Wikipedia talk:Harassment

Ongoing discussion at Meta

See meta:Grants talk:IdeaLab/Propose Wikimedia Code of Conduct (adapted from open source Contributor Covenant) Jbh^Talk 13:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Clarification: "Posting links to other accounts"

Hi all, we've recently seen a kerfuffle at AN/I regarding a possible OUTING. Some editors were suggesting that the line "Posting links to other accounts on other websites is allowable on a case-by-case basis" allows this to happen - it is noted that this line is "under discussion", however it seems no firm agreement or consensus was ever made. I would like to ask for a clarification on this line, and how it may relate to editors wishing to link an account to another account on another website in a COI investigation -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 19:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Samtar, the key words are "on a case-by-case basis." The case you mentioned involved linking to someone's Linked in account, which included a full real name and other personal details the person had not offered. That's the kind of example that will normally attract a block. In addition, there's obviously no point in showing the person concerned what his own Linked in account is, which is what happened here. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

In case it's helpful, that sentence was added in February 2015 as:

Posting links to other accounts on other websites may occasionally be allowed such as when those accounts are being used to transact paid editing. [1]

then changed to:

Posting links to other accounts on other websites is allowable on a case by case basis. [2]

The addition followed this RfC, during which it was agreed that words to this effect had consensus. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Just remove the line. What a ridiculous loophole: "on a case-by-case basis". There's no reason person A should post a link to person B's account on another website, without their express consent, period. We have a privacy policy, oversighters and Arbcom, which should make it abundantly clear that posting such links is a bad idea.- MrX 19:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Also the RfC to clarify what would be allowable did not produce any results either. That discussion can be found here[3]. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply SlimVirgin - I do need to echo what MrX states above, I don't personally understand a situation where this would be useful. Could this not just be removed, as the RfC Kyohyi kindly links to above did indeed end without any real solid clarifications -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 20:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

As can be seen at the top of this talk page, I have been of the opinion for some time that the community is unclear about the boundaries of outing, especially with regard to COI investigations, and I have been planning to initiate a community RfC in order to get these issues clarified. Seeing today's events as soon as I logged in today, I feel very, very saddened that I have not gotten that going yet. (I've been swamped with the GMO RfC, and just have not had enough Wiki-time to give this policy page the attention that it needs. Sorry.) The one fact that I think is abundantly clear is that anyone who claims that everything is already crystal-clear and anyone with clue knows outing when they see it, has not read the discussions at ANI and elsewhere about this case. It's readily apparent that experienced, good-faith editors are saying opposite things about whether what happened was block-worthy or not. (Myself, I honestly don't know!) The community is going to have to pin this down. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more Tryptofish - kind of the reason why I wanted to kick off this discussion. It seems no one really knows what is and isn't acceptable (sure, I have my own ideas but I'd at least like a policy I can disagree with rather one where I don't know if I'm right or wrong!). The range of opinions at the above linked ANI thread shows we're currently a community divided -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 20:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Samtar, this sentence has had consensus whenever it has been discussed. Bear in mind that this policy isn't about COI. It has to cover lots of other situations.

One example would be when an editor, User:Blah (where Blah is an unusual name, but not a real name) makes edits that could arguably be racist. It goes to AN/I, where we discover that someone named Blah has a blog that shows he's a member of the Ku Klux Klan. The "case-by-case basis" sentence would allow editors to point out that connection.

That sentence would not extend to the Linked in situation that just occurred; that is a clear case of posting a real name without the person's consent, and also unnecessarily because the COI issue could have been handled without it. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

SarahSV: very true, and I agree that it should be allowable in that situation - I guess it's somewhat difficult for a lot of editors to draw the line. Do you think the "case-by-case" aspect could be clarified slightly more? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 20:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Samtar, the "case-by-case" issue has allowed admins to use judgment depending on whether the posting was necessary and done in good faith, how much information it revealed, and so on. I believe that that admin discretion is important, but of course it means editors are expected to be extremely careful when invoking that clause.

I think instead of focusing on that sentence we should have a discussion about what steps editors are expected to take when suspicions of COI editing necessarily involve a real name. I posted a suggestion on 26 June at WT:COI that we try to write a section on that, but it might be better in a policy than in a guideline.

Once we have those steps in place, we can adjust the "case-by-case" sentence accordingly. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't understand why we would allow random, anonymous Wikipedia editors to do amateur detective work outside of Wikipedia, and then post the results of it on Wikipedia. Does it occur to anyone that usernames are not always unique, and that anyone can create an account with anyone's username on virtually any other website? - MrX 20:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

It occurred to all of us. "amateur...work" is what we have, for all our work in writing, enhancing, defending, and protecting the Wikipedia. This is probably not the best project to gain popularity by denigrating amateur work.

We ought to put back in the clause such as when those accounts are being used to transact paid editing (except that "paid" should be replaced with "commercial" since it is more precise and for other reasons which I'll skip now but can explain if asked). Because this best reflects consensus. Looking over the discussions, here's one way to think of the issue:

1. A large percentage of people believe that linking to another account is never OK, period.
2. A large percentage of people believe that linking to another account is OK, but if and only if there's good reason to suspect and point out undisclosed commercial editing, since this is a special situation and a special problem for a volunteer organization.
3. A large percentage of people believe that linking to another is OK, if there's good reason to suspect undisclosed commercial editing but also perhaps for other reasons, such as maybe to show undisclosed non-commercial COI editing, or to show that the person has an account on a neo-Nazi site, or perhaps other situations of that type.

Well, suppose for the purposes of argument that each "large percentage" is 33% (it's not that neat of course, but bear with me). Well then you can combine the #2 and #3 people and get 66% in favor of #2. Even though the #3 people will believe it doesn't go far enough, it ought to be acceptable to them. You can't combine the #1 and #2 people (or the the #1 and #3 people) in the same way to get any meaningful agreement.

Note that while I have an opinion on the matter I haven't expressed it, and there's no need to, What we have here is an exercise in political logic. Political logic demands that, in order to be acceptable, the exception needs to be narrowly defined. Herostratus (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I think that, approximately, you are correct about those three categories of editor opinion. The recurrent problem arises when an experienced editor, acting in good faith, is in one of those groups, and the administrator or oversighter acting on the case is in a different group. The administrator or oversighter may believe that it is clear in that they know it when they see it, and that it should have been equally clear to the experienced, good-faith editor. But it isn't. And the idea that we have to keep blocking good editors so that we can come to an agreement privately before unblocking them, only to find later that someone else was not in on the agreement, is not working. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Our purpose here is to build an encyclopedia, not comb the entire internet to try to connect accounts. Amateur writers—good; amateur detectives—not so good. NE Ent nailed in when he said "Support addition due to inability to actually know authorship of off-wiki content" in the RfC. We should be making decisions based on the quality of content, not based on suspicions of what people do outside of Wikipedia. If the WMF wants a no paid editing policy, let them enforce it.- MrX 22:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I've thought some more about what I said just above about how some things are not working. I'll ping @GorillaWarfare:, because what I'm going to say relates in some ways to her oversighting and blocking in this case. Having a policy against outing, it should really be our top priority to protect the privacy of the users who might have been victimized. And, when there is a block of an experienced editor, it occurs to me that we often end up with a Streisand effect that ends up undermining exactly that top priority. Here, we had an IP open an ANI thread instead of contacting the oversight email list privately. The discussion that followed, that was significantly prolonged by editors discussing the block, contains enough information that, as I read it (after the discussion was already closed when I logged in), I can reconstruct pretty much exactly what the private information was, and if I were so inclined, could probably rediscover it on my own. And that is on a high-visibility noticeboard. I think that's exactly what should not happen, if we care about protecting privacy. We can't prevent IPs or anyone else from starting threads on noticeboards, but we should probably do more in the way of oversighting discussions about material that was itself oversighted. (I do see that GW blanked the ANI section, but then self-reverted.) Moreover, blocking an experienced editor also draws attention by virtue of the block itself. We really need to weigh the relative benefit of blocking presumably clueful editors just to be sure that they won't repeat the mistake, against the downside of creating Streisand effects. It makes real good sense to me to have oversighted the edit that was oversighted. But I'm not convinced that the subsequent block is really the most enlightened way to protect privacy. I have the blocked editor's talk page on my watchlist, so all of this was the first thing I saw when I logged in today. And as I said, I'm concerned that I can see too much that is still easily found onsite. If instead the edit were oversighted as it was, and then the editor was given a strong warning (with a block following if anything were repeated), it all would have passed with much less fanfare. I think that the privacy of the possibly outed user might actually have been better served. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Tryptofish. I wholeheartedly agree with you that "it should really be our top priority to protect the privacy of the users who might have been victimized." I felt that removing the content that breached an editor's privacy was necessary, as well as blocking the editor who added it. I generally do blank posts on ANI or other noticeboards when someone is requesting removal of oversightable content, because though they are generally in good faith, they draw attention to the issue. In this case I self-reverted because the post was just a few sentences and beyond the link to the (now-oversighted) diff, did not contain any information that was concerning. Unfortunately I was just leaving my apartment as this issue came to my attention; had I been around I would have shut down the following ANI discussion much sooner, as ANI is quite obviously not the place for such things.

I guess the tl;dr here is: people should not discuss oversight-blocks/etc. on public and high-visibility fora such as ANI. The notice on Wikipedia:Oversight mentions this, and Wikipedia:Oversight/FAQ goes into more detail. I would love for the various oversighters/admins/editors who see such posts to shut them down quickly when they see them, and thank you to Mike V for doing so.

I disagree, however, that experienced editors should not be blocked when they breach these policies. While I agree that there are instances in which an editor should be warned instead of blocked for the first time they've brushed up against the outing line, I do not see this as one of those cases. In general I also worry about the repercussions of applying different block criteria to experienced vs. less experienced editors. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

About your last point (and without getting into the specifics of individual editors), I think that this goes in part to WP:NOTPUNITIVE and in part to placing a higher priority on avoiding the drawing of attention than on enforcement. I worry that sometimes we get so far into the desire to draw a clear line under the unacceptability of attempted outing that we treat blocking as more important than avoiding Streisand effects. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Whoa, hold on -- I'm sorry, I'm don't follow this stuff that closely, but on what planet could a person be blocked for posting a link to an off-site account? The policy -- and this page is a policy, not an essay or guideline -- says pretty clearly "Posting links to other accounts on other websites is allowable. Right? Isn't that what the policy says? Looks like plain English to me.

Granted, it then follows with "on a case-by-case basis", which is strictly indeterminate and meaningless hand-waving -- and anyone who understands policies and rules knows this, or should. It's like the preamble part of a law or something. It wouldn't be admissible in any court as having any meaning, generally. Which cases? Who decides which cases are covered? It doesn't say. Since it doesn't say, we don't know what the person writing it meant or intended. If I were judging it, I'd say the person making the link is best positioned to judge if this is an appropriate "case" of the larger set of instances described as "case-by-case" -- subject probably to what a reasonable person would consider at least arguably appropriate, to rule out obvious trolling or blackguardery.

I'm not saying its a good policy or bad policy. I'm just saying its the policy. You can't block people for closely following the letter and spirit of an important policy -- can you? If you can, what good are policies at all??? Herostratus (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Herostratus: I wouldn't call it "meaningless hand-waving" or "indeterminate," not if I am an experienced editor who is working in this "paid editing" area. Which I do. I have never, ever outed anyone nor even come close. I have never been accused of doing so. Nor do I believe that outing is a necessary byproduct of working in this area. It doesn't take enormous experience in this area to know that "outing" is o-u-t. If I wish to push against the boundaries of outing I am of course free to do so, but I risk getting blocked until the end of life on earth. Coretheapple (talk) 22:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

And what you just said goes exactly to why I feel that the community currently lacks consensus about what is or is not outing. I know for a fact that users are blocked for posting such links, or even mentioning that such links exist, without actually posting the link itself, quite regularly. In fairness, though, I think that the answer to your question is that the link reveals personal information about the other user, that the user never chose to make available on Wikipedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Herostratus makes a good point about the letter of policy, though I disagree with his conclusion that the outcome of this point should be not oversighting/blocking as needed in cases like this: as a result of the circa-early-2015 RfC, we have a policy that basically says "don't do this thing, except sometimes you can do it, maybe, who knows, we'll find out afterward" - with the waffling added because community members said they needed to be able to post outing information sometimes, Arbcom refused to handle such information instead, and an RfC closure to the effect of "sure, add that wording" was made, despite the protestations of at least one oversighter (me) to the effect of "all that's going to do is confuse people while oversighters continue to apply policy according to their judgment, as both the previous and revised wording basically state".

As a result of that change, we now have people who read the policy, take it at its word, and proceed to post off-wiki information and then are shocked to find that "case-by-case basis" doesn't actually mean "this type of information will never, or even mostly never, be oversighted" or "your judgment overrides global privacy policy regarding personally identifiable information". It's confusion for no gain: it doesn't stop privacy policy applying, nor does it stop oversighters from suppressing private information. All it does is make it unclear whether this type of thing is going to get one in trouble or not.

I advocated at the time, and I advocate now, for a policy that clearly states that posting off-wiki information about someone else publicly on Wikipedia when the user has not placed that information on Wikipedia themselves is not ok. The fact is that in probably 90%+ of cases of such information that I can think of, that's bluntly true: it's private information, it should not be out there for public consumption, and it's well within the dictates of oversight policy, both global and local. If a case needs attention because of something like COI but involves off-wiki information, it should be passed to the venues that already exist to handle cases related to private information: arbcom-l (if Arbcom has changed its mind about not doing the job, and I don't know the answer to that) or oversight-l (Arbcom recently passed a motion mandating that the list be opened to accept emails from non-oversighters, and the list is attended to by, at the very least, at least one oversighter who is willing to look at such cases: me).

For the remaining 10% of cases where mayyyybe the info would be ok to post, there is zero harm in still directing it to private venues for handling. Is it possible there will someday be an edge case where that doesn't work and a user is forced to post something publicly after trying and failing with the private venues? I guess, maybe. But even in such a case, I'm of the opinion that it's better to have a policy that says "don't do X" and have someone be pleasantly surprised when their unique case is allowed to pass through, than to have a policy that says "hey, who knows? try X-ing!" and have users repeatedly forced to the unpleasant realization that the answer to "who knows" is "not you, and mostly really no one, as it turns out". A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I very much agree with you about the ambiguity problem. I think that we need the policy to say this, this, and this are prohibited, and this, this, and this are permitted and we should do away with "case-by-case". I also think that any changes to this policy need to be discussed with input from oversighters, because it would be a lousy outcome if the community decides something, and then the oversighters say that it contradicts meta policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The reason it says "case by case basis" is because one has to use common sense. If someone says to me "hey are you Coretheapple at www.coretheapple.com" then it hardly a reason to throw them off Wikipedia. However, if a diligent probe on the Internet indicates that there is indeed a Corey Apple on LinkedIn who works for Company X and is writing about Company X, then yes, it is outing. It's not complicated. If I am clearly digging up dirt on someone then yes it is outing and I should be kicked out. Coretheapple (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, but that is, from an kind of of adjucational standpoint, insane -- and I mean, in all seriousness, literally insane. What you are saying is that there is a rule "Posting links to other accounts on other websites is allowable on a case-by-case basis", and what that means is:

• Sometimes you can post links to other accounts.
• But then someone else (not you) will come along and decide if that is an appropriate case under the "case-by-case" clause
• And you don't know who it will be (except that it will be an admin)
• And you have to guess whether that person will agree with you that if that is an appropriate case under the "case-by-case" clause
• And if you guess wrong you are terminated with extreme prejudice.

This IS what you are saying. You also say "It's not complicated" but it is in fact quite complicated, so you are being overly simple-minded on the matter, and please stop. It's not helpful. You say that all a person needs is "common sense" -- which is, sorry to be harsh, but just terrible arguing. To say "All you need to do is follow common sense, and we will decide what is common sense, and if you guess wrong what we will decide you will be terminated" is egregiously authoritarian thinking. We need a written rule that people can follow or else we should just replace ALL our rules with "Do whatever you like, and if an admin doesn't like it, you will know because you will you be indeffed". We can't function like that. No effective project can. Herostratus (talk) 23:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I disagree very strongly with that (responding to Coretheapple). Of course, there are obvious cases where it's just a matter of common sense. But just look at how editors disagree about the meaning of "case-by-case" for the less obvious cases. It's not because half the community has common sense and the other half does not. And by the way, do you realize that you just gave a map for anyone who wants to find out the private information of the user who was the victim in this case? So, let's say that someone has been blocked and their edit oversighted for posting that "name" is the same person who is shown as "name" at LinkedIn. Then Coretheapple posts that "example name" is the same person listed at LinkedIn as "example name", by way of illustrating an example that directly follows the oversighting incident. Should Coretheapple be blocked? My common sense tells me, after all, that I can see an obvious parallel between "name" and "example name" in this context. And you did make it simpler for your example. What happens if the question put to User:C.Apple is: "are you the same C.Apple listed at LinkedIn?" --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

(ec)Herostratus, I don't think that editors are so clueless that there can't be "case by case" language in policies, including this one. I'm not opposed to necessarily adding more detail to this policy. I actually indicated on the COI guideline page[4] that I agreed that there should be greater detail overall on what to do in COI situations. I guess I just have a higher opinion of the intelligence of editors than you do, as well as a greater regard for their ability to distinguish between an innocent inquiry (or whatever Tryptofish is saying above) and outing someone. Coretheapple (talk) 23:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I think that what I said was obvious to anyone with common sense. But, in any case, so long as you don't oppose adding more detail, then I think we have something where we can find agreement. (By the way, I really am not trying to give you a hard time. And I certainly don't really think that you should be blocked, of course. I'm just pointing out how, even for those who have plenty of common sense, the existing policy is unacceptably ambiguous. It's just not right to say that those who don't interpret the policy as you do, or who consider "case-by-case" to be less clear than you consider it to be, are lacking in common sense. I have a pretty good opinion of the intelligence of most editors, too. But I also recognize that these intelligent people disagree about what "case-by-case" means.) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

In that case we'd have to rewrite a lot of policies. By the way I wasn't ignoring your example above, or whatever it was, I just didn't understand it. But if I grasp your general point correctly: I agree that there are bad admins who will block over nothing, but, just to hesitantly opine on the case that gave rise to this discussion, I don't think that happened in this case at all. Coretheapple (talk) 00:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm really not talking at all about "bad" admins. Just below, Fluffernutter says it better than I did. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But we know that the "case by case" thing draws lines (well, lack of lines) that are neither plain nor clear to a lot of people to people who aren't clueless, Coretheapple. We're sitting here talking about this today because of a situation in which someone believed quite strongly that they were posting content that was common-sense reasonable and found that they were mistaken in the eyes of the admins/functionaries who reviewed it. The people discussing this specific case's content and block in post-mortem are also not unanimous about whether it was across the line or not (see the ANI), and no one in these conversations is someone who I would describe as inexperienced with Wikipedia, poorly versed in policy, or lacking in common sense.

The fact is that a policy that says "it might be ok on a case-by-case basis" makes it impossible to be sure whether you're violating the policy or not, because the policy doesn't say which types cases are on which side of the line, it just inserts the concept of there being a random, unknowable line. It doesn't add any extra protection for the poster of the off-wiki information, because if an admin/oversighter reviews the edit, they're not going to go "Oh, well this gives away a person's home address, shoe size, and dog's mother's maiden name, but hey, policy says 'case-by-case,' so I can't do anything to remove that personal information from public view!" They're going to review the edit and suppress the content or not based on whether it violates the privacy of the person in question, which has nothing to do with whether the words "case by case" exist in WP:HARASS or not - because even if we are performing a case by case analysis, the deciding factor in separating "case" from "other case" is still going to be whether that individual edit violates our obligation to protect the privacy of our users.

The "case by case" wording as it stands is like handing someone a button and saying "if you press this button, you are definitely either going to not burst into flames, or else you'll burst into flames". It's meaningless to the process of deciding because the two options cancel each other out, and all it might do is make people who tune out after "not burst into flames" and mash the button a little more surprised when they self-ignite, which is a bit of a mean thing to set someone up for. - A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Very well-said, thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 01:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

We're sitting here talking about this today because of a situation in which someone believed quite strongly that they were posting content that was common-sense reasonable and found that they were mistaken in the eyes of the admins/functionaries....' A)That's mind-reading; B) This user was blocked for similar conduct before. I followed that ANI while the links were still alive, and all this hand-wringing strikes me as utterly inappropriate. Not saying that one can't make the policy and the COI guideline more specific. I have specifically advocated that on the COI guideline talk page, and frankly I'm not all that crazy about the "case by case" language here if it is giving people hives. But I just think the "sky is falling" rhetoric here is ridiculous given what actually happened. Coretheapple (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

We shouldn't have ambiguous language in important policies. If there are a few exceptions, and I'm not sure there should be, they should be sufficiently specific so that there is never any question about when a line is about be crossed. This nonsense of "we'll let you know if you broke the law" is pushed by the same users who complain about WP:CREEP and WP:NOTBURO whenever an effort is made to clarify the rules.- MrX 14:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Replying to Coretheapple, I don't think that it's mind-reading, any more than it is mind-reading to imply, based on your opinion of past events, that the alleged outing was done intentionally. I don't think that the sky is falling, but I also do not think that the sky would fall if we were to identify a consensus-based way to replace "case-by-case" with more unambiguous language. And the fact that you disagree with other editors over what you see as hand-wringing demonstrates that you and other editors have differing views. So in fact, I am correct in saying that the community has differing views about what should be permitted and what should be prohibited. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, I would just suggest perusing the RfC that was previously created on this and then perhaps formulating a new one. I do recall you might be acquainted with that one. I'm not dead set against changing the language in the policy, just that the rhetoric had escaped earth's gravity and was going into orbit. Coretheapple (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Break

• I'll put this very simply. Such links are oversighted routinely. Unless the editor has provided the information him/herself, it is not okay, ever, for other editors to do this for any reason. Any editor who does so is in violation of the global privacy policy and is liable to be sanctioned, all the way up to indefinite oversighter blocks that may never be revoked. The line in the current policy needs to be removed because it is in direct conflict with the privacy policy. Oversighters have seen countless examples of editors being harassed with fake LinkedIn, Facebook and other internet information purporting to link to their real identities; indeed, many functionaries have been on the receiving end of such fake accounts. The evidence of advocacy editing - paid or unpaid - is in the edits; it cuts both ways, too, since "advocacy" can be both favourable or unfavourable. It is wrong to have a line in this policy that advocates an action that is likely to get an editor blocked. Risker (talk) 03:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm with Risker here. The line should be removed. I'll also note that there are, for instance, plenty of "Doug Weller"s out there, one whose email I routinely get. Doug Weller talk 12:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I also agree that it should not be in the policy. It is not in line with global policy, it is not in line with Oversight policy or practice, it is not mentioned in the RfC, nor is it justified by the subsequent discussion. Thank you, MrX, for taking the bold step of removing it. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I concur with Risker and MrX's removal from the policy page. Mike V • Talk 14:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I also agree with the removal. Furthermore, if anyone has any bright ideas about reinstating it, IMO they need to describe the exact circumstances under which linking is acceptable, show community consensus for such a change, and demonstrate how it complies with both WMF policy and the TOU.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I too agree with the removal from the policy page, and would have removed it myself in a few minutes time had MrX not got there first. In addition to Roger's comments (which I endorse) any proposal must explicitly state what the objective of the linking is and demonstrate that posting such information is necessary to achieve that objective. Thryduulf (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I disagree with its removal and therefore have restored it. I would suggest people try a RfC. It is interested that people saying paid editing details should be handed over to functionaries. Which group of functionaries exactly? Arbcom has stated that they have no intention in being involved with the enforcement of our terms of use. Legal at the WMF states rightfully that they do not have the number of people required to enforce our TOU and believes the community should do it. Therefore what we have is the community doing the best they can with a difficult situation. In this case we have an editors whose user name is their real name and whose only edits are to promote a mid sized company. We do not need to pretend we live in a vacuum to figure out what has occurred. But what if we see a job post on Elance for someone offering money for the creation of an article? We post a note to COIN and that this is about to occur with the link to the job. What someone takes this job and than creates a new user name to create the article are we going to claim that this is pre "outing"? Do we really need to try to enforce the turns of use and trying to maintain the quality and reputation of Wikipedia blindfolded and with both hands tied behind our backs? Our goal is get human knowledge out to the largest number of people possible. Not to create some utopian anonymous movement. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
    • The WMF does not have enough people to enforce one of their policies so we should enforce it by by violating one of their other policies. Really? - MrX 17:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

That is an excellent point. I will ask legal at the WMF if they feel that this case violated one of their policies and ask them to comment here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Two questions for you, if I may: Would you please explain how an RfC asking if a policy should be changed, then closed as "no" (in other words, status quo), is perceived by you as a mandate to add new language to the policy? How exactly did you expect "case-by-case basis" to work?- MrX 17:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The question was "RfC: should the policy extend harassment to include posting ANY other accounts on ANY other websites" to which the conclusion was "Consensus and practice say No." What this means is that posting links to other accounts on other websites is allowed able on a case by case basis. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I can't tell if you are being deliberately evasive or you didn't understand the straightforward question posed in the RfC. It asks, should the words "including any other accounts on any other web sites" be added to the policy, thus expanding its scope. The result was "no". Again, how do you see that as a mandate or permission to add something completely different to the policy, and continue to defend it against the considerable objections above?- MrX 17:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Because that is what that conclusion equals. To keep this conversation civil I would request that no one involved make comments on others states of mind. You are free to start another balanced RfC to try to clarify the situation. There was no consensus to disallow linking to other accounts on other sites at the prior point in time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You took the results of the RfC (don't change anything) and rather than leave the policy alone, you amplified an otherwise implicit exception. It's quite possible that because of the conflicting language that you added to the policy, a productive editor has been indefinitely blocked and can't even respond on his own talk page. You are free to start an RfC if you wish for the sentence in dispute to be retained. - MrX 18:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• I have undone the reinsertion of the phrase. The RfC did not establish consensus for such a change, and even if it had, it would not be in line with current practice or global policy. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

@Doc James: you are the last editor on this website who should be reverting the removal of that sentence. You added it, you use it as a weapon, you have a conflict of interest in keeping it in. Keegan (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

1. Support leaving it in On wikipedia, we pretty much decide things by consensus, that consensus is decided by what evidence is presented. The best way to prove a COI is to prove a poster is associated to their article (employee of an organization , a paid editor ...etc...). How can you prove that without providing enough information to identify the user? How about a system whereby proof is presented to a trusted user (i.e: Oversight, arbcom, .etc.) first and if and only if that trusted user decided that the proof is valid, that user can state that proof exists, but that it has been privately submitted. Similar to how it's done presently with Arbcom, Checkuser and Oversight. In that way, proof is provided , but it's not publicly posted on Wikipedia. Just my .02. 17:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC) KoshVorlon 19:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree reporting it to a group of functionaries is a good idea; however, arbcom has state they are simply not interested in enforcing our terms of use. I have previously proposed the creation of a new group of functionaries who could address these issues. Now might be a good time to move forwards with this groups creation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that we should business of proving anything. What we should do is determine if content meets our fundamental inclusion guidelines like NOTABILITY, and reject it it's NOT the kind of material that should be included in the encyclopedia. - MrX 17:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

So what you are arguing is that we get ride of the terms of use that requires disclosure of paid editing? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I actually don't care one way or the other about the WMF's paid editing policy because it's turned into a golden hammer. I don't believe we need to connect accounts across the internet to deal with promotional editing. To be crystal clear, the potential for harm to real people outweighs the concerns about a few promotional editors slipping through our grasp.- MrX 18:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

"To be crystal clear, the potential for harm to real people outweighs the concerns about a few promotional editors slipping through our grasp." So much this, a million times over. Some of you are losing your way, and very badly. It's not hard to go from hero to villain when you lose sight of the principles you had to begin with. Assaulting a new editor with external links about them because they were editing promotionally? Shame. On. You.Keegan (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Keegan speaks for me as well. Some of you here know I have been an advocate for no paid editing under any circumstances. But as Core notes above, the editor that rightfully got the block had been blocked for similar behavior in late 2015. That now-blocked editor is also currently topic banned, as well as admonished for uncivil editing habits by ArbCom. There is an established pattern of what I will term needlessly mean-spirited editing by the blocked editor, and despite the previous warnings they continue to offend. We need to be vigilant regarding COI, but there is a right way, and a wrong way. The wrong way leaves me flat-out disgusted. Policy here has been correctly enforced in this instance. Jusdafax 20:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• As I see it, the previous RfC indicated that the policy of making no exceptions did not have consensus; it also indicated nothing else really had consensus either. In such a situation we need to come up with a policy that might have consensus. I personally do not want to retain the line as is, but I also do not want us to say absolutely never. The alternative is to find some way of dealing with coi, which will sometimes involve confidential information and possibly disclosing a link. (there have been no or very few examples this far because the people at coi are almost always very cautious, and simply do not pursue those cases that would require it)

I will mention that I have said to some of my colleagues at arb/oversight that in my personal opinion no one should themselves remove the line without consensus. I still hold to that. This is major policy,and should not be played around with. As you can see above, some seem to think the change is so obvious that one person can do it. I think prior discussions have said otherwise. If it really is in conflict with the TOU, the foundation should be asked for its interpretation. I do not consider us able to predict what they would say.

But we do have to change the line at the very least. It's much too permissive. I agree to that extent with those who want to remove it.

It's unclear to me the extent to which dealing with confidential information about coi can be left to arb com. Last years arbcom positively refused by a large majority to take responsibility for enforcing the TOU, I hope that year's arbcom is willing to, but so far we've not said it. If we do spontaneously, or if the community explicitly says that we have the responsibility to, this could solve the situation. I do not think it would be good having yet a third set of functionaries. We have enough people as it is do do the work without adding more layers. DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• A very rigid stance on privacy increases rather than decreases harassment as it provides anonymity to those doing the harrassing. User:Keegan appear to feel that the heads of marketing of a multi billion dollar company should be able to email 300 of a physician's fellow physicians without that person being able to respond in either the popular press or on Wikipedia itself. We need to be able to address concerning actions head on and yes some of these concerns do involve details and events that have occurred outside of our websites. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

  Don't put words in my mouth. You have a bad habit of doing that to other editors to make a point using a hyperbole. It doesn't work. Keegan (talk) 18:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

  Okay I will quote what you said "As an oversighter for nearly seven years now, I've grown increasingly concerned by the attitudes of a few users that think it's okay to out editors as a "gotcha" against COI, in the name of defending the wiki against promotion, up to and including outing editors in The Atlantic." I assume you are referring to me with respect to the Atlantic mention and I am just filling in a few more details. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

  Right. Now please highlight where I said anything about the heads of marketing companies, please, or how anything that I said was false in any way. Two wrongs don't make a right. For a third time. Keegan (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

  Yes that is what your sentence "two wrongs don't make a right" implies. You do not feel that people who are harassed by the heads of marketing of a multi billion dollar company in manner that could potentially affect their employment have the right to defend themselves in the Atlantic. If I misinterpreted what you said happy to have you clarify Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• The sentence under discussion should not be in the policy for the following reasons:
  • It had no consensus for addition (the RfC did not discuss this wording or anything similar to it)
  • It has clear support on this page for removal
  • It contradicts global policy
  • It contradicts actual practice - the majority of functionaries have commented (publicly and privately) and, with the possible exception of DGG, all are agree that there is no case in which posting links would not be outing. Remember that policy on the English Wikipedia is descriptive not prescriptive.
  • No suggested possible case has ever received consensus that it would be acceptable - several have received explicit consensus that they are not.
  • No suggested possible case has ever received consensus that it would even be necessary - several have received explicit consensus that they are not. (I will expand on this in a new section below)

  Accordingly, I will remove it again and strongly suggest that before anyone tries to restore it that they demonstrate that the above are incorrect. Thryduulf (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Hold on and let the discussion here occur. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)x multiple - Huh? You sound like you're referencing a very specific case here, Doc James, so maybe I'm missing some information, but I don't understand what person A contacting persons C-Z off-wiki has to do with person C responding in the press (??), nor what either of those has to do with outing any of A-Z on-wiki. That situation is so completely apart from what we're talking about here - which is Person A posting a link on-wiki to person B's personal, private, off-wiki information, usually because they think B is profiting from Wikipedia - that I feel like you're carrying on an entirely different argument than most of us, and it's confusing everything more. Similarly, we don't handle harassment by outing the harassers on-wiki (even in cases of truly vicious, damaging harassment), and I don't think I've ever seen anyone argue that we should (even in those very worst of cases). And even if that were an active debate, what would it have to do with the COI investigation angle people initially argued the "case by case" clause is necessary for? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Necessity

Leaving aside for one moment whether outing another user is ever acceptable (although it is not), there has never been a case presented that it is ever necessary. Indeed, I believe I can demonstrate that it is not:

Assuming user:Example has a conflict of interest, there are three possible actions they can take:

Edit non-neutrally

This is a problem for Wikipedia in that the quality of the edited pages goes down. The solution is to deal with the edits by making them neutral and/or reverting them, and to discuss the matter at user talk:Example and or relevant talk or project pages. If this leads to user:Example starting to edit neutrally then the encyclopaedia has gained a productive editor and everybody has won (if you out them before this point then you prevent it from happening) . If user:Example continues to edit non-neutrally then they can be (topic) banned or made subject to other sanctions as required. It is entirely irrelevant whether they are paid, unpaid or some mixture of the two.

Edit neutrally

This is not a problem for Wikipedia as the encyclopaedia is being improved, but if you out them then you prevent this from happening and harm the encyclopaedia. It is entirely irrelevant whether they are paid, unpaid or some mixture of the two.

Not edit

This is not a problem for Wikipedia as the encyclopaedia is not affected. It is entirely irrelevant whether they are paid, unpaid or some mixture of the two.

If they abuse any other tool or process (e.g. email) then they can be sanctioned and/or blocked in exactly the same way that an editor without a conflict of interest can be - it is entirely irrelevant whether they are paid, unpaid or some mixture of the two. Thryduulf (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I would argue that there's a fourth option here, Thryduulf, which is "edit in a manner that appears neutral unless you are aware the person has a COI, in which case it becomes clear that they are subtly biasing the content." We've seen this in past cases where, for instance, it's only in aggregate that you would notice that an editor mysteriously never adds important negative content about the party they represent, even though each individual edit is well-sourced and otherwise acceptable. However, even in such a case, no more information need be revealed publicly than "Person X has a COI that biases them toward $topic". A need to doxx someone by linking onwiki to their linkedin, or their profile on their employer's website, or pretty much anything else isn't needed even in cases where, as Doc James is arguing, we need to discuss the existence of COI to be able to handle problem editing. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

There are ways of doing this without sleuthing into someone's life. I will point out that True Believers™ and other cranks do this more than paid editors --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 19:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Can other site accounts ever be linked to

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 requesting article X on Elance or some similar site

b) an editor notifies WT:COIN of that fact and provides the Elance link as proof

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

Support the allowance of the above practice

1. Support as proposer Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
2. Support This is an excellent idea Doc James ! KoshVorlon 19:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
3. 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)
4. support very good idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose the allowance of the above practice

1. 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)
2. It is not acceptable to link undisclosed, private information to an editor's account. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
3. (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)

4. 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)
5. 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)
6. 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)

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)

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)

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.

1. 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.
2. 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
3. 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 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)

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)