Wikipedia talk:Private correspondence/Archive 3

Is That A Naked Emperor?
The elephant in the room here is that no-one disputes that in general sharing private communications with anyone without the that persons consent is impolite and should be discouraged.

No-one would dispute that in general not sharing it or sharing it with permission is better than informing someone that it will be shared and sharing it.

No-one would dispute that informing someone that the private communication is being shared is better than not informing them and sharing it anyway.

No-one, ok one might dispute this, but consider it a rhetorical flourish. No-one would dispute that it's better to share private comminications privately than make private communications public.

So you have an escalation depending on how threatened, abused, bothered, annoyed, intimidated someone is by the sender and their perception of the senders bad faith.

Going from not threatened, abused etc at all in which case there's no real justification for sharing those private messages without consent at all.

To the next step on on that scale where it's justified to inform them that say the message has been forwarded to arbcom or something.

To the next step on the scale where it's justified to share the message with arbcom or perhaps even law enforcement depending on the nature of the communications without informing the sending party.

That's where this proposal is so far, but for some unfathomable reason there's a view that sharing an email privately is a violation of a different kind to sharing it publically rather than just merely one of scale. Given that emails can chain around into every nook and cranny of those counted among the informal elite at such velocities that time slows down for them. The difference is only really the difference between sharing someones secret diary around the neighboorhood block or the whole town.

So what am I getting at?

If there are private communications floating around that demonstrate some kind of abuse where the people who would normally be the ones to turn to on the issue have a conflict of interest this policy leaves no way to resolve it. The problem then becomes a dirty little family secret swept under the carpet that cannot ever be acknowledged even though everyone knows and will remain for ever unresolved causing more problems. The abuser in question of course facing no consequences.

At that point you hit the final step of the scale. Disclosure in the publics interest. This is what's commonly known as whistleblowing.

Good organizations encourage internal whistleblowing because if they don't they turn into Corrupt Bureaucratic Clusterfucks. (And for that matter to avoid bad press from whistleblowers not handling things within the organization and instead going to the press.)

Corrupt Bureaucratic Clusterfucks punish and crack down on their whistleblowers because whistleblowers will expose that the organization is a Corrupt Bureaucratic Clusterfuck.

I don't know whether this was its intention, but as it stands this policy is in effect a policy to gag whistleblowers.

Now wikipedia is a good organization, and I'm sure no-one wants it to turn into a Corrupt Bureaucratic Clusterfuck. So if policy is to be made to protect private communications from public disclosure, then equally strong whistleblower protections must be made because sometimes public disclosure will be neccesary and if it can't be handled internally within wikipedia then the only option for a whistleblower will be to take it off wikipedia and go to the press etc. - V (talk) 04:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. There should be, within this policy, a stipulation for whistleblowing to the public arena.   DEVS EX MACINA  pray 04:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia isn't a political experiment. Public whistleblowing is to be strongly discouraged because it exacerbates disputes rather than resolve them.  If in your opinion the arbitration committee, Jimbo, etc, cannot be trusted, then there are other ways to contribute free content that don't involve them.  The most famous of these is Citizendium, but there are a few other wiki-based encyclopedias around. --Tony Sidaway 11:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If wikipedia isn't a political experiment then why make it one by doing something that's never worked before, making it policy and assuming that the magic issue resolving fairy is going to come down and sprinkle magic issue resolving pixie dust all over it? You can look all you want and you're never going to find a single example of discouraging whistleblowing creating a more effective less pathological organizational culture. So why experiment? Whistleblowing is extremely rare even when protections are in place because in practice whistleblowers always suffer consequences. It's a last resort for people who deeply and truly care about the organization and don't have any other options left. Most people would just throw their hands into the air and find something else to do than go through the hell that whistleblowers do. If things get to the point that whistleblowing is occurs. Then firstly, it's going to happen no matter what, it's just a question of whether it's going to happen on-wiki or through the media, and if it's through the media then that just increases the risk of the problem not being resolved and increases damage to wikipedia's credibility. Secondly, exacerbating disputes is the least of your problems, because it means there are far worse things than disputes going on... There are actual real problems... What whistleblowing does is resolve these problems that otherwise can't be resolved.


 * As far as trusting Jimbo or arbcom goes, I don't know why any one else is here, but as far as I'm concerned I'm contributing free content to an online encyclopedia run by a non-profit. Tomorrow Jimbo could be hit by a truck while crossing the road. Arbcoms membership changes. My only concern are whether or not I can trust that the non-profit behind this online encyclopedia is stable enough that it will continue distributing free content indefinitely and whether or not I can trust the varied stakeholders in wikipedia as a collective. I feel I can trust those, and as long as I do I'll contribute. Faith or the lack thereof in Jimbo or arbcom simply doesn't enter my calculations. - V (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In the real world this is a question that has been addressed. Someone bound by obligations of confidence - either towards their employers or towards state secrets - usually has a defence where they break that confidence to inform the proper authorities - the police, judiciary, an elected official. They usually do not have a defence where instead of pursuing those avenues, they choose to contact the press. "Whistleblowing" is not an absolute right and one should consider to whom the whistle is blow. It might be one thing if the police, judiciary etc. took no action and one later contacted the press but it is more difficult to justify them as a first port of call.

Moving to the Wikipedia context. Private correspondence could be sent to Jimbo Wales or ArbCom. In the Durova case it appears that ArbCom (as body) received the email after it was posted on-wiki. It would have been different I think if the proper channels had been exhausted first - that someone had emailed the evidence to the ArbCom list and after a reasonable period of time (say a week or two) had received no satisfactory reponse. But proper channels should I think be explored before the information is published in the most dramatic manner possible. WjBscribe 17:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have much of an opinion about how corporate whistleblowing should work. In the case of Wikipedia, blowing the whistle on-wiki to the body of Wikipedia editors seems like an eminently reasonable thing to do. These are, of course, the main stakeholders of Wikipedia. It's hard to see how it would be harmful.&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 18:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "... the proper channels had been exhausted first - that someone had emailed the evidence to the ArbCom list and after a reasonable period of time (say a week or two) had received no satisfactory reponse. But proper channels should I think be explored before the information is published in the most dramatic manner possible." Well those would be provisions for whistleblowing right there. Anyone want to work something along those lines into the policy? - V (talk) 18:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The term "whistleblowing" presupposes that there is something to blow the whistle about. Wikipedia is an obsessively open community.  Insisting that decisions be justified openly is enough.  We can't stop people discussing Wikipedia matters with their wives, husbands, brothers, sisters, girlfriends, boyfriends, work-mates, friends, neighbors, email contacts, e-friends and the like.  We can't insist that all those discussions will take place on the wiki.  We don't need to, however.  An act that doesn't have consensus cannot succeed. --Tony Sidaway 19:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "The term "whistleblowing" presupposes that there is something to blow the whistle about." Hunh? No it doesn't. The act of "whistleblowing presupposes that there's something to blow the whistle about. I'm not sure I understand the relevance of what you're saying here. For example oversight removals of text occur all the time and by their very nature can't have consensus, and having provisions for whistleblowing as a last resort isn't insisting that all discussions take place on-wiki. - V (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * WJB, it should be remembered that it was read as implied in Durova's initial comments at ANI that the email had been seen, and endorsed, by at least members of the ArbCom. While this was not correct, and was subsequentley clarified as such - certainly the latter point of endorsement, it may not have been known by those reading Durova's comments; therefore it would have appeared that that avenue had been exhausted. The point being, there can be instances where it is believed the internal processes have been exhausted and there are still serious misgivings - there needs to be an implicit recognition that WP:IAR allows those channels and procedures to be bypassed in resolving important issues. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It was seen, but was not endorsed by anyone who has been named, and certainly was not endorsed as anything other than an accurate identification of a returning user in any message I ever saw, as a participant in the list(s) about which so much inaccurate speculation has circulated. Guy (Help!) 15:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * During the height of the controversy, Durova persistently claimed that there were additional e-mailed exchanges not on-list, in which "about five" users specifically responded (responses ranging from positive to enthusiastic) to the idea of blocking !!. She has not to my knowledge retracted these claims. It's certainly not unreasonable to assume that, if this in fact happened, at least some of the users involved were arbitrators. —Random832 15:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The request by Durova that any queries/qualms about the block should be referred to ArbCom certainly gave the impression that both the block and the relevent email had been sent there and was approved. Not so, and reasonably promptly clarified, but sufficient cause for some to believe that that was not an avenue worth pursuing and that more public methods were required to overturn a bad block. I really am not trying to justify (or vilify) the recent past, but am trying to make people recognise is that there must be a license to sometimes go beyond the "appropriate" channels where it is believed that they are not serving their purpose. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, gave the impression, but as ArbCom made perfectly plain, it was a false impression. And the block was speedily reversed.  Hard cases make bad law.  Guy (Help!) 23:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Would the block have been overturned so quickly, and clarification regarding "approval" been so swift, had there not been the hue and cry/bewailing and beating of breasts? I suggest, perhaps not. In any future incident there still needs to be the ability to raise concerns in a manner which prompt the appropriate responses... errrr... promptly. Public disclosure can do that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, it didn't take ArbCom to clarify that. I did so myself on the first day at ANI as soon as the speculation arose, and I expressed the clarification repeatedly. I made multiple mistakes and am very sorry for them. Yet I reversed the block myself in 75 minutes and, as my arbitration evidence shows, I was always proactive about correcting the rare block errors I see, regardless of whether the community paid attention. Please do not compound my actual faults with wrongs I didn't commit.  Durova Charge! 00:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Durova where is my edit here if you regret saying something you strike through it, you do not pretend it did not happen! Do not revert me ever again - is that quite clear? Giano (talk) 18:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you missed my edit summaries. They clearly state that I had moved my comment to a user talk page.  I have no wish to engage in conflict with you, Giano, and if you refrain from reverting my edits you have no need to fear my interference.  Durova Charge! 19:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but as always with you, you only provide half the story for instance which talk page?  Not that it matters because you should have struck through not reverted, and certainly not reverted my comment.  When you finally desist from your continued habit of attempting to re-write history that I will happily disengage from all contact with you. Giano (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is the diff of the post to user talk, which was the next edit I performed two minutes after moving the comment off this page. Please assume good faith, Giano, and please let this rest.  Durova Charge! 21:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I identified the source of the clarification above, just that it did come. I suggest that Guy is stating that ArbCom later confirmed that any impression they had endorsed was incorrect. I really really am trying to move this discussion away from this past instance and to potential future events. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

A few case studies
I want to discuss a few case studies. They are based on the real-world cases but I intentionally changes a few details to keep privacy of participants. Also there are hypothetical courses of action. Alex Bakharev (talk) 13:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Case 1
A problem user posts highly POVed statements as facts. When another user, a teenager, reverts the changes, the soapboxer sends the boy a letter threating to start a court case that would leave the boy's parents without their home. The boy is frightened, he is a medium-level user who knows a few admins and WP:AN/I but not how to submit mails to the arbcom mail-list. Alex Bakharev (talk) 13:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Case 1a
The boy reads the present proposal, interpret it as he cannot share the frightening E-mail with anybody (there is no arbcom cases openned yet and the permission from the harasser is highly unlikely. He leaves wikipedia in fair and disgust. Bad guys win...

I do not think this is a preferred variant. The policy should explicitly state what to do if you received a harassing email or a threat. If we want it to be dumped on arbcom then we should give the exact email for the arbcom mail list. We should explicitly advice that the user might contact the arbcom even if the case is not opened yet. But do we really want to dump any problem email on arbcom? Alex Bakharev (talk) 13:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Case 1b
The boy forwarded the email to an admin he knew previously. Admin has checked the facts and banned harasser per WP:NLT, he also posted on WP:AN/I that he has banned such and such user and any admin wanting to review the block can ask for copies of the documents.

Was forwarding of the E-mail to a simple admin (not an arbitrator or checkuser) allowed? Was forwarding the Email from the blocking admin to the reviewer allowed? Was posting about WP:NLT on the WP:AN/I allowed? If so it should be stated in the policy Alex Bakharev (talk) 13:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Case 1c
As the admin has learned from the E-mail, the blocked soapboxer was a minor celebrity interesting for the media. The admin hasnot published it onwiki but published in the NYT.

There was no breaches of the current policy but it seems to be a bad decision. Should we state the admins who got copies of private info in the course of their official duties are obliged to keep information confidential either on or offwiki. TYhe breach of fidelity service should be desysopping. Alex Bakharev (talk) 13:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Case 1d
Frustrated teenager decided to post the content of the threating email (removing the address) on WP:AN/I. Should we block the boy? Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Answer to all the above: helpme, clueful advice dispensed. Problem averted. But sending an email you received to an admin in order to stop abuse is not a violation of privacy.  The admin should know it can be sent to ArbCom or indeed the office or OTRS.  If an admin receives a copy of an abusive email and blocks an abuser, then ArbCom is the logical avenue of appeal anyway. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But sending an email you received to an admin in order to stop abuse is not a violation of privacy. - that is precisely what this proposed policy does not say. —Random832 13:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Case 2
An experienced user obtained a copy of a semi-private message from an email-list. The message outlined a "secret sock-identifying policy" that essentially recommended blocking every suspected multiple account even of users exercising their right to vanish. Discussing of the erroneous policy obviously benefited the community. Should we shot the messanger and block the whistleblower?


 * A bit far-fetched. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not think so. Maybe we should have some whistleblower protections stating that in the cases of obvious public good it is possible to publish exerts from the private communications and warning about danger of misjudgement? Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Which leaves the door wide open because everyone thinks it's of pressing importance that their particular example gets published. So: they can send it to ArbCom, as suggested by the present wording. If ArbCom thinks it's of pressing importance then they can take the heat. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem with it is that not everyone completely trusts Arbcom (it is difficult to please everyone). Another problem is that Arbcom mail list consists of 28 very busy people who can easily to overlook even important problems. I guess we have the publicly available Evidence and Workshop sections for a purpose. Secrecy breeds idiocy, secrecy breeds misunderstandings, secrecy breeds rumors. I guess Durova's case is a good example of all three. Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If they don't trust ArbCom, WP:OTRS or any individual admins, I suggest they are probably in the wrong project. Guy (Help!) 18:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Guy - are you deliberatly provactative or just very stupid? Giano (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would try to avoid personal attacks, but while I deeply respect many Arbitrators I would not trust my life on them. To many of Arbcom decisions I monitored were IMHO wrong and even right decisions went into existence the torturous way after weeks of deliberations with many arbitrators on the both sides of obvious decisions. What is more important the internet (or biosphere as its face) does not seem to be trusting it either. Of all the responses I have seen to the idiotic theRegister article only a few devoted Wikipedians seems to reject this conspirological monstrosity.  Wikipedia as a project is already shrinking who would implement our dreams if the people would see us as yet another greedy corporation ruled by a hidden cabal? The best way to stop it is to stop behave like one Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

New case today - Elonka RFA
Please see: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Elonka_3. Lawrence Cohen 16:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just coming to bring this up. An interesting case, particularly since we can't confirm authorship. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. Unlike the Durova case, where multiple verified the message was authentic. Just wanted to post it here, as it's right in line with the discussions on this page. Lawrence Cohen  17:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting case. Should we take the complainant's word for it?  One way forward is if Elonka concsents to posting the content with the private information in the headers (ip etc.) redacted.  Another possibility is the involvement of a trusted third party.  A better alternative all round is for Elonka to withdraw at this point and then take the matter to ArbCom or an RfC where context can be more fuly evaluated; it's hard to combine RfA and a shitstorm. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And now there's another poisoning of the well going on down at the bottom of the talk page about alleged deleted evidence. Go see. Perhaps their needs to be a note that alleging inflammatory "private evidence", which can't be disclosed, is an action that can bring sanction. Otherwise, people can pull trump cards like this repeatedly on avenues with a limited duration like RFA. Lawrence Cohen  22:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You'll never stop that kind of crap, I think. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * For the RFA I guess the applicant should just blankly allow publishing all the wiki-related private correspondence [s]he is authored. At any rate if Elonka will find a way out of the drama I would vote for her Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Under a Privacy Policy, any off-wiki discussions that were not published at large could be banned. I would not be in favor of people standing for RfA being required to give permission to publishing such things to bypass such a rule.  However, I also believe that (as someone further above) said: Secrecy leads to idiocy.  I have seen too many instances of this in my life and in history.  It is so true it should be carved in granite or cast in brass.  So wikipedia should also have a sense of openness.  As a result I would favor a policy that says something to the effect that: "Any posting of private communications not related to wikipedia editing is forbidden.  Any posting of private communications for the purpose of harassment is forbidden.  Any posting of private communications unrelated or on a tangent to the topic is forbidden.  And Any posting of private communications to your talk page is forbidden.  However, in instances where the community is placing its trust in individual by conferring tools and privileges upon them, private communications may be posted under fair use and reasonable verifiability restrictions if necessary".  Something along those lines. In short, I do not believe that publishing private emails and log chats should be just given a clean pass, but I think openness in the community and elimination of cabals (particularly cabals with powers) should be encouraged. for now though, the only policy that applies to such things is copyright.  This policy has no community consensus to it--Blue Tie (talk) 15:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't taken action on this case because I wouldn't be impartial - I previously nominated the candidate for adminship. However, it seems to me that posting off-wiki communication with an attempt to discredit an RfA candidate seriously undermines the RfA process. Were the content very serious, it should be forwarded to ArbCom who could order the suspension of the RfA while the evidence were considered. Anything less serious than that simply should not be posted given its inherent ability to subvert the process. It seems to me that an appropriate response in future would be to delete the offending material and block the editor who posted it until the conclusion of the RfA as a response to their attempts to disrupt it. WjBscribe 17:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As I have said below, the politeness and appropriateness of  offwiki communications is absolutely essential for an admin. Nasty offwiki communication is a very valid reason to oppose a candidate. Thus, paraphrase of a communication should be absolutely allowed.  Decision to allow or disallow the exact reproduction of a communication is possibly a privilege of the candidate. Still I will be very skeptical of an admin-candidate who would try to suppress reproduction of his or her communications (unless a really srious privacy issues exists) Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Email and IRC
Unless anyone can come up with a reason to treat the two mediums (in the abstract - not specific instances like one particular mailing list vs another particular channel) differently; when you make an edit to the section applying to Email, please make substantially the same edit to the IRC section (or vice versa). —Random832 19:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * But there is no need to use the same wording, which makes the page look silly. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 21:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sure it could be worded differently for each with the same meaning, but the versions I've seen at least before today (haven't looked closely at your changes today) that have had the two sections substantially different have tended to be skewed in the direction of declaring one or the other to be inherently less private. I do understand (and even, to some extent agree with) your position that #wikipedia-en-admins in particular has somewhat less of an expectation of privacy than your mailing list, but it's sometimes come across as saying that IRC in general is less private. And this is by no means limited to this - I've seen versions where mailing lists are declared less private than IRC, too (i don't want to go digging through the history) —Random832 21:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess what bothers me is when you bring up the fact that the IRC channels are "logged" - how does the fact that W-R users are coming into the channel, secretly making logs, and posting them to Brandt's website reduce the channel's "expectation of privacy" any more than that people subscribed to a mailing list are leaking messages to people reduces that list's expectation of privacy? —Random832 22:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Is nobody ever going to grasp the single fact that the rank and file editors do not want to be discussed off wiki. If they are discussed, then they want to know about it - and quite right to!   There is no excuse for discussing matters of wiki. If there is/was an editor who raison d'etre was stalking lady Wikipedians  is he more likely to be deterred by secret emails from the likes of Durova and stalking by the equally deluded famous five? or will he feel more threatened by open conversation of his conduct on Wikipedia?  The  Arbcom have their mailing list which is private, as is right and proper there is no need for anything further.  There is no excuse for anyone to be secretly prattling about their peers anywhere.  We are all here without exception to write an encyclopedia not concoct theories and vendettas.  If one wants to do something useful and adding to the content is beyond one then one write an advice page for female and other vulnerable wikipedians on avoiding and handling a threatening situation.  The problem, here is too many have all been allowed to rise above their wiki-stations none of us are above any other editor - being an admin is no big deal, that seems lately to have been forgotten. In stead of wasting  time here we should  should all  be writing pages and building an encyclopedia. Giano (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Giano and wish that I had said it as clearly as he did: "Is nobody ever going to grasp the single fact that the rank and file editors do not want to be discussed off wiki. If they are discussed, then they want to know about it - and quite right to!"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue Tie (talk • contribs) 08:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think what is important is the number of participants, not the media. There is a difference between private E-mail/private chat between two people/meeting eye-to-eye and 1000 persons mail list/1000 persons chat/1000-strong conference. There is also a difference with the privilege communication you can access only with some non disclosure agreement like I presume checkusers, arbitrators or OTHRS. Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no excuse whatsoever for a bunch of admins and editors sitting about discussing their peers in secret and then squealing with indignation when others don't like it and the truth of their rubbish theories come to light or a not acted upon. The Arbcom are appointed to discuss Wikipedia matter and may do so in private  - all others can either write a page or voice their opinions openly on Wiki. That way they may be inclined to think before posting. Giano (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You think. But Jimbo is on the list, and sometimes drops by the admin IRC channel, and the OTRS list is also full of admins discussing editors' conduct, and actually the normal outcome is either no change (blatant abuse) or averting an error.  Only one case has been cited where an admin appears to have dran an invalid inference form silence, and for some reason that is being portrayed as a problem of private correspondence, where actually it is a very obvious case of one admin's bad judgment.  I fail to see why we need to make it bigger than it is. Guy (Help!) 20:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes we all know Jimbo is on that list, was that not why he was so cross with me? He did not come out of it well did he? Giano (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ....and what is more, it about time Jimbo awoke to his responsibilities to the general editors rather than his chosen cliques and began to lead by example rather than intimidation. Giano (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's one interpretation. Another is that every single person who was on that list and spoke up is not actually lying and the list is innocent, but Durova is a dunce.  I can see why you'd prefer to believe that everybody is evil and lying and Durova is innocent though.  Oh, wait, no I can't actually. Guy (Help!) 00:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

On discussion/paraphrasing vs verbatim reproduction
I changed the tone of this paragraph back while adding clarification of what should NOT be discussed/revealed - my intent in adding it is that it's already quite clear (from the fact that he received no sanctions, and sanctions for him were never on the table at any level) that there is no consensus to forbid posts along the lines of !!'s evidence (a lengthy paraphrase of the email that started this all off) in the Durova case; and any version that does purport to forbid similar action is flawed. The line that exists in consensus, and that should be explicitly drawn in any attempt to put that existing practice into writing, lies at worst between what Giano did and what !! did. —Random832 19:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * (copied from SV talk) With, you stated you were reverting one specific thing, but instead you reverted all my edits back to a previous version, without voicing any objection to my other changes. In particular, you've wiped out the entire section on paraphrasing. For now, I've restored it to the state from before you reverted, but left your wording in the IRC and E-mail sections (though I'm not sure they're very well in sync at this point) and tried to incorporate your changes in how the sections ought to be ordered.—Random832 21:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't quite get the point of that section. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 21:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Because without it, I give it a month until the rest of the policy is used against someone who simply e.g. says they got a harassing email. —Random832 21:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Since some people don't think this should be on the proposal, I'd like to start a discussion here on whether this should be included, and how it could be better said: The scope of this particular policy is actual verbatim reproduction of private correspondence. However, when an email, IRC chat, or other private correspondence you have received contains sensitive information&lt;NOTE: Examples of sensitive information would be IP addresses or other personal information; the identity of the person sending the email if they wish to remain anonymous; etc.&gt; or is from a privileged source (e.g. OTRS, checkuser or arbcom, etc), you should exercise extreme caution in discussing the nature or, in some rare cases, even the existence of such correspondence, and keep in mind that other policies may apply. Keep in mind, also, that, with or without the verbatim content, a report of having received an email is not verifiable&lt;NOTE:Even though you know you received the email, anyone else has nothing but your word. And, someone could have faked the email to you in the first place&gt;, so you should not make unqualified accusations against either other editors or other living persons on the basis of an email or other form of private correspondence purported to be from them. Thoughts? —Random832 21:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec)
 * It says:




 * It's not clear how this fits into the rest of the text. And some of it doesn't seem to make sense -- of course saying you received an e-mail is unverifiable, but so what? What is the point of us saying that? People are not going to stop saying they received an e-mail because this page tells them to. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 21:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess the second paragraph is really just an extension of NPA and BLP (which it links), but I figured since this page is on the subject of reproducing and/or talking about email contents anyway it fit. The first paragraph is what I'm more concerned about. —Random832 21:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

As for "what is the point of us saying that" - the point is to discourage people from doing it, isn't that what this page is for? —Random832 22:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it would be quite a radical departure for us to say we're not even allowed to say we received an e-mail. Basically, this whole thing boils down to courtesy and common sense. Sometimes it'll be appropriate to mention e-mails, usually not. We can't legislate for every single eventually. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 22:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Common sense isn’t all that common. The whole reason for this is that common sense broke down. You don’t think Giano was using common sense? Common sense doesn't need to be written down; it's the edge cases where “common sense” fails to give a consistent answer from one person to the next, that need a written policy. —Random832 00:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, true. I just think it'll be very hard to say to people that they ought not to say they've received an e-mail. But if you want to re-add something, I won't revert again. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 05:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, it is crazy not to allow people to say that they received mail from somebody. There are a lot of times we make judgment if we want to believe a user based on a non-exact evidence. No checkuser investigation, no sockpuppet investigation based on the analysis of contributions, copyright status and the subject of self-made images, etc. - all are based on non-exact evidence that would not probably stand in courts. Still we act on our assumption which users we trust and which are not. Most people would not directly lie and would confirm if they sent E-mails if they indeed sent them.

Consider case of Elonka's RFA. Polite handling of Email requests from problem users is a duty of any admin. We should not dismiss complains in that regard. DG might say I have received a nasty E-mail from Elonka full of swearing words and I am asking Elonka to allow me publish it in full. Then Elonka could either deny she ever sent something to DG, or allow wikiposting with explanations from her side or reasonably explain while such an email cannot be openly posted. The RfA participant could then decide who they trust. Putting the E-mail through an Arbcom while it does not have an Arbcome level harassment is a sure way to not clear the matters in time for the RfA Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Any e-mail explicitly discussing Wikimatters loses all expectation of privacy.
I'm firmly in Giano's corner on this one. I don't know how it should be worded, but in my opinion, any e-mail sent explicitly to discuss matters relating to Wikipedia should be fair game, unless there are serious real life safety/privacy concerns (e.g. real names, locations, other identifying data, etc. used in the e-mail). In the event that such an e-mail is reposted, protocol should simply be that the names of those parties who are not involved in the e-mail exchange should be redacted. There's simply no valid reason that two or more editors should be discussing WP matters off-Wiki. Though the Durova case highlighted the issue, there have been other, lower-profile examples of this as well. And who knows how many bad blocks have been upheld by off-Wiki "canvassing" to support them at AN/I? Mr Which??? 00:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There are many good reasons to discuss Wikipedia-related things in private. We can't, and shouldn't, prevent people from meeting in person, speaking on the phone, using email, IRC, IM, or shortwave radio and discussing Wikipedia. Nor should we make a rule that people have no privacy when discussing Wikipedia. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not to invade the privacy of editors. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As I understand MrWhich, he is not proposing to forbid personal communications. He is proposing not to repress people for disclosing personal communications. The current proposal not only forbids me from telling anybody: "I once met Will Beback and he stated a great idea", it also forbids me from telling anybody": "I once met Will Beback". It also states that if I want to propose the great idea onwiki and for some reason Will Beback is not available for contacting, then I have to receive clearnce from Arbcom. I find this limitations unusual and counter productive Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It forbids nothing of the sort. My additions making that explicit (that it only applies to verbatim content; not discussion _about_ an email) were only removed because it supposedly goes without saying (and since it apparently doesn't, I'll be working on a better way to phrase it to put back in), not because it's not a valid distinction to make. —Random832 14:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (to Will) I categorically deny that there are any non-real life related concerns that need to be discussed privately. Specifically, the mess Durova caused would have been expressly avoided if she had simply exposed her nonsensical methods to the light of public scrutiny. In a general sense, it just makes for a more trusting, collegial environment if we know that there aren't secret police discussing "evidence" gathered against WP editors in private forums, over e-mail, or whatever. There's simply no demonstrated need for this. Now discussions that could impact people in a very negative way in a REAL LIFE sense certainly DO have an expectation of privacy, and should be treated that way. Mr Which??? 13:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would disagree with your wording, though. Simply discussing Wikipedia elsewhere isn't a problem.  A lot of people do that, and there is no reason for us to concern ourselves with it.  In Giano's case (since that seems to be your main concern), the problem wasn't that discussions were going on elsewhere, but that specific ones weren't happening on Wikipedia when they should have been (which relates to the Confidential evidence proposal).  As a result, it really shouldn't be necessary to even discuss an email, or other correspondence, except when it directly relates to on-wiki actions. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 17:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a better phrasing would be that "any off-Wiki discussion relating to on-Wiki actions has no reasonable expectation of privacy." One way or the other, there should be absolutely no ramifications for someone who "outs" cabals of editors and admins performing secret investigations into fellow WP editors. None whatsoever. Mr Which??? 17:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This proposal is of course a non-starter, to the extent that it isn't necessary to argue against it. So I won't bother. It's simply absurd. --Tony Sidaway 18:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a "personal attack", Tony, it was calling a spade a spade. The way you behaved in calling my proposal a "non-starter" and "absurd" was, in fact, arrogant. That's not a personal attack, it's an observation. Either participate in the discussion or remove yourself from it, but refrain from simply insulting the ideas others put forward. Just because you think something is "absurd" doesn't mean it's true or that it's "not necessary to argue against it." Stifling dissent is definitely not cool at all, Tony. You'd do well to stop trying. Mr Which??? 20:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The proposal is a non-starter because nothing on this or any other Wikipedia page can disconnect people from their right to privacy. When somebody sends an email to another person, it's normally private, unless they give permission to publish or there's some sort of exceptional circumstance. - Jehochman  Talk 20:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed, exceptional circumstances. Like when Giano published part of the mailing list post.  Risker (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Tony, since you've deleted Mr Which's reply to your very patronising remark about how you won't "bother" to argue against his proposal, I suggest you delete or cross out your remark itself as well. Please focus on the politeness of your own posts and don't worry so much about scanning other people's for "personal attacks". Bishonen | talk 20:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Yup. Per normal Internet expectations, that Giano post would be allowed.  However, Wikipedia has tighter rules, which we can occasionally ignore.  Thus, we have a very debateable situation. - Jehochman  Talk 20:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (EC to Jehochman) No one who is discussing other editors off-wiki should expect, nor do the deserve, any privacy for those conversations. Why should WP condone such cliquish behavior? The current state of affairs with regards to policy not only condones this behavior, but actually encourages it. This needs to be changed. Mr Which??? 21:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no way that Wikipedia can, nor should it, control totally off-wiki behavior. I dislike gossip, but that doesn't mean there should be rules to fight it.  Posting private email should only happen when the situation is unique enough that Ignore All Rules applies, IMO. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 19:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Notification of submission to Arbcom
I just made this addition. It really seems like common sense, and a matter of simple decency. If someone's correspondence is forwarded to the Committee, there is no legitimate reason they shouldn't be notified to allow them to deal with the matter in a timely and fair fashion. Is there any honest reason this would not be a good idea? Lawrence Cohen 07:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If you're dealing with mail from someone who's harassing you, the last thing you'd want is to have them contacted. So it's better to say people ought to be informed as a matter of courtesy when it's reasonable to do so, or words to that effect. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 19:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In a case like that, though, why wouldn't it be a good thing for Arbcom to notify them them that they're effectively on notice? I don't know if this is an ignorant question. If it was pure unmitigated harassment (sexual, threats, etc.) the person should be banned immediately anyway. But, in case it is something that is possibly borderline or an eye of the beholder sort of situation, that Arbcom would have to sort it out. I don't see why an Arbiter or Clerk shouldn't notify them. Why would it be a good idea for them to not know the Committee was investigating them? Lawrence Cohen  19:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the concern is that they would "shape up" until the metaphorical "heat" is off - or start over with a new sockpuppet - thus avoiding getting caught. —Random832 04:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it within ArbCom's mandate?
Someone has to ask the most obvious question here. If "private" information is sent to Arbcom, what do we expect them to do with it? They do not have the mandate to open their own cases, and as a committee they should not be banning individual editors. Yet, dependent on the nature of the information provided to them, there may be fiduciary duties for them to act - for example, an email showing clear stalking behaviours. I think this may require a further clarification of the Durova decision. Risker (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Arbcom has sanctioned editors before without opening formal cases, when presented with confidential evidence. For example, when Runcorn was exposed to be running sockpuppets. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 02:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Relevant RFA: Status of TruthCrusader block review?
Status of TruthCrusader block review?

Whatever the actual facts case may be this description brings up an interesting edge case. The purported sender of the harrassing emails can't produce them if they didn't send them. If they didn't send them then they by this policy they obviously can't give permission to disclose them on-wiki, but their punishment indicates that they are the sender of the email then that indicates that as the owner of the corrospondance they can allow its publication. I'd suggest anyone who's been working on this proposed policy watch this case with interest because it may clarify a few things. V (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"e-mail this user"
You know that link on user pages. Corporations can and do vet internal emails. What's the situation with Wikipedia? Is email sent via this "e-mail this user" open to scutiny? Martintg (talk) 05:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It is probably related to the location of the email server. In this case, wikipedia is not serving up the email but only the email address. If we do not want people to have email about wikipedia privately, this email link should be deactivated.  However, I believe we do want that.   Certainly I do.  However, I do not believe that email should be protected from scrutiny if it is a matter of concern related to trusting an individual with authority or powers and emails that person has sent out show a bad side to them that they hide in public. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope what the emails sent via "e-mail this user" are logged and are available to developers (and maybe checkusers). If they are not logged they IMHO should be . Does anybody know wheter the emails are logged or not? Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This sounds like a very damaging suggestion. If we were to deliberately set out to deter editors from communicating with one another via "email this user", the best way to do it would be to state that such communications were monitored.  --Tony Sidaway 05:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think there are many kinds of communication including harassments, threats of violence, threat of legal actions, canvassing, soliciting sexual contacts with minors, etc., etc. that indeed should be discouraged Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Former Arbitrator quotes from and offers IRC Log to explain actions
Folks, this proposed policy just has to stop right now. When an arbitrator emeritus is making direct quotes from, and offering to produce IRC logs to explain his actions, as Dmcdevit does here (without any of the formalities of asking other parties, etc.), then it is pretty obvious that this proposed policy does not have the support of the community. It's time to call this to a close. Risker (talk) 03:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * When I lasted checked, we weren't saying IRC logs were private, unless from a private channel (i.e. one set up for just a few people). SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 03:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This was a private conversation, from my understanding, between Dmcdevit and a steward. Risker (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think a problem only arises where one does not have the agreement of the other party (or parties) to post the discussion. Presumably Dmcdevit has either asked the others for their consent or does not believe they would object. WjBscribe 03:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * He might also be posting only his own comments. Of course he can post copies of what he has said. - Jehochman  Talk 03:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous mail
I do not think that anonymous harassing mail should be protected under this policy. The reason is simple: there is no one to get their permission for the disclosure. The anonymous here means people who could not be identified with either their real names or wikipedia aliases. Emails signed by wikipedia's aliases of people who deny their authorship should be considered anonymous Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Other issues aside, what's the purpose of posting an anonymous email? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Suppose somebody get harassed by anonymous people and wants community to investigate, suppose somebody got spam and thinks it related to his wikiediting, suppose got a trojan and suspects it is related to wiki and wants to warn people, suppose somebody received an anonymous mail canvassing for a wikicause (RFA,AFD, RM, RFC) and wants closing admin/bureaucrat to take canvassing into  account. Suppose somebody got an email from alex_bakharev@somewebhost and I want to clear my name and prove I am not the author and investigate the matter. I can think of dozens similar variants but it becomes more and more WP:BEANish Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ready for approval?
This proposal seems mature now and major revisions have stoppped. Is it time to move it forward as a policy? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely NOT. This should be unceremoniously thrown on the trash heap rather than approved. It is absolutely chilling to individuals wishing to report abuse, and absolutely must not be formalized in policy. Risker (talk) 23:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, that's one opinion. Obviously, other people have a different opinion, as shown by the blocks of people that have posted private mail. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I respectfully point out that it would be absolutely unacceptable to be "approving" a new policy which has been opposed from its very first writing and has consistently failed to reach consensus at the one period of the year where the majority of editors and admins are only on Wikipedia for very brief forays, if at all.  It is disrespectful of the community to propose that this be passed now.  There has never been anywhere near a consensus that this policy is required or appropriate.  Most blocks referring to "private mail" have been for disruption or harassment, which are already reasons for blocking. However, what this policy permits is established users and administrators carrying out email correspondence to harass and belittle other users, with no reasonable avenue of quick appeal to the person harassed.  Yeah, sure...they can take it to Arbcom.  If they can find Arbcom.  If they aren't terrified because they're supposed to notify their abusers before doing so.  It is a license to abuse people via email.  We have already had reported today an episode in IRC where a female admin was harassed, belittled and verbally abused - with others in the channel doing nothing.  Nothing.  What possible reason does that admin have to believe that Arbcom will take action (when Arbcom says that is outside of their control)?  Give me a break.  Risker (talk) 23:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Concur with Risker's aversion to seeing this rot become policy. Mr Which ??? 23:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a link to the thread in which the community rejected this proposal? If there hasn't been a definitive rejection then a properly-publicized straw poll may be the best way of gauging community opinion. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly reject object to this page as policy or guideline. Historical and rejected tagging is more appropriate.  As for a thread, this whole page is an example of no consensus.  R. Baley (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is already policy. We could tag it, I suppose. --Tony Sidaway 23:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not "already policy," Tony and you know that. In the past, people who have published private correspondence have been blocked for other reasons, such as repeatedly doing it or doing it to harass people.    Risker (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Rejected by community - Actual current and past behavior on Wikipedia does not and should not conform to this proposal. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Not to be picky, but I wasn't asking if folks approve or reject this proposal. I was asking whther it's time to seek input from the community about whether this proposal is ready for the approval process. Since major edits seem to have ended it appears to me that there is consensus on the basic text. The next step would be hold a straw poll, one which draws in the wider community. Given that some folks may be pre-occupied due to the holidays, it may be better to wait until after the first of the year. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to be picky, but this whole talkpage should show you that the "community" has rejected this as "no consensus to add as policy" repeatedly and soundly. There's no need to bring it to the wider community when the people working on it don't even agree. 23:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) There is NO consensus on the basic text. There are those who want this to be a policy and those who think the entire text should be marked historical and rejected. The timing of your proposal is completely unacceptable, Will Beback. You want community input, let's talk about it on January 2, 2008, but not before. The majority of editors in this community will be spending very little time on Wikipedia in the next 10 days. Risker (talk) 23:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As I wrote above, the straw-poll would be better timed after the holidays. While there are some editors who've expressed disapproval on this page, policy is not determined by the views of a few. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ...policy is not determined by the views of a few. Exactly. New policy requires at least a consensus of the editors who have worked on the proposal. This does not have even that. Mr Which ??? 00:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If every policy required the agreement of every editor WP wouldn't have any written policies. Anyway, we can have a straw poll in January and se what the community thinks. If the proposoal is truly without support then we can mark it rejected and move on. But a few editors saying they don't like it doesn't determine the community's viewpoint. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Likewise, a few editors saying it is necessary does not determine the community's viewpoint. I seem to recall exactly the same "it's already policy/widely accepted" arguments being made for the addition of the WP:BADSITES policy and the corresponding changes to WP:NPA - both of which it turned out most definitely did not have the community's support. Let us not make the same mistake again.  Risker (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, we did find agreement on the issue and amended WP:NPA to include linking to harassment. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and there had never been a dispute about that. It took over six months, multiple RfAr discussions, page protection and a major policy being labeled as disputed and/or locked for half a year before some people accepted that the community did not accept the idea of banning entire websites. There is no dispute about the publication of private correspondence for the purpose of harassing people either. It is already covered in the existing policies, and there is no purpose or benefit in having this separate user conduct policy; in fact, all these separate policies create traps for users because it is nearly impossible for people to be aware of all policies at all times, especially when they change more often than the average fashion model.  Risker (talk) 00:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As an alternative to tagging this as policy, we can decide not to go for endorsement. It will still be policy. --Tony Sidaway 01:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not policy; people have been blocked for disruption or harassment in relation to posting emails, which are already existing reasons for blocking people. But Tony, please explain something to me.  The email address that I have connected to my username is linked ONLY to my account and the wiki-en-L and foundation-L mailing lists.  So if I get an abusive or harassing email on this account, it has to come from some Wikipedia-related source.  But many people have email addresses that do not directly link to their WP usernames, so it is not always obvious who has sent them.  If I get a harassing email - let's say someone emails me and calls me a bitch and a bastard and denigrates me in other ways - what do you think I should do? Is it outrageous that I would want to get some input from Wikipedians about this, or warn other users that emails from that particular address have been used for abusing editors?  Come on, Tony - this is a free ride for anyone to send editors hate mail without any chance for the recipients to respond.  Risker (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You're all about helpful suggestions, aren't you Tony? It's always a good idea just to declare something "policy", even when it's hotly disputed. Good form. Mr Which ??? 01:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit flummoxed by the above. If people have been blocked for abusing this policy, how can one argue that it isn't policy?  Or am I, as I suspect, not reading your meaning correctly?


 * I do think that posting copies of abusive emails on the wiki is something we'd have to think long and hard about, before we condoned it in general, if only because Wikipedia isn't a forum for the discussion of email abuse, though there are many other issues there that we probably don't want to codify as part of a written policy. The best we can hope for here, I think, is for editors to continue to use their commonsense and not post private correspondence to Wikipedia, and as in the recent arbitration case let the arbitrators do their job.  This is why I say that the current written document (give or take the odd recently added sentence) is policy. --Tony Sidaway 02:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Tony, I am afraid you are being deliberately obtuse; it certainly comes across this way. Posting an email to harass someone is harassment and is covered under that policy. Repeatedly posting something that one has been asked not to post is disruptive, and is covered under that policy. Posting an email once that demonstrates that the receiver has been harassed, intimidated or abused, or (in the case of benign emails) has been amused or enlightened, has not historically resulted in a block. Some editors have now taken to posting on their talk pages their personal policies with respect to emails (i.e., that they will *not* consider them private communications and may elect to post the email in part or in its entirety) in order to address reasonable concerns from this policy. I have received abusive emails on my Wikipedia-only email account; in that particular case, the abuse was so egregious that I went right straight to the police. I notice that suggestion isn't even included in this policy.  However, if the abuse had been less egregious, but was otherwise harassing, you are saying that I could not have brought this to the attention of the community. I ask you bluntly - why are you supporting a policy that protects abusers and harassers?  Risker (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you receive mail that you think is inappropriate and requires on-WP action then you can refer to it without quoting it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That is sheer silliness. Direct quotes make a huge difference. To require an abuse victim to paraphrase his or her abuser, and open him/herself up to attack for being "too sensitive" or reporting a situation that "isn't really harassment" is to revictimize the victim. I will put it bluntly. Editors receiving sexual solicitations should be able to report them directly on-wiki. They can be redirected, but should never for a second have to fear that they will be blocked or be considered to have broken policy for reporting that they have been abused. Someone who receives an email indicating they are being stalked should not have to be afraid that they will be banned from Wikipedia for posting the message here and asking for help. Disparagement of editors on IRC or via email should not be sanctioned by threatening the disparaged editor (or any other outraged editor) with blocking. There is no official, well documented, easily accessible method for reporting abuse such as this.  Until there is - and it may require a WMF-level policy and practice - people should never have to fear that their ability to edit Wikipedia is dependent on them having to keep their abuse secret.  Risker (talk) 05:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you provide an example where someone has been harassed and needed to publish a private email in order to get a satisafactory resolution? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I was wondering about this too. --Tony Sidaway 07:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I do have an example in mind; however, I am waiting to hear back from the person who was victimised before I add the diffs here, as is consistent with my position that victims should not be revictimised. Given the season, it may take a few days for the victim to respond. Risker (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

For an example of the commonsense more-transparent behaviors that are in fact the community norm I show you from :
 * "Perhaps it's a good idea to forward or post the emails? Initially, Scott sent Adam a 'legal threat' by email. Then Adam posted it on the Cuba talk page. Then I lobbied successfully to get Scott blocked indefinitely. So, the Sgrayban case demonstrated that WP:NLT applies not just to the Wikipedia namespace but also to Wikipedia email. 172 | Talk 06:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If you want, you can go ahead and forward them to my account, and I'll review them to see if I can make a case for an indefinite block based on the emails. 172 | Talk 06:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)"

The whole "quoting email" thing is a misunderstanding, anyway. Privacy is about privacy of information, not the specific formatting of that information. Sometimes the fact that an email was sent at all is private. Sometimes, only some specific fact is private, like a real life name or a password. The most superficial look at the redaction of classified papers will show that what is private/secret varies widely from the fact that something even exists to a mere redacted number. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In that instance, the response to the person posting the email was that they should send it to an ArbCom member or clerk, or to a Foundation member. Posting an email on an article talk page, even to complain agout harassment, isn't helpful. The recipient could have easily said, "I received an email that threatens legal action. What should I do?", and he would have received the same answer, "forward it to an official who can act on it". There was no need to post the actual message, which included the name of the sender and the name and address of a 3rd party included in the letter. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, the posting of the email itself was controversial. See User_talk:Jdforrester/Personal_Archive_1. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Requests for Additional User Privileges
Not sure about this:


 * Where private correspondence is cited as evidence against an editor for additional user privileges (such as RfA, ARBcom Elections, or promotion to Bureaucrat), or the revocation of those privileges, the existence of such evidence should be first asserted without posting it.  Only if the community demands evidence should the email contents be posted and then only after the original correspondents' consent has been requested as a matter of courtesy.

If I read it correctly, the intent is to enable editors to cite private correspondence as their reason for opposing RFA and whatnot. I would suggest that we consider the chilling effect such a loophole would have on private discussion of Wikipedia matters, which are still very much part of our dispute resolution process. --Tony Sidaway 02:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have considered the chilling effect and that effect is EXACTLY what I want to occur. Private communications that are insulting, harassing, targeting or in other ways offensive to the project should not be encouraged or have protection. I am not saying we should outlaw them, but they do not deserve protection and if a fear of their revelation helps prevent that obnoxious behavior that is a GOOD thing. See Giano's comments about how wikipedia editors do not want to be discussed behind closed (cabal) doors.
 * Alternatively, we could keep that part out but not have this be a policy. I'm fine with that too. --Blue Tie (talk) 03:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia editors may not like being discussed behind closed (Wikipedia Review) doors either. But we don't have a rule against gossiping off-site. As for this proposed provision, it seems to say that the "community" can demand private emails be posted, but it doesn't indicate how the "community" expresses this demand nor does it provide any real recourse to the writer of the private communication. Requesting permission from the writer is only a formality, as it appears the mail could be published even it the writer denies permission. I don't see why private correspondence should be treated differently from other private information. We don't have similar provisions that allow the community to demand the real names or email addresses of editors. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not saying that gossiping off site should be outlawed. I agree it does not say how the community should ask for the evidence and that is a weakness to what I wrote. But I figured.. "Hey put a stake in the ground and see if it can be improved". I will give my bias on this matter:  I do not think that emails affecting the project should be considered private if even ONE of the people involved is willing to reproduce it or pass it on.  And I do not think that there is any legal liability about this if it is done correctly.  I am opposed, even in cases of egregious conduct, to revealing real identities though, if the person does not want their real identify known. I would oppose that very strongly. --Blue Tie (talk) 03:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What I find problematic about Blue Tie's reasoning is the presumption that all private conversations are partaken of by some cabal or are obnoxious. It is for this reason that I think he casts his net here far too broadly. Perhaps some refinement is necessary. --Tony Sidaway 03:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not presume that they are all obnoxious. In fact, I doubt that to be the case. I suppose that a few are though.  We have seen examples.   However, I would not argue that my wording could be improved and even the implementation I considered here might be somewhat awkward. But I do not want someone penalized under the conditions of the Durova incident. To me we should have "Sunshine Laws".
 * Incidentally, though you disagree with the proposal (and I can understand that) you have been a real considerate editor and I thank you for that. --Blue Tie (talk) 03:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, what is it that you think should be mentioned in RFA's and the like? I notice that one administrator threatened to block DreamGuy if he repeated his posting of a purported private email from Elonka during the latter's third (and successful) RFA, and this seemed appropriate to me.  It seemed to me that there was no way to establish the provenance of the alleged comments so it were better that DreamGuy had held his tongue.  It really doesn't show Wikipdians up in a good light when they make such accusations.
 * But enough of my opinion, what would be your attitude to DreamGuy's actions? Is that the kind of thing that should be condoned by policy, so long as the poster says has asked for permission (whether he has actually received permission or not) ? --Tony Sidaway
 * First, I actually have no idea of what DreamGuys actions really were. I tend to dislike the idea of running around like children tattling on one another.  But that happens to go both ways.  I dislike gossiping behind closed doors also.  I would like both things to be so distasteful and unpleasant that neither of them happen except in extreme and unusual cases.  We should be editing articles not over-worrying about other users to the point of discussing them in secret backchannels. I recognize that there may be exceptions but when there are, we should still not behave in a manner that would be embarrassing if made public.  So I think it is a good thing if we are in a situation where we never know for sure and so we are on our best behavior.  For some of us, even our best is not all that good. --Blue Tie (talk) 13:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to discuss "secret backchannels" (whatever they might be), but rather a situation that seems to match what your proposed wording says: to wit, DreamGuy claims that he and Elonka discussed matters online (I believe from context that it was google chat, a form of instant chat based on the gmail webmail system), and he, DreamGuy, felt that Elonka said something unacceptable that he, DreamGuy, felt was so relevant to Elonka's RFA that he simply must post the purported content of the discussion on the wiki.


 * So it isn't gossiping or tittle tattle, I hope I make it plain, it's the content of a private discussion between Wikipedians, one of whom decides to publicise that content. Myt question was: what would be your attitude to this?  Would you agree with the administrator who threatened to block DreamGuy? --Tony Sidaway 14:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * To me it seems a little tattle tale-ish and disgusting. But I do not think that means it should be verboten.  I would tend not to agree with the admin who wanted to block DreamGuy and in fact, I did aggressively oppose. (I thought the issue was an email sent spontaneously -- which I do not believe has any presumption of privacy either).  However, (if I were an admin and I am not) I would delete the statements and THEN threaten to block reposting of the quote did not support the allegation.  I would consider THAT to be disruption to the point of vandalism. I should be clear.. though I want openness, I despise the nature of some of these disputes. --Blue Tie (talk) 14:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we're fairly close in our views on this. I also despise the element of tittle tattle about this kind of intercourse.  Too many times I've seen extremely weak conclusions drawn, as is evidently the case in the Elonka matter.  Yet the damage is caused, in my opinion, by the making of stateemnts based on representations of the content of private discussions. The acceptance of such behavior seems to me to be a much graver danger (and one that is moreover palpable) to Wikipedia than anything that was supposedly said in private and to a limited audience.  If I say "I have proof that Blue tie called me a nasty name in email", it's difficult to prove or disprove, and moreover it presupposes that you are not at liberty, in private discussion, to express your opinion freely.  That final presupposition, I think, is one that we should regard rather warily.  I suspect that as a community we will have to agree that Wikipedia's interest in public disclosure do not extend far beyond the horizons of the wiki--where precisely they end is an interesting question but not one we're likely to find substantial agreement about (and therein lies the problem of the proposal). --Tony Sidaway 15:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe we are close. Not sure. I think that a person should be able to accuse. I think that if they accuse they should be permitted to support it (actually it should usually be insisted upon).  I think that the ability to support should not be limited to on-wiki activities IF the evidence involves wikipedia activities. (Non-wikipedia disputes should not come over here).  If the evidence fails to support the accusation, the accusation and the evidence should both be removed.  But there should be no censorship prior to that point. Again, these kinds of things are awful and its good not to encourage them either.  But when they are needed, they should not be forbidden. --Blue Tie (talk) 16:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the accusation is the problem, really. The presumption that Wikipedia can or should control private expressions of opinion that aren't directly related to Wikipedia business can be an insidious one.  Today it might be over whether Elonka did or did not say something impolite to someone in gmail discussion, tomorrow it might be over whether you called me a nasty name in email.  Where does it stop? If you say "drat that Jimmy Wales" to your significant other, is that something that we need to discuss if you're running for RFA?  I get what you're saying--that editors should use their own discretion and abuses are then treated according to their validity.  You probably won't be surprised to find that I believe that's the situation we have right now.  We'll always differ on the question of whether this or that posting is justified. However the corollary of discretion is this: that the onus is on the poster to demonstrate that his post is necessary.  Historically, few have been able to pas that high bar, and individuals who tend to post have proven woefully poor judges of what is acceptable.  So I do think we're fundamentally in agreement, though we may be seeing different sides of the same coin. --Tony Sidaway 18:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've not thought about this aspect at all really, but maybe it's time for the IRC channels to become officially logged as part of the process. Then when needed an authorized user (limited) finds the appropriate section of log for it's purpose.  Similar to CU there would have to be rules (no fishing, no posting out of place, and such).  I think other stuff should stay out of RfA and RfB and such.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Unacceptable at any rate
So, let me see if I have this right: Let me make it very clear that I regard this form as the wrong version, that there are large numbers who have not edited here because they do not believe that any form should be made, and that, if it were to say the perfect things in the perfect manner, there would remain the problem that many (I would say "the community," but that would be ridiculous presumption) don't think that there should be a policy at all.
 * 1) People who have chased away dissent and used protection are happy with the page's contents
 * 2) People who have edited this constantly assume that they have a feel for how things are outside of this editor base
 * 3) People want this RIGHTVERSION to be merged or made policy, because it's sure to be accepted?

In fact, I would say that: A good many people do not believe that there is a way to precisely figure these things and so stayed on the sidelines. However, as soon as this effort began, Tony Sidaway and other esteemed spokesmen of All began ripping the page apart to say that it should exist to say that no one must ever share anything that anyone has ever thought was or should be "private." Despite the lack of finding in law, the readiness of real world examples of the needs for whistleblowing, the frequent appeals of people to stop all the edit warring, things went ahead. Now the people who want more chrism on the divine foreheads think it's in good shape? Well, I'm glad they're happy, but I'm terribly sad that they believe that they have a majority, much less a consensus, point of view, because they do not.
 * 1) This page began as a way of limiting the use of "private" and "secret" means.
 * 2) It was begun to try to outline the areas in which it is permissible to broach expectations of privacy (not privacy).

If they really want to hear from the community, post to the Village Pump and AN, and let's watch the thousands of voices weigh in. I can assure anyone involved that there will be no consensus. Geogre (talk) 13:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me reiterate that I for one would be equally happy if we had no written policy on this at all. In my opinion the form of words is superfluous.  The longstanding policy on this matter does not need to be written down; it was only begun, as I understand it, on the suggestion of one of the departing arbitrators in the Durova case, who was responding to a statement in opposition to current policy. The suggestion was also made by Jehochman, whose contribution was acknowledged .--Tony Sidaway 14:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Geogre, you always manage to say what I'm trying to say, but you do so much more eloquently, and in a more thorough manner, than I hever could. Tony has completely ignored that the initial purpose of this policy was to outline when it was acceptable to publish ostensibly "private" correspondence. (For instance, if someone were to call another user a "bastard bitch from hell" on IRC, one might be able to publish the IRC logs to prove this, when the offending editor claimed ignorance as to whether they said it or not. Or when incredibly weak "evidence" was circulated to a mailing list in support of blocking an established editor as a "ripened sock." Those seem like acceptable times to publish "private" correspondence.) That aside, this attempted end run around actually ascertaining community opinion on this runs counter to what WP is supposedly about. Mr Which ??? 15:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't ignore that the policy was an attempt to get agreement on when posting private correspondence is permissible--indeed I explicitly acknowledge that in my above comment. That we have failed to reach substantial consensus on when this is permissible is also evident. --Tony Sidaway 15:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

What happens if the majority of Wikipedia editors decide current practice isn't right? Doesn't their new majority consensus become the new policy? That is, if enough of a majority of vocal people make a decision, doesn't the community simply have to get in line? Didn't that happen with the spoiler templates? If dozens or a hundred people decide that a given practice isn't right--lets say, spoiler templates, or how posting of private correspondence is handled, and say: "no, this is the new way," doesn't that become the de facto new policy and method? If some minority don't like it, aren't they out of luck? Lawrence Cohen 15:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If we reached consensus that it was possible to prescribe when posting private correspondence was permissible, and could agree on a form of words, then that would be our new policy. I suggest that the first thing to do would be to make such a proposal of change on the Village Pump and see if it enjoys much support. So far we've had little success but this could change if we widen the number of people discussing the matter.  --Tony Sidaway 15:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, no, I understand on consensus. I just mean, if so many people disagree with the other side, what is the historical ratio generally before the opposition becomes irrelevant and it becomes de facto policy? Surely there must come a point where the other side's views simply become, well, irrelevant, due to being that no appreciable number of users agrees with them in the present day. In other words, at some point, the views of one side in any conflict cease to carry authority, since they're simply flat-out outnumbered, and if it doesn't violate a rule that is outside of English Wikipedia (Foundation rules) the resisters have to back off or they become disrupters. If enough people said, "You can post private material sometimes," or "You can't post private material ever," eventually the other side has to suck it up and move on or they'd the be ones subject to the bans and blockings for resisting. What is that point historically?  Lawrence Cohen  15:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If we had consensus then I think we'd know that we had it and we wouldn't be asking "what percentage is required?" When something works, it just works. --Tony Sidaway 15:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand that. What I'm asking is, you kept referring to your supported take as being policy, even if it's not written down. What I'm asking for clarification on is, if a version that is contrary to what you say is the accepted de facto policy comes to be supported by many more people than your view of the policy, doesn't your view become null and void? I.e., if hundreds decide its OK to do what Giano or George support, wouldn't it simply be the de facto policy, and thats that? Lawrence Cohen  17:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, put it this way: not one word of the current policy is due to my editing, but rather it seems to be the result of a collaborative process. And yet it seems intuitively to me to conform to the way I and others have treated private discussion.  And I absolutely do agree with you that if instead we arrived at a form of words that supported Giano's and Geogre's point of view, then that would be policy, and recognisably so.  De facto policy is the only policy we have.  The rest is just words written on sand. --Tony Sidaway 19:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Totally understood, on that. I was just trying to express and get clarification, if the majority of people decide here one way or the other that you can, or cannot, post private correspondence, the other side really has little choice but to continue to push to change it to the other stance. That is, even though you and others are against it, if the majority decides otherwise, that it's acceptable, well, that is what it is. And vice versa, on the other hand. Policy can be changed by any large enough or vocal enough group, right? The reason I was asking is that a few comments seemed to be here on either side along the "case closed" sort of stance, which seemed absurd. Lawrence Cohen  19:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that the very idea of this policy is unacceptable. I find myself agreeing with significant portions of it, for instance the part relating to ArbCom. The notions that we ought not to violate privacy whenever possible, that there are extenuating circumstances in which we need to violate it anyway, that asking and getting permission first whenever possible is goodness, that if we can't get permission we should at least notify... these all seem like good notions. Perhaps I'm misguided but I subscribe to the idea that if I participate in something where a condition of participation is that I not reveal what is said, why then, I ought not to reveal what was said!... or choose not to participate. There is a lot here that I don't agree with, (and more importantly, that the community itself doesn't do currently, which means it isn't policy... policy here is descriptivist not prescriptivist for the most part, with certain limited exceptions) so I don't think this is "done" and ready to tag as policy.... I think more discussion is needed. Maybe this is one place for prescriptivism, but I have my doubts. ++Lar: t/c 15:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Lar, I'm not sure that we don't need some manner of description of what to do on this idea, but maybe a "policy" is the wrong way, maybe a guideline is more appropriate? In any case, after scanning much of the discussion here there does not seem to be much aggreement on the idea, scope, or language at this time.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the issue can be examined rationally and legally, and the conditions and situations where supposed privacy needs to be "violated" could be easily worked out. However, in an atmosphere where Tony and others have edited only to say that it is policy (which can't be cited) that nothing private may ever be put on Wikipedia rules out honest discussion. We all know where this page started and why. The "why" was a pretty good one, in fact. It is not possible and it certainly isn't wise to ignore that, to say that there never was a good reason, and then to proceed. The only way is to recognize the legitimacy and the reasons why something that, in one context, is not allowed, is allowed in another context. What is it about the context? Well, again, it's possible to go forward, but not if we have foot stamping and point blank denials that there is anything but a blanket ban on undefined and undefinable "private" talk. (Yes, I fully suspect the motives of those people as well. I do, in fact, think that they're acting out of personal interest rather than project interest.  That makes me more likely to write them off, but the only way forward is for everyone to put a chain on their id and at least pretend to rationality.)  Geogre (talk) 16:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll agree that you have a point there, just saying "no further discussion needed, this IS policy already" without making it clear what some of the nuances are (there ARE loose ends here to be sure) may not be helpful, and I'd endeavour to work with you to try to get something that codifies practice (with a dash of "what we thought ought to be the case") if you want. But I won't go quite so far as to cast aspersions as to motives. ++Lar: t/c 17:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The aspersions aren't much of a reach. Long histories are involved. One of the people actively, if not hyperactively, editing this page to say, "No, never, no, no" has been arbitrated for saying very nasty things on IRC and then had that go forward when logs were made public. That person is, incidentally, again in trouble for the same thing, and again the issue has arisen of, "If I prove it, I'll have to post the logs." It's not much of a stretch to believe that that editor has vested interest in saying that there are no circumstances when "private" material may be posted to Wikipedia. Another active individual is the "owner" of an IRC channel and has said, on Wikipedia, that it's his to do with as he chooses, that he doesn't need to listen to anyone about it. That user is, incidentally, right now exhibiting such striking WP:OWN violations over "his" page describing "his" IRC channel (even protecting it to keep dissenting long-time users from editing, but without a request for protection and with being an involved user), that I don't think these are aspersions as much as they are disqualifications. Geogre (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and cast them, I'm merely saying I won't myself cast any, it's not usually my style. I'm reviewing my own private log of that particular channel (if it's the incident you speak of) to try to determine just wtf actually happened there, something seemed way off. I'm rarely on IRC these days, and I wish I hadn't been busy in another channel while it all went down so I would have seen it in time to say something. But all that aside, I'm just saying I think there is something useful that could be made of this page, even if there are areas that not everyone agrees about. You and I differ in some matters, and have common ground in others (I suspect far more of the latter than the former). For one thing, I hardly ever say "never", the real world is too complicated for that, and I suspect you feel the same way. ++Lar: t/c 18:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps there's a way forward from this that doesn't involve veiled accusations of wrongdoing and self-interest. It seems that we all do have an intuitive grasp of the fact that there is a privacy issue here, and although there may be extreme viewpoints such as "mailing lists are not private" and "I have permission from any Wikipedian who sends me an off-wiki message to disclose the contents of their messages"   in practice those voices have not prevailed and are unlikely to prevail, simply because we do, most of us, recognise that the author of the viewpoint is sacrificing accuracy for simplicity. Instead we're really just discussing whether it's sometimes in the interests of Wikipedia to breach privacy. The current written document is probably that closest approximation to the consensus view, although we each individually may have problems with it. We all seem to be agreed that evidence of egregious behavior can be considered by the arbitration committee at its discretion. Do we need any more than that?