Wikipedia talk:Private correspondence/Archive 2

Wikipedians or people in general?
Should this policy cover all people, or just people with a user account? For example, is it acceptable to post private information on a vivisectionist on the talk page of the Animal Liberation Front article? Or e-mails from a politician with whom you had an affair? I don't think these are acceptable, so I broadened the policy to cover "people", rather than "users". Tim Vickers 19:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, this is definitely a content issue. There is no doubt if we search around that such correspondence has indeed been included in articles. What if it meets the definition of "private" but has been published elsewhere first?  Risker 19:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If it has been published elsewhere by a reliable source then it isn't private. Tim Vickers 19:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Explain your logic there. We don't perpetuate copyright violations, why would we perpetuate something the encyclopedia specifically defines as a privacy violation? Risker 19:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If a politician's e-mails have been published by a newspaper, they are no longer private correspondence - the correspondence has been made public. Consequently, adding the e-mails to an article on the politician has no further effect on their privacy. However, publishing such e-mails for the first time on Wikipedia, even just on a userpage or talkpage where WP:V might not apply, is a breach of this person's privacy. Tim Vickers 19:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds remarkably like a five year old saying "but mom, he did it first!" Either it is wrong to publish it here in article space no matter what, or it is acceptable provided it meets the content requirements applicable to the article. We do not publish addresses of individuals in articles either, whether or not they have been found in reliable sources, but that is specifically noted in our content policies. Has this proposed policy been discussed at the Village Pump yet?  Especially now that there is a clear content implication, I think more eyes are needed here.  Risker (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Posted at Village Pump to invite additional participation. Risker (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I feel it should be "people", simply to stop people gaming the system by posting an email - without permission - in which a WP correspondent repeats or paraphrases something by an editor or about an editor via a non-WP individual. Another case where we should not be appearing to give preference to wikipedians over other people. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If it hasn't been published in a reliable source elsewhere, it amounts to original research. If it has been published in a reliable source elsewhere, it is therefore verifiable, and there can be no expectation of privacy. That's, at least, my opinion.  Daniel  00:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree w/ Daniel's opinion. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

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

(unindent) So a sentence stating "This policy does not apply to content in article space" would be acceptable all around? Risker (talk) 02:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tim - I just wanted to be sure there was consensus before I added it in. I hope this addition will avoid some of the unfortunate misreadings of the WP:NPA policy that occurred.  Risker (talk) 03:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm Ok with it, unless there is something being overlooked, so far I don't see any problems. R. Baley (talk) 04:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Looking it over, instead of saying what it doesn't apply to, why don't we say what we intend it to apply to, and be silent on what it doesn't (to prevent gaming the system). I propose something like this: "This policy is intended to apply to non-mainspace content; as other policies (which are applicable to article content) would preclude most instances of posting the type of privacy violations described here (WP:Game not withstanding). What do you think? R. Baley (talk) 04:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's keep it simple and try this: "Normal content policies apply in article space. This policy does not apply to content in article space." The simpler the wording, the easier it is to understand.  Risker (talk) 04:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If we have a special policy for protecting private correspondence, we can't just point editors who want to know about article space in the general direction of V and NOR. Specifically, my understanding is that we may not post material in breach of copyright laws. So if we know the author did not give permission to the reliable source to publish his message, our posting it would violate the author's copyright. I can see that in such a case posting the essence or paraphrased version of the message may be OK, but not a direct copy. In any case, we need to give editors more direct information or pointers than just saying, "V is thataway!". Crum375 (talk) 04:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec)I'm thinking that it's more of problem with source of the info, as opposed to where it's posted. If somebody takes info from a RS and posts it here, it's looked at differently than posting info you personally received through an email account or by subscribing to a private list.  If the material is publicly disclosed . . .or published, the expectation of privacy is usually absent (or at a minimum, not very high).  R. Baley (talk) 04:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I am completely unclear exactly why we are developing a special policy; frankly, it isn't necessary if it is a copyright issue because the copyright laws apply to all project space. Not only that, but much of it relates directly to the harassment policy. And, just to make sure that we have more places that we can manage to game the system, the section about Arbcom doesn't match up with WP:SECRET which is being developed separately.  All in all, this policy is a classic example of instruction creep.  But some people seem to have a great need for it, so I am just working to minimize the effect to the encyclopedia if it is going to exist.  Risker (talk) 04:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec)Not sure if we need this policy or not. I think there is some concern that some copyright vios are worse than others, and so they should be dealt with more harshly as a matter of deterrence.  OTOH, apparently a large segment of the community feels that the occasional violation may, at the very least have mitigating circumstances (if not justify it altogether).  R. Baley (talk) 05:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I agree with R. Baley's point in his edit summary, that the simple exclusion of article space would open a huge loophole due to gaming possibilities. Crum375 (talk) 04:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I see where you are coming from, Crum375. At the same time, user conduct policies should not have the opportunity to affect the quality or the content of the encyclopedia we are all here to write; in fact, user conduct policies should only serve to enhance the ability to produce quality content. Gaming the system is already quite controllable under existing policies. Risker (talk) 05:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

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


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

This has to apply to people in general, it is just as bad to publish private e-mail of somebody who does not have an account on Wikipedia in order to harass them, as it is to publish e-mail from somebody with an account. Neither is acceptable. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking at it again, it could be interpreted to do that without compromising our ability to republish -in the relatively rare event some material were to meet other guidelines. If the private material is published somewhere, we can't really "disclose" it ("make known").  And it's not really "private" if the Washington Post puts it on their front page.  That's how I read it anyway.  R. Baley (talk) 06:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the copyright issue in mainspace wouldn't apply if it's properly quoted and attributed as a passage from a reliable source, same as any other quotation is handled. IMO, harassment really isn't the issue here, as that's unacceptable no matter how it's done. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 18:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Policy how will it work?
Here's a question for you to debate? Suppose, hypotheticaly, I were to publish on Wikipedia recent emails I have received from the press and news-sites? In law publishing them to the Arbmailng list differs not from posting them here. I'm posting from Europe where I am breaking no law as I'm not using them to discredit or for personal profit. I merely want to share them for the undisputed benefeit of the site. Discuss. Giano (talk) 09:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We should seek to obey not just laws, but ethics as well. What encyclopedic purpose would be served by publishing this hypothetical private correspondence on Wikipedia? What would prevent you from asking for permission to make them public, and why would you need to make them public if you weren't granted permission? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 10:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you have never seen how an "ethical" journalist can phrase a leading question, and you think in light of recent events there is no point highlighting such things for the benefit of the project, then so be it. Giano (talk) 10:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I fail to see what "ethics" has to do with this at all. With due respect, this is a global project involving thousands of users, each of whom has his or her own personal ethic, cultural ethic, and  legal ethic.  Where I come from, publishing, forwarding and otherwise sharing personal correspondence one has received is legal and considered perfectly ethical and within the scope of accepted behaviour, provided there is no specific constraint directly connected to the communication. The same is true in most western societies, in fact. Unless I've been missing something big, there is no ethical charter connected to this project.  Risker (talk) 13:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised if there are fields (other than journalism) where it's considered ethical to publish private correspondence without receiving permission from the sender. That said, WP does have different standards than journalists, different standards from scientists, and different standards than novelists. Wales has commented several times on the need to be ethical.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That is a good point, so I thought I'd check what journalism ethics on the subject seem to be. The general consensus I found is that private correspondence shouldn't be published without permission, unless there are extenuating circumstances. Here are a couple of excerpts:
 * "A publication will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual's private life without consent"
 * "Privacy is precious but if we use it to shield actions which undermine the common good, then the purpose of privacy itself- to allow the human being to flourish- is not served."
 * This isn't to say that we should just take a page from journalism ethics, but there is some reason to consider this, I think. I found a general consensus that privacy is valuable, but not a universal shield from deserved scrutiny.  As a result, journalism ethics seems to say that if something should be public knowledge, and the only way to make it public is through publishing private correspondence, then it's justified. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 21:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * When a journalist publishes private correspondence in a reliable source then we can use it on Wikipedia. But we aren't journalists. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've said as much in the previous section. My point is simply that it isn't necessarily unethical to publish private correspondence.  ArbCom's responsibilities should make it unnecessary to make such things public on Wikipedia, but that doesn't make it unethical by default. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 00:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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


 * Lawrence, this discussion has nothing to do with ethics and everything to do with information control. In most western societies, correspondence is considered open and the recipient is free to do with it as they wish unless there is a specific claim of confidentiality or privilege directly attached to the communication.  A policy that will affect Wikipedia in ways that cannot be forecast is being developed because a post to a "private" listserve was made public - but the vast majority of listserves don't have confidentiality clauses attached to them. If the post was forwarded to a party outside of the authorized recipient, then there is no way for the outside party to know that there was a confidentiality clause attached. It is always a bad idea to develop policy from exceptional cases, rather than the mundane. As the saying goes, hard cases make bad law. More particularly, this policy overlaps so many other ones that it will do more harm than good.  Risker (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


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

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


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

Which law or which country you feel this current thinking is based upon. At the moment it seems to me to be very inconsistent. Giano (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Some (not me) have proposed that it would be a violation of copyright law to publish someone's writing without their permission. But in that case forwarding the letter to others (such as the ArbCom) wouldn't be the same as publishing it publicly. I haven't seen any other laws mentioned. I think this proposal is grounded more in pre-existing WP norms and in commonly-held ethical values (though some here dispute that it's unethical to publish private correspondence). ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In all countries which impose such laws the Arbcom mailing list and the Wikipedia site are held as equal in law. Both are forums albeit one (we hope) more public than the other. This policy is interpretating "International legalisiplonk" to suit Wikiprdia's own requirements. That is inconsistent and cannot be allowed, it is meaningless and will result in complete confusion. Giano (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Which laws are you talking about? Copyright laws? Is forwarding a letter to a private email list the legal equivalent of publishing it? I don't think so, but I'm not a lawyer. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm ducking out on further comment here. I want it noted here that I feel this policy is baseless, and totally  meaningless in any law. It is based on no serious ethical foundation and will ultimately serve Wikipedia ill, in addition, as it stands it can only further fuel  rumours of secrecy and underhand behaviour by admins and the Arbcom by creating a "one law for us another for them" scenario. Such a policy as this needs to be abandoned and such incidents dealt with as individual cases as a when they happen. Giano (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, but I'm not a lawyer. I think this sums up the validity of this silly copyright argument nicely.Travb (talk) 12:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Makes no sense
This ...


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

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


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

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


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

Does this new version deal with the problem, Laurence? Did I understand your objection correctly? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I tweaked it slightly. Even in cases of harassment, that can be subjective. I know its generally not, in real life, but it can be. Either way, its just not ethical to work in a vacuum. People involved need to be notified, so that they can deal with the situation on their end as is appropriate. My current version addresses part of my concern, but not the overall ethical hole in allowing an ethical clause, which feels distinctly wrong. Lawrence Cohen  22:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Lawrence, in my experience, the ArbCom really doesn't like to be sent private correspondence. I was in a case once where one of those giving evidence said almost the opposite of what she'd said to me privately, and it was a core issue. I e-mailed the sender and cc-ed Fred Bauder, and I asked for consent to quote from her e-mail, or even just refer to it. Fred replied, very sensibly -- no, don't even ask for consent, because it sounds like the kind of thing that's going to lead to bad feeling, and it's not worth it. And he was dead right.


 * I think in that spirit we need to say something about always evaluating whether the privacy breach really is worth the trouble, and whether there is any other way to sort the issue out. So I agree with Lawrence that, if we're against posting private material, we should be against sending it to ArbCom too (which is a mailing list of 28 people or thereabouts, and therefore not leakproof), except in the most serious cases -- threats, and such like. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 22:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You've described my concerns about the conflict here much more eloquently than I have, thank you. If it's all-or-nothing, we need to say so. If it's all or nothing* with an asterisk, there needs to be a mandatory Arbitration process that requires the involved parties to all be notified by someone so that they can all deal with the issue privately, if material is sent to ArbCom (see what I wrote below to Tim). Lawrence Cohen  22:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the problem is that two ethical imperatives sometimes conflict: the right to privacy, and the right to be protected against harassment. Which is more important is dependent on the circumstances. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just on the note of notification, it can't possibly be any harm to notify the involved parties that their materials have been shared. If its an actual legitimate case of harassment, then a Clerk or Arbcom member can notify. So if I harass you by email, and you send it to Arbcom, you obviously I'm sure won't want to deal with me. There surely isn't any reason for someone to not notify me, though, so that I can be aware of what may be happening to allow me to contact Arbcom. If my harassment is a legitimate case, then I'm probably not going to be around Wikipedia long anyway. If it's a possible borderline or non-harassment case, then its only fair and right to give the involved parties a chance to legitimately defend themselves in private. Lawrence Cohen  22:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The members of the ArbCom, in addition to acting as a body to hear formal requests, can also act as admins cleared to handle confidential information. Ideally, it'd help if they were better at acknowledging confidential evidence. If they could designate someone to be the secretary and handle incoming items, issuing receipts and notifications it would make cases like this easier. For example, if I received a nasty email that I thought was actionable I could send it to the ArbCom with a cover letter explaining my complaint. Depending on the circumstances I might CC the sender. In any case the ArbCom's designee should contact the sender to notify them that a piece of evidence concerning them has been received, to confirm its authenticity, and to ask for any explanation. ("User:X forwarded an email that he felt was harassing. Did you send it and if so do you have any explanation?") However this isn't an ideal world and we can't tell the ArbCom how to process the information it receives. That leaves the responsibility for notification entirely with the person who shares the correspondence. As LC says, if it were a case of harassment the recipient may be reluctant to contact the sender directly. I think that in most cases this shouldn't be a problem. We could make a generic template that could be used to minimize the dramatic issues ("I have forwarded to the ArbCom an email you sent to me because I believe it contains evidence of a policy violation. Please contact the ArbCom at AC@WP.ORG in that regard.") Further, we don't need to post actual emaisl or IRCs logs when we can just summarize the contents. No one here is saying that it's wrong to go on ANI and report "User X is sending me threats through the mail, including a vivid description of her plans. Has anyone else gotten one?"   ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point, I've added a sentence to the first paragraph advising people to just summarise things in their own words. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense?

 * ''Private correspondence, such as private e-mails,[1] instant messages, or chats in private IRC channels,[2] should not be posted on Wikipedia, or by email to the Arbitration Committee without the consent of the original correspondent(s), except in cases of clear or obvious harassment.


 * ''When private correspondence is required as evidence in an arbitration case, or is forwarded to the Arbitration Committee, permission should be sought from the original correspondents, whose consent is required in all but the most egregious of cases, such as serious personal attacks or unambiguous threats to the project. Any such text should be e-mailed privately to the committee, and must not be made public. The authors must be informed if their correspondence is forwarded to the committee to allow them a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations.


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


 * ''Users who post private correspondence or disclose other people's private information,[3] especially in an attempt to intimidate, harass or attack them, may be blocked from editing.

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

No, I had to change that since it says in the first sentence that you can post private correspondence on Wikipedia under some circumstances. The new third paragraph is very unclear, perhaps that is best left to the Confidential evidence discussion, rather than being repeated here. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, wasn't my intention in the wording, obviously. For that other bit, isn't it common sense that if someone is blocked on administrator-level information, any administrator should be able to review this? Are some admins more trusted than others? If it is information above admin level, individual admins shouldn't be dealing with it anyway and should be handing it off to the ArbCom, right? Lawrence Cohen  23:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever the argument, there is no good reason for covering an area that is being discussed elsewhere. This risks two self-contradictory policies being produced. I'd recommend removing this paragraph. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh noes! It's growing again! Minor point: the person sending it to ArbCom should really be the original recipient.  We don't really need emails passing round until someone decides to shop the sender. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with that, completely. Lawrence Cohen  23:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Accordingly, I will remove that paragraph. Please discuss and reformulate. --Tony Sidaway 23:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Rewording what I wrote originally in response to simplify it. The intention of that paragraph was that if you cannot justify your administrative actions with backing evidence to any of your admin peers that requests to review it, you cannot perform that action. In that case, you need to get Arbitration to review and approve the action ahead of time. Is this incorrect? If so, why? Lawrence Cohen  00:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Such discussion belongs at Confidential evidence, not here. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That proposal doesn't really cover private correspondence, though. You shouldn't be performing any admin actions based on evidence that can't be shared. Forward it to ArbCom if you feel your ethically allowed to, notify the parties involved privately, and don't dare touch your own buttons and leave it to ArbCom to handle if they feel its appropriate. Lawrence Cohen  00:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Lawrence, "evidence that can't be shared" is a synonym of "confidential evidence". It would be most productive to discuss confidential evidence on the page devoted to discussing confidential evidence. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

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


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

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


 * I was intending to cover the situation where X sent Y an abusive e-mail and Y goes to AN/I and says "I got a message from X that threatened me and said if I didn't stop editing the article on Pokemon he would come around my house and steal all my cards. What should I do?" Perhaps "summarizing" is the wrong word, substitute "describe in general terms"? Tim Vickers (talk) 02:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That should only be afforded to the most blatant of situations, like as you mention. The contents of any email sent in good faith/by an established contributor shouldn't be disclosed in my opinion, either by direct quote or by paraphrasing.  Daniel  02:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In some circumstances yes, in others no. There are many circumstances where this is absolutely fine - "Steve was saying he found the bacteria article a bit confusing the other day, could you have a look at it and see what you can do?" or "Samantha told me that you're not feeling very happy with life at the moment, is there anything I can help you with?" This is moving into a large grey area where common sense and politeness are your only guides and isn't something a policy can or should try to deal with. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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


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

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


 * One of the core differences between a guideline and a policy is that users can be blocked for violating a policy, bit not for breaking a guideline. Users have been blocked for posting private emails, so it is a de facto policy. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's just not accurate. The 1st 3 behavioral guidelines I checked included info on blocking (if the guideline was violated).  The 3rd one had info in the nutshell (link).  Otoh, the difference between any policy or guideline and an essay, is consensus acceptance by the wiki-community (have not seen evidence of this myself).  For the record, I might support as a guideline, but not, at this point, as policy.  R. Baley (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It clearly is policy, as it derives from WP:C and the Foundational privacy policy, as well as being referenced in arbitration findings. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What on earth does the Foundation Privacy Policy have to do with anything? Which section of that policy are you referring to? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not a policy, it's a proposed policy. And, to return to the start of this thread, when we're making things policy that consist of two sentances we'd probably return to root-cause analysis: It appears that this is desired as policy in some quarters so that it can be used to block those who violate it.  Instead, this should at best be merged, more appropiately simply tagged as rejected.  We've got plenty of social enforcement already that covers this, no reason to codify it to this degree. - CygnetSaIad (talk) 02:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR. The shorter a policy is, the less ambiguous it is and the less amenable it is to wikilawyering.  Guy (Help!) 09:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that the basic idea behind this has been de facto policy for ages, it's only being written down to replace a proposal that would have represented a radical departure from established norms. --bainer (talk) 11:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This much is true. Guy (Help!) 12:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've restored the policy tag. In its current form, this is not a mere proposal.  --Tony Sidaway 16:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Get a grip, Tony. This is not an official policy and has never been.  It has been a practice of some individuals at some times under some circumstances. To become an official policy requires community consensus.  There isn't community consensus. I have reverted you.  Risker (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the argument that this has always been de facto policy, do we have examples of people having been blocked for posting private correspondence, other than Giano? I recall private e-mails being posted many times and no action taken at all. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 16:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I find Risker's claim that it "is not an official policy and has never been" quite extraordinary. Do you simply mean, Risker, that it has never been written down before?  Moreover there is obvious strong consensus for this written form.  Policy isn't what's written down, and this will still be policy whether it's written down or not.


 * In response to Slim Virgin, the current form of the policy does not require that someone should be blocked for breaching it (nor is there such a requirement in any of our other policies that proscribe certain behavior). That a very highly respected editor who breached it was blocked, included in an arbitration case, and very narrowly escaped severe remedies is very, very strong evidence of how seriously we take this policy. It is therefore as well that it be written down so that in future there will be more clarity. --Tony Sidaway 17:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So are you saying Jimbo's mate blocked me for something that has never been written down? Giano (talk) 17:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Who is Jimbo's mate? Yes, you can be blocked for disruption even if nobody has written down something proscribing your particular act on the wiki.  Policy is descriptive rather than prescriptive. --Tony Sidaway 21:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Bastique is Jimbo's mate Tony, I'm surprised you didn't know that. It seems one can be blocked for all manner of things these days - even speaking German. Which is why this policy is flawed. Giano (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Bastique is an employee of the Foundation, not just our mutual friend. You can always be blocked for disruption.  Speaking German is not disruptive.  You're not making a lot of sense, really. --Tony Sidaway 21:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * (response to Tony) But can you think of any other case? As I see the Giano situation, the context of the block was repeated posting in a way that became disruptive, and was viewed as one of a series of personal attacks on Durova. And the fact that he escaped any sanction is actually evidence that we don't take the posting of private e-mails seriously.


 * The posting of private correspondence in and of itself has not been something that anyone has ever been blocked for, as I recall. In fact, I recall cases of repeated posting of e-mails containing personal attacks, in the hope of prompting an apology from the attacker -- and there was not only no block, but no admin objection at all. Many times I've had e-mails I've sent blocked users posted, and there was never any additional sanction on them for doing it.


 * I'd also hate to see someone blocked for re-posting personal attacks on themselves that they saw in IRC, even in the admins channel -- which is closed in theory, but which large numbers of people have access to, so there can't be any reasonable expectation of privacy there. It really would be the ultimate injustice if you see yourself being trashed in a quasi-public IRC channel in front of scores of people, but when you try to draw other people's attention to it to ask for help or resolution, you're blocked if you quote what was said.


 * I'm not trying to be difficult, but if this is to be written down as policy, it needs to be a good deal more nuanced than it is. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 17:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Except the IRC channels are unofficial, so the wiki is not the place to complain (rather, complaints should be directed to me). However, I agree that there are obviously those who are concerned that the Arbitration Committee doesn't care about this (it's not true, but it certainly seems to be the case that people distrust us). That is the thing to be fixed, not arbitrarily down-grading innate policy to mere 'guideline' status.
 * James F. (talk) 18:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin is entirely correct. These problems would be avoided, at least in part, by any final text we produce being a guideline that can be interpreted flexibly according to circumstances. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really, ArbCom has found several times that posting private data is unacceptable, it's probably best to be unambiguous. Guy (Help!) 18:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Slim Virgin is making vague gestures at what she claims is frequent posting of private emails without objection. Perhaps some diffs might help to move this discussion on. --Tony Sidaway 21:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Tony, you can't expect me to spend several weeks tracking down examples of private e-mails being posted without a block. If you're arguing that this has always been a de facto policy, I think the onus is on you to show that people have been blocked for it, or otherwise warned/penalized, in the past. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 22:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile we should probably tag this as policy. Attempts to repeat the antics that led to the Durova arbitration will probably lead to further blocking, and editors should be warned of that possibility. --Tony Sidaway 21:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Since you have requested examples, from my edit record I can remeber Talk:Enzyme, Talk:Nicotinamide_adenine_dinucleotide and WikiProject_Molecular_and_Cellular_Biology/Proposals. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"#wikipedia-en-admins is not private": arbcom rulings?
Geogre has said (alongside a rather nasty accusation of lying against some other editor) "Admins is not private, according to prior ArbCom rulings."

This sounds like something we can settle now. Which arbitrations case and which rulings? I yet won't go into the question of whether that channel is private to any degree, I want to get this extraordinary claim out of the way first. --Tony Sidaway 21:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Tony, nothing other than communication between two people is private. If you blow a horn on IRC insisting that it is private is ridiculous. Same applies to posting to email list, especially if you don't even know the subscribers. If you email anything to me, it would be private, I promise (unless it is a threat of course or something but any reasonable email would be private.) BTW, I emailed to you once, long time ago. Did you pass anything out from that personal email by any chance? --Irpen 21:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Could we stick to the current topic, please? I want to get this out of the way, first, before we discuss the different nuances of opinion on privacy.  Has the arbitration committee ruled that #wikipedia-en-admins is not private?  If it has then it will settle the uncertainty created by Geogre's stout declaration that arbcom has, in fact made such a ruling. --Tony Sidaway 21:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You add a very personal question to your statement. I recall no communication from you, but I do not share private communications. --Tony Sidaway 21:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It was a while ago Tony. And then some IRC regulars knew something I emailed to you. But no big deal, there was nothing secret there, I just wondered how they know. As for the Geogre's correction, it is more fundamental than ArbCom ruling. Open-ended communication cannot be private. Private stuff is between individuals. In one writes a letter and mails it to a person, it is private. If one posts a sign on the property which is not even his but merely has restricted but still wide access, especially with no clear access rules, one cannot possibly claim the content of that sign was meant to be private. --Irpen 21:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not and do not pass on private communications from you or anyone else by any medium.


 * I'm aware of your opinion on the status of mailing list communications. Here I want to address a claim of fact made by Geogre.  Is it true or not? --Tony Sidaway 21:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Tony, I don't know about previous ArbCom cases, but this analysis by some ArbCom members says that Freenode has no rules against logging, so it's not clear where the idea came from that IRC conversations were to be regarded as private. The ArbCom analysis says: "The prohibition on logging of #wikipedia-related channels is a matter of tradition within each channel, and is not a Freenode requirement. The Freenode web site states: 'If you're publishing logs on an ongoing basis, your channel topic should reflect that fact.'" (See IRC_channels/Personal_views_regarding_IRC.) It's therefore up to Wikipedia to decide whether the logs may be posted or not. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 22:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's beginning to look to me as if there is no arbitration committee ruling to the effect that the admins channel is not private. --Tony Sidaway 22:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And likewise, none that say that it is. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 23:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * A closed, invitation-only, IRC channel would be difficult to represent as non-private--however much one or two people would like carte blanche to splurge purported logs from that channel on this wiki. --Tony Sidaway 23:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Tony, please AGF: no one is talking about carte blanche to splurge things. A channel with scores of people in it, admins and non-admins, with invitations available to around 1300, cannot seriously be regarded as private. No reasonable person would have even the slightest expectation of privacy in there.


 * What caused you to change your mind from saying that you yourself would be publishing the logs, to arguing that it's private and people should be blocked for posting them? SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 23:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * IRC users can only join the channel by invitation, and the right to invite is limited. Under current Wikipedia policy, it's private.  --Tony Sidaway 00:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sheesh! And logs pop up and WR, WT and ED! Private all right. This is ridiculous to write a policy that would imply that the users should post from such logs to the malicious sites if they want to blow the whistle only because the parties guilty for this house being not clean like it that way. We should clean our own house. Period. --Irpen 00:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Leaked emails from mailing lists also pop up on those sites, that shouldn't mean Wikipedia should allow it, should it? —Random832 21:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Making it clear that Wikipedia does not regard IRC conversations as private (except in an unambiguously private channel) would be a good start. If it were made clear to everyone that anything you say could end up being posted on Wikipedia, with sanctions on Wikipedia for problematic behavior, it would make a big difference to the atmosphere. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 23:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Slim, join the camp. It would, what, seventh attempt? Won't work for the same reason as the last ones. Secrecy breeds corruption and desire for more secrecy. --Irpen 23:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This isn't the place to discuss IRC reform. I suggest you forward your thoughts on those matters to the people who run the various channels.  --Tony Sidaway 23:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It isn't up to the people who run the channels, and anyway it's not clear who does. According to Freenode, they have no representatives on Wikipedia, and according to the Foundation, Wikipedia does not support any of the group contacts. So we seem to have a no-man's land, which I think we need to take back. Tony, I don't believe that you support any of the trashing of people that regularly takes place in these channels &mdash; I don't believe that anyone of goodwill supports it, even if you're strongly pro-IRC. Doesn't it make sense for people of goodwill to put aside their differences to resolve the issues? One way to put a stop to it is to make clear that Wikipedia does not regard those discussions as private, and this is the place to decide that issue. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 23:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * One of the problems I have on this talk page is that most of the people I'm discussing matters with are ill-informed. Geogre thinks there's an arbtration committee ruling that says #wikipedia-en-admins isn't private (and even stoops to accusing someone of lying for suggesting that it is), Slim, you've just told me that I once threatened to publish private logs, and Irpen believes that I shared the content of an email he sent me with someone else.


 * Do you see what I'm getting at? Each of those is an unsubstantiated (and probably false) statement that is prejudicial to the reputation of the other person (a personal attack, if you like) and each is made out of ignorance and, perhaps, wishful thinking.  This is, in short, a rerun of those quite scurrilous and baseless personal attacks on members of arbcom-l last week.


 * In the circumstances, I think it's best if I don't encourage this sort of behavior by responding to your suggestions, although normally I'd be happy to respond to the suggestions. I'm faced with a situation where every time I respond in good faith, another baseless personal attack on myself of someone else slips out from the person I'm granting my time to.  So no, on this occasion I won't give your suggestions the merit they may otherwise deserve, because this discussion, it seems to me, isn't about a serious suggestion, but rather an effort to blacken the reputations of your fellow Wikipedians.  Please reconsider your approach to Wikipedia.  You may not intend to make these baseless attacks, but this does not alter the fact that you, and Irpen and Geogre, are making them.  --Tony Sidaway 00:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Tony, I'm sorry if you saw when I wrote as a personal attack. I have a very clear memory of you arguing strongly against the creation of #admins, saying that if it ever got up and running as a closed channel, you would personally publish the logs somewhere. That's my memory from discussions on wikiEN-l. Perhaps I'm totally misremembering. If so, I apologize. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 00:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyway, to focus on the main points, and this is my understanding of them (please correct me if I'm wrong): (1) Freenode appears not to have a Wikipedia group contact, as far as Freenode is concerned; if we want one, we have to elect one; (2) the Wikimedia Foundation has apparently said it currently does not support any particular person as a Freenode group contact; (3) there is no Freenode prohibition on posting logs.


 * Given the above, it is up to the people editing this policy to decide what the policy should say regarding IRC logs. There is no de facto policy on that point. Perhaps we should throw it open to the Village Pump and elsewhere? SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 00:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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


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

Informing the other party(s) that information is being sent to Arbcom
So, if an editor receives an email from someone and that email makes it apparent that the individual is behaving in a way that would require sanction, but the email is itself necessary evidence - are we really expecting people to say "Oh by the way, Mr Stalker sir, I am just forwarding this on to Arbcom". The approved police response is to not respond to harassing email in any way. The recent "strengthening" edits are just making this all that much more absurd and unworkable. Risker (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point, Risker. I corrected that strange assertion. Also, it implicitly asserts that forwarding to ArbCom is the default step. It is wrong. Violating privacy is a serious matter rarely justified. Forwarding the private correspondence to ArbCom is still violating privacy. And if ArbCom mailing list includes members deemed untrustworthy by a significant slice of community, the members of such community are understandably hesitant to believe that they can trust it. But this is a related, but separate point. --Irpen 23:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Irpen, we can't argue that private correspondence (e-mails, IRC) is always between just two people. It seems we're going from one extreme to the other here, with others arguing that IRC channels, no matter how huge, are private just because someone says they are. The truth lies somewhere in the middle, and there isn't going to be a hard-and-fast-rule. The issue resolves to whether the people engaged in the correspondence have a reasonable expectation of privacy, using the proverbial Man on the Clapham omnibus. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 00:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I rather doubt that the Man on the Clapham omnibus expects messages sent to a group of people (whether on IRC, a mailing list, or just a cc email) to remain confidential, unless there is an explicit confidentiality statement attached. Of all the mailing lists and cc lists I am on (both personal and business), there is only one that I expect to remain confidential, and every single message is marked "private and confidential" at minimum.  Risker (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Nuthsell
If the nuthsell has any connection to the text of the guideline, I don't see it. It needs to be significantly rewritten to make sense.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, currently (Publishing private correspondence deprecated, and using private correspondence to conduct Wikipedia business is illicit.) the nutshell is an incomprehensible mumbo-jumbo of words that does little to clarify the page. --Reinoutr (talk) 07:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The second half of that is garbage added for no obvious reason. Oh, wait, no, the reason is obvious, just wrong :-) Guy (Help!) 07:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Guy, Wikipedia contains a huge amount of private data. It was bad enough when you were trying to prevent publication of emails, but data covers far too broad a range of information. Risker (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find that information not in the public domain is pretty heavily proscribed on Wikipedia in general. What specific examples do you have in mind? Guy (Help!) 15:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If conducting wikipedia business in private is illicit then wikipedia should stop having a link that allows emails to users. Of course all the old cabals would continue but there would be fewer new ones. --Blue Tie (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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


 * I've certainly seen allegations (unfortunately on-wiki, and fortunately much less frequent than at one time) of malicious attacks proposed on a particular IRC channel. However there seems to be little evidence to support these claims.  I speak as someone who hangs out on the relevant channel quite a lot of the time.  In any case, reform of such venues would be a matter, as I've remarked before, outside the purview of Wikipedia.


 * Especially in the case of a closed IRC channel devoted to legitimate discussion of Wikipedia affairs, it is to be expected that activities on Wikipedia will often be discussed and the subjects of those necessary discussions will not be pleased about the fact and will make efforts to compromise it. This is not a good reason to cave in to their efforts by declaring the closed channel to be public rather than private.  I'd think it was obvious that such efforts should be deprecated in strong terms. --Tony Sidaway 19:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Tony, please, the evidence has been posted in multiple places. I've also seen you in various channels while it's been happening, so come on. Look, it's time for all people of goodwill to get together to sort this out in a way that leaves everyone satisfied. You're an experienced editor when it comes to WP, IRC, and all the other private and public means of communication, so your help is needed.


 * Irpen, you raise some good points, but the solution is increased mindfulness among good-faith editors, who have to be willing to monitor their own behavior when engaging in private correspondence, and also must be willing to eject the consistently bad-faith users &mdash; and there really aren't many of them. But the solution is not to try to ban offwiki coordination entirely, because it's just not workable, and it's often necessary. Not just desirable, but necessary.  SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 19:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd put this down to paraoia, pure and simple. I recall that Giano once made a number of accusations, and even stooped to posting purported transcripts.  We really shouldn't save in to that kind of abuse, and falsely accusing people of wrongdoing on, of all things, the admins IRC channel, the basis of such "evidence", is really beyond the pale. Slim, I'm surprised at you. --Tony Sidaway 11:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, excellent points. What I see here is two groups of people who are very committed to Wikipedia, in their different ways, having those differences cynically exploited by people who are committed to damaging Wikipedia. And we (self specifically included) don't seem to have any way of dealing that other than helping them right along.  It's a problem alright. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Paranoia. No one is manipulating me or Giano. I can vouch that I am not in any contact with those bad guys and they are not sending me any illicit info. We can well keep our own house clean and have nothing to be afraid of if only we not try to write policies that would almost explicitly say that in order to expose the abuse veiled by the frivolous demand of "needed" secrecy, the evidence should be given to the very those bad guys who would happily publish it. But whoever tries to deal with those problems onwiki would get blocked. Protecting female editors from harassment is a very narrow exception, along with any communication that involves checkuser data. The thought that some "very committed editors" are digging through my contributions to try to find anything to expunge me makes me puke. Evidence of this has been posted and I don't only mean the IRC chatter but digging through all my contributions and dumping stuff into a secret database to unload at the opportune time. And this is done also by what you call "committed editors" you see around a lot, JzG, not WR stalkers. No one should be investigating me, Giano, or !!. No one should organize the on-wiki actions off-line (save exceptional cases above) and no one should try to claim impunity for doing so by attempting to write new nonsensial policies that would make such activity legitimate and combating it a blockable offense. --Irpen 23:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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


 * I saw that claim made by another editor. I'm not aware of anything fitting that description, so I assume it was a misunderstanding.


 * As for the investigations list, I'm also not aware of any WR-style stalking of editors there, though I'm not subscribed to it now. Would you mind e-mailing me more details?


 * I agree that admins "investigating" accounts need to be very careful not to cross the line into unjustifiable scrutiny, which is why I'm advocating that people involved in these activities be constantly reminded of that by their peers. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 20:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "I saw that claim made by another editor. I'm not aware of anything fitting that description" - OK Slim, so who is lying - you,  Durova or Alex Bakharev on Jimbo's own page ? (I have a hard copy of that claim. just in case someone decides to oversight.) Giano (talk) 20:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So, no nasty wide-scale email harassment but this was invoked as an excuse. I don't even think the person was lying in sense of deliberately saying non-truths. When one devotes his/her full time to investigations, the mindset shift happens and the person starts to honestly believe in nonsense one invents. Are you saying that the "report" on !! did not demonstrates that he was stalked  the WR-style? "Being constantly reminded" won't work as explained in the buetiful Bigfoot proposal. This should just stop. There should be a list investigating real harassment, a serious problem without doubt, but the rest is just playing games. All these "secret" rules to identify socks are either bullshit or trivial or both (that is some obvious rules still often give false positives.)


 * If we are hammering out the policy on "private correspondence", it needs to address both how its privacy should be treated wrt to onwiki posting AND what use of such communication amounts to illicit conduct. This should be dealt with in the policy devoted to very this specific issue and not WP:CANVASS or whatever. --Irpen 20:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Irpen, one of the three was lying to influence Wikipedia policy. Which one. No ifs and buts - who? Giano (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * On who is lying, see above. Please do not mix Alex into this. He is the person who would never do a dishonorable thing. --Irpen 20:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Um ... and I would? All I can do is repeat that I'd not heard any such claim before I saw it from Alex. It's possible, indeed likely, that it's a misunderstanding rather than a "lie." This is what happens when A tells B who tells C, and so on.  SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 21:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I never said that you would, Slim. My take on what happened is below. I simply protested Alex' being brought into this. I thought I was clear (below) that you did not do anything wrong either. --Irpen 21:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thinking more of it and since Giano always demands open and clear answers, I will state openly what I wanted to imply. My view is that Durova, blinded by months of wiki-police work, started to invent and believe into things that were just not there. That's how a "nasty wide-scale email harassment of female editors" appreared out of the blue. --Irpen 20:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There's an element of truth in there, but there is also good evidence that female editors have been targeted due to their gender, and the naturally geeky nature of Wikipedia is also definitely less friendly to female editors than it is to male editors. The attacks on female editors, particularly off-wiki, take a predictable, adolescent and in many cases entirely unacceptable tone.  You have only to look at the things ED said about Phaedriel, who is the epitomy of niceness.  Women tend to feel more threatened by publication of addresses and other such privacy violations; it is not right to simply dismiss this. Guy (Help!) 23:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * JzG, I said clearly that I would never object to the restricted access list devoted to preventing of the harassment of female editors. But what does it have to do with this ugly "investigations list"? Why was the harassment list devoted to this narrow and important topic turned into an "investigations list" to a degree that they had to be split to steer off harrassment-unrelated traffic? In what way are those secret investigations of editors at secret e-lists or IRC anything but illicit?


 * We've had an IRC-organized "complete reviews" of editor's contributions to find out whether there is any reason to "ban this guy"! (BTW, "that guy" has not done anything disruptive). We've had the IRC-organized series of pokings of  Giano because "we need a clean kill" until joyous "now we have something". Why should "that guy", Giano, myself, !! be investigated in the first place at some secret list, IRC or the hidden file where selected excerpts of my contributions are held? This has nothing to do with protecting women from harassment, privacy issues or any other legitimately secrecy! Using private correspondence for such activity should be addressed in the policy called "private correspondence" if you want to regulate its usage and nowhere else. --Irpen 04:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Look spare us the histrionics and the crap, Which one is lying - Durova, Slim or Alex? Giano (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Giano, you're such a charmer. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 22:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Very possibly, I'm delightful Slim. Now to the matter in hand. "she [Durova] had reasons to believe that there was an active wikipedian involved into sick email harassment of female wikipedians (obviously it was not User:!! but she had thought he was). " Is this true or not? Just answer the question! Giano (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What's the relevance in this context? That suspicion was not, as far as I recall, shared with me, as a founder member of that list. I don't think anyone's disputing that Durova was more paranoid than was justified, but this seems to be going beyond that into the realms of speculation. Guy (Help!) 23:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry?...Guy? was someone addressing you? Or can you just not bear missing out. The question is to Slim, Alex or Durova. Do you happen to be called by either of those names? Giano (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have misunderstood Durova during her chat. At any rate I should not made public the impression I got from the private chat from her without her checking it first (that would save me from embarrassing). I have retracted my statement, please ignore it. That is it. There was a good faith misunderstanding but if you really need a lier her lets it be me Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Allow me to point out two threads started by other Wikipedians today.
 * WP:AN
 * WP:AN

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