neelu

* Outing: What is described in the proposal only covers a portion of what outing is about. The proposal describes breaking anonymity rather than outing itself. Outing happens when someone's reputation is being ruined or statements that are made to form out-groups. People tend to break anonymity to name people, which have already been subjected to such outing statements. I hate to see this be supported and misinform what outing is about. People will misuse the word more, and that would lead to more problems. Perhaps, a definition should remain on its own page * The appropriate and not appropriate: I generally agree with what is listed, but the style it is listed can TestKing easily lead to loopholes. The spirit is obviously there. Consider some recent experiences and you find those that argue to the letter. There is some other policies here that are not being fully supported since they haven't been fully improved as requested, yet they obviously carry a spirit to them. I have seen comments made to the effect that people will just not even abide by such policy until it is perfected supported by everyone. I don't have quick response to re-layout the appropriate and not-appropriate items, so, sorry, I'm just going to mention it for now. * This has not been carefully thought through. Most editors who do not self-disclose on-wiki have, over the years, published off-wiki disclosures in many venues including foundation mailing lists, off-wiki 310-055 forums, other wikis (including old archival wikis) personal blogs and web sites, in Facebook and sites like Linked-In, in IRC or Skype sessions, in other e-mail, etc. In many cases it's a trivial connect-the-dots puzzle with no more than a few dots. Are you gonna bar the first such dot in a connect-the-dots chain? Usually the first dot is Google with the user's on-wiki avatar name. The famous Kevin Bacon game reveals that almost any page on the Internet can be reached from any other page in a chain of no more than 6 clicks total. You cannot legislate against solving trivial connect-the-dots puzzles that any child could solve. The proposal doesn't nothing more than create a billyclub for adversarial editors to bash each other with. * Proposed addition. Special exception: Wikiversity users who have called another Wikiversity participant a "troll" and/or said to another Wikiversity participant "I'm not going to talk to you" are not RH302 protected by this policy. This special exception to the proposed policy is need in order to prevent a few Wikiversity participants for continuing their practice of disrupting the project while refusing to discuss their own bad behavior. Frankly, I would prefer a stronger version that says "Wikiversity participants who call fellow participants a "troll" and/or who say "I refuse to talk to you" are expected to retract such statements and apologize. Those who fail to apologize will be asked to leave the project. It's entirely possible that people may need to call a spade a spade from time to time. It's also entirely possible that people can in good faith come to the realization that conversation with another user will not be constructive