
2. Pointing people to WP:REVDEL when they need something revdelled is useless. That's a policy page, unfit for specific revdel requests, and arguably worse than ANI - less visible, but likely to hang around for longer.
3. In terms of clarity, this is at least better than the current ANI header (emergency/oversight are listed first instead of hidden in the middle, though they're no more prominent compared to the other entries on either) but worse than the current editnotice (which, while it puts emergency/oversight dead last, at least makes them very visible).
4. This is a page and half long at 1080p, and more than six pages long on my tablet. The current ANI header is three and a half, and its editnotice is two. When you have a problem with people not reading the instructions, making the instructions longer doesn't help. —Cryptic 01:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I second Beeblebrox's comment above. Killiondude (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

page closes

What's the record? We are up to 6 on one thread today. DlohCierekim 15:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The last one didn't actually close anything and should be undone. Natureium (talk) 15:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I was just coming here to post about this. The recent Arbcom principle was about admin discussions, but the principle seems to apply here too. This doesn't feel like the right thread to have turned into a joke. EEng got it exactly right with "JESUS CHRIST, JOSEPH, MARY AND ALL THE SAINTS AND APOSTLES, Walter shouldn't have templated a regular (even if it's an IP regular), and he should have realized that, at latest, when SN 4129 removed the message. But after Walter restored the message, SN54129 probably should have left it be (possibly adding a soothing counter-message of his own). So everybody did something inadvisable. OK? Now stop it." There was some conduct which was not great, we don't need to go on at length about it, but can acknowledge that and all move on. I don't blame Swarm for feeling the the multiple closes which failed to acknowledge that basic reality meant that the conversation was being terminated early. It needn't be any big thing but there is still a way to close which acknowledges what happens and gets us back to improving the world's knowledge without further rancor. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if anyone was referring to my wrap close of that thread, which I think was the fifth (there was a sixth after mine), but I've reverted (the sixth already had been). I apologize for the poor attempt at humour, particularly to Swarm, and to everyone involved as well. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: On the contrary, there's absolutely nothing wrong with diffusing a tense situation with humor, and I could not appreciate your attempt to do so more. This is hilarious, and I appreciate you and GoldenRing taking my snarky comment that the discussion needed additional closure and running with it. One cannot deny the absurdity of the whole situation, from beginning to end. The report's a supposed non-issue, and we're not taking it too seriously, so therefore we're force-closing it, then force-closing any complaints about the force-closure (something I've truly never even witnessed). But the second people seize upon the humor of this absurdly-escalated situation, and attempt to make light of it, people start complaining about the harmless jokes being made (special thanks to the non-admins who bravely took up the role of humor police). If this was actually a serious issue, then fine, I could understand that. But the entire premise of the whole damn thing was that it was a non-issue that nobody cares about. So I have to note with bemusement that a staggering 15 uninvolved users diverted their attention from everything else in life, to involve themselves in this "complete waste of time", while both the reported and reporting users, presumably, just sat back and watched the shitshow in bewilderment. You can't make this up. I haven't seen anything this ridiculous at AN/I since that time we legitimately resolved every report, and our having eliminated the backlog caused a major controversy, for no other reason than that the board was too empty. In other words, we've actually eliminated every "waste of time" from AN/I, and people proceeded to waste their time complaining about how they had nothing to waste their time on. That happened. AN/I is a strange, strange place. ~Swarm~ {talk} 01:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

diffusing a tense situation – Swarm, please see WP:Diffusing conflict. EEng 22:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

As tempted as I am to hat this comment with a statement in sonnet form, or possibly a Horatian ode, given the sentiment expressed I think probably the right thing is to propose a TBAN for you from AN/I. I'll add that to my list of priorities, just below "catalogue all manhole covers in England and Wales" and just above "learn to Morris dance." GoldenRing (talk) 09:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, probably a good idea. We wouldn't want me doing something crazy again. ~Swarm~ {talk} 19:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Per the warning I've already given to one of the closers (in that particular editor's case it came on top of a whole bunch of more significant disruption), and the formal warnings I've given in the past to some of the former serial offenders like EEng and Newyorkbrad, I entirely disagree with the "we should lighten things up with jokes" sentiment. Even when people's complaints appear spurious to us, the overwhelming majority of people bringing complaints to admin noticeboards have a genuine complaint from their perspective when they come here, and dismissing them with a heap of locker-room banter and in-jokes is incivility in pretty much its purest form.

Remember, even if you're familiar with the participants in a particular thread and think they're the kind of people who won't see this as bullying, these threads are also read by hundreds of other people who pick up the idea that this is an acceptable way to behave on Wikipedia. (We've literally just come off the back of topic-banning a long-standing editor because their incivility and negative conduct is causing other editors to believe that this kind of behavior is allowed and considered part of the norm; you might not consider yourselves role models, but if you're a name that new editors see repeatedly you almost certainly are.)

It's been six years since the MIT Technology Review described us as a crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive atmosphere that deters newcomers who might increase participation in Wikipedia and broaden its coverage but little has changed in the meantime; there's a reason Wikipedia has a reputation for having an environment of bullying and hostility from which people who don't participate in its lads-club culture are shunned, belittled, intimidated or excluded, and the fact that there appear to be two admins above who consider this kind of behaviour acceptable is a good indicator as to the reason why. ‑ Iridescent 12:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

There's a difference, though, between appropriate and inappropriate humor–between laughing at someone and laughing with them–and the "good" kind of humor can be very effective in diffusing a tense situation. It's almost impossible for a human to be upset or angry while laughing. Laughter can dispel negative emotions very quickly. I guess it's a philosophical difference. To my mind, the force-closures of this thread were way worse than the jokes in terms of being off-putting. If ANI were "the gallows", where everything was taken very seriously, I don't think that would make it more likely for new users to come there seeking help. If nothing has changed for six years, then maybe it's time to try something different? Perhaps there should be a discussion at ANI about humor at ANI; I'd be curious what the community at large thinks. Leviv ich 14:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

The problem with humour is that real life humour often relies on non-textual information such as tone or facial expression that doesn't exist in online communication, as well as on shared idioms that not everybody on a global encyclopedia project is aware of. Thus, a statement you intend to be humorous can easily be taken as offensive/insulting by someone else. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

You hear this all the time, and it's nonsense. There was written humor long before the internet. EEng 22:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Humor can easily offend in real life, too, such as when people laugh at an inappropriate moment. If ANI were a physical room instead of a web page, there would be much more inappropriate laughter. And pointing. (That was a joke, did you get it over text?) It's true that you have to be careful to make sure the meaning carries over in text, but I don't see difficulty as a reason not to try. Humor shouldn't be discouraged just because it requires careful use of text; building an encyclopedia also requires careful use of text. Leviv ich 15:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Iridescent: I don't think anyone would disagree that we should not encourage the toxic "lads-club" culture that reduces treats serious issues as a joke and encourages bullying. But you seem to be implying that the humor in this case is a symptom of this problem you describe. In this scenario, there was indeed both humor and aggressive hostility directed at a legitimate complainant. Contrary to your implication, though, the aggressive hostility did not have anything to do with the humor whatsoever. The aggressive hostility was directed at the complainant (who was essentially reporting bullying behavior in the first place), for no other reason than that their complaint was "not serious enough", and it was subsequently extended to an administrator who tried to speak out against the way they were being treated. The humor, on the other hand, was not mean spirited, nor directed at the complainant. The humor was the only innocuous aspect of the whole situation. So, maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but if you're implying that my defense of humor is part of the problem, then I would respectfully suggest that you have it completely backwards. The toxic "lads-club" environment that encourages the aggressive bullying of good faith AN/I complainants was playing out right in that thread, right in front of our eyes, but it was not masquerading as "humor", and it most certainly was not funny. ~Swarm~ {talk} 19:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

To the original comment: yes, that thread had, I think, 8 or 9 total, but the one above also had 7, and none of them were humorous. Sometimes people just need to be reminded to shut up...but it shouldn't be done too quickly. ansh666 18:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2019

MrOllie batch deletions of on-point citations to widely cited academic work; refusal to discuss edits on substance; outing efforts; citations to off-wiki personal attacks

I made several edits to articles about mortgage securitization, the GSEs, and the subprime mortgage crisis, including substantive edits that improved the accuracy and content of wikipedia articles. Specifically, I added more on-topic reliable sources, including citations to an award-winning (see also here), widely-cited, widely-read academic journal article by a tenured professor at a leading research university with relevant expertise.

According to Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources:

″Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. . . . Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. . . . One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes.″

Thus, the source cited is among the most reliable sources under Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources.

Please note that news articles in journals with an ideological valence, think tank reports and other materials are considered less reliable sources than academic research. See Biased or Opinionated Sources Many of the other sources in the article are editorials and think tank reports, not academic articles, and the inclusion of more high quality and up-to-date academic articles would therefore improve the article.

Many of the other sources in the mortgage articles I edited are think tank reports written by organizations that receive financial sponsorship from private lenders and therefore have an interest in portraying the financial crisis as having been caused by government policies rather than by private financial institutions.

I've attempted to engage MrOllie on the substance of edits I made and on wikipedia policies regarding reliable sources. I attempted to contact him through both his talk page and on the talk pages of the wikipedia pages I've edited.

MrOllie has refused to engage on substance, and instead blanket reverted every edit I made without any substantive explanation, has attempted to ascertain my identity, and has apparently filed a conflict of interest grievance against a particular professor who he dislikes.

MrOllie also cites to self-published material [[1]]. Indeed, the author of the post MrOllie cited acknowledged "that this post might be construed as an “off-wiki attack” ... that Wikipedians may perceive as harmful to their community." It may be helpful to understand the context of this post. The blogger apparently posted this criticism as a form of revenge for having been made to appear foolish for making substantive mistakes about legal education and student loans <ref>{{cite news |title=Repetitive (and avoidable) mistakes |url=https://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2013/07/repetitive-and-avoidable-mistakes.html |publisher=Brian Leiter's Law School Reports |date=July 28, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Simkovic & McIntyre's "The Economic Value of a Law Degree"... |url=https://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2014/11/simkovic-mcintyres-the-economic-value-of-a-law-degree.html|publisher=Brian Leiter's Law School Reports |date=Simkovic & McIntyre's "The Economic Value of a Law Degree"...}}</ref> --subjects about which the blogger purports to be an expert--even in a publication to which he has contributed.<ref>{{cite news |title="Million Dollar Degree" Authors Answer Harper, Leichter |url=https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/almID/1202617450833/?slreturn=20190231121410 |publisher=The American Lawyer |date=August 30, 2013}}</ref>

I've asked Mr. Ollie about the specific substantive reason for each of the deletions to my edits he made as it pertains to the particular article, source, and context, over the last 2 hours, and how he believes that he is improving the quality of the underlying article by making those deletions.

I also pointed out that his actions--targeting a particular individual based on something that is irrelevant to whether edits are improving wikipedia articles under wikipedia policies and attempting to out editors--could constitute Wikipedia:Harassment under Wikipedia's policies. See here

Instead of responding on substance, MrOllie filed a grievance on the conflict of interest board and is apparently attempting to get every single citation to a particular author deleted whether or not those edits substantively improve the quality of sources cited on Wikipedia.

Rather than waiting to reach consensus, he has proceeded without further explanation to delete every citation to this particular academic's work that he can find on any Wikipedia article.

I've attempted multiple times to warn him that his actions could constitute harassment and edit warring, but he is undeterred and continues to batch delete citations to well cited academic work published in well-regarded journals.

I've tried to resolve this amicably through talk pages, but MrOllie repeatedly insisted that I should file a Harassment report if I believe that his actions are inappropriate.

In particular, the harassment policy provides that:

"Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always), the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing.

Wikipedia must never be misused to harass anyone, whether or not the subject of the harassment is an editor here. Edits constituting harassment will be reverted, deleted, or suppressed, as appropriate, and editors who engage in harassment are subject to blocking.

Harassment can include actions calculated to be noticed by the target and clearly suggestive of targeting them, where no direct communication takes place.

Harassment, including threats, intimidation, repeated annoying and unwanted contact or attention, and repeated personal attacks may reduce an editor's enjoyment of Wikipedia and thus cause disruption to the project.

The prohibition against harassment applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to harass a user with a history of inept or disruptive behavior as it is to harass any other user. Wikipedia encourages a civil community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Harassment is contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia.

Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.

Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight.

Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, other contact information, or photograph, whether such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside their activities on Wikipedia. Unless unintentional and non-malicious (for example, where Wikipedians know each other off-site and may inadvertently post personal information, such as using the other person's real name in discussions), attempted outing is sufficient grounds for an immediate block. This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors.

Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently. Any administrator may redact it pending oversight, even when the administrator is involved. If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia, although references to still-existing, self-disclosed information are not considered outing. If the previously posted information has been removed by oversight, then repeating it on Wikipedia is considered outing.

If you see an editor post personal information about another person, do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information. Doing so would give the person posting the information, and anyone else who saw the page, feedback on the accuracy of the material. For the same reason, do not treat incorrect attempts at outing any differently from correct attempts. When reporting an attempted outing take care not to comment on the accuracy of the information. Outing should usually be described as "an attempted outing" or similar, to make it clear that the information may or may not be true, and it should be made clear to the users blocked for outing that the block log and notice does not confirm the information.

The fact that an editor has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse to post the results of "opposition research". Dredging up their off-site opinions to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be. Threats to out an editor will be treated as a personal attack and are prohibited. Nothing in this policy prohibits the emailing of personal information about editors to individual administrators, functionaries, or arbitrators, or to the Wikimedia Foundation, when doing so is necessary to report violations of confidentiality-sensitive policies (such as conflict of interest or paid editing, harassment, or violations of the child-protection policy). Only the minimum information necessary should be conveyed and the minimum number of people contacted. Editors are warned, however, that the community has rejected the idea that editors should "investigate" each other. Posting such information on Wikipedia violates this policy.

Posting links to other accounts on other websites is allowable in specific situations (but see also Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment). There are job posting sites where employers publicly post advertisements to recruit paid Wikipedia editors. Linking to such an ad in a forum such as the Conflict of interest noticeboard is not a violation of this policy. Also, if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums. If redacted or oversighted personally identifying material is important to the COI discussion, then it should be emailed privately to an administrator or arbitrator—but not repeated on Wikipedia: it will be sufficient to say that the editor in question has a COI and the information has been emailed to the appropriate administrative authority. Issues involving private personal information (of anyone) could also be referred by email to a member of the functionaries team. To combat impersonation (an editor claiming falsely to be a particular person), it is permissible to post or link to disavowals from that person, provided that the person has explicitly and in good faith given their consent, and provided that there is a high degree of confidence in the authenticity of the source.

If you have accidentally posted anything that might lead to your being outed (including but not limited to inadvertently editing while logged out, which reveals your IP address, and thus, your approximate location), it is important that you act promptly to have the edit(s) oversighted. Do not otherwise draw attention to the information. Referring to still-existing, self-disclosed posted information is not considered outing, and so the failure of an editor to have the information redacted in a timely manner may remove it from protection by this policy. Further information about protecting private information is at Personal security practices, On privacy, and How to not get outed on Wikipedia. Mbs6446 (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)