Wikipedia talk:Harassment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hounding vs. wikihounding[edit]

Why isn't "wikihounding" just "hounding"? There should be no difference other than that the prefix of "wiki-" makes it cutesy. If it's hounding and we're against it, why not call it by its name? (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 22:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

They are both the same as WP:STALKing right? Legacypac (talk) 23:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
In the section called "Wikihounding", I think it would indeed be better to change it to just "hounding". I don't see any point in appending the "wiki" prefix to it. Does anyone object to making that change? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
A dog is a dog even if you call it a wikidog. Legacypac (talk) 23:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
And likewise for a hound. Face-smile.svg --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure. In some rare but highly significant cases, real-life hounding has occurred and of course that is wildly different from wikihounding. There is WP:Wikilawyering and WP:WikiProject and wikilink, so wikihounding fits a tradition. Johnuniq (talk) 00:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand how the real-life version would be so very different. Could you clarify that please? I can see that there can sometimes be cases in real life where the consequences for the victim would be worse, but that seems to me to be a quantitative rather than qualitative difference, so it's not really a difference in kind. In contrast, wikilawyering is specifically based upon policies and guidelines, making it a Wikipedia-specific kind of conduct. The issue here is not that the "wiki" prefix is contrary to practice, but that in this case it makes no useful distinction from hounding in general. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Huh? Real-life hounding is where they phone your employer. Wikihounding is where they edit Wikipedia to oppose your views in a manner indicating a lack of regard for the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 23:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
No, I'm serious. There have actually been cases on-wiki where the harasser did contact editors' employers. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Umm, obviously I know that and that's why I mentioned it. A logician might argue that the two behaviors are harassment and are logically equivalent. The victim would probably regard that as nonsense. Wikiharassment is bad, but it varies drastically in degree. Blatant cases are quickly dealt with once reported, particularly when the evidence is clear. By contrast, proving that a particular editor phoned your employer would be almost impossible, while the annoyance level and potential real-life consequences would be much worse. Using the same word to cover such different things is not helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Meta discussion regarding the requirement for paid editors to link to their accounts on other sites[edit]

Please see meta:Requests_for_comment/Interlinking_of_accounts_involved_with_paid_editing_to_decrease_impersonation. I am sure this has been raised somewhere on before and rejected but can't find the discussion. I may be wrong... Posting here as the net result would be to force paid editors to out themselves. SmartSE (talk) 16:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

"This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors"[edit]

Have tagged with "disputed" as it appears even though this policy contains this wording there's not much of a desire to actually apply it.[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, for goodness' sake, no. We just went through months of discussion leading to that language. There is no need to open it up again. You are not getting the response you wanted at that ANI thread, so bringing it up here is frankly WP:POINTy. You of all people should know better. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
This wording is incredibly confusing. I have clarified it some. Nothing pointy about it.
But it appear User:Tryptofish has reverted so it appears you are going out of your way to keep it confusing. Whatever. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
My objection was to the "under discussion" tag, and my revert was because it would be saying the exact same thing twice. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I had removed the tag before you posted your comment here but I guess you might not have noticed that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Please also note that, per the consensus of those previous discussions, the phrase about editors and non-editors blue links to the section about non-editors, where the language that you duplicated is already there. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
IMO it would be useful to have the language in both places. But not worth starting a RfC about. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)