Requests for comment/Unclear harassment policy on English Wikipedia

The following request for comments is closed. I am closing this request for comment for multiple reasons. First, per RFC policy you should deliver a neutrally worded notice on a prominent noticeboard or ask stewards to do it for you (as you're blocked on the English Wikipedia). Second, the English Wikipedia has well established local procedures to change and implement policies so please follow those once (if) you get unblocked. Please also note what Metawiki is not, especially articles 10 and 13 about battleground behaviour and appeals of block(s) elsewhere. Meta and the global community cannot and should not act here, hence closing this RFC as invalid. --A09|(pogovor) 10:41, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

---

Hi,

This is to discuss clarity of a policy on English Wikipedia and is neither an appeal for my English Wikipedia block, a rant about it or anyone involved in it, nor vexatious litigation targeted at them.

Editors have sometimes been sanctioned due to harassment/hounding without being in literal breach of WP:HARASS or WP:HOUND on English Wikipedia. This appears to be because WP:HARASS appears to be written in terms of the intent of the perpetrator, not community perception or impact on the other person, which is what is enforced. These sanctions tend to be regarding contentious cases, such as ArbCom-designated "contentious" topics.

Here's how the policies are unclear:

WP:HOUND:

• "Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia."
  • "to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work." - This implies that following another user is only hounding if the edits are confrontive or disruptive, generally. However, this is likely to be enforced in response to any following another user for any reason, confrontive or not.
  • "This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor." - This implies that following another user is not harassment if done in good faith. However, sanctions can be placed where discomfort would most reasonably be considered the main primary outcome for the other person, even if that is not the apparent intention of the perpetrator.
• "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done with care, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles."
  • "This should always be done with care, and with good cause, ..." - This implies that being careful enough (at one's own discretion) will help. However, care is often overlooked in enforcement.
  • "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." - This implies that having good intentions when using someone else's history is not harassment. However, if there is a prior history of conflict between two users, good intentions can be overlooked.
• "The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or disruption to the project generally, for no overridingly constructive reason. Even if the individual edits themselves are not disruptive per se, 'following another user around', if done to cause distress, or if accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions."
  • "... for no overridingly constructive reason." - This implies that following another user in good faith is not harassment. If two users have had a history of conflict with each other, then bad faith is likely to be assumed and any good intentions/reasons behind future interactions are likely to be overlooked.
  • "... if done to cause distress, or if accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, ..." - This implies that bad faith is necessary for following to be harassment.

WP:HA#NOT:

• "However, some editors seem to give "harassment" a much broader, and inappropriate, meaning encompassing normal and appropriate editing practices such as merely editing the same page as another user, or warning another user for disruption or incivility. Such activities are not harassment if done civilly and in good faith."
  • If two users have had prior conflict, then no good faith is assumed, and the perpetrator is more likely to face sanctions.

Certain behaviors can be perceived differently when different users are involved, so harassment is a contentious area, especially because intention is difficult to prove, so enforcement is based on the appearance of such actions. Here are my proposed solutions:

1. The quoted parts are rewritten to consider that the effects or perceptions of following another user or interacting with them can differ from actual intentions (i.e. "or where this would reasonably be considered the main primary outcome"). This way, users can be more aware of what is blockable and what isn't without doubt.
2. Another solution would be to require administrators to only make harassment blocks in line with the literal wording of policy.
3. WP:HARASS's wording and enforcement must broadly reflect each other, especially if no warnings are given.

Faster than Thunder (talk) 06:59, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Example cases (feel free to add known cases)

Please share your thoughts:

Discussion