Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 127: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 04:58, 12 July 2024

Latest revision as of 04:37, 13 July 2024

(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)

Line 561:

*I agree with Aoidh and Guerillero. I want to emphasise that users should never ask for identifying information of other users, including their religion. Instead, the question they can ask others is, "Do you have a [[WP:COI]] with this topic?" It is also important to emphasise that, under current Wikipedia policy, an editor with a COI on a topic is allowed to edit articles in which they have a COI with, as long as they have disclosed any contributions covered under [[WP:PAID]] and they adhere to Wikipedia's policies and procedures, including having a [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]] in their contributions. [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 16:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

{{Archive bottom}}

== Amendment request: Durova ==

:'''''[[Special:Permalink/1234165816#Amendment request: Durova|Original discussion]]'''''

{{Archive top}}

'''Initiated by''' [[User:Joe Roe|Joe Roe]] '''at''' 16:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

;Case or decision affected

:{{RFARlinks|Durova}}

; Clauses to which an amendment is requested

#[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova#Private_correspondence|Private correspondence]]

#[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova#Removal_of_private_correspondence|Removal of private correspondence]]

; List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

*{{admin|Joe Roe}} (initiator)

; Information about amendment request

*[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova#Private_correspondence|Private correspondence]]

:*I'm requesting that the committee rescind this principle, which reads: {{tq|In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence) or their lapse into public ___domain, the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki. See [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]].}}

*[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova#Removal_of_private_correspondence|Removal of private correspondence]]

:*I'm requesting that the committee rescind this principle, which reads: {{tq|Any uninvolved administrator may remove private correspondence that has been posted without the consent of any of the creators. Such material should instead be sent directly to the Committee.}}

=== Statement by Joe Roe (Durova) ===

Following up on [[#Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads]], I would like to request that committee formally rescind these two principles. The ArbCom of 2007 were playing armchair lawyer here. It isn't up to us to decide whether or not emails are subject to copyright (apparently the real lawyers are still arguing about it). But it's also not relevant, because the conclusion drawn in these two principles—that if something is copyrighted it can never be posted on-wiki—is nonsense. We post copyrighted text without permission all the time in the form of quotations, and quoting off-wiki correspondence when it is relevant to on-wiki discussions is no different. The [[Right to quote|right to quote]] is protected in all copyright regimes.

I don't expect that rescinding these principles will have any immediate effect, because policy currently forbids the posting of off-wiki correspondence because it's [[WP:OUTING|considered personal information]], not for copyright reasons. However, the 2007 decision is still sporadically referenced in policies and guidelines, most notably in [[WP:EMAILPOST]]. Formally removing it would help clarify the consensus status of these policies and generally make it easier to discuss the issue of off-wiki communication without old, faulty reasoning getting in the way. &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 16:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

:{{ping|Primefac|Barkeep49}} I wouldn't say it's ArbCom's responsibility to determine whether posting emails is okay or not as a general rule. Apart from the bit about the Durova case, the full text of [[WP:EMAILPOST]] is "There is no community consensus regarding the posting of private off-wiki correspondence" and as far as I know that's the only policy that specifically addresses it. &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe (mobile)|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe (mobile)|talk]])</small> 04:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

::{{ping|Barkeep49}} I think we're saying the same thing. I don't think [[WP:EMAILPOST]], or the ''Durova'' case, have any bearing on whether off-wiki correspondence is considered personal information. That comes from the community's interpretation of [[WP:OUTING]], as expressed in a couple of RfCs that I think are linked above somewhere. As far as I'm aware ArbCom had no role in developing that interpretation, which is what I intended to draw attention to in my reply above. I'm sorry if I've given reason to be suspicious of my motives. &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 19:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by Jclemens (Durova) ===

This is overdue. Those principles, explicitly citing [[WP:EMAILABUSE]], were used to suppress quotes of positive correspondence I'd received via email (using the 'email this user' feature) and posted to my own user talk page--after my most memorable screw-up and consequently at the end of my tenure on Arbcom. What's left is at [[User talk:Jclemens/Archive 12#Mailbag]] if anyone wants to read about it, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJclemens&diff=519505115&oldid=519503245 this] is what was stricken. Given what all else was happening at that time, I never brought it up for further review. Now that a dozen years have passed, can we agree that the principle was wrong from the get-go and never appropriate? [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 18:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

:{{U|Primefac}}, the notion that emails have any privacy from redistribution only has any credibility based on the boilerplate footers whose ubiquity you note. In fact, spoken conversations, which we can all agree are more ephemeral, may be recorded in the United States with one party consent ([https://legalhearsay.com/is-it-legal-to-record-a-conversation-a-state-by-state-guide/ many] states require two-party consent, but federal law is less restrictive). For copyright purposes, however, the person recording a phone call created the sound recording, while the author who composed an email clearly holds the copyright to its text. Sending an email implicitly grants a license to all the mail servers and network equipment involved in handling the message to copy it and forward it appropriately to its recipient. Attempting to revoke access to an email after receipt by way of footers, when no explicit agreement to receive the (copyrighted) email was ever entered into, is sufficiently unlike other copyright licensing that the legal framework remains unsettled some sixty years after the invention of email. TLDR: there is no legal expectation of privacy in email, so we should not pretend as if there is. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 19:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

::Indeed, that failed to capture the key point well; allow me to try again: No one who understands it thinks email is private. Since the very beginning, email has been forwardable, printable, or copyable. Since the 1980's, colleagues of mine have kept particularly damning (to others; exculpating to themselves) emails in a "Barbara Walters file". Thus, it is perplexing to suggest any deference to a sender's wishes, even if those wishes were expressed. If you don't want it on a billboard, don't write it on the Internet. Thus, zero deference to email ''as email'' is necessary; everything in [[WP:OUTING]] exists just fine without any reference to email as a specific medium. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 00:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by Newyorkbrad ===

Reposting or quoting from e-mails intended to be private, without the consent of the author, is at best discourteous and should generally be avoided. One can imagine unusual circumstances that could warrant making an exception; but the mere fact that it's readily possible to forward or copy e-mails does not mean that we should disregard everyone's privacy or disclose their confidential information on a wholesale basis. Significantly, this is a separate issue from copyright.

As for the copyright issue: Under the [[Copyright Act of 1976|copyright statute]] that has been in effect in the United States since 1978 (I can't speak about other countries), copyright generally exists automatically whenever anyone writes something original, whether on paper or electronically; this certainly includes e-mails. (The statutory language: {{tq|Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.}}) When someone quotes from an e-mail without permission, they are implicitly making a [[fair use]] claim, just as if they were quoting from a written letter or a blog or a magazine or a book. I do not recommend that the ArbCom attempt to define the confines of fair use, in this situation or any other. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 21:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

:{{ping|Barkeep49}} If I were writing this principle from scratch, I would focus the wording on the privacy and courtesy issues as well as on copyright, but as a practical matter, I think that if someone believes our policy in this area should be changed, they should raise the proposed change for discussion directly on the relevant policy page, rather than ask the ArbCom to repeal or modify a principle developed in an arbitration case from 17 years ago. (Of course, a courtesy notification of such a discussion to the Committee and those who follow its work would be entirely appropriate.) So the short answer to your question is that I don't think the Committee need either reaffirm or repudiate the principle. As another observation, Wikipedia copyright policy is often more restrictive than what copyright law might require, so saying "let's generally not quote from e-mails on-wiki without permission, partly because of the potential for copyright concerns" is not the same thing as "quoting from e-mails always constitutes a copyright infringement." [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 14:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

:{{ping|Alanscottwalker}} The context for the principle, both in the original ''Durova'' case and in the request for clarification, was direct on-wiki quotation, so that's what I addressed; but you are right that the underlying issue could be framed more broadly. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 17:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

:{{ping|Alanscottwalker}} If the questions you're raising are actually being disputed in practice rather merely in theory, then perhaps the relevant ''policy page'' might warrant discussion or clarification. However, I still don't think any such clarification is best raised in the context of asking the Arbitration Committee, which does not generally set policy, to parse or refine a principle written by a completely different group of arbitrators in a 17-year-old case. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 18:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

:{{ping|Alanscottwalker}} Please note that I was not yet an arbitrator at the time of this case. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 18:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

:{{ping|Barkeep49}} Although I am still unsure of the value of rewriting principles from old decisions, simply deleting the reference to copyrights as is being proposed should not create any risk. As I read the motion, the Committee is not saying that quoting an e-mail on-wiki always violates the author's copyright or never violates the copyright&mdash;both of which would be overbroad and therefore untrue statements&mdash;but is simply not addressing the issue, since there is no need for it to do so. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 17:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

===Alanscottwalker===

There appear to be some unexamined assumptions in what New York Brad writes. The first is where does his idea come from that this is limited to "quotes", when the holding speaks of "content", one can share content without quotes (indeed most Wikipedians do that everyday in our articles). And no its not always CVIO, words still belong to everyone, so a quoted a word or short phrase is not going to be CVIO. Also, his idea of "courtesy" has to be culturally specific and more importantly circumstantial, as there are all kinds of e-mails, and probably only those that explicitly say, 'this is private', ''and'' the author has a reasonable expectation. There are a bunch of situations where the receiver would think the sender has no such reasonable expectation (even if they say its private, depending on the situation and the content). Also "private information", what do you mean, do you mean name address, ph, etc or is it being used ambiguously to mean everything. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 16:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

:So, Brad, are you saying it is limited to quotes or not?

:And generally writing summary is not a CVIO, nor is a word, or limited quotation, right?

:And don't you think your being culturally and circumstantially overbroad with your claimed "courtesy"?

:Finally, are you not being ambiguous when you broadly refer to "private information"?

:All these issues more than suggest the principle needs clarification. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 17:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

:Why won't you answer the questions about your assertions Brad? Being disputed in practice, that is what we are doing now. It seems plain that the committee is still responsible for its words, and if it wrote poorly, overbroadly, and ambiguously, and based on culturally and circumstantially limited unstated assumptions, which appears to be that case from what you have said, it should clarify -- then, perhaps you and othres can actually answer questions about it. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 18:13, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

:Brad, I did not say, you were on the committee. You are the one here supporting the principle but why won't you answer questions about your support, is it because the principle is ambiguous? [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 18:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by Clovermoss ===

I think the premise of prohibiting this on the basis of it being a copyright violation to be a bit odd. I think there's other reasons to be cautious about sharing information from private correspondence but copyright is not what comes to mind. I live in a place where one-party consent is a thing. While that's what ''legally allowed'', if I went around recording every personal conversation I had with someone most people would see that as unnecessarily invasive and ''rude''. I think there needs to be a good reason to share such information without explicit consent. [[User:Clovermoss|<span style="color:darkorchid">Clovermoss</span><span style="color:green">🍀</span>]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 16:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

===Statement by Just Step Sideways===

I was rather surprised to see Durova's name in my watchlist today, seeing as she hasn't edited in a very long time, so curiousity is what brought me to this conversation. Upon reviewing this I have to agree that ArbCom erred here. The committee should not be making rulings in matters of law, and it shouldn't be giving talking points for lame wikilawyering. As Joe states this will have little to no practical effect in practice other than to take away said talking point, our local policies remain in effect in this regard.

2007 was near the end of the "Wild West" era of Wikipedia governance, we hadn't quite nailed down certain boundaries at that time as we have now. This is simply correcting an error from that period and relegating it to the past. [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|^{from this world ..... today}]] 22:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by JPxG ===

I said this in the other section above (''in re'' the mentioning of offwiki fora), but I concur with the people here who have said that the copyright thing is ludicrous. Whatever our policy is on reproducing off-wiki correspondence, the claim that it is ''specifically a copyright violation'' is so asinine as to resemble satire -- there is no other place on the whole of the project where we interpret copyright in this derangedly expansive way. If we are to have a rule forbiding emails to be posted here, that's fine, but the basis for this should be the rule, not some made-up nonsense about copyright law. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contribs/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 03:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by isaacl ===

For convenience, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=1233171573#Statement_by_isaacl_2] for a side-by-side view of the proposed change.

Regarding concerns about the implications of the change, they can be discussed as part of the rationale of the motion, and linked to in the principle. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 16:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by Jehochman ===

My opinion mirrors that of Newyorkbrad, Clovermoss and ToBeFree. The copyright and fair use status of emails is complex. We do not need to go there because if somebody wanted to post a message on Wikipedia, the would do so. The fact that a message is sent by email implies that it should not be redistributed without permission ''in general'', subject to reasonable exceptions in unusual circumstances.

I recommend cleaning up the wording of the decision to say that private correspondence should generally be kept private, and only posted online where there is reasonable justification for doing so. To begin, ask permission of the email author. If permission is not obtained, consider whether posting the email would be rude or harassing. Editors may be sanctioned for posting private correspondence when the effect more about harassment than improving the encyclopedia. To play it safe, forward relevant private correspondence to ArbCom and let them decide whether or not it should be posted publicly.

If an email is itself harassing, malicious, or otherwise seriously unwelcome, then any expectation of privacy goes out the window. Hopefully such circumstances will be rare. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] ^{[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]} 16:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by LessHeard vanU ===

A quick review of [[Wikipedia:Copyright]] does not appear to address anything written (or copied) outside of content space. It seems irrelevant to the issue related to conduct by contributors outside of that space and, I suggest, should be removed. As an aside, I agree that removing any indication of ArbCom determining what falls under Copyright law is a bonus. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 16:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

===Statement by Floq===

{{ping|ToBeFree}} I see [[User:Guerillero|Guerillero]]'s point; the "changed from" text is not really the "changed from" text, it's the "changed to" text, using strikeouts. In this particular case, I suppose everyone knows what is meant, but for the future, you should either say "changed as follows" and then use strikeouts and underlines, or keep the from/to system but remove the strikouts. Or, even better, use Isaacl's formatting, which is probably more familiar to Wikipedians. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 18:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

:Ugh, I dislike not being able to discuss this in a threaded conversation.....

:{{ping|ToBeFree}} I know how strikeout works. Using strikeout alone, without.... just... just nevermind. Ask Guerillero on the mailing list or something. Or don't. I'm bikeshedding, and you're misunderstanding, and interacting with other humans is exhausting sometimes. [[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 22:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by {other-editor} ===

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->

=== Durova: Clerk notes ===

:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''

*

=== Durova: Arbitrator views and discussion ===

*I have mixed feelings about this request. On the one hand, I do agree that claiming "copyright violation" for a private correspondence is a bit excessive. On the other hand, posting private correspondence without consent could potentially be seen as harassment. There will obviously be exceptions (e.g. emails to Jclemens posted above), but in general we probably should not be posting emails on-wiki unless both sender and receiver(s) are okay with it. The Principles also do not necessarily specify that this pertains to emails sent between editors; many people use the "this email is only for the intended recipient" footer and — while I know that it is not necessarily a legally binding statement — those requests should generally be respected. In other words, I think the intent behind those principles is sound, even if we have to potentially strike the unsound rationale that supports it. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 18:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

*:Jclemens, I suppose it is a good thing then that I said and recognised that such statements are not legally binding... [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 23:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

*In general I am wary about rescinding principles (and findings of fact) in a way that is not true for remedies. However, I think this case for rescinding this particular principle - given the way that it remains in use at times - suggests that rescinding it would be appropriate. However, as Primefac notes, it would have to be done in a way that doesn't say "posting entire emails is OK". [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 00:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

*:@[[User:Joe Roe|Joe Roe]] I can't tell if we're saying the same thing or if you're playing a long game here which I want no part of. I am OK with ArbCom saying "We rescind EMAILPOST but as emails are considered PII, they will continue to be oversighted." I am not ok with saying "We rescind EMAILPOST" and then having someone say "well now that EMAILPOST is rescinded on what grounds do people think it's PII; even arbcom doesn't say that". I had thought we were doing the first thing, but now given your reply to me, I worry we're doing the second thing. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 18:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

*:@[[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] I take seriously your assertion ArbCom shouldn't try to be a copyright lawyer. What I can't tell is if you think keeping or repealing this principle is playing copyright lawyer? [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 23:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

*Just because the United States don't have a law to forbid a behavior, it doesn't mean that the behavior is acceptable on Wikipedia. This applies to a lot of "free speech" and also to publishing e-mails that were sent with an obvious expectation of privacy. I'm fine with removing copyright-based explanations of harassment prohibitions, as this isn't about copyright to my understanding. [[User:ToBeFree|&#126; ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 21:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

* The copyright argument is, to my knowledge after reviewing the literature, unsettled and mostly confined to student notes in law reviews. --[[User:Guerillero|Guerillero]] ^{[[User_talk:Guerillero|<span style="color: green;">Parlez Moi</span>]]} 14:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

====Motion: Durova====

{{ivmbox|Principle 2 of [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova]], ''Private correspondence'', is changed from<br>{{tqq|2) In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence) <s>or their lapse into public ___domain</s>, the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki. <s>See Wikipedia:Copyrights.</s>}}<br>to<br>{{tqq|2) In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence), the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki.}}}}

'''Enacted''' - [[User:SilverLocust|SilverLocust]]&nbsp;[[User talk:SilverLocust|💬]] 22:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

:{{ACMajority|active = 11 |recused = 0 |abstain = 0 |motion = yes}}

;Support

:#This is currently the only change I'm willing to make to principle 2. [[User:ToBeFree|&#126; ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 03:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

:#Remove as not really accurate and obsolete at this point in the projects history. I'm open to modifying this further but I'm unsure of what that would be at this time. [[User:Moneytrees|Moneytrees🏝️]][[User talk:Moneytrees|(Talk)]] 23:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

:#The matter of posting private correspondence on Wikipedia is not limited to potential copyright issues, and it seems beneficial to strike wording that suggests that it is the only concern. - [[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh|talk]]) 20:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

:#Per my general comments and NYB's clarification of support for this motion. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 17:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

:#[[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 19:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

:# [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 22:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

:# I've always found the copyright argument cheesy. There is some reasonable expectation of privacy for private correspondence, but the key word is "reasonable". [[User:Maxim|Maxim]] ([[User talk:Maxim|talk]]) 14:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

:# The change is good, the format of this motion continues to make my eyes bleed. --[[User:Guerillero|Guerillero]] ^{[[User_talk:Guerillero|<span style="color: green;">Parlez Moi</span>]]} 18:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

;Oppose

::<s>I think I'm still willing to do something here, but NYB has given me pause. I am unsure, per my comments above, if this makes it clear enough that there is no change to the status quo around posting emails but I do appreciate the simplicity and elegance of the proposed change. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 04:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)</s>

;Abstain

::<s>NYB's caution and guidenace here is really giving me pause, but the points in favor of not just letting this stand still resonate. So I am not quite at oppose, but I'm not ready to support so I will instead abstain. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 16:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)</s>

;Arbitrator discussion

* Can we not do the weird psudo diff thing with strikeouts? It makes motions harder to understand --[[User:Guerillero|Guerillero]] ^{[[User_talk:Guerillero|<span style="color: green;">Parlez Moi</span>]]} 14:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

*:I'm not sure if I understand the concern. Would removing the strikethrough formatting already solve the problem? [[User:ToBeFree|&#126; ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 14:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

*::{{u|Floquenbeam}}, the only difference between MediaWiki's diff view and the strikethrough formatting is the formatting. Both display the old text on one side, marking which part of it is gone in the new version. Using strikethrough formatting instead of colored highlighting on the green text on the yellow box is preferable to me prsonally. [[User:ToBeFree|&#126; ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 22:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

*I did want to note that I'm not ignoring this, I just want to take more time to read through the history of all of this (which goes pretty far back). - [[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh|talk]]) 05:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

{{Archive bottom}}

== Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads ==

:'''''[[Special:Permalink/1234177396#Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads|Original discussion]]'''''

{{atop|There is a rough consensus among participating Committee members that while links to off-wiki threads are not automatically prohibited, it is the responsibility of the linking editor to ensure that doing so does not violate the harassment policy as violations may result in [[WP:OS|suppression]] and sanctions. It was emphasised by members that the Community should decide where the threshold of acceptability is. Further discussion on whether quoting private correspondence is a copyright violation is continued [[Special:Permalink/1233984605#Amendment request: Durova|below]]. [[User:Sdrqaz|Sdrqaz]] ([[User talk:Sdrqaz|talk]]) 00:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)}}

'''Initiated by''' [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] '''at''' 22:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''

*{{userlinks|Just Step Sideways}} (initiator)

=== Statement by Just Step Sideways ===

Two recent situations have revealed what appears to be some vagueness regarding when and if users should email private evidence to the committee, the utility of doing so when it concerns a curent on-wiki, but non-ArbCom discussion, and also if merely saying that a thread exists is not permitted.

<small>(I seem to recall that there is a case somewhere where the committee discussed very similar issues, but I've been unable to locate it in the archives.)</small>

:*In one case a user posted nothing more than the name of a very long thread at an off-wiki criticism site (they actually didn't even spell it the same as the actual thread title). It turned out that within this off-wiki thread, if one dug through it long enough, there was a link to a different thread where the very user who had made the on-wiki post was outed. This resulted in a very large number of diffs on a busy page being supressed, even though there was no direct link to any outing.

:*In an ongoing RFA, some users are opposing based on what could only be described as completely harmless posts on that same forum. The recent supression action would seem to indicate that even posting the name of the thread on-wiki would lead to further supression, which is obviously to be avoided. One of these users has stated that they contacted the committee before posting, but it is unclear what this was meant to accomplish or what the committee may or may not have said back to them, if anything.

:*I considered reproducing some or all of the RFA candidates posts on-wiki to demonstrate the point that they are comletely unproblematic unto themselves, but given the events described above I don't know if that would also lead to supression actions.

I feel like this has the potantial to create a [[chilling effect]] where users will be afraid to post anything at all on off-wiki criticism sites, no matter how innocuous their posts are the topic being discussed may be, and that even mentioning the name of a thread on such a site is now forbidden, which seems a bit extreme to me.

I understand and agree that directly posting a link on-wiki to a specific post that contains outing is a clear violation of the outing policy. It is less clear to me that posting merely the name of an extremely long thread with no actual link to the thread at all is a violation. I would therefore ask that the committee clarify where the line is.

I've deliberately not named the individuals involved in these incidents as this is matter of interpretation of policy, specifically [[Wikipedia:Oversight]]. I can email more detailed information if needed but I imagine it should be fairly easy for you all to determine what I'm referring to. [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|^{from this world ..... today}]] 22:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

:Thanks Barkeep, I'm not sure what I've got wrong, because I had to kind of piece together what actually happened as the material was supressed. I was pretty sure I'd got it right but guesswork is risky that way. [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|^{from this world ..... today}]] 23:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

::Eek, I guess it comes as no surprise that we don't see eye-to-eye on this, but {{tq|there is never a situation that calls for linking to or discussing a Wikipediocracy thread.}} seems a bit extreme to me. Do I agree with everything that is said and done over there? No, but I could say the same about here. There are several ongoing threads over there that contain valid and insightful criticism of Wikipedia content and policy. I have personally taken multiple actions here that have improved the project, that I likely wouldn't have done had I not read the criticism over there. I'd tell you which ones but right now it is unclear to me if I'm even allowed to say. Dispairaiging remarks like {{tq|No need to point people to WPO to hear ten blocked trolls give their opinions on it.}} aren't helpful. I seem to recall you saying at some point that you have never actually read anything over there, so it's hard to understand how you formed your opinions. [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|^{from this world ..... today}]] 17:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

:::I do agree there are aspects of this that are outside of the committee's remit, but one thing that is for sure inside of it is the question of "emailing the evidence to the committee." If there is evidence over there that, say, an admin is blocking users for invalid reasons at the urging of others over there, and going back to laugh about it with them, that would obviously be an issue for the committee. That isn't what we just saw at RFA. I feel like "I told ArbCom" was in this case meant as a shield, to allow the user to say they had infomred the proper authorities of the supposed wrongdoing, when the wrongdoing amounted to "they have an account and have made a very small number of completely non-objectionable posts." What was emailing the committee meant to accomplish? What, if anything, did it accomplish? What, if any, was the committee's reply? [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|^{from this world ..... today}]] 20:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

::::I don't know how many times I need to explain that [[collective guilt]] is generally believed to be a bad thing. Let's just reverse this scenario: If I comment on an ArbCom case, and later the committee makes a profoundly stupid decision, is that my fault? Obviosuly not. Am I obligated to explicitly call it out and distance myself from it even though I had nothing to do with it? Of course not. Ignoring it as having nothing to do with me is a valid option. WPO is no more a monolith hive mind that WP is, opinions differ on a wide variety of topics. [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|^{from this world ..... today}]] 20:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

:::::Well, we're certainly seeing new levels of crazy here, calling people "traitors" for posting there and saying {{tq|Editors need to make a choice between their loyalty to Wikipedia and its editors versus their social life elsewhere.}} is pretty wild. You can't be critical of Wikipedia content or contributors or you're a traitor, choose a side. [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|^{from this world ..... today}]] 17:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by Tryptofish ===

I think it would be very interesting to hear ArbCom opinions on this question. In part, this issue comes up in the context of the 2024 RfA reform discussions heading in the direction of wanting accusations of wrongdoing against RfA candidates to be backed up with specific evidence, and the question comes up of how to provide specific evidence when it cannot be posted onsite. Does ArbCom want editors to submit such evidence about RfA candidates to ArbCom, and if so, can ArbCom respond to the evidence in a way that is sufficiently timely to be useful for RfA? --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 22:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

:There have been a lot of subtopics within the discussion here, but something I hope ArbCom members will come back to is about the applicability of this to situations where the issue comes up during an RfA. Perhaps in some future RfA, an Esotrix-type issue will be raised (but without ArbCom having been alerted to it prior to the RfA), and editors will want to know if the editor making the accusation should present the evidence privately to ArbCom. Obviously, such evidence cannot be published on the RfA page, and the community is currently doing a lot of discussion about when it might be disruptive to make accusations about RfA candidates without sufficient evidence. So I'd be interested in any opinions about:

:#Does ArbCom want such evidence pertaining to an RfA sent to ArbCom?

:#If so, can ArbCom deal with the evidence and post a public response quickly enough to fit within the RfA timeframe?

:#And if not, does ArbCom want to point the community towards some other way of processing such accusations?

:--[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 01:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by Floq ===

I have lots of thoughts, but they boil down to: we will not link to (or obliquely mention) any thread with outing/doxxing; consider whether it is accessible to the public so it can be verified; and consider whether the WP user has linked themselves to the off-wiki account. If any of the 3 tests fail, then you can't bring it up at RFA (or anywhere else at WP). Sorry, the world is imperfect. Based on this, you would very often be able to discuss a Discord discussion, and very often not be able to discuss a WO discussion, but with exceptions in both cases. It seems like further details on this aren't useful until and unless I become God Emperor of WP, and can just implement it, but I can expand if someone wants. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 23:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by Vanamonde ===

I see this as a matter for the community, rather than ARBCOM. To me the heart of the matter is if, and how, we can discuss Wikipedia editors' off-wiki activities. ARBCOM has a role to play when off-wiki conduct impinges on on-wiki matters enough; typically, for harassment, collusion, or other disruption of our core purpose. The off-wiki conduct that has become a matter of discussion at RFA is very different: it isn't a violation of any of our PAGs, it is just behavior some editors find objectionable in an RFA candidate. We treat the off-wiki lives of our editors as private, and rightfully so. Discord and WPO are weird, in that they are strictly off-wiki fora populated by a large number of Wikipedians in good standing. I don't think it's an unreasonable position to take that behavior there shouldn't be immune to on-wiki scrutiny if it becomes relevant to on-wiki matters; I also don't think it's unreasonable to say that what happens off-wiki should stay there until and unless our PAGs are being violated, and then it needs to go to ARBCOM. But that's an area in which current policy seems to not cover all the contingencies, and the community needs to grapple with that. I don't see how a comment like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1227211772&diff=1227216483 this] is useful to send to ARBCOM, or what ARBCOM could do if it was; but we're clearly unsettled as a community that it was posted, and we need to figure out guidelines for it. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 01:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by Joe Roe ===

I agree that some clarification from the committee on these matters would be helpful. This isn't entirely up to them—for example, the ban on discussing Discord discussions is the result of [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_169#Discord_logs|a community RfC]] and it would be inappropriate to modify it either way here—but ArbCom has historically played a role in making editors feel generally uncomfortable about linking to things off-wiki. More specifically, a [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova#Private_correspondence|2007 remedy]] pronouncing that quoting private correspondence is a copyright violation is still on the books and still cited in [[WP:EMAILPOST]]. Does the current committee agree with this interpretation?

In addition, ArbCom has a responsibility to regulate the oversight team, and I've had a feeling for a long time now that they been enforce an extremely broad understanding of what constitutes "outing" that is not necessarily reflective of broader community opinion. Some direction there could also be very helpful: OS is used as "tool of first resort", or so the mantra goes, but we shouldn't underestimate how chilling it is to have an edit suppressed. &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 08:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

*{{u|Aoidh}} makes a good point below about current policy ([[WP:OUTING]]) requiring disclosure of personal information on Wikipedia before it can be discussed. There are two pivot points there: where the disclosure should happen, but also whether {{tq|profiles on external sites}}, and by extension posts associated with those profiles, can reasonably be considered "personal information". For me it's the latter that is the problem here; the former is a good rule when applied to genuine ''personal information''. Interestingly, it's also a relatively recent addition to the harassment policy,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Harassment&diff=prev&oldid=997267562][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Harassment&diff=prev&oldid=1200630754] following [[Wikipedia_talk:Harassment/Archive_21#Outing_and_external_accounts|this discussion in December 2020]]. The reason given for the addition was to bring the policy in line with the practice of oversighters, which rather speaks to my point of the OS team pushing things in a more conservative direction, not necessarily the community as a whole. &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 06:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

*{{ping|Moneytrees|Barkeep49}} The "copyright email" correspondence is cited in [[WP:EMAILPOST]], albeit in a roundabout way. I think it would be helpful for the committee to formally retract that remedy, even if it won't change things immediately, just to remove the spectre of that particular armchair lawyer from subsequent discussions. As Barkeep also alludes to, a lot of the appearance of support for these rules comes not from people really reflecting on the core issue, but transferring a (faulty) logic originally applied to emails to IRC, and then from IRC to Discord, and so on. If the sender of an email wants to control what happens to it, they can do so completely: by not sending it. If the operator of a Discord channel wants to control what happens to the logs, they can do so completely: by not making them public. But what we're talking about here is material that has ''already been published on the internet''. It is not private and never will be again. All we achieve by trying to put the cat back in the bag is to create a charade where we have to pretend not to be able to see messages that we can all see, not to know things that we all know, and not to talk about things that we can all talk about elsewhere. Nobody's privacy is protected, it just makes it easier for editors who behave badly off-wiki to evade accountability, and makes good-faith editors look like idiots because they're not allowed to provide evidence for the opinions they've formed based on off-wiki activity.

*{{ping|CaptainEek}} What is ArbCom supposed to do with it, though? The precipitating incident here is an RfA where there was opposition based on the candidates activity on Discord and Wikipediocracy (so no it's not just about WPO). The opposers (including me) could not point to specific incidents, because of the rules discussed here which, at least in part, stem from a prior ArbCom remedy on from the practice of the oversight team. How would emailing ArbCom help there? And in general, what role is ArbCom supposed to play when the off-wiki material that people want to discuss is relevant to on-wiki activities, but doesn't rise to the level of something needing ArbCom intervention?

*And to nobody in particular, I do think it would aid transparency if committee members who are active on the off-wiki forums we're discussing here disclose it when voting or offering an opinion. &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 07:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by Ferret ===

I'd like an opinion on this as well, not necessarily just for RFA. Specific to [[WP:Discord]], I !voted in the Discord RFC to restrict copying and linking Discord messages. I did so based on my reading of OUTING, HARASSMENT, and the community expectations of IRC logs, rather than strictly what I'd prefer. That consideration included what Joe references about the copyright concern of "private" messages, which seems to be part of the long standing rationale around IRC messages. I've also seen several times people suggest that OUTING goes as far as covering someone outing themselves on another Wikimedia project (i.e. a user page on eswiki), meaning that's not good enough to mention here on English Wikipedia. Prior to SUL, that may well have been, but SUL is long done. So what I'm really driving at is: Where is the line on identifying yourself sufficiently to be mentioned on site? Particular to the Discord, we have OAuth integration through an open source bot hosted on WMF resources. Is this enough to count as self-disclosure? Or does the connection to Discord have to be on-site (i.e. a userbox or otherwise)? Revisiting the Discord RFC is on the community, but some of these questions, such as EMAILPOST and how OS will act, are at least partially under Arbcom as Joe notes. -- [[User:Ferret|ferret]] ([[User_talk:Ferret|talk]]) 13:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

:@[[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] Thanks. I have heard this said (Re: disclosure on other Wikimedia projects) repeatedly, but I did not know where it might actually be stated. -- [[User:Ferret|ferret]] ([[User_talk:Ferret|talk]]) 19:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by Thryduulf ===

Regarding Ferret's comments regarding disclosures on other SUL wikis. I have a vague recollection that this was discussed previously, but I don't remember where. I don't think a single hard and fast rule can be applied to that, but it's a matter of how reasonable it is to expect en.wp editors to be aware of the disclosure. For example if you make a disclosure on another wiki and you prominently link to that page from your userpage here, that should count as disclosing it here. If you disclose something on your e.g. eswiki userpage and make it clear on your userpage here that you contribute to eswiki, then again it's reasonable to take that as having been disclosed to the English Wikipedia. However, if you state something on the e.g. Russian wikisource's equivalent of [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style]], and don't link to that page here, then it has not been disclosed to the English Wikipedia. Obviously there will be many things in between the extremes that can only be decided on a case-by-case basis. However, unless you are sure it has been intentionally or obviously disclosed somewhere it is reasonable to expect English Wikipedia editors to be aware of, then assume it has not been disclosed. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 18:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

:@[[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] so basically what I said just more clearly and a lot more concisely! [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 19:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Joe Roe}} there are two issues with connecting accounts elsewhere. The first is ensuring that connections are actually correct, i.e. User X here is the same person as user X elsewhere - even sharing relatively unusual names like Thryduulf is not a guarantee (I remember finding a user Thryduulf that was nothing to do with me a few years ago, [[user:Thrydwulf]] is nothing to do with me). The second issue is that editors have a reasonable expectation of privacy and are allowed to choose to disclose things in other communities that they do not want to disclose here. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 09:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Lightburst}} Oversight did not ignore you. [[user:Primefac|Primefac]] replied to you (Arbs and OSers it was ticket #2024060810000607) explaining that they saw no outing issues and thus nothing for the OS team to do because the editor concerned has made an on-wiki connection between WO and WP. Based on what you've written here it seems that the reason for your request was misunderstood, but you should have replied noting that. As far as the oversight team was aware you were OK with the outcome. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 18:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by hako ===

{{tq|I think the community wants to have pretty firm protections against doxxing}} I'd like the committee to make an explicit distinction between persons involved in the act of doxxing (or say vote canvassing or any other misconduct) on third-party sites, and persons who participate on those sites but are not abettors. It's futile to overreach and police what editors do and say outside wikipedia. Hypothetically speaking, I can say whatever I want on any third party site with a fictitious name, without any possibility of repercussion on my activity on wikipedia. Arbcom should act exclusively on cases where they find evidence of misconduct by an editor off-wiki without attaching any vicarious liability to other participants on that off-wiki platform. — [[User:Hako9|hako9]] ([[User talk:Hako9|talk]]) 19:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@{{no ping|Levivich}} {{tq|JSS/Beebs, you posted in that same thread over there six times since that post was made, and not a single word about this very open threat.}} What is JSS supposed to do? Chide Vigilant aggressively so that they stop doxxing? As if that would work? The doxxing is going to happen whether editors here participate there or not. — [[User:Hako9|hako9]] ([[User talk:Hako9|talk]]) 23:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by Jclemens ===

{{U|CaptainEek}} Statements like {{tq|there is never a situation that calls for linking to or discussing a Wikipediocracy thread}} are problematic. Are you suggesting that if I were to discuss my resignation of the tools in late 2013, a Wikipediocracy post--that persists to this day in somewhat redacted form--doxxing me and listing my employer's name and phone number and my home address and phone number (that were redacted so quickly by WPO leadership I couldn't confirm their accuracy) and several other identifying bits of information would be off limits for me to bring up to discuss the circumstances of my tools resignation? I'd like to think that, as the person doxxed, it is my prerogative to mention, discuss, or even link to such a thread, and the clear sense of [[WP:OUTING]] is that such linkage would be permitted if done by me. (For the record, none of the information is particularly threatening to me 10 1/2 years later. Those overly interested can Google my current employer and discover why.) [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 18:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

:{{tq|One of the first things I did after learning about it was searching my own name on there; boy was that a bad decision.}} CaptainEek, you highlight one of the ongoing negatives of Wikipediocracy: regulars there have a love/hate, but mostly hate, relationship with Wikipedia administrators that can have a demoralizing effect on Wikipedia editors. While I would also not recommend any admin or outspoken user search the site for their username, once having done so, it can be instructive to see how particular actions are discussed. In at least one case, only after being pointed to Wikipediocracy and reading the relevant thread did I understand the opposition to a stance I took. So while linking to criticism of another editor may well remain off limits, each mentioned editor should be made aware of the potential to review critics' unfiltered thoughts at the site. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 23:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by Levivich ===

A couple of days ago on WPO, Vigilant, the WPO user who most often doxes Wikipedia editors and openly threatens to continue doing so, wrote, in response to Eek's comments here, "Sounds like Eek needs an exposé" (link omitted). JSS/Beebs, you posted in that same thread over there six times since that post was made, and not a single word about this very open threat. Here, your third post is "Dispairaiging remarks like 'No need to point people to WPO to hear ten blocked trolls give their opinions on it.' aren't helpful." That's pretty bad: you take the time to criticize someone for criticizing WPO, but you don't criticize WPO for threatening to 'expose' editors.

(Also, Beebs, give up the "but they read it!" line of argument. ''Of course'' people who criticize WPO read it. Just like people on WPO read Wikipedia even though they criticize Wikipedia. This is not the "gotcha" that you seem to think it is: if people didn't criticize things they read, or didn't read the things they criticize, there would no criticism at all. Perhaps that's what you want?)

So w/r/t JSS's comment in the OP that "this has the potential to create a chilling effect where users will be afraid to post anything at all on off-wiki criticism sites," that chilling effect is good and we want that. Just like WPO is trying to create a chilling effect on Wikipedia by threatening to dox editors they disagree with, Wikipedia ''should'' create a chilling effect, or a taboo, about participating in off-wiki websites that dox editors, ''even if'' those websites refer to themselves as "criticism sites." There are other reasons not to have a blanket prohibition on linking or referring to another website (one of those reasons is so we can call people out for their <s>wikipediocracy</s> hypocrisy, as I am doing here), but "chilling effect" ain't it. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 19:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by JPxG ===

While I think the idea of prohibiting mention of the ignominious badsites and offsites was done with the best of intentions, it seems to very obviously and directly facilitate and enable any manner of bad behavior. In general, the way it ends up working in practice is something like:

* There is some RfC onwiki about whatever subject.

* Somebody (whether an editor here or not) makes a thread on WPO called "Giant Morons Trying To Ruin Everything By Voting For Option 2".

* Nobody can bring up the existence of this thread, because it is an unmentionable badsite.

* For some mysterious reason that nobody could possibly fathom, the RfC has 500% more participation than usual, and is uncharacteristically nasty.

* We all have to just sit there and grit our teeth at this skulduggery.

Here is another example:

* Someone on WPO makes a thread gratuitously insulting a Wikipedia user, in which all sorts of unbelievably nasty things are said about them, possibly under their real name.

* Nobody can mention or link to this thread, because it is an unmentionable badsite.

* Someone says: "Uh, well, nobody has any evidence that WPO ever did anything wrong, you know it's just a myth".

* We all have to just sit there and grit our teeth at this skulduggery.

Another:

* Somebody signs up for a WPO account to respond to a thread about them, or to correct a misunderstanding, or something along these lines, and their posts are 100% anodyne and unobjectionable.

* Nobody can link to the posts, or mention what they actually said, because it is an unmentionable badsite.

* Someone says: "Uh, well, I could NEVER trust someone who hangs out on WPO, you know they dox people there".

* We all have to just sit there and grit our teeth at this skulduggery.

Whatever the reasoning was behind this ''omerta'' stuff, it seems in practice to have almost entirely bad implications -- it certainly doesn't stop people from going to WPO and doing whatever they want (trash-talking other editors, getting out the vote for RfCs/AfDs/etc, weird mafioso larping) -- the only thing it actually stops is us talking about it or doing something about it.

Contrariwise, this isn't even much of a benefit for WPO -- people onwiki are also completely free to just say stuff with no evidence because "well I can't link to it or tell anybody what it is". <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contribs/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 03:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

:I am not sure if there's any way for me to mention this site and avoid the inevitable dual-front pissing and moaning where somebody on here accuses me of being pro-WPO and threatens to drag me to whatever, while simultaneously somebody on WPO accuses me of being anti-WPO while posting a thread under my real name in the public section of the forum and also claims that it's not doxing because if you spend a half-hour digging through my contributions you can see that my username was originally my real name -- well, whatever man, can I at least get a T-shirt? <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contribs/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 03:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

:While we are on the subject, the idea that single-sentence quotations of offsite communications need to be removed ''as copyright violations'' is just completely false as far as I can tell -- there is literally no other part of Wikipedia where we make the ridiculous claim that quoting with attribution one sentence from a published work is a copyvio. It's one thing if we want to have a rule against it, but it would be better to do so without unnecessarily lying about how copyright law works, and if we actually do this in policy anywhere it should really be fixed for the sake of avoiding embarrassment. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contribs/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 03:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

::{{ping|Barkeep49}} If it's possible to clarify that we ''are'' allowed to discuss offsite happenings, I think this would be a big improvement. Currently, if I link to a Wikipediocracy thread, I do so by ignoring what people have told me the rules are; the examples I give are meant as a rejoinder to "there is never a situation that calls for linking to or discussing a Wikipediocracy thread".

::{{ping|Just Step Sideways}} I think this thing about "collective punishment" doesn't make a whole lot of sense -- I agree that it would be dumb to block somebody simply because they hang out on the daily with a strange stalker online, and you clearly do not exert control over the dox guy. At the same time, though, isn't it kind of straightforward why people would dislike when you show up to a thread on WPO where someone is being harassed, and then make posts in the thread to say negative things about them? <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contribs/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 04:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

::{{ping|Lightburst}} So your preference is, when a discussion is canvassed from an external site, that we are forbidden to mention or acknowledge it? <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contribs/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 17:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by Valjean ===

As the victim of doxxing (and threats of same) and nasty, uncivil, and snide criticism on the named off-wiki website by at least one admin (who should lose their tools) and a few fringe(*) editors here, the comment by {{ping|Just Step Sideways}} is very ironic. (* "Fringe" is defined as editors who get their POV from unreliable sources and [[Wikipedia:Tendentious editing|edit and discuss accordingly]] here.) Just Step Sideways writes:

: "I feel like this has the potantial to create a [[chilling effect]] where users will be afraid to post anything at all on off-wiki criticism sites,.."

Whatever happened to the matter of far more importance to Wikipedia, and that is the '''chilling effect HERE''' created by those nasty off-wiki comments from other editors who should be considered good-faith colleagues here? How can one edit and discuss around such editors and ever feel safe again? The [[Wikipedia:Harassment|"enjoyment of editing"]] here is totally undermined by them. Trust has been violated. The chilling effect is enormous and constant, and one lives under a cloud of pressure from their illicit and bad faith stalking and harassment. I know this will immediately be reported there by traitors from here, but it needs to be said.

Editors need to be protected, and their enjoyment of editing here should not be threatened by uncollegial criticism, snide comments, and threats of doxxing elsewhere. It invites even worse behavior from bad actors who may not even be editors here. It's a dog whistle. Editors need to make a choice between their loyalty to Wikipedia and its editors versus their social life elsewhere. Keep a wall between them. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|<span style="color:#0bf">PING me</span>]]''''') 20:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to {{ping|Levivich}}, {{ping|Vanamonde93}}, and {{ping|JPxG}} for your insights. You seem to understand the problem. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|<span style="color:#0bf">PING me</span>]]''''') 20:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by Carrite ===

Puzzling that Beebs would feel the need to poke a stick into a beehive. This is not an Arb matter, if anything it is a community matter, and it's really not that. Criticism websites have existed almost as long as there has been a Wikipedia and over these 15+ years, people have a pretty good implied understanding of what is in and what is out. Mentions are one thing, links maybe another. In any event, it strikes me as dumb to overgeneralize about a message board as it is to overgeneralize about Wikipedia — projecting its worst foibles as in some way representative of the whole. This is clearly a No Action sort of request, methinks, and good for that. For those of you who demonize WPO, pop over and have a beer with us sometime, we don't bite very hard. —tim /// [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 23:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

* @{{u|Jclemens}} - >>''While I would also not recommend any admin or outspoken user search the site for their username, once having done so, it can be instructive to see how particular actions are discussed. In at least one case, only after being pointed to Wikipediocracy and reading the relevant thread did I understand the opposition to a stance I took. So while linking to criticism of another editor may well remain off limits, each mentioned editor should be made aware of the potential to review critics' unfiltered thoughts at the site.'' — This pretty much gets to the heart of things. It's a criticism site, by definition. If one is above criticism or if one never makes mistakes or if one believes that Wikipedia is flawless and problemless — back off, stay away, there is nothing to see because you have nothing to learn. If you want to partake of slightly-filtered criticism, to have issues raised in an aggressive manner under a spotlight, venture forth if you desire. At its best, WPO is to Wikipedia as ''Sixty Minutes'' is to government agencies. The mission is not "to out and harass." [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 23:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

* @{{u|Levivich}} - Do not necessarily conclude that the lack of publicly-viewable criticism of a WPO poster's material means there is nothing happening backstage. WPO has a Direct Messages system and there are behavioral requests made there periodically which will never show up in a thread. Don't make the mistake of calling out inaction until you know there was actually no action. [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 00:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

* @{{u|JPxG}} - See you soon. ;-) [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 00:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by Mangoe ===

We rejected this back in 2007. Could we please stop trying to sneak it back in? [[User:Mangoe|Mangoe]] ([[User talk:Mangoe|talk]]) 00:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by Lightburst ===

Recently an administrator in an AfD [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FBarron_Trump_%283rd_nomination%29&diff=1227690240&oldid=1227685466 linked to WPO] as an argument for their !vote in AfD. I notified the administrator who posted this link that there are personal attacks about me in the thread. The admin ignored my concern. I notified arbcom multiple times and they ignored me. I notified oversight and they ignored me. So it appears to me that we are selective in who we protect here on the project. Me, not so much, the RFA candidate? Yes. I am especially disappointed in Barkeep49 and the arbcom crew for their complete lack of attention to this issue. When it is against policy to use PAs but it is ok to link to an outside site that allows PAs we have a reason to be concerned. {{pb}}The AfD was clearly canvassed at WPO and editors came to Wikipedia en-masse to ignore our guidelines and policies so they could remove the article. That canvassing is a separate issue but certainly tied to the same issue. Listen it is creepy having this anti-wikipedia site linked to us like a sister project. It is even creepier that some admins are enthusiastic supporters and participants at WPO. [[User:Lightburst|Lightburst]] ([[User talk:Lightburst|talk]]) 15:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

:{{ping|JPxG}} Are there other ways to report or deal with canvassing? I am likely in the minority based on the inaction of all. It seems this discussion is about linking to off-wiki, and the collective yawn from those in positions of power might give you your answer. [[User:Lightburst|Lightburst]] ([[User talk:Lightburst|talk]]) 18:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

::{{ping|Thryduulf}} Thanks for the message. I see a few messages in my junk mail. After reading them, the fact remains: all concerned did nothing to remove the link. The link to off-wiki PAs is still there in the AfD. This seems like a work around for leveling PAs, i.e. join WPO, disparage a Wikipedia editor and then link to it on Wikipedia. I am definitely not OK with linking to off-wiki sites like WPO. [[User:Lightburst|Lightburst]] ([[User talk:Lightburst|talk]]) 19:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by isaacl ===

Regarding copyright of email: as I've [[User:Isaacl/Community#On copyright for editor messages|discussed previously]], the real issue is privacy, and not copyright. Copyright doesn't prevent paraphrasing, and is about protecting the author's rights to profit from their work. What the Wikipedia community can do to try to enforce expectations of privacy in email (either implicit or explicit) is limited. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 21:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by Darkfrog24 ===

The state of things is that Wikipedia is an important website, and over the decades it's become a ''serious'' website. People may want to act and speak differently here than they do in less formal settings like Discord. The dress code at the office need not apply to the sidewalk. It can also be a frustrating website, and adopting a general policy of "Do what you like but don't do it here. Oh, you're already not doing it here? Okay we're good then" is probably the healthy response. We do have some precedent for sanctioning people for off-wiki actions, such as [[WP:MEATPUPPET]], deliberately recruiting participants to affect on-Wiki events. But they've been pretty limited and pretty strictly defined. So while possibly sanctioning someone who harasses another Wikipedian for reasons directly related to Wikipedia might be appropriate, I've been very glad of WP:OUTING's strict take over the years.

Here I was saying to myself, "I can't think of any good reason someone would link to an off-Wiki thread that includes outing," and then JPxG gives us three. I still favor the strict protection of WP:OUTING, but now I know where the tradeoff is. This is a balance we strike and not a freebie that costs us nothing. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24|talk]]) 19:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by {other-editor} ===

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->

=== mentioning the name of off-wiki threads: Clerk notes ===

:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''

*

=== mentioning the name of off-wiki threads: Arbitrator views and discussion ===

*Thanks for raising this issue JSS. As the OS who did the noticeboard suppression which named a thread, your facts aren't quite right there, but I don't think that takes away from the larger point you're raising. And it's one I admit to some discomfort with in an RfA context. As it stands I think the community wants to have pretty firm protections against doxxing. I also think the community would care about certain off-wiki activities. For instance, if User:Foo had lost Stewardship due to abuse on Miraheze/WikiTide there would be no cause for any action here, but I think the community would want to consider that information before passing someone at RfA. So don't have any answers (yet) but wanted to acknowledge some thoughts I had as I wait to see what other editors and arbs say. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 23:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

*:@[[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] the wording about other projects is found in [[Wikipedia:Harassment#cite_note-note-1|note 1]] of the harassment policy. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 18:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

*:{{re|JPxG}} your 3 situations confuse me. At the moment I'm not aware of anyone taking administrative action against scenario 1. Am I wrong here? For situation 2, it feels like whether or not {{tq|"possibly under their real name"}} happens will matter a huge amount. If there's not a real name, I'm not aware of practice/procedure to suggestion action against (as with scenario 1). If there is a real name that has not been revealed under policy, it would seem to be eligible for oversighting. Are you suggesting that WPO be exempt from Oversighting in this scenario? And I don't understand what you're suggesting is the real impact of scenario 3. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 19:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

*::JPxG, thanks that's helpful in explaining things. No arb - not even CaptainEek who has spoken out the most strongly against WPO - is saying you can't ''ever'' link (let along mention) WPO and we both know [[WP:BADSITES]] is a failed proposal. However, if a link reasonably serves to [[WP:HARASS|harass]] someone the link would be inappropriate and writing a comment that includes such a link could be a conduct issue (depending on other factors). If the link reasonably serves to [[WP:OUTING|doxx]] someone (which is one form of harassment), it would make the comment with the link eligible for [[WP:OVERSIGHT|overisghting]]. The odds are higher that a link to WPO is a form of harassment than a link to say reddit (as another forum based community), but even that doesn't mean linking to most threads at WPO would be harassment. Most threads at WPO not having harassment also doesn't mean that a link couldn't have been harmless when posted, but turns into harassment (though no fault of the person posting) after the fact because there is subsequently outing that could reasonably be found by clicking on the link. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 14:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

*I want to take more time to look into this so I can make a more informed opinion, but wanted to note that I am paying close attention to this and appreciate the statements given so far. I think it's important to note that the current wording of [[WP:OUTING]] requires self-disclosure ''on Wikipedia'' in order for the disclosure of off-wiki profiles to not constitute outing, and I think it's important to view these issues through that lens unless and until that policy is amended. - [[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh|talk]]) 22:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

**I do think this is something that the community as a whole needs to address, as these effect fundamental policies. If there are aspects that only ArbCom can address then we should do so, but the broad discussion is something the community should shape and change as needed. {{Reply|Just Step Sideways}} emailing ArbCom and saying that you did so on Wikipedia should not in and of itself carry any weight whatsoever, and doing this should not protect that editor from the consequences of their actions on Wikipedia or negate their responsibilities as an editor ([[WP:CIVILITY]], [[WP:OUTING]], etc.). {{Reply to|Joe Roe}} there is a userbox disclosing the fact that I am on the Wikimedia Community Discord server. I am also on a few English Wikipedia-related IRC channels. Outside of that, I do not and to the best of my knowledge have never posted on any Wikipedia-focused off-wiki forum or made any comments about Wikipedia on any off-wiki forum. - [[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh|talk]]) 22:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

*I have a lot of thoughts about this but might take some time to make them digestible. One thing though, I agree with you @[[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] that the "copyright" justification for not posting emails is pretty dubious, at least in a modern Wikipedia context, and I know at least one other Arb felt a similar way last year. That said, I think it's reasonable to prohibit the posting of emails (or at least discourage it), and [[WP:EMAILPOST]] doesn't actually cite the "copyright" portion of the remedy~-- so I'm not actually sure if it's something that needs to be amended? [[User:Moneytrees|Moneytrees🏝️]][[User talk:Moneytrees|(Talk)]] 23:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

*:I'm not sure if I'm the arb mentioned (could be!), but there was a reason in the Discord RfC mentioned above that I said it and IRC should be treated equally. I think there's a fairly reasonable case that channel/server operators should be able to decide if logs can be posted onwiki or not and for that decision to be respected onwiki. Further the copyright justification (as opposed to just straight up "Wikipedians are concerned about privacy and this is one way we choose to protect it) for OS'ing off-wiki stuff has always felt weak to me. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 00:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

*I see a lot of beating around the bush here, but it seems clear that the real issue here is Wikipediocracy. I do not recommend participation in WPO even as a "good guy" (the [[Wiktionary:wrestle_with_a_pig|classic adage about wrestling with pigs]] applies). It has gotten more people into more drama than highschool theatre.{{pb}}With that said, there are two possible situations involving off-wiki content: 1) the content relies entirely on on-wiki evidence, but collates/comments on/brings to light the issue; or 2) the content relies on off-wiki/private evidence. In case of situation 1, if the underlying diffs could be posted on wiki without say outing someone, then just post the underlying diffs. No need to point people to WPO to hear ten blocked trolls give their opinions on it. Its not that you're forbidden from discussing the nonsense at WPO, but its not recommended and can in fact be avoided. In the case of situation 2, you shouldn't be posting that on-wiki, because you're linking to content that wouldn't be okay on-wiki, like doxxing. Alluding to it is not an improvement in my book, because then you're just casting aspersions. Instead, it should get emailed to ArbCom, who can take action as necessary. The moral is that there is never a situation that calls for linking to or discussing a Wikipediocracy thread. [[User:CaptainEek|<b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b>]] ^{[[User talk:CaptainEek|<i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>]]}[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 03:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

*:Jclemens raises a good point about a situation I hadn't considered. If a person wants to acknowledge their own doxxing, they are free to do so, though it's again something I don't recommend. I agree that "never" is a bit hyperbolic, but my point with that phrase was not to say that it was verboten, but rather that it wasn't a wise choice. I stand by the idea that {{Tq|Its not that you're forbidden from discussing the nonsense at WPO, but its not recommended and can in fact be avoided}}. [[User:CaptainEek|<b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b>]] ^{[[User talk:CaptainEek|<i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>]]}[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 18:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

*:To extend on that idea and reply in part to Joe, I understand that this has been brought forward as a line drawing exercise. The community wants to know how close to the line it can get on linking this kind of stuff. My suggestion is that's the wrong inquiry. I go out of my way to avoid having to discuss WPO, because I find it a problematic and unhelpful site and think that referencing it feeds the trolls. If you don't share my opinion, than I understand how you might find my advice not helpful at resolving the underlying issue here. I stand by my aversion to WPO though; one of the best pieces of advice I have received was to never get a WPO account (and to any newer editors reading, please, avoid WPO. It will only do you harm). {{Pb}}To reply to JSS, I have read WPO threads; it's an unpleasant experience. One of the first things I did after learning about it was searching my own name on there; boy was that a bad decision. Still, having to read WPO threads is an occasional part of Arb business. Thus I stand by my blocked trolls comment, the power posters at WPO include a lot of our nastiest trolls. [[User:CaptainEek|<b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b>]] ^{[[User talk:CaptainEek|<i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>]]}[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 19:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

*:In furtherance of the line drawing exercise, I suggest that perhaps ArbCom isn't the one to answer that question. I think the issue is that the recent RfA reforms and our harassment/doxxing policy are slightly at odds. The community has expressed a very strong desire to not have doxxing material on-wiki. But it has also expressed it wants detailed reasonings for oppose votes at RfA. Those two aspects have come into conflict with one another, and absent further input from the community, we are continuing to lean on the side of caution. [[User:CaptainEek|<b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b>]] ^{[[User talk:CaptainEek|<i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>]]}[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 19:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

*I appreciate the feedback and discussion among the community (and arbs) so far. I am inclined to say that the community will need to reconcile its wishes. In particular it's up to the community to decide how it wants to reconcile OUTING and the new expectations at RfA and whether or not it wants to review past decisions about DISCORD/IRC/EMAIL (Joe Roe rightly points out that some of this sprung from arbcom interpretations, but as I think it has been adopted and expanded by the community it's not for ArbCom to say one way or another anymore as that would be a policy change). As it stands I agree with Floquenbeam's analysis when it comes to RfA: {{tqq|we will not link to (or obliquely mention) any thread with outing/doxxing; consider whether it is accessible to the public so it can be verified; and consider whether the WP user has linked themselves to the off-wiki account. If any of the 3 tests fail, then you can't bring it up at RFA}}. However, I do agree with Joe and others that the Committee has some role to play, though I would prefer to share that role with the broader Oversight team. With OS, I find that 98% or so of the OS requests are clear yes or clear no under policy and require little thought on my part to action. It's the remaining 2% where the OS team should work to have consistency (I think ArbCom should set the expectation that there be less variation in OS response than in other admin areas, including CU). In the noticeboard example that JSS gives, this fell in that 2% which is why I consulted with someone else before taking action. Beyond this, there has been a lot of discussion about WPO of which I have a number of opinions about but is also not a unique use case when it comes to mentioning/linking to off-wiki threads/discussions which I see as the matter before us and thus doesn't need any special analysis beyond what I've written above. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 21:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

*My conclusions are formed after reading the above, but not the pertaining information at WPO. I do not take an absolutist "never link WPO" approach; there could be some valid reasons to link to an off-wiki site. However, it is the responsibility of the person linking the thread to ensure that OUTING does not happen. This means that, before posting a link on-wiki, the editor needs to review all the material on the page to ensure that the outing doesn't happen. For this circumstance, there are options like emailing ArbCom to ensure OUTING does not take place. I would like to see community consultations about how OUTING should be applied, as this is becoming a common topic at ARBCOM and might need an update. My own personal opinion to editors who are reading WPO: your time is probably better spent improving an article on Wikipedia, or having the conversation on-wiki. I'm not sure there are any motions that will arise from this, but I'm happy to answer any questions if pinged. [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 01:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

*To answer "{{xt|More specifically, a 2007 remedy pronouncing that quoting private correspondence is a copyright violation is still on the books and still cited in WP:EMAILPOST. Does the current committee agree with this interpretation?}}", I personally do not find the copyright argument that has been ''en vogue'' for about 20 years about publishing emails to be convincing. I probably need to look at the literature again, but I do not know of any case law where the copyright claim was successful. --[[User:Guerillero|Guerillero]] ^{[[User_talk:Guerillero|<span style="color: green;">Parlez Moi</span>]]} 21:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}