Wikipedia talk:Harassment

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

This page is only for discussion of the policy and not for reporting cases of harassment; if you require information on dealing with harassment click here. Thank you for your time.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be auto-archived by if there are more than 2.

If information is deleted but not redacted, is it "still-existing"?

WP:DOX explicitly covers "still-existing, self-disclosed posted information", and also covers redacted or oversighted information. It does not seem to explicitly cover personal information that was self-disclosed on Wikipedia, then promptly deleted, but not redacted or oversighted, and which is still visible in the page history. Is such deleted information considered to be still-existing, or would raising it (in a sock puppet investigation, for example) be considered to be outing? Nurg (talk) 23:27, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you go down to the subsection on "Exceptions", point number 2, it says: If individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums. So referring to it, with a diff, is generally not going to be treated as a policy violation. However, common sense should also be used, and it may still be a better idea to communicate such information privately, depending on the context and circumstances. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2025

LTA Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RichardHornsby

Remove "(for example, where Wikipedians know each other off-site and may inadvertently post personal information, such as using the other person's real name in discussions)" as that is WP:BEANS. This encourages editors who know real name off wiki to post other person's real name in discussions. Even with the unintentional and non-malicious part, that makes the work harder for oversighters. 23.162.200.39 (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is deliberate, and even gaming the system unintentionally can result in blocks 23.162.200.39 (talk) 23:50, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell, real name in discussions is allowed but should not be done and posting it on a policy page will make the work harder for oversighters as they know that, by the letter of the law, is allowed. 23.162.200.39 (talk) 23:52, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as an oversighter, I don't recall this ever being a significant problem in practice. Thryduulf (talk) 00:28, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]