Wikipedia talk:Respect privacy

Interesting
Hm, interesting. Are you talking about people hyhfhhharticles, or about Wikipedia editors? I think it best to keep both issues separate. In the former case, it's already covered in WP:BLP (and also, I'm quite sure that for nearly any encyclopedic person we can quote birthdate, profession, etc). Regarding WP editors, this is definitely a good idea; I seem to recall reading about it before but I can't find it at the moment. Regardless, I believe it has been firmly established that "exposing" other editors is a great way to get yourself blocked.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  21:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Technically this is office-forced policy, see Oversight, however a policy consensus will allow greater community understanding of this. With regards to scope, WP:BLP focuses mainly on libelous claims, which is why this can easily be extended to cover non-public information on non-editors as well as editors. Non-public being the key phrase here, that if someone has already published this information to wikipedia, or has had it covered to the general public, we can detail the personal information. This allows us to cover tabloid investigations of stars and fancies, yet should protect against wikipedians themselves deciding to stalk other people. LinaMishima 05:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If this is referring to other Wikipedia editors, this is part of Harassment. --ais523 14:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:HA is a guideline (technically this is already office policy), and is unclear as to what it actually means or sanctions. I see no harming in making the personal information section significantly stronger. LinaMishima 15:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No harm at all; I was trying to find the reference that Radiant! was referring to above. --ais523 16:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If you state that this is already office-created policy, what is the point of proposing it once more? Regarding our harassment guideline, if it is unclear please reword it? Sanctions have included some very lengthy blocks in the past.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  23:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it's buried policy that people need to dig deep to find, and it's not even listed as policy, meerly something that someone with oversight access can perform. There is little information availible to most people on this issue. Whilst the ArbCon regularly find against those who distribute non-public personal information, there is no formal policy suporting this action. Having a clear single policy helps people understand that something cannot be done. Mentions of this subject currently only exist at Oversight (a hard to locate page, seperate from other admin pages - check out the limited links to it), Requests for oversight (Rq page for the previous, very limited links) and a small mention on Harassment (drowned out amongst wikistalking and examples, no information about what to do if you find this happening). The policy was created thanks to an apparent suggestion by arbitrator Fred Bauder on a current ArbCon case. Something as important as this should not be hidden away, and by making people aware of this, it should be easier to deal with any occurances of problems. Whilst we risk WP:BEANS to some extent, this will be countered by more people knowing that they can have this permenantly removed from the database, and by allowing this policy to be explicitly cited as a principle in associated arbcon cases (most of the nasty ones end up needing this, from what I've seen). LinaMishima 01:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's a good point, but I think your best bet would be to edit those pages you mention to make this specific message more clear. Add a new header, or some exclamation marks, or whenever. It is indeed true that to point out that User:Someone lives on the Somestreet in Someville is a good way to get yourself blocked.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Matters are not helped by the fact that WP:HA is quite frankly a horrible mess desperately in need of a rewrite :( Infact, it's need for a rewrite currently prevents it from being considered for policy. Even if it was, it would run into further trouble - a read through the archives is a brutal affair, with many people taking a dislike to it o.O LinaMishima 15:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hm, at a first glance, yes it looks pretty ugly. It also references a number of editors by name, which is a Bad Thing. In my experience, the definition of "stalking" has always been controversial. Suppose I click on your contribs tag and look at what you did yesterday, and jump into a few discussions you were involved in -- is that stalking? Some people say it is, and would probably prefer to have the contribs tag hidden. But it's there for a reason, and maybe I'm just trying to help... tricky business. I think the page attempts to "enumerate badness", which usually doesn't work. I second the idea for a rewrite. You want to give it a go and I'll copyedit or feedback?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  22:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * At any rate regarding this proposal, yes it's a good idea, and yes it's already policy, so our best bet is to clear up policy. We have too many pages as it is.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  22:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Nutshell
I object to the nutshell on this page because it is not necessary - the title of the page ("respect privacy") already suffices as a summary.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)