Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 176

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Village pump (policy) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (policy). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.

< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR, AS, AT, AU, AV, AW, AX, AY, AZ, BA, BB, BC, BD, BE, BF, BG, BH, BI, BJ, BK, BL, BM, BN, BO · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198

Articles for deletion

Why does a "no consensus" vote at an article for deletion (AfD) discussion result in keeping the article. It would seem that if editors cannot agree an article should exist, then it shouldn't.

Since most AfDs attract little attention, the outcome is already weighted in favor of keep, since the creator and other contributors are likely to vote to keep.

I have seen cases where it took several tries before an AfD was successful.

TFD (talk) 13:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree, it runs counter to the principles of our policies like WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN, all of which require affirmative consensus for inclusion. I would support a "no consensus" outcome being a default "draftify". Levivich 15:42, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
I would disagree, draftify should be presented as an option, or the closer can make a judgment call to take a poorly attended AFD no consensus as a draft. What we do not want is a high traffic AFD that is no consensus to be suddenly drafted. Masem (t) 15:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
There may well have been legitimate grounds for a 'no consensus results in keep' policy in Wikipedia's early days, when expanding the encyclopaedia took priority over adequate sourcing. That seems no longer to be the general consensus amongst most regular contributors, who quite rightly expect new articles to demonstrate notability (through proper sourcing etc) from the start. So yes, per WP:BURDEN, draftification for no-consensus content would seem a very good idea. As it stands, we are including content of debatable merit to our readers (and to search engines), with no indication whatsoever that it may be problematic. That cannot inspire confidence... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Plenty of AfD discussions net only a couple unsubstantial comments. Outside commentators might just "vote" and leave. A closer has nothing to work with. Does that justify deletion? SamuelRiv (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Chances are, when there are no sources at all, an AFD will not result in a “no consensus”. That usually occurs when sourcing is “iffy”… or when it seems likely that reliable sources should exist, but simply have not YET been added to the article.
The idea behind “no consensus = keep” is to give editors time to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Remember that there is no rush… should it turn out that the problem can’t be fixed (because we assumed wrong, and reliable sources don’t actually exist), we can always hold a second (follow up) AFD, noting that we tried and failed to find sources. Blueboar (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
No-consensus draftification still gives time to fix problems - without displaying questionable material to readers in the meantime. If there is no rush, why the urge to display it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
The idea behind no consensus keep is to give editors time to FIXTHEPROBLEM. What is that based on? This happens on articles that have been around for years and years with poor (often primary) sourcing and questionable notability. The keep !votes are often from fans of a particular niche type article. MB 16:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
So what if there are fans of a niche article? The world is like that, a long tail distribution of interest in topics. I often see people deleting because they consider something far down the tail curve as inherently non-notable. Like, how could this community fire station in podunk town be notable?! It conflates popularity with notability. -- GreenC 18:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Notability is based on the existence of significant coverage in independent sources. Fans show up and say keep because they want to see articles on all community fire stations regardless of the coverage. MB 19:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Articles without coverage don't usually pass Keep at AfD. The problem is some see community fire stations and presume Delete first, then figure out how to discount sources second. -- GreenC 00:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
This was about No Consensus. Articles without significant coverage can end as Keep or No Consensus if there is little participation except for a few editors who have a much lower standard for what constitutes SIGCOV and a very idiosyncratic take on what is "independent" and "primary". Those are not my words, but a quote from a related discussion. MB 01:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
It might be true that "draftification still gives time to fix problems", but research indicates that articles get fixed faster if they're left in the mainspace. If you want an individual article to get edited, then you need to leave it out there where someone will feel like it's worthwhile to fix it. If you want an individual article to stay broken, then put it out of sight, and out of mind in the draftspace. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
It seems like this is something that depends on the nature of the article and AFD in question--for recently created articles, TFD's criticism applies. For longstanding articles being brought to AFD due to forking, OR or WP:PAGEDECIDE concerns, keep makes more sense as a status quo outcome in the event of no consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 16:25, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Other way around. New articles have a higher chance to be actually improved than old articles - the problem(usually that there is no consensus upon notability) has evidently not been fixed in a long time if an article has no consensus, and if it is between "keep" and "Redirect" the option "redirect" should always win(because it preserves the content and allows people to work with the old content if necessary and still applies WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN).Lurking shadow (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Lurking shadow, I think that perspective presupposes that "the problem" with the hypothetical article in question is real in the case of a no consensus outcome and that we should move towards the most likely long-term solution (that a new article can be fixed and that an old article cannot), whereas my view would be that a no consensus outcome means that there is no consensus and that we default to whatever the prior status quo was. signed, Rosguill talk 17:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Except that there isn't always good reason for giving the status quo extra weight. Article age isn't one of them! Not all articles have been extensively edited(other than automated copyedits).Lurking shadow (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Sure, I can respect that as a perspective, but note that it would retrench rather than resolve the disagreement between AfD processes and our general "status quo wins when in doubt" rule that appears to motivate TFD opening this discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 18:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Expanding on "presuppos[ing] that "the problem" with the hypothetical article in question is real", here are the most four recent AFDs I could find with an outcome of no consensus:
None of these sound like seriously problematic articles. The owners of Schön might prefer that their dirty laundry wasn't aired out for all to see, but there's no obvious harm to having the articles vs not having them. Also, I had to check three days' worth of AFDs last week to find just four AFDs that closed this way, so it's not a common outcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Only four NCs in three days? Something like 10% of all AfDs I participate close in NC, I would expect that number to be a lot higher... JoelleJay (talk) 01:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
At the "mass creation/AfDs ArbCom RfC" workshop-workshop, specifically in the context of NSPORT, I suggested a watchlistable pseudo-draftspace with a longer or indefinite incubation time before auto-deletion eligibility, as well as restrictions on how many drafts could be nominated at AfD or moved into mainspace per week. I wonder if something like that, if feasible at all, could work for NC closes. Users could watchlist the categories they're interested in to see what's added and moved out of purgatory, and the lists could be transcluded in relevant wikiprojects. JoelleJay (talk) 02:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I think there has been good input here. Now the TFD has brought this up I think it is worth looking at. If "no consensus" allows poorly sourced long term articles to remain then I think this should be changed to "dratify" or "redirect." This allows for the option of improving the article without having it listed on search engines (outside Wikipedia). This improves the quality of Wikipedia overall and, as has been mentioned, readers don't run away due to poor quality.

I realize this retrenches the status quo and doesn't resolve the disagreement mentioned by Rosguill, but it is better than the current status quo. Also, as Masem says, for high traffic AfDs "no consensus" should be optional draftify. Optional dratftify allows for a decision that would cause the least disruption, i.e., editors angrily going to DRV. And such high traffic AfDs can always be re-nominated. Concerning a "no consensus" new article, I'm not sure the best way to deal with that - let consensus about that rule the day. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

  • I think this starts with a serious rule, like a policy, that in order to exist in mainspace, an article must meet certain minimum criteria (WP:V, WP:N, WP:BLP?). If a mainspace article's eligibility is questioned (like at AFD), there must be affirmative consensus that it meets the minimum criteria, or else some WP:ATD must be applied (e.g. merge, redirect, draftify), unless there is affirmative consensus to delete. Levivich 21:11, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
    So when editors don't agree that there's something wrong with having a separate article about this subject, then you'd like us to assume that there's definitely something wrong with having a separate article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
    Yes exactly. If editors don't agree whether or not an article should be in mainspace, it should not be in mainspace. Only that which we agree should be there, should be there, whether it's parts of pages or entire pages. Affirmative consensus ftw. Levivich 23:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
    Let's start by agreeing to delete WP:QUO. Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions anyway, so as long as we point the redirect somewhere, probably nobody would be any the wiser anyway. ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Our general stance on everything is that if something is going to be controversial, we want to see an affirmative action to do it, and no consensus defaults to no action being taken. I don't think it has anything to do with AfD in particular. Just how the project works from a governance perspective. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: The main issue here is that you're interpreting this as no consensus to keep, but the alternative no consensus to delete is equally valid.
So we err on the side of inclusion because you can easily renominate the same article for deletion later, and WP:NODEADLINE/WP:NOTPAPER also apply. This also gives the option to find an alternatives to deletion, like a bold merge to some other topic. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
"No consensus" means no consensus either way. Perhaps the confusion appears because we sometimes say "no consensus" because we don't always want to say "really bad idea, dude". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
A deleted article can always be userfied so that the Keep side can keep working on it. But I disagree that articles have no consensus to keep because they are poorly sourced. Usually, it is because the delete editors have found there are too few if any reliable sources available to write an informative and balanced article. Since the article therefore lacks weight, it could actually misinform readers.
In my experience, articles that have no consensus to delete never get developed into reasonable articles. Can you provide any examples where they have?
TFD (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
I think it depends on your idea of what constitutes a reasonable article. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic fascism (the article has since be renamed to Islamofascism) closed as "no consensus", and it's currently a B-class article. H.V. Dalling looks reasonable to me. Kinetite is short, but still looks reasonable to me. Aziz Shavershian looks reasonable to me. List of largest shopping centres in Australia isn't a subject that interests me, but it looks like there is an inline citation for every entry. All of these ended with "no consensus" at AFD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Setting the very high bar of "reasonable article" being the same as a Featured or Good article, there are 26 that had previous NC results:
-- GreenC 01:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Except article rating doesn't assess actual notability and is not a particularly consensus-driven process in the first place. That Neil Harvey article is a prime example of the overly-detailed, UNDUE trivia that accumulates when no one is actually discussing the subject directly, but which when well-crafted appears to satisfy article reviewers. JoelleJay (talk) 01:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I have some sympathy for the idea given that the bar for deletion is quite high. There are so many ways to get to nocon, I think one cannot easily legislate for them all. Selfstudier (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Deletion has balances of power because 1 person can nominate 10 articles in 10 minutes (or less) while to save those articles can take days of effort researching sources, improving the articles, arguing at AfD. It usually never gets done in practice for that reason. The valuable commodity is time. That's why we let it sit until someone has the time to work on it. -- GreenC 01:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
And one person can create 10 articles in 10 minutes, while to delete them it takes at least 7 days and multiple other editors each. If we actually valued community time we'd enforce greater restrictions on creation such that most of the time spent on any one article is spent by one editor who wants to document that subject, rather than that plus the effort of 8 other editors with no interest in the subject doing x% of the same work redundantly and in parallel over the course of a week. JoelleJay (talk) 01:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Just a random idea, maybe a bad one maybe not, but what if articles closed as no consensus were to be automatically added to a list of "AfDs closed as no consensus" & relisted for discussion a year down the line? That'd give people plenty of time to work on it; keeps the article in mainspace during that time which does attract more potential editors than draft/user-space; but still ensures there isn't a risk they'll get forgotten about for years and years until someone stumbles upon it again. AddWittyNameHere 02:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
    I like this idea more than NC==keep. JoelleJay (talk) 01:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
    And a year later, WP:NODEADLINE will still apply. Just like in 3 months, or 5 years. Automatic relisting is just busy work and bureaucracy, we don't need that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
    Sure, some of the time, that will be the exact outcome, and in some cases, the article that gets relisted will so obviously have improved it gets into speedy keep territory. I'm not unaware there are downsides to my suggestion.
    However, in other cases, consensus on notability of a subject may well have changed and the article gets deleted after all. (After all, there's more than enough cases where an article survives one or two AfD listings before eventually getting deleted.)
    As things stand right now, a good bunch of these gets relisted down the line anyway and many of the others would have gotten relisted if folks actually remembered they exist. But it puts the burden of doing so on individual editors who have to remember those articles exist and judge when it's been long enough since the last time at AfD, and in some subject areas it exposes these editors to unnecessary drama and ALLCAPS shortcut accusations like WP:IDHT and WP:POINT levied towards them for re-AfDing it.
    At least if it's an automatic process, the burden of remembering the article's existence doesn't end up on individual editors; folks aren't required to possibly open themselves up to drama and accusations in order to get such articles up at AfD again; and it rebalances the outcome of "no consensus" more closely towards it's actual meaning: there was no consensus for either keeping or deleting (so let's try again some point down the line to see if an actual consensus in either direction exists now). AddWittyNameHere 08:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

...it took several tries before an AfD was successful

No, no, you're not understanding what we're about, here. An AfD is not necessarily "successful" if an article is destroyed; most times yeah, but often enough, it's a cockup. The attitude shown by that statement is just silly, in my view. It's not 2010 anymore. There's a whole culture of editors backslapping each other for destroying articles, and we are destroying more OK articles than we should be. Making it easier to destroy more is the opposite of what we need. Suggestion rejected. Herostratus (talk) 03:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

A lot of your examples are articles created about non-notable people who subsequently achieved notability. For example, the article about the baseball player Jason Heyward was created before he had ever played as a professional. When it was nominated for deletion, the full article read:
"Jason Heyward is an outfielder and first-baseman drafted by the Atlanta Braves. He played baseball in high school for Henry County High School in McDonough, Georgia. He was selected 14th overall in the 2007 Major League Baseball Draft. He is a 6 foot 1 inch, 220 pound player."[1]
At that time [18 June 2007], the subject lacked notability per Sports personalities as there were no sources providing significant coverage.
Your argument would therefore be a form of WP:CRYSTALBALL, which is creating an article now in anticipation of the topic becoming notable in the future.
There's an upcoming movie starring Pamela Anderson, Paris Hilton, Luiz Guzman and other notable actors, but little has been released about it at this time. An editor submitted it to Articles for Creation, but it was rejected and they were told not to re-submit until the film had attracted sufficient media coverage to meet notability. But if they had created the article, it probably would have survived an AfD because of no consensus. I am sure however that it will attract attention, good or bad, based on the high profile of the actors.
AfDs BTW provide an opportunity for editors to find and add sources to articles. They don't need another four weeks, four months or whatever and then put the community through another AfD.
TFD (talk) 04:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
There are cases too where a notable topic exists, but the article is so poorly written that WP:BLOWITUP is the best approach. For example, Left-wing terrorism is a defined concept in terrorism studies with relative agreement on their objectives, methods and which groups it applies to. However, the original article was terrorists who happened to be left-wing, which is not the definition. There was overwhelming consensus for deletion. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left-wing terrorism.) Four years later, I re-created the article based on reliable sources. I notice that AndyTheGrump is also a contributor. It was far easier to create a new article than to fix a bad article. And there was no public benefit to have kept a bad article for four years, waiting for someone to fix it. ([[I also recreated Right-wing terrorism which had been deleted at the same time.) TFD (talk) 14:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Oh yes, absolutely, most articles sent to AfD should be deleted. They're memorials, or ephemera, or unsourceable, or COI advertisements, or not-easily-fixable BLP or NPOV violations, or resumes, and so on and so forth. For all the rest, simplify your life. Throw away all the noise, throw away all the THIS CAPITALIZED LINK and THAT CAPITALIZED LINK and the general war of capitalized links. Instead, ask a simple question:

This article has X daily readers. Overall, it would improve the experience of people searching on this term to get a 404 rather than article, because _______.

If you can't fill in the blank with something useful, go do something else. There are cogent reasons that can go in the blank. It's just that "Rule X or Rule Y or Rule Z says to delete, beep beep" isn't one of them,
So, as you say, if the article needs to get blown up, its worse than nothing. If the article says things that are false or might be false (since there's no reliable source) and we probably can't source those with reasonable effort and deleting them all would ruin the article, the article's not much use. If the article cherry-picks to spin the subject, and we can't easily fix that, the reader would be better off getting nothing. If X is at or near zero, there's not much point in having the article. If the subject is so emphemeral that we can guess that X will be at or near zero in ten years or twenty, same. And there's lot of other reasons.
Even if you can, there are some other reasons. Sometimes the article is too far beyond our remit. A how-to. A bare recipe. An essay. Many other things. We've decided not to publish stuff like that, and that's fine. Or, the article might be a net drag on the project, for some reason.
Other than that, what's the harm of having an article about some bohunk footballer from Franistan or whatever. People like to write about that, people like to read about that. You might not like it, but you can't stop them. And our remit is to be a very large and detailed encyclopedia of football ("Wikipedia ... incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias"). Tell me what the harm is. If you can't, move on.
As to "AfDs BTW provide an opportunity for editors to find and add sources to articles", good grief no. I hope editors aren't of the mind "well, this article could use more sources, but I don't wanna do it, I'll send it to AfD so it'll be improved". That would be... not what AfD is for. I mean it is hard to add new sources to an article if we've deleted it. Right? Sure some few articles sent to AfD get improved and saved per WP:HEY. But a lot just slip into the grave. I mean this is an extremely risky way to build an encyclopedia, I really don't want editors to ever be thinking this. Herostratus (talk) 23:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. Unless there has previously been an affirmative consensus to keep an article, no consensus should default to the article not being kept - either through it being redirected, or through it being moved to draft space. This is in line with policies such as WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN, and would also partially address some WP:FAITACCOMPLI issues related to article creation. BilledMammal (talk) 02:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Remember we are here to build an encyclopedia. Deleting pages does not achieve that. And as stated above, no consensus means we don't change the way it is, so if the article exists, we don't delete it. If you want it to be a redirect, then argue for that, and get consensus. If the policy is not clear on what the deletion decisions are based, perhaps we need more discussion on the policy. In my opinion we have far too many biographies that do not pass the GNG, but I don't normally waste time arguing about their deletion, because there are so many special criteria that allow keeping. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
    • I don't see why building an encyclopedia means giving new page creators "first mover advantage", such that I can create any mainspace page and unless there's consensus to delete it, it stays. I'm here to build an accurate encyclopedia--and a curated one, WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Levivich 05:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
      I don't see why building an encyclopedia means giving AFD nominators a "second mover advantage", such that they can delete any mainspace page, and unless there's a consensus to keep it, it goes – especially since only one person can create a given article, but there are thousands of us who could try to get it deleted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
    Remember we are here to build an encyclopedia. Deleting pages does not achieve that. Only if the sole definition of "building an encyclopedia" is "increasing the total number of standalone articles". But one way Wikipedia defines itself is by what it is NOT, so removing articles that violate NOT is "building the encyclopedia" just as much as creating articles on encyclopedically-worthy subjects. And anyway, who would hire a gardener who not only doesn't weed your garden, but also actively plants weeds? JoelleJay (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • The problem is that article creation can be done unilaterally without consensus (or even proof of notability), but deletion requires research and at least 3 editors to reach consensus if the article creator contests it. –dlthewave ☎ 06:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose change (unclear status of the "proposal") - No consensus means default to inclusion because it is no consensus to change - no consensus by a new page patroller should mean return to draft. So the original burden is on the new article, unlike what is noted above. But the burden is instead on the change, which is in fact the norm on Wikipedia. That is why no consensus defaults to keep. Those suggesting it should be userfied are, in effect, proposing deletion by the backdoor. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
    I don't believe your assertion that there is a consensus for these articles due to the existence of NPP is accurate; the opinion of a single new page patroller isn't enough to form a consensus, and articles created by autopatrolled editors are not reviewed by NPP.
I also think we should avoid bolded !votes until there is a formal proposal. BilledMammal (talk) 12:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
@BilledMammal on the former point, it's meant to be akin to that one person could add some content with a source, and if someone reverted it, the onus would be on them to prove it should be included. But if they added such, and someone else disagreed a year later, the onus would be on the remover. On the latter, I would do so, except for the fact we're in VPP, not VPI, and so it's supposed to already be a full proposal. If we don't want bolded !votes then we can shift the convo over to VPI and I'll happily strike. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose change per Nosebagbear. Exactly my thoughts. Pavlor (talk) 11:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • If Wikipedia's mission is to sort the known universe into things that are notable and things that are not notable, defaulting AfDs to keep makes sense. If its mission is to write an encyclopaedia that keeps growing and improving, not so much. – Joe (talk) 12:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I think this is merely a discussion. The editor who opened this thread did not put forth a proposal. They asked a question and a discussion has ensued. No need to "oppose" or "support" because there is no proposal on the table. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • As others have pointed out, while keeping recently-created pages as a result of "No consensus" does create some WP:Fait accompli issues with regards to the article creator, I don't think this is really the major issue. The real problem is that some "No Consensus" closes aren't a reflection of genuine and plausible disagreement over something being notable, but are instead the result of !vote counting without due regard for those !votes actually incorporating policy into their reasoning. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • The answer to this question is simply that the burden of proof rests on the person who asserts the claim. For a deletion proposer, that's on them. --RockstoneSend me a message! 08:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I have to disagree with Since most AfDs attract little attention, the outcome is already weighted in favor of keep, since the creator and other contributors are likely to vote to keep. An AfD with no participation results in a soft delete, and there are just as many "other contributors" who will come along and vote delete (or WP:PERNOM). If the nominator writes an effective rationale the burden is then on the keep voters to counter that. An effective rationale countered by a keep vote with no or poor reasoning is likely to be closed as delete. I would oppose any change here. NemesisAT (talk) 09:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Oppose change. The article by definition already exists. Someone has bothered to write it. If there was consensus to delete it then this would result in deletion at AfD. We should err on the side of keeping articles that someone has bothered to work on rather than erring on the side of deleting articles that someone has decided they don't like. If you examine AfDs you will see that there are some editors who never saw an AfD they didn't want to vote delete on; it's just their dogma - if it's been nominated for deletion then it clearly should be deleted. Sometimes the same group of editors votes delete one after the other. As long as there are enough other editors who vote keep then the onus should always be on the deletors to say why it should be deleted and convince other editors of that, not the other way around. It's very easy to vote delete; it's not so easy to put work into writing an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
    We should err on the side of keeping articles that someone has bothered to work on rather than erring on the side of deleting articles that someone has decided they don't like. would be putting the editor above the reader. The fact that someone "bothered to work on" something doesn't make it necessarily good or valuable, and it certainly doesn't mean it meets any of our policies or guidelines. We should not show the reader anything that we don't agree meets our policies and guidelines. The reader should know that everything they're reading has consensus as policy-compliant. Levivich 15:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
    No, it doesn't. But this about a no consensus result, not a delete result! That suggests that at least some editors think the article is worth keeping. The reader should know that everything they're reading has consensus as policy-compliant. Anyone would think that Wikipedia had fixed rules that must be obeyed! We don't and we never have had. That's why we have AfDs and not admin deletion of articles that are non-"policy-compliant" (which is clearly very often highly subjective in any case) without discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
    Articles are regularly deleted because they don't fit a strict definition of some guideline despite having many views. This deletionism is not putting the reader first. NemesisAT (talk) 14:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
    I bet you can't name three articles with "many views" that have been deleted. Levivich 14:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
    I don't know how we would get the page view counts for articles such as 2022 New Mexico parade ramming. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
    Straight off the top of my head is List of largest towns in England without a railway station which was the top result in Google for searches on British settlements without a railway station. Tell me how deleting that is putting the reader first. NemesisAT (talk) 23:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
    Where to even begin with this comment... JoelleJay (talk) 04:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There are cases where non-policy-based "Keep" votes incorrectly lead the closer to a "No consensus" result. The solution is to better educate closers on discounting such votes. But where there is a legitimate lack of consensus, we should err on the side of WP:PRESERVE. Cbl62 (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
  • oppose, no consensus has long meant status quo. There are speedy deletion criteria also. Andre🚐 21:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I mean, as usual, I find these discussions depressing. Before the slow Eternal September starting in IDK the mid to late oughts, there was a different attitude. Now we have many people robotically and rigidly following immutable rules and/or using rules as a club to battle for their ideology -- which is destructive often enough -- and other editors teaching new editors that that's the way to roll. It's hard to contribute by writing articles; trolling thru the project and finding articles that don't meet this rule or that rule or the other rule and trying to have them deleted is much easier -- and there are now many editors who will high-five new editors who do that. There are editors who are on a long-term class-warfare crusade to find grounds to have articles about low culture subjects deleted. And there are lot of nominated articles where the nominator, thru either misfeasance or malfeasance, hasn't done due diligence, and often enough nobody checks this. You get a few driveby "Delete per nom" votes from editors who have been brought up in this mindset, and then a busy admin who sees her job as to clear the backlog as quickly as possible, which is most easily done with a headcount..

From the days of Nupedia the rubric was (formerly) that if you had a good article, that people wanted to read, that was within our remit, then you wouldn't delete it. I had an article deleted, a good article, because we're working here with people... how to put this... maybe lack a subtle and nuanced understanding of how ref vetting works and really what we're supposed to be doing here... it is the encyclopedia that anyone can participate in, there's no threshold for subtlety of mind or commitment to the project goals. Anyway, I found this experience both alarming and alienating. Herostratus (talk) 01:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to BOLDly suggest a couple compromises, for the sake of discussion. So, "Delete" results could be split into to -- something like "Delete with prejudice" where the subject is inherently no good or the article was terrible or a BLP violation or what have you, and Deletes where the article was not that bad, didn't meet the GNG or whatever (or did, but was considered of interest only to the lower classes) but is not actually harmful for people to read. For the latter, we could have a process where: 1) The article is blanked (but not deleted) and protected 2) The reader is instructed how to go into the history and find the last good version and access that That way, the editors who like to delete OK articles get satisfaction, but the reader is also able to access the article.

Or, if we don't want the readers to access deleted articles at all, for the latter we could, instead of having the actually pretty insulting suggestion that reader make it herself (which is OK for articles that have never been made, that's different), we could have a page like this:

I mean, we ought to be straight with the reader and not beat around the bush. Herostratus (talk) 01:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, because you can never have too many unsourced articles on people who played one cricket match in 1845. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Especially ones that are basically mirrors of the sports database websites where they get their only mention. We definitely need those! -Indy beetle (talk) 08:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Now you're getting it! Except for the "unsourced" part (if it means unsourceable with reasonable effort); we don't want to tell readers wrong things, or things that might be wrong. As you say, per the first sentence of the First Pillar, "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias" (emphasis added). It's important to keep this in mind, I think, because after all that is what I signed on to and so did others. People like to make these articles and people like to read them, and people who don't like it are advised to consider the Wikipedian's Meditation.
"Combines many features of" does not mean the same thing as "is". WP is not a specialist encyclopedia, almanac, or gazetteer even if it combines many features of them, but if you signed up to write one of those, you're in the wrong place. Levivich 14:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
And FWIW, if you really want to go after articles about very obscure subjects with sources to bare mentions in obscure databases, how about articles like Gogana conwayi? We have thousands upon thousands of articles like that. Call them "biocruft" and get them destroyed, why not. Oh wait, I forgot science is for our sort of people. Sports is for the peasantry. Phhht. Herostratus (talk) 10:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
actually, the more recent issue is recognition that these stubs around geolocations,sports figurrs, or special is to namw A few is that they highlight the plight around trying to create articles on underrepresented groups ( dye to systematic bias) like women and minorities, even in just Western cultures. these stubs would never have gotten through the current AFC or drafting processes to be put to mainspace, which the same issue faces those trying to create articles on women/etc.. this doesn't mean that we should delete the existing stubs, but the attitude (currently be drafted into an RFC about mass article creation and deletion) is that mass creation of these stub like article is not recommended without seeking community concurrence. But at the same time, we have to be aware that there are other ways to present the same info without creating microstubs, such as covering the arching genus of a spevies, each known species under it as list entry rather than a separate article, until GNG notability can be shown. Masem (t) 13:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
  • We have a rule that AfD isn't for cleanup. We also have a rule that says there is no deadline to improve content. Because AfD isn't for cleanup and we don't have any other process with deadlines, any request to improve the sources for an article can be put off by other editors, and there is no limit to how often this can be done. I call this "infinite deferral".
    We also have a rule that says when we're talking about biographies of living people, editors should be very firm about requiring the highest quality sources, but because of infinite deferral, there is no venue at all where editors can be firm about sources. The "no-consensus-defaults-to-keep" facet of AfD rather exacerbates this, I think. I'm coming to the view that we need a place where we can enforce WP:BLP, WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS, all of which are paragraphs of core policy. If AfD can't be adapted into that place, then I would tend to suggest a new process.—S Marshall T/C 20:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
    You can be just as firm and rapid as you want about adding high-quality sources – as long as you're doing the work yourself, and not just ordering others to do it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I sort of 'Oppose'. This is because there are cases when people can't be bothered to be involved as the afd does not interest them, don't either bother looking for any sources, or don't actually look at the sources to see if they are any good. We therefore get no concensus, when Articles should either be deleted or kept. No consensus does not mean keep. Drafty became an option at AFD because editors could see that articles could be improved but didn't have time to do the donkey work at the AFD. My other issue is closers. There are editors closing or extending AFDs making decisions not actually based on fact. I recently nominated County Borough of Southend-on-Sea, for hardly any participation, which the editor extending the AFD deadline made a snide comment about the nomination, which a further editor pointed out was wrong.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 05:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose any changes. The OP brings up WP:ONUS, but article deletion is not the same thing as text removal. Article deletion says "Should we or should we not have a stand-alone article dedicated to this topic", whereas the information contained in such a putative article could still be covered at Wikipedia in any other appropriate article. Deleting an article is primarily about how we organize information at Wikipedia, it is NOT about whether or not such information should be included at all. Let's say, for example, there's an article about the Anytown Police Department, and lets say that AFD decides to delete the article, because the Anytown Police Department is not notable enough for a stand-alone article. That deletion decision has nothing at all to do with how we deal with properly referenced information about the Anytown Police Department at Wikipedia. Want to include a well-referenced paragraph on the Anytown Police Department in the article titled Anytown? The AFD decision has no influence on that. As long as the information passes proper referencing, and there is consensus (or, lack of objection) to adding it, go ahead and add that paragraph. So the comparison is NOT apt, and I find the argument in favor of changing policy regarding article deletion falls flat given that is the primary rationale for changing it. No consensus defaults to status quo, just as in other decisions, except in cases like WP:ONUS, which I think is a good exception to that standard policy. --Jayron32 17:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose any changes. "Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by acting as a widely accessible and free encyclopedia that contains information on all branches of knowledge." If there's no consensus to delete the page then keep it.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible oppose doing anything about this "problem." It is easy to nominate an article for deletion and harder to improve it, so the burden of proof must be on the person nominating an article for deletion in order to counterbalance it. In reference to your point of "contributors are likely to vote to keep," the sheer amount of AfDs that get extended prove this wrong. Wikipedia has existed for decades. The expectation that a subject-matter expert with access to high-quality sourcing who edited an article in 2010 make himself available for a discussion he doesn't know exists, during a 1-week timeslot he wasn't told about, needs to appear for an article to be kept will make the problem of notable content being deleted on poor/nonexistent WP:BEFORE research worse than it already is. Gnomingstuff (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Texas online law regarding content moderation

Texas' law that was passed last year, which makes it illegal for companies with more than 50 million users to moderate content based on political/ideological alignment, just got its injunction overturned by the 5th Circuit today. [2]. This could have implications on Wikipedia, since we do moderate content in a manner that I could see some politicians and others claim is against the law. Obviously, we should not take steps now, but hopefully WMF legal would step in if something like that hits us. Masem (t) 03:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

The 5th Circuit decision conflicts with a May opinion by the 11th Circuit which held that major provisions of a similar social media law in Florida violate the First Amendment. These conflicting rulings could be cause for another appeal to the Supreme Court, whose May ruling did not touch on the merits of the underlying Texas case.[3] IANAL but I cannot see how the 11th Circuit decision isn't a more likely First Amendment one for the Supreme Court ruling. Companies like Facebook, Google, or even the WMF, a nonprofit foundation, typically are considered to exercise control over their platforms. It'd be like if I demanded you publish my political letter to the editor on the bulletin board of the local supermarket. You can always make your own website or newspaper and publish your own blog, but you can't demand that Wikipedia change its rules for your own opinions and call it free speech. Andre🚐 03:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
I mean, there's Section 230 that's been the safety net for all major companies (including us) that use moderation, but this law technically is a challenge to that and rulings from the other circuits. But until we have the Supreme Court to rule on that, someone *could* use the Texas law to go after WP. Masem (t) 04:02, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't think that someone who merely reads Wikipedia without writing anything counts as a user. This is unclear to my law-deficient mind, but the ruling speaks of organizations like Twitter where the number of "active users" is that large. We have a lot of user accounts (but less than 50 million) but almost all are inactive for a long time. So I don't think it is obvious that the ruling applies to us. Zerotalk 04:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
However, WP:BLP leaves us with no wriggle room. Such material ... and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States So while we can ignore it and await a ruling for all other articles, it must be applied to BLPs. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
The key word there is "applicable". If Wikipedia is not within the scope of the law, and this is something that legal probably needs to weigh in on, then BLP does not require us to apply it. Thryduulf (talk) 09:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
I would tend to agree that WP should not be considered under that, but I can also see the potential that someone will try (at which point WMF Legal activates)
The longer term implication here is that this is a Section 230 challenge, which at least one Justice has considered the need to review. And if Section 230 gets undone, that could affect WP in that way. That's years off, though. Masem (t) 12:00, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
The law's definition of "user" includes anyone who "receives content through a social media platform", so it probably is enough just to read Wikipedia, not requiring editing or even registering. On the other hand, it's 50 million users in a calendar month in the US. Do we actually have that many? If so, can we nudge ourselves below that by blocking all access from the Theocratic Hellscape of Texas? (Not actually serious, but it would make for a satisfying response.) —Cryptic 14:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
I thought of that, but I think it's better to make sure the people in Texas can read Wikipedia so they can find information that isn't censored by their authoritarian regime. Andre🚐 14:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Here's the text of the law and the 5th Circuit opinion if anyone is interested. If you look at page 3 of the law, it's almost 100% that Wikipedia is not covered, as we do not have >50M US active users/month (or anywhere near that; note the WMF's official estimate in it's most-recent Form 990 was 311,000 active volunteers for the year, worldwide). (The law is probably preempted by Section 230 anyway, and btw while this is really neither here nor there, Texas state court jurisdiction isn't really relevant because in the US we have federal courts with diversity jurisdiction.) Levivich (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
As noted above by Cryptic, the law's definition of "user" includes anyone who "receives content through a social media platform", so it probably is enough just to read Wikipedia, not requiring editing or even registering, so the number of volunteers is not equal to users. As for diversity jurisdiction, the law authorizes only declarative relief, including costs and attorney fees, and injunctive relief so the amount in controversy requirement of $75,000 would not be satisfied. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
The 5th Circuit is a federal court, not a Texas Court. Unfortunately, they absolutely can judge whether Section 230 applies. The ruling is completely bogus as a matter of legal logic, but I don't see why it wouldn't have jurisdiction. SnowFire (talk) 23:18, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
The law only applies to those within Texas, no? For example, Oklahoma is part of the same circuit, but Oklahoma does not have a similar law, so someone from Oklahoma need not worry. --RockstoneSend me a message! 02:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
That's correct, but missing the point. The question is whether Wikipedia has to comply with the law at all, or not. If Wikipedia has to comply - even "just" for users in Texas (a huge state with a population greater than the Netherlands) - then that means setting up some sort of policy / dispute board / enforcement to ensure compliance, and spending lawyer time on reading the law. For example, does the law require that the user identify themselves as Texan? If not, theoretically everyone has to be treated as if they might be from Texas and thus might sue. If so, then that means developers might need to create a "Texas flag" for users that indicate that their political screeds cannot be removed. All of this is terrible - it'd be much easier on everyone if the law was flat overturned, rather than saying "it's just Texas." (Lest this come across as too doomy, I do think Wikipedia would have strong legal grounds for most of it not being a social media site, and it would largely apply to user pages & user talk and the like.) SnowFire (talk) 12:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Netchoice v. Paxton is an action brought by two trade associations in a federal district court under federal question jurisdiction seeking to enjoin the Texas law as violating the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The federal district court's ruling was appealed to the 5th Circuit which issued the unfavorable opinion and the trade associations can now seek certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court. In the meantime, the stay on the Texas law is lifted and the Texas Attorney General and individual Texan users of social media platforms are free to bring new actions against social media platforms under the law in Texas state courts. Under certain conditions, defendants might seek to remove such actions to federal court under diversity jurisdiction but one of those conditions is that there is an amount in controversy over $75,000 which would not be met if only declarative and injunctive relief, and costs and attorney fees are sought. Under these conditions, any non-resident defendant would need to raise their jurisdictional arguments in the Texas state court in a special appearance or potentially face a default judgment. TLDR: if anyone receives service of process from Texas they should consult a lawyer and read meta:Legal/Legal Fees Assistance Program. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Y'all are missing the larger point. This prevents companies from removing posts based on ideologies. Unfortunately for Texas Republicans, as Wikipedia is both largely user moderated and does not really have "posts" to speak of, this ruling is not really applicable. How often do actual Wikimedia employees actually deal with reverting edits as part of official order? Not often. To have someone sue Wikipedia over this would be akin to someone sueing over getting downvoted on Reddit. The users themselves are the ones moderating and curating content. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you on the merits that this is mostly a matter for WMF to worry about, but I am not confident that every Texas editor who is ideologically aggrieved will have such a firm grasp on the boundaries between WMF and community functionaries such as admins and arbcom members or even other editors who delete their contributions. Having been granted a lawsuit hammer by Texas, I do not think it impossible they may aim that hammer at the wrong nail. They will likely lose any such lawsuit over jurisdiction or suing the wrong party or preemption or constitutionality but in the meantime whoever gets hauled into state court in Texas will bear the inconvenience, expense and risk involved. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
The solution should be to just block the website to readers from Texas, if this gets to be a problem (which it probably won't -- the fifth circuit is known for their dumb rulings, and it'll be appealed. --RockstoneSend me a message! 07:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Doesn't WMF employ legal counsel? This is not something we need to worry about. --Jayron32 17:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
I think they just consult with IP editors. Levivich (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Touché. --Jayron32 18:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The WMF has legal counsel. The Wikipedia community does not as far I can determine. See meta:Wikimedia Legal Disclaimer ("The legal team represents the Wikimedia Foundation, which makes decisions through the Executive Director and the Board. We do not represent you, or any other community member, or the community in general.". But see meta:Legal/Legal Fees Assistance Program. WMF legal does not consult with me; I just read what they write. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
We should be aware that should someone find a way to place Wikipedia as a site that must comply with the law, then WMF Legal will likely figure some guidance for us to follow. But there are a pile of "ifs" that need to be meet before that happens. Masem (t) 19:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, assuming that:
  1. Legal are aware of this law (I don't know they are, but I think it unlikely that they aren't); and
  2. Legal haven't issued any statements advising the community that they need to take or not take some action and/or be aware of certain things (I haven't looked specifically, but if they had the chances of it not being posted in this thread and/or on the Functionaries mailing list are zero); and
  3. The WMF don't want to get sued if they can help it; and
  4. The WMF don't want Wikipedia (or the other projects) to fail, be taken down, or blocked in some or all parts of the world; and
  5. The WMF would prefer it if community members didn't get sued, especially if there was a simple way they could prevent it (these last three are based on a mixture of past statements and actions by the WMF and common sense)
Then I think there are only two plausible scenarios for where we are right now, either:
  1. Legal have finished investigating and in their professional opinion there is no need for the Foundation and/or community to take any action or change the way they do things; or
  2. Legal are still investigation the situation, but based on their research so far they are of the opinion there is need for the Foundation and/or community to take any action or change the way they do things at the present time.
Thryduulf (talk) 22:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Subject bibliography pages on Wikipedia

How does Wikipedia treat pages like Bibliography of jazz or Bibliography of Ukrainian history? It seems like these would conflict with WP:NOTDATABASE. My thoughts is that pages like these are unsuitable for an encyclopedia, but I was unable to find a past discussion on the consensus of these (aside from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive AZ). I feel like List of important publications in mathematics that list specific notable publications are encyclopedic and author pages like Ernest Hemingway bibliography are obviously encyclopedic. But the subject bibliographies that just try to list every book and paper? I'm not buying it. So my question is: should we keep such pages? Are such pages within the scope of being an encyclopedia? Because as far as I know, dictionaries, bibliographies, and encyclopedias are all different things.

That being said, there is definitely an audience and need for pages like this (for example, to provide a list of sources to be used in improving Wikipedia), just not on Wikipedia. I would be down to WP:Transwiki these pages to a brand new wiki designed for subject bibliographies (e.g., "WikiBibliography" or something more creative), but I know that this is not the venue for that discussion. Why? I Ask (talk) 23:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Why? I Ask, you might ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies. And see Wikipedia:List of bibliographies. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I know the WikiProject exists (and would be biased regarding this question), but bibliographies encompass more than just the subject bibliographies I was referring to (e.g., an artist's discography, a list of best-selling books; encyclopedic topics). That second link is peculiar though. Why bother having an index of bibliographies in the proverbial backrooms of Wikipedia? If the bibliographies listed are for the reader (i.e., main space) then that list should also be in the main space; if the bibliographies aren't for the reader, then why do we have subject bibliographies in the main space? Why? I Ask (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Updating BLOCKEVIDENCE

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
While this discussion could've been closed earlier due to a clear consensus against the change, the debate among editors was still ongoing. Now that it's slowed down, it seems a good time to take a summary of what was discussed (and it seems some others agree).

This proposal began after an update by the ArbCom called "Special Circumstances Blocks", which specified that administrators were to "contact the appropriate group rather than issue a block" depending on the circumstances. This led to a discussion in which users were divided on the wording of WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE, specifically, what "information to which not all administrators have access" meant.

An initial wave of supporters noted that allowing administrators to block users based on off-wiki evidence (to be emailed to ArbCom afterward and to any admin that requested it) would be helpful in fighting UPE and sockmasters, while at the same time offloading some work from CUs. Some noted that these types of blocks are already commonplace and, as such, a good reason to rewrite the policy to reflect current practices.

While some opposing saw this as a breach of WP:OUTING, the discussion eventually drifted away from this topic after explanation that using off-wiki evidence of misconduct is not prohibited, but should be sent to the appropriate functionary queue, where they can act on that information. But, even ignoring those !votes that were solely based on this reasoning, it is quite clear that a big part of the community feels uncomfortable with administrators issuing blocks that depend on off-wiki info, which should be done by functionaries.

Editors made it clear that, while administrators are trusted members of the community, they haven't signed the confidentiality agreement and shouldn't be the ones making blocking decisions based on that kind of information. Editors rejected the proposed rewording of the blocking policy presented here saying administrators should be able to justify their blocks using on-wiki evidence, even if it includes aspects only accessible by other administrators (eg., revdel'ed edits and deleted pages). Any block that depends on off-wiki evidence should be issued by the proper group of functionaries. This falls in line with the guidance published by ArbCom.

Considering this happened due to differing interpretations of WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE, the following paragraph should be amended to clarify that blocks that can't be justified without the use of off-wiki evidence must go through the appropriate group of functionaries (CU, OS or ArbCom): "If a user needs to be blocked based on information that is not available to all administrators, that information should be sent to the Arbitration Committee, a checkuser or an oversighter for action. These editors are qualified to handle non-public evidence, and they operate under strict controls. The community has rejected the idea of individual administrators acting on evidence that cannot be peer-reviewed." (no specific wording was suggested) (non-admin closure) Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 01:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)



Should WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE be updated to explicitly allow administrators to consider off-wiki evidence when making blocks for on-wiki misconduct, as long as that evidence will be made available to all uninvolved administrators and recorded with the Arbitration Committee? 21:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

It is well-established that blocks for off-wiki conduct fall outside of individual administrators' blocking authority. However, the situation is less clear when off-wiki evidence contributes to a decision to block a user for on-wiki misconduct: for instance, a user who denies a COI on-wiki, while a LinkedIn profile tells a different story. Currently, WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE, WP:ADMIN § Special situations, de facto community practice, and ArbCom's recent statement on Special Circumstances blocks provide guidance to administrators in inconsistent ways, open to varying interpretations. This disagreement recently received significant attention at the arbitration noticeboard talk page. The proposers of this RfC disagree on the current meaning of BLOCKEVIDENCE, but agree that it is both ambiguous and out-of-date with respect to current practices.

This proposed change to BLOCKEVIDENCE would explicitly allow administrators to block based on off-wiki evidence as long as that evidence will be made available to any uninvolved administrator upon request. In order to ensure the retention of evidence supporting these blocks, administrators would be required to record the evidence supporting these blocks with the Arbitration Committee when making these blocks. The intent of this proposal is to allow administrators to continue to make blocks for spam and undisclosed paid editing, while establishing safeguards for evidence retention.

Proposed new text

If an administrator blocks a user based on information to which not all administrators have access, that information should be submitted to the Arbitration Committee before the block to ensure that the information is recorded in the event of any appeal.[1] Evidence supporting these blocks must be made privately available by the blocking administrator to any uninvolved administrator upon request (for the purpose of peer review or appeal). In the event that the blocking administrator is unavailable to transmit the evidence, the Arbitration Committee will do so. These blocks typically should not be marked as "appealable only to ArbCom" and are reviewable by any uninvolved administrator.

If the blocking administrator is unwilling to share this evidence with any uninvolved administrator upon request, the administrator may not issue a block. The community has rejected the idea of individual administrators acting on evidence that cannot be peer-reviewed. Instead, the administrator should request action from the Arbitration Committee, or from the Checkuser or Oversight team, as appropriate. These editors are qualified to handle non-public evidence, and they operate under strict controls.

A separate set of requirements apply to administrators holding checkuser or oversight privileges. Those administrators may block users based on non-public information accessible only to checkusers and oversighters without emailing the Arbitration Committee. This may include information revealed through the CheckUser tool, edits that have been suppressed ("oversighted"), and information recorded in the checkuser-en-wp or paid-en-wp VRTS queues. These blocks are considered to be Checkuser or Oversight actions, as appropriate, although the technical action to issue a block is an administrative one. All such blocks are subject to direct review by the Arbitration Committee.

Unified diff

If a user needs to be blocked an administrator blocks a user based on information that will not be made available to all administrators to which not all administrators have access, that information should be sent to the Arbitration Committee or a checkuser or oversighter for action. These editors are qualified to handle non-public evidence, and they operate under strict controls. submitted to the Arbitration Committee before the block to ensure that the information is recorded in the event of any appeal.[1] Evidence supporting these blocks must be made privately available by the blocking administrator to any uninvolved administrator upon request (for the purpose of peer review or appeal). In the event that the blocking administrator is unavailable to transmit the evidence, the Arbitration Committee will do so. These blocks typically should not be marked as "appealable only to ArbCom" and are reviewable by any uninvolved administrator.

If the blocking administrator is unwilling to share this evidence with any uninvolved administrator upon request, the administrator may not issue a block. The community has rejected the idea of individual administrators acting on evidence that cannot be peer-reviewed. Instead, the administrator should request action from the Arbitration Committee, or from the Checkuser or Oversight team, as appropriate. These editors are qualified to handle non-public evidence, and they operate under strict controls.

An exception is made for A separate set of requirements apply to administrators holding checkuser or oversight privileges; such . Those administrators may block users based on non-public information accessible only to Checkusers and Oversighters without emailing the Arbitration Committee. This may include information revealed through the checkuser CheckUser tool, or on edits that have been suppressed ("oversighted") and are inaccessible to administrators , and information recorded in the checkuser-en-wp or paid-en-wp VRTS queues. As such, an administrative action is generally viewed to be made in the user's capacity as an oversighter or checkuser, although the action itself is an administrative one. These blocks are considered to be checkuser or Oversight actions, as appropriate, although the technical action to issue a block is an administrative one. All such blocks are subject to direct review by the Arbitration Committee.

Side-by-side diff
−
If a user needs to be blocked based on information that will not be made available to all administrators, that information should be sent to the [[WP:ARB|Arbitration Committee]] or a [[Wikipedia:Checkuser|checkuser]] or [[WP:SIGHT|oversighter]] for action. These editors are qualified to handle non-public evidence, and they operate under strict controls. The community has rejected the idea of individual administrators acting on evidence that cannot be peer-reviewed.<div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div>An exception is made for administrators holding [[Wikipedia:Checkuser|Checkuser]] or [[Wikipedia:Oversight|Oversight]] privileges; such administrators may block users based on non-public information revealed through the checkuser tool, or on edits that have been suppressed ("oversighted") and are inaccessible to administrators. As such, an administrative action is generally viewed to be made in the user's capacity as an oversighter or checkuser, although the action itself is an administrative one. All such blocks are subject to direct review by the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]].
+
If an administrator blocks a user based on information to which not all administrators have access, that information should be submitted to the [[WP:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]] before the block to ensure that the information is recorded in the event of any appeal. Evidence supporting these blocks must be made privately available by the blocking administrator to any uninvolved administrator upon request (for the purpose of peer review or appeal). In the event that the blocking administrator is unavailable to transmit the evidence, the Arbitration Committee will do so. These blocks [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_13#Special_Circumstances_Blocks|typically should <em >not</em> be marked]] as "appealable only to ArbCom" and are reviewable by any uninvolved administrator.<div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div>If the blocking administrator is unwilling to share this evidence with any uninvolved administrator upon request, the administrator may not issue a block. The community has rejected the idea of individual administrators acting on evidence that cannot be peer-reviewed. Instead, the administrator should request action from the Arbitration Committee, or from the [[WP:Checkuser|Checkuser]] or [[WP:Oversight|Oversight]] team, [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_13#Special_Circumstances_Blocks|as appropriate]]. These editors are qualified to handle non-public evidence, and they operate under strict controls.<div class="paragraphbreak" style="margin-top:0.5em"></div>A separate set of requirements apply to administrators holding checkuser or oversight privileges. Those administrators may block users based on non-public information accessible only to checkusers and oversighters without emailing the Arbitration Committee. This may include information revealed through the CheckUser tool, edits that have been suppressed ("oversighted"), and information recorded in the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_13#Special_Circumstances_Blocks|checkuser-en-wp or paid-en-wp VRTS queues]]. These blocks are considered to be Checkuser or Oversight actions, as appropriate, although the technical action to issue a block is an administrative one. All such blocks are subject to direct review by the Arbitration Committee.

References

  1. ^ a b c Administrators are also encouraged to do the same where their interpretation of on-wiki evidence might not be obvious to an administrator reviewing an unblock request—for instance, a sockpuppetry block justified by subtle behavioral "tells".

If this proposal is successful, the change would be communicated to all administrators via MassMessage, as has been done with past changes to blocking procedure. Wikipedia:Appealing a block would also be updated to reflect this change to blocking policy. Finally, the Arbitration Committee would be recommended to establish a new unmonitored VRTS queue to receive evidence supporting these blocks (distinct from its handling of "appeal only to ArbCom" blocks), with ticket numbers that can be included in the block log.

Co-signed 21:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC):
-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)
KevinL (aka L235 · t · c)

Discussion (BLOCKEVIDENCE)

  • Support as proposer. I thank L235 for suggesting creating this RfC, in light of our disagreement about the policy's current meaning, one that sees multiple experienced administrators on both sides. It's clear to me that BLOCKEVIDENCE is not in keeping with current practices, and creates a dangerous dead letter of essentially unenforced wording amidst a very important policy. As a new administrator, I have already run into scenarios several times that fall into this ambiguity. To highlight a few examples:
    1. A user recreated an article on a non-notable person, which had been deleted several times in the past. Past versions appeared autobiographical, but the new account seemed to be someone different. I Googled the username and found that someone with that exact name worked in marketing for a company affiliated with the article's subject. I blocked for meatpuppetry, directing other admins to contact me for evidence.
    2. A user was reported to SPI for AfD !votestacking. At issue was whether they knew another user off-wiki, so I Googled their username and found a LinkedIn profile where someone with that name claims to be a Wikipedia editor and claims to work for a company that the user had edited about extensively. I asked the user if they were affiliated with the company. They denied it, and I blocked for UPE, directing other admins to contact me for evidence.
    3. The other day, GoodPhone2022 (talk · contribs) emailed me, (mostly-)[1]confessing to being a sock of AlfredoEditor. In this case, given the username similarity to past sock GoodPhone2020 (talk · contribs), I was comfortable blocking, but if not for that, I would be in an area of policy ambiguity.
  • In each of these cases, ArbCom's current prescription is that I would have had to forward the email to a CU-staffed queue, in two out of three cases for a routine sockpuppet. In all three cases, the reason for blocking is on-wiki misconduct, most of the evidence is on-wiki, and the off-wiki evidence was straightforward.[2]
    We have four conflicting rulesets here: BLOCKEVIDENCE, if interpreted to forbid all blocks based on private evidence, forbids these three blocks, even the routine sockblock. If interpreted to forbid only blocks based on evidence that cannot be shared off-wiki with other admins, it allows this (since under WP:OUTING admins can discuss such evidence by email). ADMIN § Special situations, meanwhile, complicates this, in that it could be interpreted to allow these blocks but require making them "appeal only to ArbCom". ArbCom's recent statement, however, forbids that designation for the most part, and, depending on how literally one sentence is taken,[3] forbids making the block at all. And finally, de facto current practice is that administrators do make such blocks and either explicitly or implicitly direct other admins to contact them off-wiki for evidence.
    Since ArbCom has sent no admin-wide bulletin, I suspect that the upshot of ArbCom's recent statement is that it will be ignored and business will continue as normal until someday it doesn't and we get some drama-filled desysop or admonishment that pits admins saying "But we all do this!" against arbs saying "But we said you can't!" I don't like that outcome, and I don't like the status quo of a policy that is both ambiguous and ignored. Critically, even if BLOCKEVIDENCE does allow these blocks, we have the problem that it's not a very good system. Admins resign or get for-caused or die. Admins forget why they blocked someone. LinkedIn profiles get taken down, Upwork contracts get closed. By both formalizing the permissibility of blocks like these and creating a system for admins to store evidence (mandatory when off-wiki evidence is involved, optional but encouraged for complex interpretation of on-wiki evidence), we solve that problem while clarifying the situations under which admins can and can't make blocks like these. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
    @Tamzin: I would be very surprised if it is "current practice" for admins to make blocks based on nonpublic evidence without having signed the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information. Do you have any examples of anyone other than yourself doing it? Historically as a project we are very careful about private information and, while I have no doubt that your different interpretation of WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE was reached in good faith, in the subsequent discussion on ARBN, the majority of admins, including functionaries with years of experience in actually handling these kind of blocks within the established processes, agreed with ArbCom's interpretation. – Joe (talk) 09:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    @Joe Roe: Just sent a brief email. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:52, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ You deleted my sock's subpage, User:GoodPhone2020/List of islands by area [...] I'm not a sockpuppet
  2. ^ In the second case, the unblock-reviewing admin didn't even consult me for evidence, but found it themself.
  3. ^ Administrators should contact the appropriate group rather than issue a block covered above.
  • Support as proposer. In my view, policy currently prohibits many blocks that are frequently made by administrators (e.g., low-level UPE blocks based on Upwork profiles). But those blocks seem to have become accepted by the community and the administrative corps. This proposal catches policy up to reality while adding a safeguard: the evidence will be recorded in case it’s needed in the future. I therefore support the change.
    Also, because there’s disagreement about what policy currently requires, I’d ask any folks who oppose this proposal to indicate what they think the current policy says. (Are blocks based on info with an “email me for the evidence” note permissible? Does that count as information that will [] be made available to all administrators?) With thanks to Tamzin and everyone who discussed and ideated on this, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - currently we are caught between the former status quo, with the risk of block evidence being lost putting appellants and unblocking admins in an unenviable position and the Arbcom created new rules that simply would put too many tasks on CU-only where they don't need to be. This proposal offers a solution to that, especially in the "low-hanging fruit" part of off-wiki evidence. Tamzin's reasoning is detailed and the examples are a good set of those frequently seen. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems pretty straightforward to me. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. We shouldn't prohibit good blocks just because policy doesn't allow the evidence to go public. I do have one quibble with the proposed text. It says the info will be recorded by arbcom and can be retrieved there by admins, but it also says the blocking admin MUST supply the info to other admins on request. That implies all admins using this policy must retain a permanent duplicate record of the info. That seems pointless. I'd drop the unreliable requirement for admins to supply the evidence. Alsee (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support, with thanks to both proposers. The problem of UPE is a significant one, and I'm pretty sure there is community consensus that we need to allow some degree of "research" about users suspected of UPE or even just COI, regardless of the WP:HARASS prohibition of "opposition research". This proposal makes it clear how admins can be effective while still protecting private evidence, and solves problems with forgotten evidence. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
    @Tryptofish: We already allow this kind of research, by anyone, just with the caveat that only functionaries can make a block based on it. The evidence for these blocks is then logged in one of various VRT queues or private wikis (depending on the kind of block). For example, if you find evidence that a user is making undisclosed paid edits, you can email it to paid-en-wp@wikimedia.org for recording and action. – Joe (talk) 09:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    I think it's pretty obvious from subsequent discussion below, that the community is divided over whether or not that is, or should be, true. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    As I read comments by other editors, I want to add to my original comment. As much as I consider doxxing to be appalling, I think there are shades of gray when it comes to people who are openly engaging offsite in for-profit abuse of the community's trust. Deceiving other editors by hiding one's actual agenda in order to slant our content to serve a corporate or political purpose is not OK. And anyone who thinks it's not happening on a large and growing scale is kidding themselves. Wikipedia is a very attractive target for self-promotion. That's nowhere near to regular good-faith contributors who want to be able to edit anonymously (like me). Our policies should not be suicide pacts, and we should not make our belief in the right to anonymity into a cultish Thing-That-May-Not-Be-Questioned. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I support the idea behind this proposal. However, I'm unsure about the following sentence: "In the event that the blocking administrator is unavailable to transmit the evidence, the Arbitration Committee will do so." Can we really require them to do so? This seems to convert ArbCom into a marketplace for off-wiki outing. I guess "will do so if possible" or "may do so" would be more precise. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
    I'm definitely OK with "if possible" or "may do so" if people feel very strongly, but my first thought is that it seems like this is an edge case that doesn't need to be spelled out – presumably we can trust ArbCom not to engage in impermissible OUTING, as they handle all sorts of private information normally. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
    Well, as mentioned in Tamzin's support comment, the harassment policy does contain an outing exception specifically for emailing, so it's less of a concern than it looked to me first anyway. Formalizing the existing way for all administrators to access the evidence behind such blocks is a positive development.
    I have reviewed paid-editing blocks based on admin-only evidence (and requests for them) a few times and found it difficult to come to a clear conclusion whether the blocked user was actually lying into our faces or genuinely pointing out a case of mistaken identity. I guess those active at WP:SPI got used to this feeling. Transparency, as far as possible, increases the number of eyes that need to make the same mistake for an incorrect block to happen/stay. I can't really complain about that. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a reasonable way out of the current conflicting-norms problem. Unlike ToBeFree, I have no issue with the fact that the en.WP community can require its own ArbCom to do something. ArbCom answers to us, not the other way around.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
    (Now that might be oversimplified as ArbCom consists of volunteers... somehow... within the boundaries of WP:ADMINACCT and similar principles. And, although probably not applicable to the type of evidence we're discussing, there are of course even additional restrictions on what we can require them to do, described in their NDAs.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
    I agree the community can compel arbcom to do something through Arbpol. This is not that. However if this passes I will absolutely be in favor of setting up an email queue for things to be sent to. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:14, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support This is a good solution for a difficult problem and is necessary to reduce disruption. Johnuniq (talk) 23:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support makes sense and clears up an ambiguity/conflict in policies/procedures/best practices. I don't see any reason not to make this change. --TheSandDoctor Talk 23:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Absolute and unequivocal Oppose. While clearly a good-faith proposal, I think this may be the single worst idea I've seen advanced to the community in quite some time, full of ill-considered potential knock-on effects that aren't even contemplated within the proposition, let alone addressed. With due respect to Tamzin, I think they have seriously misinterpreted both the wording of relevant policy and the established community consensus on which it is based.
    For example, the first scenario that they use as evidence for why this system is needed (in their support !vote)... I'm sorry Tamzin, but that's just not the kind of investigation I want you to be undertaking under any circumstances, nor do I think it is properly within your remit as an admin: in fact, I think it is a brightline violation of the wording of WP:OUTING. The exception contemplated in that policy is that a user might utilize information relating to a generic posting by a company seeking COI editors--not the notion that users (admins included) would be tracking down potentially doxxing information regarding specific editors, just so long as they have socking concerns to justify it. That clearly goes against the spirit of the policy and longstanding community consensus.
    I suppose it's true that nothing currently prohibits any community member from acting as a non-sanctioned investigator and submitting such information to VRTS--whom I hope routinely ignore it in the (probable majority) of problematic cases and focus on on-project information and technical assets. But I am deeply concerned about how enabled similarly-thinking admins as Tamzin (again, no personal offense intended, but I feel strongly about this issue) might feel if they perceive a further institutional greenlight on such activities. And note that the outing policy would also need to be rewritten here in order to facilitate this new system, since it currently expressly forbids some of the activity that would be involved, and expresses a very different philosophy with how off-wiki information (and linking it to on-project accounts) is meant to be handled.
    Whats more, in order to facilitate this new and highly problematic role for admins, there is to now be a new log of sorts containing any amount of potentially sensitive personal information on any number of community members (and indeed, where the admin-inspector's instincts are off, personal information of people who may have nothing to do with the project whatsoever), creating one of the greatest systematic doxing risks generated by the project? All it would take is one bad actor getting access to that system, through legitimate or illegitimate means to create a world of harm. Nor should we expect any potential disruption to be limited to just a handful of overzealous admins, since this new system would encourage anyone of such a mindset, and on good terms with an admin who views their authority in this new area as broad, to seek out potentially damning information on other editors to relay it to said admins.
    I'm sorry, but our current policies with regard to the collection, dissemination, and storing of off-project personal information (which may or may not relate to community members) did not evolve in a vacuum: they are meant to place a premium on the protection of anonymity on a project that presents a massive risk of real world harm for many of its members. This proposal would be a significant erosion of that framework, which would invite all manner of potential problems. Far from being a "constitutional overreach", the rules promulgated by ArbCom (which have in any event been status quo for a long time), are, by comparison, much more in conformance with the traditional principles and concerns regarding privacy on this project, and it is (in my opinion) this proposal which would violate existing community norms and important checks and balances.
    In short, very much a case of the cure being much worse than the disease it proposes to address (and which is already effectively controlled by an existing treatment, if one that moves a little slower. I'm sorry, but we cannot, in the name of combating paid editing, vitiate some of our most important privacy policies. It just is not remotely a balanced reaction to that situation. SnowRise let's rap 01:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    The outing policy, a section of the harassment policy, does not prevent administrators (or anyone for that matter) from investigating users' off-wiki activities, and explicitly notes Nothing in this policy prohibits the emailing of personal information about editors to individual administrators, functionaries, or arbitrators, or to the Wikimedia Foundation, when doing so is necessary to report violations of confidentiality-sensitive policies. If you think it ought to prohibit these things, you should propose a change to that policy. But the status quo is that such investigations and discussions are allowed; the question we're discussing here is who should block based on them, and how. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 03:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    I find that quoting of the policy incredibly selective, considering the very next two sentences read: "Only the minimum information necessary should be conveyed and the minimum number of people contacted. Editors are warned, however, that the community has rejected the idea that editors should "investigate" each other."(emphasis added). The expansion of an administrator's permitted activities that you are proposing (and at least one of the examples of conduct which you seem to already engage in) are clearly not in keeping with that principle. You are just fundamentally wrong about what the kind of behavior the community has long proscribed with that rule: no, neither admins nor rank-and-file community members are meant to be tracking eachother off-project--that is quite simply a very foolish (and for some, expressly dangerous) notion, and the outing policy is the first and perhaps most fundamental layer in a firewall that exists to protect the privacy (and in many cases even the safety) of our volunteers.
    There is already a system in place for users (admins included) to act on off-project information suggestive of on-project disruption: WP:VRTS. That system seems to aggrieve you because you perceive it as ArbCom somehow dictating the purview of administrators, but there's clearly a lot of important policy rationale for why the system is set up like that in the first place: that information is simply not meant to become part of the record on contributors here, even in cases of disruption. Nor are our community members meant to be openly policing eachother in the manner you would have use normalize.
    What's more, you would have us log all the information thus collected in some fashion broadly available to at least editors of a certain class of permissions--and all that would need to happen in order for such doxxing data to be collected and retained for a user is that any one of our admins thought that maybe it was possible that they were socking... I'm sorry, but do you really not see all the ways that any such system would be vulnerable to exploitation or penetration, deeply undermining our traditional commitment to prioritizing the privacy and safety of our volunteers? I'm afraid that neither allowing for slightly speedier responses to a small subset of COI cases, nor giving a particularly defensive segment of the administrative corps an opportunity to thumb their nose at ArbCom are sufficiently good reasons to abrogate the principle of user anonymity so significantly. SnowRise let's rap 06:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)There's a clause in the outing policy that Editors are warned, however, that the community has rejected the idea that editors should "investigate" each other. My reading of the proposal is that this policy is complimentary with WP:OUTING and that both the public meaning and intent of this proposed policy maintain respect for the principle that editors should not investigate each others' private lives. @Tamzin and L235: Yes or no, is this reading of policy yours as well? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:20, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    Kevin and I are not suggesting any change to WP:OUTING. My reading of that clause in OUTING—taken in context alongside other language that, as noted, explicitly allows reports of sensitive information—is that editors should not try to "dig up dirt" on one another, especially not speculatively or vindictively. OUTING is not a blanket ban on ever looking at anything anyone does off-wiki, and the community has repeatedly rejected attempts to make it one, something reflected in its current wording. Give that functionaries and ArbCom are bound by OUTING too, any stricter reading of that clause would mean that they commit blockable/desysoppable offenses anytime they block someone for off-wiki harassment—a block that by necessity involves some level of looking at what someone has been doing off-wiki. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    That's clearly a non-sequitor: no one (that I have seen anyway) is suggesting that an admin who in good faith comes into possession of evidence of off-wiki harassment should refuse to act to protect the harassed party. And in fact, that's the very reason we have the system that we presently have, which balances user privacy with the possibility of administrative action in the fashion it does (with appropriate non-public oversight). But that is a very different animal from permitting admins (and potentially cohorts working in close collaboration with them) to unilaterally (and on their own onus) begin digging into the off-project identities of users. That is an exception that just cannot do anything but ultimately swallow the rule. It's very clearly the exact bridge too far that inspired the very plainly worded prohibition on investigating your fellow editors in the outing policy. Acting on information brought to you about an especially harmful and chilling class of harassment is one thing; every admin having the power to self-appoint themselves an inspector-general, in any random case of any user they can say they genuinely thought might be a sock, is a very different thing, and something I pray the community will have the good sense to reject here. SnowRise let's rap 07:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    @Red-tailed hawk: Yes, I believe that the proposal here is consistent with and should be read together with WP:OUTING, and that no changes to OUTING are implied by this proposal. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    Even though I still support the proposal, I actually think that it contradicts the current understanding by the community of what the outing policy says. This proposal, taken along with the harassment policy, is basically saying that a non-admin can be sanctioned for doing opposition research, but it's OK for admins to do it, so long as they are simply doing it to enforce policy, rather than to push a personal grudge. That said, I believe this to be the actual existing practice of how things are done, but we continue to have policies that say something different, and some very strong sentiment in the community that we need to keep hands and eyes off of off-wiki everything. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support, obviously. If you organized a gang of vandals off-wiki, you should be blocked. Not blocking due to the coms being off-wiki is just taking advantage of a technicality to me. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    As for the potential for a power-grab/privacy concerns raised by SnowRise, I agree that the proposal should be flushed out before being implemented. But you need to propose your idea first. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support admins need more help and more tools to prevent bad editing and problematic accounts. Andre🚐 03:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. The particular part of the policy that states that the information has to be submitted strictly before the block seems to be a bit arbitrary and might delay an admin taking action against actively coordinated off-wiki vandalism organized on something like Twitter. Giving the admin some time after making the block (i.e. within 24 hours or something to that effect) would be superior to strictly requiring administrators to submit evidence before a block is made. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:20, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose largely per SnowRise. I find Tamzin's examples bizarre; they seem to me to be right on the line of desysopable offences (even blockable ones), if not over it. Blocking someone because you googled their user name and found apparent connections to their editing is not okay. Sharing personal information of other editors by email (as proposed here) with any admin who asks for it is not okay. We have teams of people who deal with off-wiki evidence precisely to avoid this situation - those people have to have signed an agreement with the WMF to protect the confidentiality of data they use. Normal admins have not. GoldenRing (talk) 08:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    Also, I really think WMF Legal need to be involved here, as I can see potential implications for the site ToU and privacy policy. IANAL but if admins are sharing editors' personal information at will for the purposes of maintaining the site, does this not expose the foundation to a degree of legal risk? GoldenRing (talk) 08:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    I agree that this should be run past WMF Legal if implemented. Especially the part where ArbCom is supposed to act as a sort of information broker that provides personal information on editors to any admin that asks. – Joe (talk) 12:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    WP:Wikimedia Foundation statement on paid editing and outing exists. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    I'm well aware of that, thanks. It also doesn't say anything at all that would be relevant to the Arbitration Committee, whose members are all signatories to the WMF's confidentiality agreement, sharing personal information on third parties with people who are not. – Joe (talk) 18:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    Which part of the WMF's confidentiality agreement prevents an arbitrator from saying "When X blocked Y, they said it was because if you Google Y's username, you get a Twitter profile for the director of marketing at the company Y was making promotional edits about"? Genuine question. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    All arbitrators have agreed to refrain from disclosing nonpublic personal data to anyone. If they have access to the identity of Y because of their role, e.g. they got it from the WMF-hosted VRTS you've suggested setting up, that could be nonpublic personal data covered by the access policy. In the specific example you've chosen, you could probably argue that the Twitter profile was excepted because it is or was public (but off-wiki) information, but that isn't the case for all off-wiki blocks by any means. Also, importantly, IANAL, which is why I said I supported checking this with Legal – I'm not saying I have all the answers. That, generally, is another good reason to continue leaving this kind of work to functionaries: we tend to be a cautious bunch that will err on the side of privacy unless told otherwise. I can't say the same of the admin body at large. – Joe (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    The quote above seems to come from [4]. It should perhaps be noted that the sentence continues with "except as permitted under those policies" ("the Privacy Policy; the Access to nonpublic personal data Policy; and any other applicable and nonconflicting community policy relating to nonpublic information"), and that "Nonpublic Personal Data" (capitalized in [5]) refers to a term defined earlier on the page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is a terrible idea. as long as that evidence will be made available to any uninvolved administrator upon request – what if the blocking administrator isn't available? Or has left the project? Or lost the evidence? Or died? Just as the evidence for regular blocks are documented on-wiki, blocks for private evidence need to be documented somewhere so that no one person is a bottleneck for an appeal or unblock request, which could (and regularly does) come years after the initial block. ArbCom set up processes for doing precisely that years ago, using secure, WMF-maintained software, staffed by experienced and vetted functionaries who have signed the confidentiality agreement for handling nonpublic information, and it has been working perfectly fine for years. I don't see what problem this is supposed to solve and frankly it seems to stem entirely from one of our newest admins misunderstanding WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE. – Joe (talk) 08:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    I'm also a bit worried that good number of the supporters so far seem to be supporting because the opening text of this RfC gives the impression that we currently don't block people based on non-public information (e.g. of UPE). This is not correct. Users are regularly blocked based on non-public information, but policy restricts these blocks only to CheckUsers, Oversighters, or Arbitrators who have signed the confidentiality agreement. The proposal here is to alter WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE so that all administrators are permitted to make these type of blocks. – Joe (talk) 08:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    @Joe Roe: I'm a bit confused by your reasoning here, with respect to admin resignation/death/etc. The entire "send evidence to ArbCom" portion of this proposal is meant to address that scenario, filling a gap that currently occurs any time an admin makes a block like this. Which is a fairly common occurrence, particularly for admins who do a lot of anti-UPE work; the fact that you were unaware of that is a good example of the disconnect between different groups of admins that prompted me and Kevin to start this RfC. (FWIW, of the 1,015 blocks I've made since becoming "one of our newest admins", I reckon there's 5 or fewer that fall under the scope of this RfC. In all cases I have said I was willing to share evidence with inquiring admins, in line with my and many other admins' interpretation of BLOCKEVIDENCE's current meaning.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 16:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    Sorry, I was in a hurry and wasn't clear. The thing is that that gap only exists if you are making blocks against policy, hence this is a proposal that only solves a 'problem' of its own creation. If we stick to current policy, there are already robust processes that don't make one person the bottleneck and don't involve passing nonpublic personal information around a group of over a thousand people. I've yet to see any evidence that the latter is a "common occurrence" or that "many other admins" have the same misunderstanding about BLOCKEVIDENCE that you did. If I'm wrong, then as Thryduulf says below, they need to stop now and start following policy as it's currently written, not how they'd like it to be, before this ends up with ArbCom. – Joe (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    @Joe Roe: The whole point of this RfC is that policy as it's currently written is ambiguous. I and many other admins interpret will [ ] be made available to all administrators to require admins to be willing to share evidence privately when asked, but not to require them to present it on-wiki. That is not a "misunderstanding". It is a good-faith interpretation of an unclear clause. If you want to change BLOCKEVIDENCE to be more clear in your proposed direction, you should make a counter-proposal; but acting like the current meaning is crystal-clear is disingenuous. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    I look forward to hearing from these many other admins. So far it seems there is a unanimous consensus amongst functionaries (who have been dealing with these kind of blocks day-in-day-out for years), that will not be made available to all administrators means will not be made available to all administrators, not just to individuals on request. I can't see why I would need to make a "counter-proposal" to keep a policy as it has been for fifteen years, apparently without any problems. – Joe (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    You've already heard from several, both here and at WT:ACN. It's not exactly surprising that many functionaries, who are allowed to make these blocks under either interpretation, don't care about the distinction. Incidentally, your and several other functionaries' statements squarely at odd with multiple policies, including WP:OUTING (RoySmith, Thryduulf), the m:ANPDP (you, Thryduulf) and WP:UPE (Thryduulf), does not exactly bode well for the premise that functionaries (who need only finish in the top ~8 out of ~10/12 in an ACE to have that status for life) are somehow a more responsible body than their fellow administrators. Your attitude here reeks of superiority. You are not better than me or any of my ~1,000 non-funct admin peers just because 71% of voters 4 years ago thought that you should be on ArbCom. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    Read the threads again Tamzin, it's pretty much just you. Nobody is saying they're superior to you, but knowledge of how policy operates comes from experience in applying it. The functionary team (who are not all former arbs, by the way) have a collective experience of handling nonpublic data stretching back decades. They are vetted by the community and the WMF at a higher standard than RfA, and work within an established system of documentation and oversight (inc. ArbCom, OmCom and WMF T&S). It's astounding to me that, less than six months after you got the bit, when the Arbitration Committee told you that you'd misunderstood a part of the blocking policy that they originated, and posted a formal statement clarifying what to do in similar situations in future, you decided it must be they and/or the policy that was wrong. – Joe (talk) 06:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment The more I think about it, the less comfortable I am with this solution. I like it in principle, but I do think it needs a bit more consideration regarding the personal information. In Europe, we are governed by GDPR with regards to data protection, how long data can be kept, what purposes it can be kept for. Legally, the servers may be in the USA, if a user is accessing the data from Europe I'm not sure how that falls - and that's assuming the data is all held on the servers in the US. At present, the suggestion is that data is sent to the arbcom list, which is then immediately disseminated to Arbitrators mail boxes, which they have full control over. It's hard to argue the "US servers" point of view there, an arbitrator is clearly a data controller.
    Then there's the technical side of things. Based only on information that the user chooses to share - username they created, information they've given etc, you are investigating the individual online. That opens up a lot of risk - of mistakes, of joe jobs, of abuse. We shouldn't be encouraging this sort of behaviour, especially in our administrators.
    I still need to think more about it, so won't outright oppose, but I'm certainly uncomfortable. WormTT(talk) 09:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per GoldenRing, Joe and SnowRise. This is not something administrators should be doing at all, if you are doing it you need to stop it now. Use the existing channels to report any off-wiki coordination you stumble across. Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Run-on-the-mill admin blocks should be for stopping sustained atrociously poor editing that cannot be solved by attempts at communication, and should be held accountable by the community at large. This entire proposal throws out a basic principle of adminship, public accountability, out the window. In the proposal's scenarios with dishonest COI editors, I fail to see any benefits to blocking users just because of their IRL jobs, instead of concretely visible on-wiki activity like actually writing promotional articles, actually posting spam, vexatious restoration of deleted content, and the like. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 12:53, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    To be clear, in both UPE examples given, the editor had edited about their employer or someone affiliated therewith and then denied having any COI, a violation of enwiki policy and the Terms of Use. In one case there were blatant spam issues, and in the other there was meatpuppetry to keep a COI article at AfD. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    If there are spam issues then there is ample on-wiki evidence for a block, you don't need anything else. If someone is engaging in sockpuppetry then give the evidence to checkusers who are explicitly empowered by the WMF to deal with that information. If they are engaged in meatpuppetry then there will be ample on-wiki evidence of this behaviour and they can be blocked without needing any non-public information. If they are edit warring to keep an article then block them for edit warring, again you don't need anything else. If you believe they are violating the terms of use then you need to make the WMF aware of that, as they are the only ones empowered to enforce that. Thryduulf (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    There are many situations where the existence of a COI tips the balance of AGF toward blocking. That was the case in both examples I gave. Admins are often fairly patient with users who might be, for instance, just an over-eager fan of a TV show; while someone known to work for the show's production company will get blocked. As to the final sentence of your comment, that is dramatically out of step with current policy. There have been 212 blocks so far this year mentioning the ToU in the block summary, exercising the authority given to admins under WP:UPE. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    A list of 1228 such blocks, forked from the above-linked SQL query. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
    The last sentence is incorrect. "The Wikimedia community and its members may also take action when so allowed by the community or Foundation policies applicable to the specific Project edition, including but not limited to warning, investigating, blocking, or banning users who violate those policies." ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  • In general, I think that we should only block people on the basis of on-wiki evidence. With few exceptions, whatever happens off-wiki should be irrelevant. The first exception that springs to mind if off-wiki harassment, but there are also other cases, such as UPE etc. However, those should remain just that: exceptions. After all, opposition research is strongly discouraged even when it is based on information that may be publicly available on-wiki (see WP:OUTING and Wikipedia:Harassment#How to deal with personal information). This policy change, in my opinion, normalises blocks based on off-wiki evidence too much, for my tastes, and risks encouraging opposition research. In addition, it runs counter to two fundamental principles of the project: transparency and the idea that all editors are equal regardless of their user rights. In fact, when an editor is blocked on the basis of off-wiki evidence that is only made available to administrators, we are preventing non-administrators from evaluating whether the block was appropriate, without a good reason. We should not forget that administrators are not really qualified to handle non-public information, since they have not signed the WMF confidentiality agreement and have not been vetted for those responsibilities. On the other hand functionaries and arbitrators have been vetted and have signed the confidentiality agreement and policy already recognises that they are qualified to make blocks based on non-public information. I don't think the policy should be changed, I don't find the change necessary or wise. If it seems complicated to have someone blocked on the basis of off-wiki evidence, in my opinion it's because that's how it should be. Salvio 13:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    @Salvio giuliano: I think it's a valid outcome of this RfC for the community to clarify that it is unacceptable for admins to make many blocks they already make: I know administrators other than Tamzin make those blocks frequently. If the community does so, I would like it to speak clearly – as I wrote above, Also, because there’s disagreement about what policy currently requires, I’d ask any folks who oppose this proposal to indicate what they think the current policy says. (Are blocks based on info with an “email me for the evidence” note permissible? Does that count as information that will [] be made available to all administrators?) If the community says "no", we ought to update BLOCKEVIDENCE to say so. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    @L235: Are blocks based on info with an “email me for the evidence” note permissible? Does that count as information that will [] be made available to all administrators?) in my opinion no, those blocks are not permissible unless the admin in question can guarantee that they will always be available to promptly respond to requests for that information for the next 5-10 years (possibly longer) in the event of an appeal or other legitimate reason for needing the information and never give it out in other situations. If the information cannot be shared on-wiki then it must be shared, at approximately the same time as the block, with the arbitration committee. Thryduulf (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    If the information cannot be shared on-wiki then it must be shared, at approximately the same time as the block, with the arbitration committee.
    This is pretty much what the proposal says, though, right? I'm not trying to be obtuse – I just am not quite getting it. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    @L235 I was answering your question in the quote about whether admin's saying "email me for the evidence" is acceptable. And to reiterate, it absolutely is not. The proposal mitigates that aspect, but that's one part of my opposition. Thryduulf (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    I agree that it can be useful for the community to reiterate its position, so that everyone is aware of what is and is not proper. However, I've got to say that, the way I interpret policy, blocks with an "e-mail me" note are already inappropriate. The relevant clause of WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE may be argued to be less than clear, but, if we consider the body of relevant policies and their spirit, it's clear to me that admins are supposed to be blocking only when the information the block is based on is available to all administrators, such as when a block is based on deleted edits. When it's not, it's not appropriate for an administrator to impose a block, unless it's one of those "appealable only to ArbCom" blocks (or is based on CU or OS data). Salvio 19:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    I don't know if it's been mentioned, but the sentence in question initially read [...] based on information that cannot be made public, so the original intent was quite clear and, in the fifteen years since, it doesn't look like anyone else has found the reworded version confusing enough to bring it up. – Joe (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Wrong question. Before we figure out how to handle the record keeping for non-CU blocks involving off-wiki evidence, we should figure out if we even want that to be happening at all. If we're going to officially condone people poking around in LinkedIn, UpWork, etc, looking for evidence for blocks, then we need a wholesale rewrite of WP:OUTING. I know it goes on, so I guess it's good that this RfC got started because it brings the practice out in the open for discussion. Only after we figure out if we want admins (or anybody) doing that, then it's time to figure out how we want to handle the record keeping. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    Prodded by Tamzin's comment elsewhere in this thread, I've put in some quality time re-reading WP:OUTING and the documents it references. I'll walk back my "wholesale rewrite of WP:OUTING" partly as an overstatement, but more because it's a non-sequitur. The key point I was trying to make above is that there's two quite distinct issues here:
    • Does the community want admins doing these kinds of off-wiki investigations?
    • If the answer is yes, then what documentation process do we want to build around that?
    It seems to me that this RfC presupposes that the answer to the first question is "yes". Based on what I'm seeing here, I'm unconvinced that's correct. Until we're sure we know the answer to the first question, considering the second one just confuses things. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I am a bit surprised to see so many editors suggest that combatting professional, some of it very sophisticated, attempts to manipulate our content through paid editing is not a top flight concern. Our social policies are not a suicide pact and OUTING is a social policy. It is designed to protect good faith and bad faith editors alike. But that doesn't mean we should say to those administrators who wish to stop bad faith editors "oh sorry, you're not fit to do so until you get Checkuser and/or Oversight". L235 makes a crucial point that in actual practice these efforts seem to be accepted. What we are talking about here are efforts to ensure our readers are met with content that matches core policies and pillars like "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view". I'm a bit ambivalent on this proposal on the whole - hence why I'm not supporting - but I actually expected to be here with some of my concerns (some of which are capture above) rather than with what I see as the merits of this proposal. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    I'm surprised, disappointed (and frankly a little horrified) to find that so many editors are supporting the principal (and even practice!) of permitting random editors to undertake privacy-violating research into other editors based only on a suspicion that they may, or may not, have done something that may, or may not, have broken a policy an editor may, or may not, know about. What matters is that our articles are neutral, whether something is or is not neutral is not something that is determined by whether an editor received money for an edit, it is based solely on the words on the wikipage and the coverage of the topic in (reliable) sources. Even aside from that, not a single one of us has the right to authorise any other of us to invade the privacy of another human being just because we don't like something they might have done on a website. Thryduulf (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    @Thryduulf I'm not suggesting we allow random editors. I am suggesting that it is current practice to allow administrators to make such blocks. But I certainly can understand why that's not a trade-off you'd be willing to make, even if it is currently common in the community. Some feelings along those lines are a minor reason why I'm here as a commentator rather than !voter. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    I think this line of argument is a bit of a red herring. The question here is not whether we fight spam coordinated off-wiki—of course we should, and we do—but whether enforcement should be open to all admins or restricted to functionaries. I've been fairly deeply involved in the UPE area since before I became an admin and I don't think the former is a common practice or ever has been, so I'm rather surprised to see more than one arb now say that it is. If you guys are aware of admins making blocks that are against current policy, shouldn't you, you know... stop them? – Joe (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    Exactly what Joe says. If you haven't signed the foundation's agreement related to non-public information then you have absolutely no business dealing with non-public information (and that's the minium requirement imo). If anybody is currently doing that, and you know about it, then (1) why have you not stopped them? and (2) please make sure WMF legal is aware of it so they can take any appropriate action to mitigate the consequences. Thryduulf (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    The term "non-public information", when used in the context of WMF policy, refers to non-public information held by the Wikimedia Foundation, such as IP addresses. The m:ANPDP does not in any way regulate how community members interact with non-public information that they did not get from the WMF. Similarly, Legal has explicitly said that the m:Privacy policy does not apply to information gleaned from non-WMF sources. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    @Barkeep49: TBH my first thought on seeing this RFC was to file a request for arbitration, requesting that User:Tamzin be desysopped for cause as blocking based on similarity of names between an on-wiki account and a Google search result seems so blatantly wrong. I don't think, given my recent history, that I'm the person to do it but I'm still not sure it would be the wrong move. So I'm rather stunned to see a current arb here treating it as business as usual. WP:OUTING is crystal clear that posting personal information on-wiki unless that user themselves has revealed the information on-wiki - regardless of how really available the information might be offhwiki - is harassment which always merits a block; posting on-wiki "I have this guy's personal information, just email me and I'll provide it" might arguably avoid technically violating that policy but IMO it is a clear attempt at an end-run around it. GoldenRing (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    @GoldenRing:. So, User:JohnUncommonsurname creates Acme Corp. It's a G11, but not on its own a G11-and-block. I delete it and ask JohnUncommonsurname if he has any connection to Acme Corp., telling him that he's required to answer honestly. He says no. I then Google "John Uncommonsurname." The top result is a LinkedIn profile for the director of marketing at Acme Corp. Your position is that it is "blatantly wrong" for anyone—not just me, but even a functionary—to block based on that? The chance of coincidence in such a situation is considerably lower than the chance of coincidence we see as acceptable in sockblocks, for context. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    Tamzin, while I agree with you that this might be the best thing to do to protect the encyclopedia from bad people, the community has traditionally, AFAIK, frowned on such things, even if communications remained off-wiki. Checkusers, oversight and arbitrators probably have community mandate to do this, but there are 400+ admins and so far, I don't believe this kind of off-wiki investigation used for blocking was explicitly allowed, and it only takes place by WP:IAR. Obviously, you haven't shared this information on-wiki, so it isn't by-the-letter WP:OUTING, but the community has tended to frown on it, and I think it's a fair point that while we like and trust Tamzin, we might not like and trust every administrator. Also, what about unreliable information from a fake social media profile, then getting someone blocked that they deny connection to? If we open the door to Linkedin searches, can I get blocked for an unpaid parking ticket? Joking aside, I supported changing the policy, above, but I also can see why the position is defensible not to permit such things. Andre🚐 21:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    @Tamzin: I did not say so. As others have repeatedly pointed out to you here, functionaries are in a different position to admins because they have the option to make blocks where evidence is only available to other functionaries and all functionaries must establish their real-world identities with the WMF and sign the non-disclosure agreement. You, as a non-functionary admin, are not in that position and so your only options in this situation are to make the evidence available to all admins (and I question whether a note in the block log meets this requirement anyway - I've been desysopped after disappearing for two and a half years so God help anyone I blocked on non-public evidence who wanted to appeal in that time - but that's beside the point here) or to mark the block appealable only to arbcom and immediately forward the evidence to them. I still don't get how you think what you've done is okay. GoldenRing (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    @GoldenRing: "all functionaries must establish their real-world identities with the WMF" — this hasn't been the case for a long time (way back when I first got access to OTRS I had to send in a scan of my passport, but that was years ago...), "and sign the non-disclosure agreement" — this is the access to nonpublic personal data policy (the same thing the VRT folx sign), a topic which I muse on below — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 22:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    No, you aren't the best person to be doing so, and it would be the wrong move regardless. Black Kite (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    @GoldenRing first what I can/have to say as an editor and what I can/have to say as an arb are not the same. So playing the "stunned to see a current arb" card in a non-arb context is not my favorite and contributes to me feeling unable to be a part of the community in ways that are unpleasant for me - such as being able to participate in an RfC about policy that I care deeply about.
    But putting on my arb hat, the background here, which you may or may not be aware of, is Tamzin following the blocking policy, leveled an "appeal only to arbcom" block, and reported the evidence to ArbCom as the policy dictated. I had long been aware of the discrepancy Moneytree notes below between Admin and Blocking policies and that block spurred ArbCom to audit "appeal only to arbcom" blocks. Based on that audit, after consulting with functionaries, we updated previous guidance - written before there were OS blocks and before the Foundation had taken over child protection, in other words in a time where a lot of more "private evidence" blocks made sense that had lead to that appeal only to arbcom language being added to the blocking policy. That updated guidance spurred discussion between Tamzin and myself but mainly between Tamzin and L235 who ended up here. As an Arb I stand by everything in that updated guidance and reflects my current approach to any case requests we might get about the topic.
    But yes I also am respectful of the fact that the blocks so many find troubling are very common and have never resulted in a case request or other substantial issue raising suggesting, because policy is practice, and that regardless of my preference the community seems to have been OK with it despite what ADMIN said. Bottomline: I would love to get rid of the idea of those blocks and I would love for the discrepancy in what is allowed between the BLOCKing and ADMIN policies to be reconciled. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    @Barkeep49: I'm sorry to put you in that position but I think it's unavoidable. We are talking here about what is apparently a widespread breach of very longstanding policy by a large group of admins (at least, one admin says it's widespread and a large group of admins) and it is your job as an arbitrator to reign that in. You are the only recourse the community has to stop administrators doing this. You issued guidance which you've linked above which explicitly says this is wrong. I don't see how you can realistically discuss this while pretending you're not an arbitrator; if arbcom is not willing to enforce policy against administrators here then where does that leave us? Why is the approach being taken here to propose a change to policy that would retrospectively make this policy breach okay rather than enforcing policy as written and your own guidance on that policy? I'm not usually one of the ones to moan about arbcom but I just don't get the approach here. GoldenRing (talk) 09:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
    I think we have very different conceptions of what an arb can do. My belief is that the community has intentionally put a check on ArbCom's powers by making it a reactive rather than proactive body. So if I see something that is, in my view, a policy violation I can either file a case request, the same as any other editor, or I can hold that opinion and wait until the community decides to raise it with us. And yet in this very specific situation ArbCom did exactly what you wished for here and tried to get the community aligned on policy. We issued a statement about how private information should be handled which was directly based on 2 previous statements arbcom had done (in other words there was clear precedent). And what feedback did we receive? significantly exceeded its authority, an overreach of authority, and an unexpected, significant change to give examples of quotes from three different editors. There were also a couple supportive comments as well. But that statement is my current view, as an arb, about what is allowed under policy today. This, however, is a discussion of what policy should be. And so I feel entitled as a member of this community to comment the same as anyone else. And, as I keep having to point out, not even comment that I think it should pass which is why I haven't voted in favor of it. I'm not opposing it because I would love to get rid of the idea of those blocks and I would love for the discrepancy in what is allowed between the BLOCKing and ADMIN policies to be reconciled. and at minimum this does that even if it's not in my preferred way. But again that's me as an editor. If you want to know what I think as an arb about policy today, I already did what you asked, to criticism. Critism I'm willing to handle because that's what I volunteered for. I didn't volunteer to be told I no longer get to have opinions on how to improve our community. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
    @Barkeep49: Okay, I think I've been reading more into your comments than was there and I'm sorry for it. I'm afraid arbs could put their socks on in the morning and some would consider it an overreach of authority; I think that statement hits exactly the right note, FWIW. GoldenRing (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support and question why anything easily google-able is being considered private information for purposes of OUTING. If any editor can enter the article subject, connected parties or editors handle into a search engine and find the connection, it's not private. UPE is only getting worse and we need every tool available to shut them down quickly. Slywriter (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    Because OUTING is rightly very clear that only information an editor has voluntarily shared or linked to on-wiki is considered public. Every editor, even those suspected of undisclosed paid editing, is entitled to their privacy and we absolutely must not erode that. Thryduulf (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    The "voluntarily shared" part is the key here. Most people edit under a pseudonym. That's a public declaration that they have an on-wiki identify and an off-wiki identify and they desire the two to be kept separate. The fact that we may be able to pierce that veil with little trouble doesn't make it right to do so.
    In the real world, I have a cheap padlock on my garage door. Nobody intent on theft would need more than a moment to pop it open with tools available at any hardware store. The real purpose it serves is an unmistakable declaration that "The things behind this door belong to me and you're not allowed to enter without my permission". If somebody cut the lock and stole my bicycle, they wouldn't get very far in their criminal defense with, "It was a crappy lock; it hardly took any effort at all to get past it". -- RoySmith (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
    Slywriter, to answer your question of why "easily google-able" things are considered private information for purposes of OUTING policy: We don't want routine wiki squabbles bleeding over into off-wiki harassment, because we don't want people's off-wiki lives being used as cannon fodder on wiki in routine squabbles, because editors in some parts of the world could be in danger of arrest or death for their on wiki work, and because we tend to highly value privacy as a general principal. So when some sanction or other official action involved off-wiki info, we require it to be handled in a confidential manner. The question here, as I understand it, is basically whether admins are permitted to act on the info or whether they need to pass it to a checkuser/oversighter/arb for possible action. Alsee (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
    The point of "public" in Wikipedia is what is on Wikipedia, not the one on Google. Yes, what is on Google is public, but the Internet is limitless. While you think that it is okay for an admin to look up your username, is it okay to look up your email? Is it okay for an admin to look up Reddit and try to find similar username, and see what kind of subreddit you had subscribed? Is it okay for an admin to look at hacked databases (available in online as well!) to try to find a connection? The potential for overreach is endless. I don't want admins running amok doing fishing expeditions just to catch some paid editors. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit confused by the proposal and several support and oppose votes above; there seems to be a pretty fractured understanding of outing vs. pursuing UPE cases vs. disruptive offwiki behavior vs. public and non-public information vs. NDAs vs. etc. above. My main question, though, is the text at Wikipedia:Administrators#Special_situations that appears to approve these sort of blocks and contradicts BLOCKEVIDENCE per my reasoning here going to be changed as a result of this? Or will this just create more policy headaches? Or does this proposal and the text and ADMIN actually align in some way I'm not noticing? Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 14:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    @Moneytrees: In answer to your ACN talk message, when I voted for the statement, I did so because the text at Wikipedia:Administrators#Special_situations appeared to be derived from ArbCom's prior statement, not as an independent expression of community policy/consensus. I therefore understood it to be within ArbCom's authority to change it. If this proposal passes, ADMIN will be harmonized to be consistent with it. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    My thining behind the scenes is that I don't think ArbCom can directly change ADMIN policy. But it absolutely could update its statement and the community could decide how/if to incorporate that into ADMIN. And that's what happened in this situation and now here - this RfC is a reaction to that statement. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Jayron32 nicely summed up my thoughts. Functionaries are supposed to handle nonpublic information, not admins. Strong oppose until legal is consulted: I agree with the above that this needs to be run through legal before we make this change. Better safe than sorry. Not sure where I land on the merits of the proposal. If/when legal gives the okay, I will strike my oppose. HouseBlastertalk 16:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC) struck and replaced 01:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
    See above ("WP:Wikimedia Foundation statement on paid editing and outing exists") ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I have the same feeling I get whenever there's a major proposal or change (on Wikipedia or in the rest of the world) involving a significant trade-off of privacy for security. There would be a lot of harm that could be prevented if we could connect an abusive user to their off-wiki identities, but there's also harm in removing those protections. Basically nothing to hide argument. I'd tend to oppose based on the reasons articulated in that article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:27, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose for several reasons. First, I am also leary to advise any editor, including admins, to act as real-life investigators to try to dig up information about the real-life identity of Wikipedia users. The kind of un-intended consequences and knock-on effects of such advics is frankly scary; and where policies come into conflict (and policies always will) I tend to grant supremacy to WP:OUTING and privacy concerns over any other policy. On-wiki behavior should be (in most cases) all we should be basing our blocking decisions on; if off-wiki evidence is necessary, it should be turned over to Arbcom or T&S or someone else with advanced positions of trust. There is no way I expect the hundreds of admins to deal with such concerns adequately. I know that WP:UPE exists; but such concerns do not trump privacy concerns, which we should hold as sacrosanct. I am also against the deputizing of other admins to "handle" private information. Some functionaries are vetted and have approval to handle such information. Admins are not and I am not comfortable with that. If a private information must be used as evidence, pass it on to Arbcom or T&S and let them handle it. --Jayron32 17:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose on legal grounds, and this seems to be a massive overreach of Wikipedia's powers. Doesn't seem right to allow Wikipedia to pry into the personal life of users and use that information to interact with the user in any way.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    This doesn't change anything legally or otherwise wrt private evidence being used to block anyone or sanction them - it's just about who is privy to it. And until the foundation itself takes charge of their own legal terms and prohibitions (particularly UPE), that's how it will remain. PICKLEDICAE🥒 19:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    I'm sorry but that is just factually incorrect: under current rules no admins (who have not also been vetted for particular functionary roles reserved for this exact purpose, and signed agreements on the handling of such private information) are meant to be issuing blocks on the basis of off-project information. They are meant to exclusively forward that information to the Trust and Safety team, to ArbCom, or to the VTRS queue, not take direct action on it. That is precisely the reason Tamzin forwarded the proposal: because they think admins should have that ability. As is expressly stated in the prompt.. And yes, that system is very much entangled with the legal implications of the handling of such of information, as expressed by WMF legal and tghe Trust and Safety team, ArbCom, and other bodies with heightened authority, tools, and concerns in this area. So, without meaning offense, your statement is just plain wrong: this would be a radical departure from the existing community consensus, the existing framework for handling such information and legal considerations and interests for parties on all sides. SnowRise let's rap 20:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    re-read what I said. Nothing has changed legally or otherwise. PICKLEDICAE🥒 20:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    Well I guess its possible we are in fact talking past eachother here. But if you're saying that the proposal wouldn't change anything "legal or otherwise", that is quite clearly and massively incorrect. And if that's not what you mean, I'm not sure what you were trying to say in your response to the Ortizesp that would have been accurate. SnowRise let's rap 21:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    No; there is a disagreement about what "information that will not be made available to all administrators" means, and this is a proposal to clarify it in one specific direction. As a minimum result of this discussion, the wording should be changed to match the actual consensus in a less ambiguous way. Interestingly, even those opposed to the proposal could perhaps agree on the proposed term "information to which not all administrators have access", which is much clearer. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    I do tend to agree that any clarity resulting from the discussion can be viewed as good cause for having it. That said: a) this discussion is clearly about more than just how the information would be shared, as it also proposes to allow admins to make blocks in circumstances they are currently proscribed from, and would either tacitly or expressly allow them more latitude in tracking down editor identities off project in a manner they (like all other community members) are presently not meant to be doing; and b) even putting all of that aside, the system of logging such personal information as proposed would itself be a change of truly staggering policy and legal implications for the project and the WMF. SnowRise let's rap 21:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    "in circumstances they are currently proscribed from", according to your interpretation of the current wording. Not according to others'. This is because some interpret "information that will not be made available to all administrators" as meaning "information that will not be made available to any requesting administrator via e-mail request". You don't, some do. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)r
    I don't think there is much ambiguity at all, when we consider that the other hald of that sentence, which follows the highly selectively-quoted clause that keeps getting foessed around here says "that information should be sent to the Arbitration Committee or a checkuser or oversighter for action. These editors are qualified to handle non-public evidence, and they operate under strict controls. The community has rejected the idea of individual administrators acting on evidence that cannot be peer-reviewed." That pretty much says it all: blocks based on non-public evidence are specifically and expressly meant to be handled by particular functionaries operating under a higher standard of controls and safety protocols, and this system exists expressly to foreground the privacy and security of our volunteers. I just simply do not see the flex in that wording you suggest is there.
    The WP:OUTING policy also converges on this wording, and there is absolutely no question what ArbCom thinks on the matter. But even if we were to confine ourselves to looking at the exact wording of that one sentence in WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE in isolation, I don't see how any reasonable reading could hold that the major concern is that there was until now not a system for logging that information, since clearly that has always been a trivial technical hurdle. The overwhelming concern meant to be voiced by that language (which becomes clear when you quote the entire sentence and not just five fragmentary words from it), is for the protection of the privacy and safety of our volunteers. It's so obvious in how it is framed when read in full that I don't think anyone can really reasonably take another meaning unless they went looking for it from the outset.
    Which is clearly also what is going on with the supposed "open to interpretation" argument of the ArbCom ruling, since, if the OP really wanted to get to the bottom of that question, a simple request to the committee would have sufficed. It's pretty clear the answer is taken for obvious, hence the strategy here of instead trying to drum up community opposition to ArbCom's read on the issue, which (yes, in my opinion here) is much more consistent with policy, existing community consensus, and common sense, since the knock-on effects of the altenartive proposed here would be nothing short of vitiating of our current privacy standards. SnowRise let's rap 22:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    Hi @Snow Rise. I am a co-proposer of this RfC and am also on ArbCom and voted for the statement you're quoting from. Speaking personally, I think policy as written does not currently allow these blocks, but I absolutely think the community has come to accept them – it is the prevailing practice. I think you overstate it when you say that It's so obvious and one can't reasonably take another meaning. You may not agree with the interpretation, as I don't, but it's certainly not unreasonable. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    @L235 I agree that there's been no objection (well, previous to this discussion), but I'm not sure that's the same as acceptance. It may simply be that most people are unaware that these kinds of off-wiki investigations are going on. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    Fair enough--I don't want to seem to be begging the question here. And insofar as the proposal was co-drafted in the fashion it was, it supports a "reasonable minds may differ" take on this. But I do think the argument in advance of the proposition in support of such acitivity does lean awfully heavily on selective quoting (and to some extent perhaps even willfully missing the forest for the trees), in order to validate a behavior/self-assumed authority that is already being engaged in. Obviously any admin already undetaking such blocks and wanting to persist in that habit has a vested interest in a certain interpretation here, whatever policy actually says.
    And even making all possible caveats for good faith differences of opinion, I still feel it is pretty clear from both the express wording of the relevant policies (and the long course of community discussion surrounding them) that the primary concern voiced in BLOCKEVIDENCE is the protection of volunteer privacy and safety. The lack of an existing system to store personal information in order to facilitate blocks by admins in cases of off-project evidence is not just some highly improbable failure of the community to realize that a log could be created for this purpose: the current system exists (and eschews the collection of personal information in this way) expressly and specifically to avoid having the typical admin (or more precisely, anyone who does not operate under the heightened protection and accountability scheme for dealing with private information) behaving in such a fashion--with regard to both the block and the personally-impelled investigations.
    And I don't think I'm the only non-mop veteran community member here who is rather shocked to learn how presumptuos certain admins have become with regard to this kind of thing. If they have in fact been engaging in this activity, I feel not the least bit conflicted in saying it is not because the community has ever greenlit such activity or in any way has voiced support for such a role as part and parcel of the administrative tools. Quite the contrary: this is a major overeeach in defiance of longstanding community principles, and I feel it needs to be made to stop with regard to any admin who thinks it is within their purview. But then, I assume that is precisely the reason you co-endorsed the RfC itself and that I am preaching to the choir on this. SnowRise let's rap 00:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
    I'm a mop-holder and I'm shocked to learn that these sorts of blocks are being made. My understanding is that they are not allowed - the fact that we've site banned folks in the past for doing opposition research or doxxing kinda made me understand that doing that was not allowed, so I never would have considered that an admin would be doing blocks based on behavior that we've site banned folks for. I'm .. rather shocked at the people saying that it's common - and that there aren't ArbCom cases happening because of these blocks. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: There's a lot of mentions here of VRT (in regards to "admins shouldn't deal with personal data, but VRT can") — it may be worth noting that the barrier for entry to VRT is much much much lower than our RfA standards. I'm fairly sure any en.wiki admin making a request for VRT access would likely be granted it, which seems to suggest the issues being raised here are more due to the fact that admins have not signed something like the VRTS Users Confidentiality Agreement - Nonpublic Information (which, I believe, anyone can just go and sign?) and less a question of trust/over-reach. Would those opposing this change their mind if we asked admins who wished to do these sorts of blocks to sign such a document? — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 21:53, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    @TheresNoTime: There are VRT queues only accessible to functionaries (e.g. paid-en-wp@wikimedia.org and checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org), which is where nonpublic evidence of misconduct is currently supposed to be sent. If I understand the proposal correctly, the new queue for off-wiki block evidence would be similarly restricted. Regular VRT users do sign the same agreements that functionaries do, but it's not the agreement alone that makes someone 'trusted' to handle nonpublic data. It's the prior vetting, peer review, oversight from ArbCom/OmCom/T&S, etc. – Joe (talk) 06:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
    Everyone using the VRT system handles nonpublic data. You can't really run an e-mail-based system without trusting people to handle the nonpublic e-mail addresses that the messages come from. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per SnowRise, GoldenRing, and JoeRoe. I do not want admins to go playing Private Investigator and am vehemently opposed to the idea that we start keeping data on the folks doxxed in this manner (because, frankly, that's what's happening - the editors are being investigated and then their information is being shared with others ... doxxing.) I am trying to AGF that those supporting this don't really support holding secret files of evidence on editors that get shared around but... Ealdgyth (talk) 22:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Having witnessed off-site material be used to improperly block users under alternative pretenses, this will only embolden admins with good intentions to make unfortunate mistakes. That said, I appreciate the general concept of this proposal. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the above arugments. This would be a slippery slope towards invasions of privacy and administrator overreach. ~Darth StabroTalk/Contribs 00:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per SnowRise et al. Like others, I had no idea this was going on, and would have objected if I had known. I'm less concerned about people Googling people than I am about admins blocking editors unilaterally based on off-wiki evidence (whether it's public or private off-wiki evidence). If the evidence, for whatever reason, can't be posted on-wiki, then it needs to be sent to paid@ or arbcom@ or whomever, for further action. Recently I sent a report to paid@ and arbcom@ with what I thought was slam-dunk off-wiki evidence. A CU checked it, and after a discussion with the editor in question, determined that there were in fact no policy violations. Shortly thereafter, an arb granted the editor autopatrolled. Clearly, I was wrong, and there was more information than whatever evidence I had. If I had been an admin and had blocked that editor, it would have been a seriously harmful mistake, possibly driving off a good-faith editor, even if it was later overturned. We are all capable of making mistakes; sharing evidence on-wiki, or sharing it via email if it's off-wiki evidence, ensures that there are checks and balances, that it's not just one individual acting unilaterally. Levivich😃 01:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose, encouraging admins to essentially stalk people off-wiki is not the way to go about things. Such behaviour is a total violation of privacy, and to my mind has the potential to be very creepy. Take an admin stalking an editors' social media for example, under this proposal this hypothetical admin would be able to explain away their behaviour if accused by stating they were merely "looking for evidence" on whether they should perform a block, and indeed this adminwould be able to doxx the editor by storing their personal information in this proposed archive without any method for this doxxing to be undone, since it would have to be maintained indefinitely so the admin could hoof it around to any other admin who wants it in order to explain their block. There is already a way to block editors for off-wiki behaviour, and I have yet to see any evidence that it is not working, only that it's not working as fast as some people would like. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
    This - there is a way to block people for this behavior already. If it ain't broke... ~Darth StabroTalk/Contribs 03:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
    The status quo is in fact that non-CU admins make those blocks. Prohibiting those blocks may well make it broke. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose, mainly for reasons that SnowRise mentioned, as well as legal issues Re GDPR that WMF Legal should probably look into. While this does not go against the letter of WP:DOX "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia." - certainly measures against it ae re being discussed, but it seems like a slippery slope. Maximilian775 (talk) 02:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Ordinary admins with negative off-wiki evidence about an editor should pass it up the tree. They shouldn't act on it themselves. The proposal that any other admin has the right of access to the information is especially preposterous. If this isn't already clear in policy then it should be made clear. Zerotalk 03:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Snow Rise et al. I think this is something most rank-and-file editors would not be comfortable with. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose in parts, support in parts. When once upon a time we elected our functionaries, and the level of support required to gain either CU or OS was far above what it would take to pass RFA, then sure I could see a substantive difference in the level of trust granted to admins by the community and the level of trust granted to functionaries. I suppose I still kinda see that for the functionaries that are that due to their ACE elections, but Tamzin is right that all that really means is that you finished in the top 8 out of 12 people running or so, so I dont even really get the distinction between an arb elected in 2012 and an admin elected in 2021 in terms of level of trust the community has given them. If the functional difference is having agreed to the privacy policy, well as far as I can tell the the Access to nonpublic personal data Policy is about CU data and material that has been oversighted, but also you can just have people sign that agreement as TNT noted above. I dont like the idea that any admin can request that information from an admin who made a block based on off-wiki evidence, but I dont especially have a problem with the scenario outlined above in which say for example somebody's upwork profile provides DUCK level proof of UPE violations and making a block. But the evidence should be sent to whichever group of admins an appeal of such a block would be directed, OS, CU, ArbCom, whatever. It does not need to be spread as widely as "any active admin". So I oppose the sentence on the evidence should be provided to any uninvolved admin, and instead would favor any block issued on the basis of off-site evidence have its evidence forwarded to an appropriate team with advanced permissions so that they may review it, either as the result of an appeal or just as peer-review. And like CU or OS blocks, if there is evidence of an admin going rogue with their blocks, then AC may desysop that admin or restrict them from making such blocks by motion, like they would strip CU or OS from a functionary that was misusing it. nableezy - 16:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
  • That's treading into dangerous territory if you hide evidence. I'd prefer to have this go to an ArbCom type forum, so the evidence can be reviewed and noted; a closed courtroom where the evidence is discussed but only given to those who need to make the decision, preferably the ArbCom people would be otherwise uninvolved in the block decision. We have to keep this as neutral as possible.Oaktree b (talk) 01:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm in a weird headspace where I am not convinced the process proposed by the RfC is necesssary, but I am also unconvinced it is necessary for the community to clarify that it is unacceptable for admins to make many blocks they already make (quoting L235 above). My interpretation of WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE as currently written is as follows. Administrators may only justify blocks using on-wiki evidence that any administrator has the technical ability to see (including deleted revisions, private edit filter logs, etc.). If a block cannot be justified using on-wiki evidence alone, then that block would be impermissible unless the user is a checkuser, oversighter, or arbitrator acting within the bounds of their respective roles and responsibilities. The community has never allowed non-functionary administrators to block editors based primarily on off-wiki/private information.
    The key word, however, is primarily. The RfC essentially makes the claim that this policy is too restrictive and that it would require many "routine" spam and sockpuppetry blocks to go to ArbCom or the CU team. That's where I disagree. It's not uncommon to find cases where there is additional off-wiki evidence that the blocking administrator might be aware of (and could be helpful additional information that could be provided on request to administrators reviewing a block), but in the wide majority of these cases, the block could nonetheless be justified just with the on-wiki evidence. Consider one of Tamzin's examples above in which A user recreated an article on a non-notable person, which had been deleted several times in the past. Repeatedly attempting to create an article about an obscure non-notable topic inherently suggests some kind of connection to past socks that tried the same thing; while I'm not familiar with the exact context here, I strongly suspect the block would have been justifiable based on the on-wiki evidence alone (sure, the justification wouldn't have been as strong, but there would have at least been a plausible argument nonetheless). That's the key here. Contacting a checkuser, an oversighter, or an arbitrator would only be necessary if an editor needs to be blocked based on private evidence and a block cannot be justified without that private evidence.
    The one pesky policy section that is admittedly confusing is WP:ADMIN#Special situations. I wrote at the ACN discussion that triggered this RfC that I don't see that section as necessarily irreconcilable with BLOCKEVIDENCE as currently worded—but I do wish this RfC were more about clarifying that section (which appears to have been added unilaterally in 2012) rather than BLOCKEVIDENCE. Mz7 (talk) 10:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
    I think this is a reasonable way to look at the current policy. I just ran into this with my block of Quintin-Mills: His one edit was spammy enough to bring it into the discretionary range between warn and block, but what tipped me in the direction of blocking was a statement he made in a global rename request. With this RfC in mind, I referenced that as additional evidence in the block rationale, but did not make it the primary reason, as I think most admins will agree that Special:DeletedContributions/Quintin-Mills falls within admin discretion to block over. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nobody should be blocked on evidence which is not available to the Community at large or which cannot be revealed pursuant to a WP:ADMINCOND request. If anyone thinks they possess offwiki evidence that merits a block they should notify the target and open an ArbCom case in which the target can make representations (if necessary by email). For the same reason, the work to mask IP addresses should be stopped dead in its tracks. The damage that this will do to editors fighting vandalism will be incalculable. 2A00:23A8:4C31:5901:9580:C3C4:6DB1:AE40 (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
  • @Tamzin:, back at WT:ACN, you wrote The community's consensus is that admins may issue blocks based on private evidence.... Was there a formal discussion you can link to out of which said consensus emerged, or were you using the term in the more informal sense of "We've been doing it that way for a long time and nobody objected"? -- RoySmith (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
    @RoySmith: I was referring to the consensus behind the current will be made available to wording, and the implicit consensus to not have that say is available to. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose If I'm reading this correctly it creates some new responsibilities that I'm not liking: (1) The sitting ArbCom must maintain an indefinite library of these evidences (2) The sitting ArbCom must maintain a process to produce this evidence to any admin on demand. Well, what are you going to do if arbcom doesn't turn up a volunteer to do this? Creating an indefintite responsibility to future volunteers is a bad idea. — xaosflux Talk 22:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The only people who should be judging others on/have access to non-public evidence should be those that have signed the Wikipedia:Access to nonpublic information policy. Also, ArbCom is elected on behalf of the community specifically to oversee cases such as these that are not amenable to public review. WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE is fine as-is. If a block is based on evidence that would be WP:OVERSIGHTED if published on Wiki, someone who has WP:OVERSIGHT permissions should be in charge of these blocks. The real issue for me it seems is that our existing policies are not being enforced. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:03, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support for LTA cases/cases where off-wiki harassment is part of the case, not simply for seeing what else we can find: There should be stringent reasoning behind an administrator choosing to investigate a user's off-wiki activities – either off-wiki conduct is part of the problem, or a user's abusive behaviour is part of a dangerous and wider trend of how they conduct themselves online (as in, LTA cases where "this user may stalk you/send you death threats" has to be added to the LTA case file). Investigating off-wiki behaviour should be unsuitable in the vast majority of cases, but I can see times when it will probably be necessary. In these cases, there needs to be more of a record than "this administrator found it and this administrator saw it too"; having it entered into record somewhere hopefully makes it a more accountable process.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 13:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
    It seems like you're saying that someone who lives with a very real Wiki-generated threat would benefit by having any admin who requests it be given access to detail which could further endanger the stalked person like, say, information in police records. What if the off-Wiki harassment is from an individual who was an admin? What if the admin who issues a block happens to be an ex-arb? The forced disclosure in this wording would still apply; would it not obligate them to disclose personal information (that could endanger the threatened editor) to any admin who is curious about what looks like an odd block, but has signed no confidentiality agreement? The wording of this proposal was perchance conceived to try to address the (relatively less real, 'cuz nobody dies) problem of paid editing, without full consideration to situations of more consequence than someone getting their company promoted on the internet. Not one of the three examples applies to real-life real threats that happen to Wikipedia editors. Perspective, priorities, and reality check, pls. Obviously, I oppose the wording as written, and in fact, would consider the whole matter should probably be reviewed by someone at legal should it advance, because the alarming repercussions to real people in real life if confidential information, revealed to arbs, ends up revealed to any 65% threshhold admin who has not signed a confidentiality agreement and was not elected is dangerous in real ways ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Ealdgyth et al. I am shocked to learn that an admin (or many) has been doing the off-wiki investigation the opening statement seems to indicate; surely this is contrary to all our privacy values. Happy days ~ LindsayHello 20:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I am uneasy that private information might be passed around among people who have not signed up to the WMF access to non public information agreement. There is already a dedicated VRT/functionaries email address for issues concerning undisclosed paid editing so it is not necessary to do this. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Hell no. Administrators should never be blocking users based on "nonpublic evidence". Ever. Any "standard" admin actions must be backed up by public evidence. If the evidence can't be posted on-wiki for whatever reason (and it better be a legal reason or a significant privacy concern, nothing else) the action(s) in question need to be carried out by the Arbitration Committee (for local matters) or the WMF Office (for global matters). And frankly, for ArbCom matters, unless the user being sanctioned is an administrator or otherwise in some sort of higher capacity, the action should really just be a quiet {{ArbComBlock}} without a public motion or noticeboard posting. If you can't publicly share the evidence, don't make a public announcement about the fact that you can't share the evidence. But to be clear, this should only be done in cases where the evidence can't be shared for legal or privacy reasons, not just because admins don't feel like sharing it publicly for whatever reason. I see way too much of "I'm not going to share the evidence publicly because the sanctioned user will use it to evade detection next time" (especially in sock puppetry cases but also elsewhere too). This makes it impossible for someone to defend themselves. While we may not be a court of law, we still need to act in the interest of fairness. Refusing to provide the evidence to the accused and to possible witnesses or outside third parties makes it literally impossible for the accused to prove that they are in fact innocent (even cases of serious harassment can be mistaken; there was once a case on a now-defunct community website that I used to administrate where someone pulled off the most elaborate joe job that I have ever seen, and managed to get a completely innocent user blocked for making death threats (among other things) when it was in fact the user that reported the harassment who was doing the harassing. Fortunately in that circumstance the situation was swiftly corrected, but I worry that such a situation here on enwiki would not be. I realize that this is a bit of an off topic tangent, but this is an issue that continues to weigh heavily on me and one that I feel strongly about. The long and short of it is that if an editor needs to be blocked for some reason that cannot be stated on wiki, that block must be carried out either by ArbCom or the WMF Office. No exceptions. No regular admin should be acting in their regular capacity and blocking users based on nonpublic evidence of any kind. If there is a situation (alluded to above) where there is both on-wiki evidence and supplemental off-wiki evidence, block only based on the on-wiki evidence and don't even publicly mention the off-wiki evidence. If you can't discuss it publicly, don't mention it publicly. The end. And if the evidence does not violate any privacy or other laws, it must be stated publicly and all of this becomes moot. Evidence must only be kept private if there is a legal reason or a significant privacy reason to do so - not just because an admin feels like it. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't want individual sysops making this call based on fishing expeditions, but I do think we need a lightweight process in which three or four of our more experienced sysops can reach a quick decision where there's need. An AN/I thread would be an appropriate venue.—S Marshall T/C 23:27, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
    ...And, a block by an individual sysop with "email me for the evidence" is way, way, way out of line. If Arbcom became aware of that ever happening, I'd look to them for a prompt and summary desysopping of the blocker.—S Marshall T/C 23:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support I think the problem of UPE is significant enough that additional tools are needed to combat it. I would support the idea of requiring more than one administrator to concur in the block, to prevent abuse. It seems pretty ridiculous that we can't use things like LinkedIn to identify bad-faith editors. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
    @Calliopejen1: We can, you just need to send it to a functionary or ArbCom for action, preferably via paid-en-wp@wikimedia.org. – Joe (talk) 07:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Snow Rise. This is clearly outside the remit of admin. What is outside en.wiki should stay outside. We elect admins to clean things up in Wikipedia, not to run checks on people based on off-wiki information. In my opinion, attempts to connect real world identity to editor name is a clear overreach of power and a blatant invasion of privacy. I could be a known criminal in my real life, but in the event I got investigated for my on-wiki conduct, my real life should not affect my on-wiki investigation. My off-wiki conduct should never "poison" any investigation on my on-wiki conduct.
And we are talking about non-public information that can't be shared. Yes, the information would be shared among admins. But who will guarantee that the information would not be kept securely? Who would guarantee that the admins would not spread the information off-wiki? Are all admins privy to the information? Will the information be destroyed after a certain time? Who would guarantee that the admin judging the case will be fair and unbiased with the evidence off-wiki?. Will some people with WP:UPE get away because of this? Absolutely. But protecting the privacy of many is more important than attempting to stop a small number of bad actors.Admins should not be doing "fishing expeditions" through Google to block someone. If the on-wiki evidence is not enough to "convict" someone, the editor should not be blocked - just like real life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SunDawn (talk • contribs) 12:23, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Personally I would strip the whole section out of the policy and refer all blocks related to off-wiki evidence to ArbCom/functionaries. It made sense in the mid-2000s but not now. --Rschen7754 05:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per SnowRise and others. This is highly inappropriate and, IMO, carries real risks of abuse. Blocks should occur for on-wiki actions due to on-wiki evidence. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 00:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
  • 'Support' - administrators are already permitted to speedy delete pages and block users based on the deleted content. This means that they are trusted to take administrative action based on information visible only to admins. The only question is how to ensure that an admin who becomes unavailable can still make sure that other admins can still know the facts behind it. The use of informing ArbCom is intended to solve this problem, and informing them before they take action is to deal with the highly unlikely situation that an admin drops dead immediately after blocking. Animal lover |666| 17:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
    Deleted pages or contents are not off-wiki evidence. Those are still available to all admins, as they are on-wiki. The problem with this new policy is that off-wiki evidence, such as Google searches or LinkedIn pages, that are only available to some admins, will be allowed to be used as an evidence against you. There is no debate about whether on-wiki evidence can be used or not, the debate is about off-wiki evidence. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 11:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Rschen7754. Typically people digging around off-wiki is not a good thing, and on-wiki evidence for the block is substantially stronger. I understand the allure of private block evidence, but I don't think it is a direction we should head as a community. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
    • Also, since this was asked by Kevin: my interpretation of the current policy is that blocks by administrators based on off-wiki evidence that cannot be reviewed on-wiki are prohibited in virtually all circumstances. I think Salvio giuliano and Thryduulf sum it up better than I could. My interpretation of the wording The community has rejected the idea of individual administrators acting on evidence that cannot be peer-reviewed is that it requires public peer-review unless a user is making a block in their capacity as a CheckUser or Oversighter. The historical reason for allowing private evidence ArbCom-only blocks had to deal with child protection. That's been handed over to T&S now. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose -- the community did not like the whole Fram affair, and whatever exactly happened is still unknown to us. This sounds many times worse. Also, it seems to fly in the face of due process. Can the accused access the evidence that the administrator is using to justify their action? While Wikipedia is not obligated to provide due process, it is, nonetheless, fundamental that everyone have their say and the right to defend themselves. I've seen and experienced how badly social media sites (such as Facebook and Twitter) fail at providing people an adequate defense to challenge blocks, I'd rather not see Wikipedia fall down that same path. --RockstoneSend me a message! 08:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If a block must be done for non-public evidence, it should be by ArbCom, not as a standard admin action. Perhaps we could consider a process to make it easier to ask for such blocks from ArbCom or functionaries instead. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 09:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose, and I would urge Tamzin (and others doing the same) to cease making such blocks and to instead follow actual policy, even if that means some extra red tape or the occasional spammer not being blocked immediately. Continuing to make such blocks should be grounds for a desysop. If selective reading of policies seemed to condone such blocks based on off-wiki hunting, then the policy needs to be made clearer: but it looks as if the policy was clear enough already, and some admins just didn't read the whole policy, only the bits they wanted to see. Fram (talk) 10:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I've commented substantively in this RfC so I am clearly not uninvolved. But in reading over the discussion I think there is a consensus to be had. It's not consensus for what was proposed by Tamzin and L235 but there is a consensus none-the-less and I hope that whoever closes this discussion will note that consensus so relevant policy pages can be updated. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
    I agree with this reading of the discussion. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Speaker biographies on conference websites, is this source neutral and reliable?

Conference websites often publish biographies of their speakers, see an example. Usually, these biographies are provided by the speakers themselves. Can such sources be used for articles - biographies of living people? Are such sources neutral and reliable? Is this reflected in any of the policies? --Shvili1962 (talk) 10:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Neutral? No. Reliable and usable in articles? There is no single answer to that. Like all primary sources, they should be evaluated on a case by case basis. – Joe (talk) 11:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
They are neither secondary nor independent of the subject, and so do not count towards GNG notability. They can be used as sources for non-controversial biographical details, though. JoelleJay (talk) 01:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
I asked a similar question on WP:BLPN. I think your question can be rephrased: "Can any self-published or primary source", e.g web, author forward from book, interview, etc be used for a biography when the source material came directly from the biography subject. My read of the guidelines WP:BLP is that the answer is yes, but must be evaluated for authenticity. because subject's do exaggerate and/or make false claims. [[WP:BLP] stated: Primary and/or self-published sources may NOT be used "as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article". Note the 'unless' clause. This would be common sense because a subject's early life, education and aspect's of their career can often only be sourced from primary source interviews and/or written material directly from the biography subject. Second, WP:BLPSELFPUB explicitly endorses using self-published material IF "it is not unduly self-serving...there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and the article is not based primarily on such sources".
Can others confirm or deny this interpretation of the WP:BLP guidelines? MarsTrombone (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
This is a better question for the Teahouse. As others have said, it depends, but in general, non-controversial facts biographical facts such as official job title can come from a primary source. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 21:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Per the above, for noncontroversial, banal CV type information, such sources may sometimes be okay in case no other better sources exist which have the same information, then it can be okay. If better sources exist, use those. If better sources exist and contradict the information, then absolutely don't use it. If the information is controversial or likely to be, also find a better source. Ultimately, though, what you would need to do to get a better answer is "Can this source be used as a citation for this Wikipedia text" and then write the exact block of text you intend to write at Wikipedia with the exact source being used to verify it, and then you'll get a better answer. --Jayron32 17:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
My experience with conferences is that the bios are submitted by the speaker themselves (or an assistant to them, etc.). Thus they should not be considered reliable. --Masem (t) 17:39, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Is one of the policies here “make an account or get blocked”?

No it is not. In some cases an IP or IP range may need to be blocked to prevent disruption, in which case having an account may allow someone to bypass such a block. We do not block IPs simply for making constructive contributions. — xaosflux Talk 13:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk:Jeff G. wants to ban me for “refusing an account”. Is this a policy here? I’m not sure… 2001:8003:B1B8:BF00:9541:78E9:CB4:9EE4 (talk) 10:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the OP is talking about this ANI (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#2001:8003:b1b8:bf00::/64) - X201 (talk) 10:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Please keep this discussion in one place on AN/I, where this question has already been raised. CMD (talk) 10:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
The ANI discussion has been closed, and since no one has answered the question: No, you will not be banned for refusing to have an account. While we encourage you to open one, we do not require it. Blueboar (talk) 11:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reports published by policy and research organisations, can they be considered generally reliable?

also posted at WikiProject Source MetaData since it’s relevant there too

I’m looking for opinions on institutional policy and research reports in general as reliable sources as part of the WikiProject Policy Reports project. The example source types on WP:RS (scholarship, news, vendor etc) don’t quite cover our area of interest: reports, conference papers, discussion and briefing papers, strategies, policies and other docs (sometimes called grey literature). These are generally self-published by organisations (e.g. the WHO publishes WHO reports) but it’s obviously not the same as someone’s self-published blog or book.

I realise that for specific citations in WP it’s case-by-case. However, we’re looking for some guidance on what principles or criteria we could use to prioritise/sort organisations into 1) Generally reliable / 2) unclear / 3) generally unreliable since these sorts of items are likely often useful as potential WP sources in addition to books/journals/newspapers. As part of the project we’re looking to prioritise which organisations’ reports are most useful to upload metadata to Wikidata about.

If general principles aren’t really possible, it’d be helpful to have some examples to calibrate on e.g. these five organisations:

  • The Australia Institute is an independent public policy think tank based in Canberra, Australia that carries out research on a broad range of economic, social, and environmental issues (APO-listed reports)

Thanks in advance for the feedback on these! We’ve >70 publishing organisations that we’re focusing on so these will help us calibrate which sorts of organisations are worth focusing on uploading metadata to Wikidata. If anyone has an interest in the full list, please let me know and I can loop you in on the full project. Brigid vW (talk) 06:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

First, please define "generally reliable". Detailed feedback maybe given following your definition. 172.254.222.178 (talk) 12:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
WP:GREL as defined by the WP:RSP Brigid vW (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
@172.254.222.178 Sorry, thats: WP:GREL and WP:RSP Brigid vW (talk) 23:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Question is very broad but I think WP:RSN is anyway where you want to ask this question (some of your 70 may been discussed before, you can feed them into the search box at WP:RSP to see). Selfstudier (talk) 12:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  • I’m not sure we can (or should) determine reliability without the context of what we are supporting when we cite these sources. Certainly they are reliable for supporting attributed statements about the opinions of these institutions … but whether they are reliable for unattributed statements (in Wikipedia’s voice) would be subject specific. Blueboar (talk) 13:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
@Selfstudier we are searching for all proposed organisations on the WP:RSN and WP:RSP before putting them forward. There is already one Australian Strategic Policy Institute that has been allocated WP:MREL.
@Blueboar So it's possible we could allocated a WP:MREL where attribution is required? Brigid vW (talk) 23:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

FYI I've asked a similar question at Wikipedia talk:Tiers of reliability#Grey literature. Levivich (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Great thank you. Brigid vW (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

IMO "Generally reliable" is an over generalization that should be eliminated. But on average, I would consider those to be more reliable than an average wp:rs. North8000 (talk) 18:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it depends on the particular publisher. For example, Australian Strategic Policy Institute, Cato Institute, Center for Economic and Policy Research, and Middle East Media Research Institute are all yellow at WP:RSP; Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation is pink (hehe); Poynter Institute's International Fact-Checking Network is green (WP:IFCN). Levivich (talk) 18:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
If the OP list of examples is an indication, there are obvious issues. Any advocacy organization is by definition exclusionary, and its publications may be prudently a priori viewed as such. No amount of outside auditing of any kind can alter the fact that such entities are expressly formed to advance certain positions, and are correspondingly biased towards these positions, which may result in directed research, massaged statistics, and narrow-focus, unrepresentative studies. Strictly technical entities such as statistics agencies that collate data and offer multiple options of presenting such data without interpretation of any kind, may only be technically unreliable (i.e. there may be erroneous or outdated statistical processes employed). Such technical unreliability can often be exposed by outside auditors either official or unofficial (including journalists, interested researchers, and other parties). Government reports have multiple problems of their own. Depending on the issue they may be advancing or justifying the parent government's positions, even when published by so-called "independent" agencies and/or career bureaucrats. "Independent" is not a synonym of reliable. And career bias is a real thing, behind every report are real people whose job/career may be affected by it. 65.88.88.91 (talk) 19:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
@65.88.88.91 Ok so advocacy organisations are definitely out. There are some cases where Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) has engaged university researchers to produce reports. This is one example. Would we rule out those as well?
I've tried to provide 5 different types of organisations above to test out different scenarios. The Australia Institute being a research institute with a progressive leaning, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare a government funded research institute, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment a government department, and Lowitja Institute a First Peoples research institute (with funding from Government). Brigid vW (talk) 23:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
I went through the examples you provided, and the repository, in some depth. The previous comments were mostly a caveat against putting too much emphasis on the vague term "generally reliable". Imo it is a fuzzy concept, both 1. literally, the criteria used are basically subjective or opaque and 2. mathematically, a non-biased (statistically speaking) probability distribution of expected reliability cannot be determined from data based on the criteria. But the comments were not meant to summarily & ideologically label everything as unreliable, just that imo it is prudent policy, for the purposes of this encyclopedia, to approach sources as unreliable until proven otherwise, on a case-by-case basis. One may bring examples of proven past reliability, which is a descriptive, not predictive quality. Whether this is material in categorizing your various sources is not something that can be decided here, in my opinion. 65.88.88.69 (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
It is looking like the reports we upload in to Wikidata will need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis if used. So we'll be aiming to ensure the reports meet the WP:MREL criteria which will always require in-text attribution. And we'll only be selecting organisations that are either government or academic or established research institutes that are producing research reports (or policy documents in the case of government). Brigid vW (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Your candor and willingness to apply fact-based principles is refreshing. Best wishes. 69.203.140.37 (talk) 00:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion about soft redirects to sister projects

Please see Wikipedia talk:Wikimedia sister projects#Soft redirects to sister projects which needs input from additional editors. Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Page Nominated for AFD, Then Moved to Draft Space

I have asked this question before and will ask it again. A page is in article space (mainspace) and is nominated for deletion. The author of the page moves the page to draft space. The AFD template on the page then displays an error message saying that the template is being used in the wrong namespace, and tells how to nominate the page for MFD. The error isn't use of the wrong XFD template, but a move after nomination, but that isn't the real question. What is the status of the page, and of the AFD? The AFD is still listed in the deletion sorting lists. Does the move to draft space turn off the AFD? If moving an article to draft space after AFD is a standard procedure, does a COI editor or an ultra get one free trip into article space to see if their article stays there? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't work AfD much any more, but when I was a regular, the rule was that you shouldn't move/rename an article while an AfD is live. It just makes everything confusing. If you think it should be moved to draft, say so in the AfD and that'll be one of the options people can consider. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Yeah moving to Draft before the AfD closes is a bad idea, for a number of reasons, including templates getting messed up as described. -- GreenC 15:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Maybe I wasn't clear as to what I was asking or why. I agree that it's undesirable. What if anything should be done or is done about it or to prevent it? User:RoySmith says that

the rule was that you shouldn't move/rename an article while an AfD is live

. Where is the rule stated, and how is the rule enforced? It is not uncommon for the originator of a questionable article to move it to draft space in order to stop the AFD. (This may be an editor who was previously pushing the page from draft space to article space.) What should be done about the move? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I previously proposed that the AFD template should be modified to say not to move the article while the AFD is in progress. I got pushback, saying that sometimes it may be necessary to rename the article before the AFD is completed. The MFD template says not to move the page that is nominated for deletion, but MFD is a different, although related, process. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Rename in mainspace is sometimes useful IMO but moving namespace if entirely different. That's a defacto deletion. -- GreenC 21:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
User:GreenC - Moving an article to draftspace during AFD is done as an endrun around the deletion process by the author of the article, who is either a COI editor or an ultra. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
The COI moves to Draft to avoid the tarnish of a AfD, only to get it moved from Draft back into mainspace without a record of a Deletion. Seems like gamesmanship. =-- GreenC 15:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
My own opinion, and I may be in a minority, is that we should either prohibit moving the article while the AFD is in progress, or specify what the effect of a move is on an AFD. Maybe other editors would prefer not to specify because they think that moving the article is a variety of bean to abuse. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Like so many rules, it's part "rule", part "culture". In any case, WP:AFDEQ says, While there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD or deletion review discussion is in progress, editors considering doing so should realize such a move can confuse the discussion greatly, can preempt a closing decision, can make the discussion difficult to track, and can lead to inconsistencies when using semi-automated closing scripts. I read that as, "I'm not saying you can't do that, but please don't do that". -- RoySmith (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
The problem with the language in WP:AFDEQ that is cited by RoySmith is that it is addressed to good-faith editors about a problem involving bad-faith editors. Saying "please don't do that" isn't effective with users who are being stubborn, and they are the problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • A significant contributor to the problem is the fact that even articles that have potential are often deleted when they should be moved to draft. Potentially useful work in the edit history is lost. If the reason for deletion is that the subject is not yet shown to be notable, or that the article needs WP:TNT, then the solution should almost default to moving to draft, rather than immediate outright deletion. BD2412 T 20:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    • Okay. So the guideline was written by a mustelid. So I have a three-part question, specifically about a move to draft space while the AFD is running. First, does the move to draft space stop the AFD, or does the AFD continue running anyway? Second, will the AFD be closed in the same way as if the article had not been moved? Third, may a non-admin Speedy Close the AFD, and, if not, what should be done if a non-admin does Speedy Close the AFD? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
      I don't think there's any hard and fast answer to the first two. Let's say the AfD has been running for a couple of days, 5 people have commented, and they've all said, "Draftify". It would be silly to do anything other than just speedy close the AfD because where it was obviously heading has already been implemented. On the other hand, if those 5 people had all said, "This has already been created and deleted 3 times. Delete and salt", then I'd say moving it to draft space was just an end-run around the obvious result and shouldn't be allowed to stand. As for the last question, I'm inclined to think we're out of WP:NAC territory. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
      The last question is not a hypothetical. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
      Moving an article to draft space after it is nominated is not uncommon, but, in my opinion, is not done in good faith. It is almost always done by the originator in order to try to end-run the review process. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    • I agree with User:BD2412 that Draftify should be a close to many AFDs that are closed as Delete. However, that does not make moving the page to draft space while the AFD is running a good idea. It does make writing Draftify in the AFD a good contribution. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • This is why NOTBUREAUCRACY exists… be flexible as to what the right thing to do may be. If an ADF discussion is obviously leaning towards DRAFTIFY… there is no reason not to let that happen (even if it is “out of process”). On the other hand, if it is leaning towards some other outcome, then the AFD should be played out, and trying to “game the system” by draftifying would be considered disruptive. Blueboar (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    • User:Blueboar - Maybe I wasn't clear. The move of the page from article space to draft space is never done because the AFD is leaning toward Draftify. The move of the page from article space to draft space is done by the author of the article when the AFD is written, in order to stop the AFD. I am not asking about good-faith editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
      • It is also problematic when an article that could reasonably be draftified is deleted by a closing admin. The effective question in an AfD is whether the article should exist as an article in mainspace, or not. If a discussion has a half dozen delete votes and one good argument for draftification, the outcome should be draftification, every time. BD2412 T 03:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • In this case we should warm the page mover, and the AFD should continue, but there should be a note on the AFD this has happened. If the result is draftify, the page can stay as a draft. But if the result is delete, then the draft is deleted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Graeme. Continue the AFD discussion, with a note saying that the page has been moved to Draftspace. What happens next depends on the outcome of the AFD discussion.
This is what I meant by being flexible and applying NOTBUREAUCRACY. It does not matter which “space” a problematic article is located in… nor does it matter which process (AFD or MFD) is used to discuss it… what matters is reaching a consensus as to what to do about the problematic article. That discussion can continue wherever the article is located. Blueboar (talk) 12:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't know how much more clarity you're going to get with a VPP thread than the RfC you started on [more or less] this topic, with an outcome saying: both supporters and opponents have stated that forced mid-AfD moves to Draft or User namespaces may be too disruptive to the deletion process, but are divided on whether to prohibit pre-emptively or just revert them as they happen. That seems like reasonable grounds to move something back from draftspace to me. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Increasing Use of Draftification

I think that User:BD2412 is identifying a different issue that is not directly related to the issue that I raised, but is a valid issue, and that is that closers should be instructed to consider whether draftification is a proper close. It probably is a proper close if the main issue is that the subject is too soon. This doesn't have anything that I am aware of to do with moving an article to draft during an AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:V and foreign-language terms, non-Latin orthography in enwiki articles

How strictly should WP:V and WP:RS be observed for foreign-language phrases, non-Latin scripts, and transliterations?

  • Many Wikipedia articles contain non-English names and terms, including in the lede sentence. The name's variants are in native language, ancient history, non-Latin scripts, etc.
  • WP:INDICSCRIPT, regarding names in Devanagari, Brahmi, etc, scripts, mentions Additionally, there are too often problems with verifiability of the accuracy of the non-English spelling. A third reason is frequent disagreements over which native scripts to include; this led to a resolution to avoid all of them.
  • Editors may often subtly modify the orthography or spelling of non-English terms, and this burdens reviewers with checking for sources that would support the old or the new version. Lacking citations in the lede sentence, we often find a similar lack of citations in the body.

Therefore, I have been placing {{citation needed}} in lede paragraphs where I was unable to verify foreign-language names. This has been disputed, so what is the way forward here? Elizium23 (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  • V and RS need to be observed strictly and rigorously everywhere in the mainspace. The rules as they apply to foreign languages are set out at WP:NOENG (which is a link to a paragraph of WP:V), but what it boils down to is this: translations meet WP:V if they could be checked by someone with fluency in both languages.
  • In other words, translations and transliterations have to be verifiable by someone. They don't have to be verifiable by you.
  • If there's some reason why need a particular translation or transliteration to be checked but you aren't a fluent speaker of the language in question, consider finding an uninvolved Wikipedian who does speak that language fluently and asking them for help.—S Marshall T/C 21:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
    WP:NOENG refers to non-English sources. So foreign languages in Wikipedia articles don't need reliable sources? Elizium23 (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    You realize that I'm drawing the inspiration today from working in Ancient Hebrew and Akkadian cuneiform; I also work in topic areas with Konkani, Gujarati language, Coptic language, Ancient Greek, etc. So please excuse my incredulity about you suggesting I find fluent speakers to verify stuff when there's a dispute about an unsourced translation. Elizium23 (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    I'm not sure about the other languages you mention, but there are many people fluent in both English and Gujarati here in the UK, so I don't think it would be difficult to find some of them among Wikipedia editors. There are also enough people who know both English and Ancient Greek, although, for obvious reasons, they are not fluent in the latter. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    Okay, so if we find two people who write the language, and they disagree, which editor of English Wikipedia is a more reliable source? (EDIT: it's not "speakers" we want but "writers" because orthography matters here.) Elizium23 (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    Your edits do not involve any disputed content, nor to they involve any translations from English into foreign languages (that I have seen). They involve pages whose titles are English translations or transliterations of well-known foreign terms. Every scholar who is fluent in those languages could tell you that they are WP:BLUE and do not require citation, as in fact every other user editing those pages has. GordonGlottal (talk) 20:27, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
    Here is an example of a discussion about this issue: Talk:Alexandria#Official names inclusion in lede and infobox. Thanks to the high visibility of this article, some other editors were able to locate citations for Arabic and Egyptian heiroglyphic translations. They didn't purport to translate them without providing sources. I think it would be ridiculous for English Wikipedians, who are not reliable sources, to translate out of English into foreign languages, especially names of things, historical ancient tongues, and non-standard orthography. Elizium23 (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    WP:TRANSCRIPTION says: Faithfully translating sourced material into English, or transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research. Wikipedia:Translators available lists people willing to translate articles into English. What I'm not seeing is any policy that says that editors on enwiki are reliable sources for any and all foreign languages they claim to write. Elizium23 (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    If you want to go down that road then are editors on enwiki necessarily reliable sources for writing content based on sources written in English? We have WP:AGF for that, and it applies to content from non-English sources too. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    I don't have to WP:AGF a translation that is found in a source. I don't need to fluently read and write the language to compare orthography and ensure that the word someone took from a reliable source is the word that's placed in Wikipedia. That's the whole point of having a source and non-expert editors; we can verify stuff we don't completely understand.
    I know enough Hebrew to tell the difference between vocalized pointed text and unpointed text, and I have someone telling me that even though there is no source for either of them, I'm an idiot and I should learn Hebrew and stop demanding sources for this stuff, and it seems that you're telling me the same thing, @Phil Bridger. Elizium23 (talk) 21:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    I'm not sure you understand: there are no non-English sources. If there were sources then I wouldn't be placing citation needed tags. Elizium23 (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    No, editors on enwiki are not reliable sources for writing content based on sources written in English. That is why Wikipedia is not a reliable source, that is why we have WP:V, and that is why we have in-line citations so that any reader may check a source against what editors have written. Our readership does not need to assume good faith about editors. Editors can hold the assumption even while checking sources (in Reagan's words, "trust, but verify."). But we need a source to check. I'm not sure how I'd cite a Wikipedian who's written out some Akkadian cuneiform in the article -- what citation format would we use? How to contact Joe Wikipedian in 2 years when there's another dispute about the orthography? Elizium23 (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • As long as we can cite the original non-English text, then the material is verifiable. If there is a question as to whether the original text is translated accurately, consensus rules. We consult with other Wikipedians who read/write/speak/understand the language and reach a consensus as to how it should be accurately translated. Blueboar (talk) 21:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    I am not talking about translating non-English text. I am talking about taking a non-English term and placing it directly from the source into an article. Thank you for confirming that a citation is necessary. Elizium23 (talk) 21:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    Nobody has told you that a citation is necessary in this situation.—S Marshall T/C 22:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    Blueboar said "as long as we can cite the original non-English text..." and that's exactly what I'm talking about here. You don't seem to understand the issue. Elizium23 (talk) 22:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    I am not referring to translating non-English words into English. I am not referring to a non-English source that's being used for an article. I am not referring to translations from English into another language.
    I am referring to original words in native tongues, foreign translations of names in historical contexts when English did not exist, and orthography that is non-Latin being placed into our articles.
    The sources for these terms and phrases are not necessarily non-English; they may be scholarly reference works or lexicons. But I am having trouble believing that Wikipedians are an adequate replacement for WP:RS here, and Blueboar has asserted that they're not, because we need to be able to cite the non-English text. Elizium23 (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    I have modified my original question and the section heading because nobody but Blueboar seems to understand the issue. Elizium23 (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    @Elizium23 I think this would be easier to answer if you provided links to specific edits. Looking at a concrete example often helps clarify the issue. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    I earlier linked to the talk page of Alexandria; here's a history of the edits. @Dr.K. refers to an "alternate names convention" which I'm unfamiliar with. Elizium23 (talk) 23:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    Let's consider this specific edit of yours. You're saying, "prove to me that 'Alexandria' is spelled 'Αλεξάνδρεια' in Greek". I know that WP:BURDEN is rather absolute when it requires citations for all material whose verifiability has been challenged, but do you have any reason to believe that there's a different spelling? It's certainly verifiable; authoritative English-Greek dictionaries exist. So, we have no reason to believe somebody couldn't go look up Alexandria, and see how it's spelled in Greek. Or the other way around. Moreso, it's obvious where to go to verify the information; if I want to know how a word is spelled, I look it up in a dictionary.
    Now, if you said, "I've got this English-Greek dictionary here, and it gives a different spelling than the one you've got", that would be something. But to insist on a citation for how to spell the name of a city in another language when there's no reason to believe the given spelling is incorrect seems excessive to me. See WP:BLUE. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    It's interesting, because when you put single quotes around the Greek spelling, I thought you'd included a "smooth breathing" mark, and I was confused when I did not see it in the article. Elizium23 (talk) 02:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • WP:INDICSCRIPT had to do with frequent edit wars between speakers of different languages fighting over which scripts to include, and which ones to include first in the infobox iirc. INDICSCRIPT doesn't preclude editors from adding "native names" where's it's uncontroversial or straightforward, such as works of literature written in a specific language. Verifiability isn't a problem in most cases as the work itself can be considered the primary source for the native name.
    "Natives names" aren't always that simple though. If there's a dispute I do think we should require reliable sources (in any language, English or otherwise) for it. It's hard to say anything about what you specifically have in mind without you giving some examples. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 23:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    A good example is with Mongolian places, where Mongolia (the country) primarily uses Cyrillic (with the traditional script being ceremonial), while Inner Mongolia (the autonomous region of China) only uses the traditional script for Mongolian. This is further complicated by the fact that the two scripts do not have even close to one-to-one correspondence, which has led to a lot of nonsense when naive editors have "converted" from one to the other. Theknightwho (talk) 13:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • For Alexandria you would certainly need a source for the "Ancient Greek" name. Either a primary ancient greek text where its clear its spelled that way, or an academic text. Per our translation policies, a wikipedia editor could only verify whatever the version is in a modern Greek text. If it was in Old English we wouldnt accept an English editor's word they speak it, we would want a citation to the text or a secondary expert. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't see foreign names as WP:BLUE at all; all foreign names should be sourced. A name is a specific verifiable fact, and not necessarily a direct translation. An unsourced name in a foreign language is also an easy target for vandalism. (Unlikely for Alexandria, but I've seen it on much less watched pages.) A specific foreign name is not the same as translating a source, for which we can of course rely on editors. CMD (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
    By that logic I could translate a paragraph of Russian without a citation but I would need to prove that I got Ivan spelled correctly. Is that what you intended?—S Marshall T/C 07:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
    Well presumably you'd have to cite whatever you're translating, and that citation would have the Russian spelling of Ivan. CMD (talk) 08:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Article creation at scale RfC

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale Valereee (talk) 13:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:proportion and terminology

Some terms used in a title of an article receive different definitions by different sources, but yet there is no fundamental disagreement between the sources, because there is an easy translation from one source to the other. For example, traditionally in science, "heat" was often used to mean the internal energy of the medium responsible for its temperature or, depending on the context, it could also traditionally mean the amount of energy transferred that cannot be explained by macroscopic work. More recently, a tendency can be observed to only use "heat" with the second meaning, but it's not universally adopted. For example, Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg is not strict about the use of the term "heat" in his recent 2021 book The foundations of Modern Physics, that is, he adopts the traditional approach in science. However, again, this is very superficial. I suspect Weinberg himself would find this issue completely unimportant, as long as it's clear what the term "heat" means in each context. I mention this, because then it does not seem appropriate to insist that both terminological approaches are presented in respect of WP:proportion, say in the article Heat, because, if we start to do that, then we start to discuss an issue that is not even discussed in the literature, because it's not important. Therefore, it should be acceptable in Wikipedia to agree among editors for a particular terminological approach and simply adopt it, even though it's not the unique approach used in the literature, that is, we can ignore WP:proportion for these terminological issues. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@Dominic Mayers, this is not a Wikipedia level policy consideration. If you want a wider view than you are getting at Talk:Heat raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
I asked the question here, because I don't think the issue is specific to heat or even to physics. It's a very general fact that a word in a title can have different meanings (i.e., be given different definitions) in different sources, but it's nothing very deep, not as if it corresponds to different points of view : it's only a superficial change in definitions and one can easily translate from one source to another. They say the same thing in different languages. Still, in these cases, one definition for the term has to be used and editors can have to decide among them. It's a general policy consideration. In particular, I do not think that WP:proportion is a consideration in these cases. The specific definition attributed to the term should be chosen on the basis of other considerations, such as how easy it is for a general audience to understand the definition. However, of course, you are right if you meant to say that the specific case Heat can not be resolved here. I do not hope to resolve the Heat case here. That's not the goal. No, the goal here is only to consider whether or not, in general, WP:proportion is a strict criterion to apply in these cases. This would not resolve the specific case Heat, but it will be helpful in the process and not only for the Heat case. Dominic Mayers (talk) 01:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
I realize that the issue was not properly described. So, I retract the question. I will ask another question that hopefully would describe the issue more clearly. Dominic Mayers (talk) 00:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Forcefully silently taken editorial decisions.

At several occasions I met a situation where editors must make a choice, say regarding a choice of terminology or regarding the scope of the article or any other consideration that is not uniquely determined by the sources and do not need to be verifiable. Of course, one cannot use a term that is not used in the sources, but when different sources use different terms interchangeably, then the editors must pick one of them. Similarly, the scope of an article is not uniquely by the sources. The exact scope of an article can be decided among the editors. There is no need to have a source that has the exact same scope. The most recent case is the article Heat. Some sources are picky about heat being defined as a special way of transferring energy and not as something that a medium can have. Other sources are less picky about this. However, no sources discuss that : it just a different technical way to use the term heat without any change in the underlying concepts. The details are not important. The point here is only that editors have to take a decision regarding the definition of heat in this case. It seems problematic that Wikipedia policy does not allow the editors to somehow describe the choices that have been made to write the article. Other encyclopedia are not so strict about that. The author of the encyclopedic article often describes that a particular terminology is used or that the scope was restricted in some way, etc. Why is this not possible in Wikipedia? Dominic Mayers (talk) 00:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Keeping with your example, why not present the various ways heat is described in the various sources? If there is, as you say, no change in the underlying concept, then proceeding from the various descriptions should be no problem. I personally can't see the use of describing, in the article, how the article came to be written. Am I missing something? Primergrey (talk) 03:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
But at some point, to avoid confusing the reader, we would have to say that we picked one approach among the two terminological approaches. Otherwise, the reader would be left with a question in his mind : what approach will be used for the remainder of the article? As you suggest, this seems to be against policy, because we describe an editorial choice that was made. I feel that it should not be against policy to do that. Unless you suggest that we keep using both approaches for the entire article, but that would make the text very heavy. Note that I refer to approaches instead of definitions, because one approach is to be not so picky regarding the definition of heat and let the context determines in each case what is meant by heat. This is what is done traditionally. The other approach insists that heat must always be used to mean a particular way to transfer energy. So, it's not really possible to use both approaches anyway : we are picky or we are not. Dominic Mayers (talk) 03:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Articles should be defining their scope early on in the lead section, including if the subject is based on usage in a specific field, or is covering usage across different fields. Often in the first case, the title will be refined to reflect this. In the case of the "Heat" article, the first sentence is defining the scope (with additional emphasis provided by the disambiguation note). isaacl (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Can you give other examples besides the Heat article in which the scope, the terminological approach or another aspect of the article is clearly a choice made by the editors and the lead describes this choice, because the title and the disambiguation note are not sufficient. In the case of the Heat article, the first sentence is

Heat is energy in transfer to or from a thermodynamic system, by mechanisms other than thermodynamic work or transfer of matter (e.g. conduction, radiation, and friction).

It fails to describe a choice. Instead, it states in Wikipedia's voice one definition as if it was the unique possible definition, despite the fact that some sources are not so strict about this definition. I don't think this is appropriate. It violates neutrality, because it makes Wikipedia state in its own voice a definition that is not universally adopted in the literature. However, let's not focus too much on the article Heat here. It's the general case in which readers should be informed of an editorial decision (made by the editors) that should be discussed. Therefore, if you have examples where this issue shows up and was successfully addressed by the editors, which I believe is not the case in the Heat article, that will be good. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Scope is implied by the disambiguation note. Having the title limit scope would be more clear, as is done, for example, with the various articles listed under Engineer (disambiguation), or Identity. Two of the articles for "Identity" explicitly describe the scope in the lead sentence by starting with "In (field X)", which is a reasonable approach. isaacl (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
In the case of the Heat article, the issue is not the scope, but the definition of heat. The scope and the definition of heat are two separate things. Moreover, it's the general issue that must be discussed here. It's not the place here to focus too much on the Heat article. It's a good case, because an editorial decision is taken to use a particular definition, but nothing more than that. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Words can have multiple definitions which are used by people in different contexts. I used "scope" to mean the context in which the subject of the article is being discussed. I agree the definition is not the same as the context. isaacl (talk) 23:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what policy is being discussed here? So far I just see a bunch of content dispute about Heat. --Golbez (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

  • In general, when sources use different terminology there is a reason why they do so. There may be an underlying controversy that we need to explain to the reader. So… Part of our job is to lay out for the reader: a) who uses the various terms, and b) why they do so. Blueboar (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
    Assuming it's relevant. The Brits add some extra vowels into various terms (foetal, leukaemia), and I never feel any need to explain why. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
  • The nature of a Wikipedia article sometimes means that we cannot follow the structure of our sources. The scope of an article is a common editorial decision. So too is many aspects of its eg whether to use a chronological or topical approach. Other editors may make different editorial choices than I would make, and there is nothing wrong with that. You're quite right in that these are generally implicit, and usually non-controversial. Where the matter deserves discussion, the talk pages are there for that purpose. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
  • If you start by identifying the three (or five or ten or however many) best sources for the article, all the other questions will be answered. If you start by trying to write the article first and then backfilling sources, you run into these problems. To take the Heat example: what are the three best books about heat, and how do they define it? Levivich (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
    • And, more to the point, which sources will allow you to write an article that is accessible to most people? I am an educator, and regularly have to caution my students to not use Wikipedia for technical subjects. Consider, for example, USB or WiFi which make the subject far less understandable than would normally be the case from a "standard" encyclopedia. And let's not start on mathematical subjects... Black Kite (talk) 22:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I think Dominic Mayers is basically correct. You can't always write an article based on using the exact language in the sources. Sometimes the language in the sources is too technical. Sometimes it's too slangy. Sometimes it uses the "wrong" WP:ENGVAR. There's also the problem – see Heat, apparently, but see also Ketogenic diet and many others – of the Wikipedia:Article titles and scopes process not being obvious, so people turn up on the talk page demanding that my subject be recognized as the One True™ Subject for this name, because the Ghits for this word are talking about my thing, so my thing belongs at this title, and who cares about your stuffy old contents? Heat is obviously supposed to be about what keeps my house warm during the winter, and the keto diet is the thing my bodybuilder friends do. Similar problems can be seen at most contentious discussions about WP:COMMONNAME.
    Our advice on this subject mostly comes from WP:FIRST, which advises editors to follow the example set by FAs in similar subject areas. I would be happy to see this expanded upon, perhaps in NOR's WP:STICKTOSOURCE section, to say that there is no substitute for knowing what the sources mean when they use a term, and being able to translate that into clear, informative English. That might (eventually) discourage people from saying that Truck needs to wobble confusingly between truck and lorry and vehicle depending on which source happens to be at the end of the sentence. "Stick to the individual source" or "Stick to the use in most sources currently cited in this article" can be abused to push a POV, especially for shorter articles (which is most of them: the median article is a stub). We do not want to set up rules that would make it easy for someone to replace most of the sources in our articles about Ukrainian cities with sources that "just accidentally happen to use" the Russian spelling for the city, and then say "Oh, but I have to spell it the Russian way, because Policy Says™ I have to stick to the terminology in the sources". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit conflict: I haven't read the comments that follow the comment of Blueboar. @Golbez: Blueboar has understood the policy that is at stake here. He says that the issue (whether it is about scope, terminology or any other aspect) must be discussed by the sources. The policy is verifiability or any other policy that implies that we cannot have a content that is not verifiable in the sources. The problem is that often it would be useful to describe an editorial decision, but an editorial decision is formulated in a way such as "Some authors use this approach. Other authors use this other approach. In this article, the approach of X is adopted." This is not something that can be verified, because it is a decision local to Wikipedia. Perhaps the last sentence can be considered verified, but the description of the decision must go beyond that. It must make clear that a decision was taken. It seems against neutrality to take this decision silently as if it was the unique possible choice, as for example, it is done in the Heat article. Instead, what seems more neutral is to mention the different choices and say some thing like "This article adopts the definition of X" and the readers will understand that a choice had to be made. I would like that an approach of this kind to be considered valid in Wikipedia. A key point here is that WP:proportion or anything like that are not the concerns here, at the least, not the unique ones. No, the editors can take the decisions because of aspects unique to Wikipedia, the fact that the context is different, etc. Yet, the readers must be informed that a decision was taken. These decisions cannot always be taken silently. Dominic Mayers (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: What you are discussing is important, but my point is more basic here. I am not discussing whether an editorial decision is better than another one. I am just saying that, at the least, the reader should be informed that an editorial decision was taken with some context that allows this reader to understand that, for example, a more technical definition was adopted than one would expect. At the least, he will know that and he will be less lost. Dominic Mayers (talk) 23:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

We do that, sometimes, in a few articles. Consider these:
Search for the words "this article" in each of these. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
I searched for other articles (excluding list articles) that also use "This article" with a similar purpose:
Editorial decisions are indeed some times described in the article. This appears to violate the principle that a WP article should only say what the sources say : no source will describe a decision taken by editors in the WP article, for the obvious reason that it is a choice specific to the WP article. Therefore, many editors, not just me, might feel that they should not do that. However, this is a valid exception and it should be stated explicitly in WP policy that this is fine. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Taking a quick look at these, and the presence of "this article" is a code smell that indicates the article needs to be improved. If the subject is ambiguous, that's what disambiguation pages are for. If you don't want to handle other aspects (like ŁKS Łódź) then that should either call for an expansion request or a red link to a future article for the other sports. So I disagree that it needs to be stated explicitly that it's fine. It's not. --Golbez (talk) 17:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree that editorial decisions can be wrong. They can create a bias, lack of neutrality, etc. It can even be the case in some of the examples provided. I did not filter them. But, I disagree that it is possible to never take editorial decisions. I certainly disagree that when they are taken, they must always be taken silently. On the contrary, it's more transparent and informative for the readers when they are not taken silently. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
The use of "this article" in an article indicates a problem with the article. Levivich (talk) 18:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid#This Wikipedia article discusses ..., While Wikipedia is not a ..., Edit this page ... disagrees. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:50, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, thanks * Pppery *, the guideline says clearly that an article can refer to itself. It says "... articles may refer to themselves ...". The context is that an article cannot refer to the Wikipedia's rules, because it prevents its use outside Wikipedia, but the article can refer to itself. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
While an article can or may refer to itself, it shouldn't. Levivich (talk) 21:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
This is not what the guideline says. It contrasts two cases: a reference to the article itself and a reference to Wikipedia's rules. It says while the first case may happen, the second case should not happen. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Georgia v. Public Resources.org and {{PD-EdictGov}}

I am posting this here, instead of on WP:CP or WP:CQ, since it's not about a specific file, but a template that states copyright policy.

The {{PD-EdictGov}} template, while not wrong, and used across multiple wikis in the exact same form... is bad. It doesn't actually explain anything, or tell you "why": it only refers to the Compendium. Old conversations, linked from the talk pages of this template across multiple wikis, make it clear that questions about "why", since it's not stated in 17 USC, and "what does this actually mean", since it's buried in the depths of history, and "why are we listening to the Compendium about something that isn't in 17 USC", abounded, and were never really answered.

The decision in Georgia did not change this rule. What the Supreme Court did, in Georgia, is to validate a argument that actually places the "government edicts principle" on a basis that isn't buried in the depths of 200+ year old legal trivia...it instead divorces the "government edicts principle" from the vague "for reasons of public policy" justification, and places it on the grounds of fundamental copyright principles; giving us, in a way, a test that is actually usable, instead of just having to know "what is or is not an edict" and requiring a knowledge of the incredibly obscure history to actually get it.

Edicts of government are basically the same thing as monkey selfies.

To actually understand this.... unfortunately, the Compendium, and the Georgia decision, and even the English Wikipedia article on "edicts of government" don't give the needed context, which gets into obscure facts of history and the way copyrights actually came into being in the US: the history of "common law" in the US, and the exact intention of Congress when passing the Copyright Act of 1790.

I have started a discussion, on the English Wikipedia, at w:Talk:Edict of government#Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc. and the public policy argument, with what is essentially a long screed, explaining what the Court was telling us in Georgia, what they were actually telling us about this in Wheaton v. Peters, back in 1834, when actually first validating the "government edicts principle" as law in the US, and giving the "common law in the US" context to understand why it's not written down.

I'm mentioning this here, and intend to post this message across multiple wikis, to attract interested editors.... not to canvass for a discussion there, to change the article, but to achieve a consensus there, about rewriting that article so that it is based on something other than "the Compendium says so", that it can be used (the article, and the consensus) to rewrite this template on every wiki so that it actually says something useful, instead of the just "because the USCO says so" that seems to have been the conclusion of most discussions about this subject.

As a footnote, this doesn't apply to most edicts of the US federal government... since the definition of "works of the US Government" specifically says "prepared by", and doesn't require authorship, it includes such edicts. They are denied protection separately. Jarnsax (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Regular users threatening others with bans

On any other website out there, if a regular user threatens another user with a ban, they would get chewed out for impersonating a mod and overstepping boundaries. Users who do not have the ability to ban users should not be permitted to leave threatening ban warning messages. That is a job for mods and/or people who actually have the ability to hand out the ban. I have seen countless instances of users with no administrative power whatsoever handing out these ban messages like candy to anyone they're in a disagreement with. It's fear-mongering towards inexperienced users, and it's just disingenuous in my opinion.

Ban warnings should only be given out by people who can actually ban you. This prevents them from being misused. (inb4 someone uses the ban warning I was just given as justification, as if that's the ONLY time this issue pops up) 2604:3D08:7481:AF00:9C4C:1DD6:DE9D:5241 (talk) 02:49, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia works on the principle that if someone sees a problem they should try to fix it. If a non-admin user sees someone making edits that violate policy, the user should let the person know what the problem is. The alternative of interrupting an admin and requiring that they intervene would be too cumbersome and unable to scale to deal with the many problems. Johnuniq (talk) 03:01, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Furthermore, contrary to the OP's claims otherwise, the talk page messages and edit summaries used by this IP were personal attacks / incivility that definitely merited at least a warning [6] [7] [8] and they were not being warned as "fear-mongering" or because they were in disagreement with another editor. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Warning a disruptive editor that they might be banned is not a “threat”. It is a courtesy, giving them a chance to change their behavior. Blueboar (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
  • IP, should you believe you have seen cases where a non-admin editor is handing out unjustified warnings that would be unjustified even if an admin did them then you should first communicate with the editor or, if a recurring issue, raise with an admin or on ANI. If you see cases where a non-admin is handing out warnings that would be justified if an admin did them then there's no issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebagbear (talk • contribs) 09:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I think there's an important distinction to be made here between a warning ("You may get banned") and a threat ("I will ban you"). The former is commonly used, also by non-admins, and is not a problem. The latter is, I think, inappropriate for non-admins to use. --rchard2scout (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree with Johnuniq, Blueboar and Nosebagbear. I think there may be confusion between a block, which can only be imposed by an administrator, and a ban. The authority to ban resides with the community, ArbCom and WMF. They are the only people with the ability to hand out bans. However, all three can delegate that authority to impose bans on such terms and conditions as they see fit, and there is nothing to stop it being delegated to non-admins. It has long been accepted that non-admins have the ability to ban editors from their own talk pages. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:53, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
  • But it doesn't matter whether it's a block or a ban. As Blueboar says, a warning of either is a warning, not a threat, so anyone receiving one should be grateful rather than complain about it. We shouldn't care about what other web sites might do, because Wikipedia is a work place to create an encyclopedia, which "any other website out there" is not. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
For reference, here is the current template for the strongest vandalism warning:
Stop icon This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
Notice that even it does not say who the block will come from; just that the block may happen (and strongly implying that it will). When used properly, this is correct even if the user leaving the warning has no authority - I'm not a cop, but I can tell my friends "if you rob a bank, you may get arrested". It's just a warning that their actions will have consequences, and if they wish to avoid those consequences, they should stop. WPscatter t/c 16:28, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Articles written as school projects should be banned

Obvious trolling by a 2-week old account with 40 edits. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


I have come across a lot of these lately, and they are uniformly awful. They quote huge chunks verbatim from official sources, have superficial understanding of the subject, use jargon and buzzwords, and are not logically constructed. Most are completely uncritical of the subject. It proves two things: 1) Kids are being taught by imbeciles who think they are clever 2) They are being taught how to write advertising copy instead of critical thinking skills.

I realize WP in general suffers from the same problems, but this is where they start. Put a stop to it I say, nip it in the bud. Demand better. Make a stand against the ever growing tide of verbal sewage.--ෆාට් බුබුල (talk) 05:34, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

You've just described a lot of things that are already against policy - copyvio, promo etc. I'm not sure what a blanket ban on articles written as part of courses would do to help, nor how it would be policed.Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:01, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Actually its already policed to an extent, We often have school groups get hit by blocks when they do a project. If we wanted to we could just... not unblock them and make it easier to block obviously groups of people editing in a substandard way, while tightening up the allowed education/outreach groups. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
No changes are needed here. Bad articles are bad regardless of how or why they are written and good articles are good regardless of how or why they are written. You've just described characteristics of bad articles (NPOV, copyvio, promotional, buzzwords, etc) that, as you say, originate from both school projects and other articles, and these should be cleaned up or deleted as appropriate. However if someone writes a decent article as part of a school group we should welcome it with open arms - the encyclopaedia has benefited and by being encouraging towards the creator we stand a much better chance of them becoming a Wikipedian and generating more benefit to the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 11:07, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
We could just put in a "no new editors, ever" rule. That would save us from people who are still learning best practices. Now let me think whether there might be any downside to that... --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Maybe such a rule should have been in place when Wikipedia started. That way we would have no problematic articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:52, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Email policy?

An issue recently came up (discussed off-wiki, details not important) where somebody was using Special:EmailUser to send a messages to a large number of users on a topic which was marginally related to enwiki but basically WP:NOTHERE and WP:PROMO. As far as I can tell, we don't have any policy with explicitly prohibits that. WP:EMAIL (which isn't even policy) mostly talks about privacy concerns. All the other policies I can find are concerned with things that happen on-wiki.

I think we need an explicit policy statement which says: "The wikipedia email facility is intended to support the goal of building an encyclopedia. Use of this facility for any other purpose constitutes abuse and is prohibited". Or do we already have such a statement and I just haven't found it yet? -- RoySmith (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I haven't found anything relevant on en.wp. The terms of use prohibit
  • Engaging in harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, or vandalism; and
  • Transmitting chain mail, junk mail, or spam to other users.
Which the preceding issue at least arguably comes under (especially given the volume), but might not in all cases so I think having something along the lines you suggest would be good. The one caveat to that is that it should be enforced with common sense giving established users a little leeway in the same spirit we allow them use of userspace for occasional small-scale off-topic matters as long as they don't take the piss. Thryduulf (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
As far as the "large numbers" part - there should be a throttle on this action, depending on your definition of "large". — xaosflux Talk 18:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I've added this text to WP:EMAIL. That should cover it. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
That's a good and well worded addition that I agree covers everything. Thryduulf (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't exactly disagree, but I expect that to produce complaints when editors have differing views about what supports the goal of building an encyclopedia, and what constitutes "substantial". There is a throttle in place; I think it's only possible to send 20 e-mail messages per day. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:38, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Article title of Religion Nisei

Recently the new article Religion Nisei was created and I don't think the title to properly conforming to our Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) guideline. "Nisei" (二世) is a transliteration (romaji) of the Japanese term which means the "second generation". According to the English versions of few reliable Japan's media, "second generation" is exactly used instead of the transliteration,[1][2][3] but the article creator user:Penerrantry believes otherwise. I'd like more opinions from other editors who are familiar with Japan-related articles on English Wikipedia. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 06:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I believe that the word "nisei" has become incorporated in the US English lexicon. A simple search of Google News finds thousands of uses of "nisei" in news stories in publications across the country, especially in outlets on the US West Coast. I also note that "Nisei" does not appear as a misspelled word in many word processing applications, including Wikipedia's text editor. - Enos733 (talk) 15:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
@Enos733 and Penerrantry: My problem is that nisei seems to only denote "second generation of Japanese migrant (in the US)". It is the "migrant" part that I am having trouble with because "religion nisei" has nothing to do with "migrant" at all. Also I checked the online version of Oxford and Cambridge English dictionaries which don't have the "nisei" entry. Both dictionaries have entries from modern culture like mod, so I am not so sure how incorporated "nisei" has become in the English lexicon. Leaving "nisei" untranslated in "religion nisei" seems to do more harm. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 00:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
I would also like to point out that there is a Wikipedia article on Nisei. While there may be some differences with this particular article, I believe our community has accepted "nisei" into our lexicon. - Enos733 (talk) 02:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
"Nisei" may be accepted in the American English lexicon, but "religion nisel" is a totally different story. There are only 8 results of "religion nisei" from my google search, so it's safe to say that we are inventing a new term by ourselves when the major English media sources avoid leaving it as is, including BBC[4]. I really want you to give further consideration in this regard. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
I believe the current title likely fails Wikipedia's policy on neologisms. As mentioned, the term Nisei generally refers to first-generation immigrants in the English context. As most news organisations translate the term in this context (I can't find a reliable English-language source that doesn't), I think this should be renamed. -- QueenofBithynia (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.npr.org/2010/02/17/123805954/unification-church-woos-a-second-generation
  2. ^ https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20221006/p2a/00m/0op/006000c
  3. ^ https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2022/09/18/national/unification-church-politicians/
  4. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-62173865

Fractions

I'm unsure if this is the right place to raise this topic, so if it isn't, my apologies in advance. Some time ago I noticed that a fraction was used in an article (e.g. 1⁄2). The fraction affected the line spacing, so I replaced it with ½, because ½ is in the list of symbols. However, the change was quickly reverted. (There are other symbols for ¼, ¾, and eighths.) Is it Wikipedia policy not to use the symbols that are readily available? Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Might I suggest that WT:MOS would be a better place for a question of this nature. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
You'll also want to see MOS:FRAC. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, @RoySmith. MOS:FRAC has "If ¼, ½, and ¾ are the only fractions needed, they may be used in an article body, article title, or category name, maintaining typographical consistency within an article where possible." Since the changes I made (on 23 July 2021) were to 21⁄2 and 11⁄2 (to 2½ and 1½ respectively), and they were the only fractions in the article, they shouldn't have been reverted. Maybe the bot was given a clip over the ear, because my change to 3⁄4 on 7 Jan. was not reverted. :) Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 09:27, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
@Prisoner of Zenda None of your edits were reverted by bots, they were reverted by other human editors. Your edit on the 23rd was probably reverted because you replaced the conversion templates with hardcoded unit conversions in addition to adding precomposed fractions. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 14:41, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, 192.76.8.81 - but ½ was the only fraction in the article, so I figured it complied with MOS:FRAC (see extract above). Apparently not; can you enlighten me? Even if I did transgress by replacing "the conversion templates with hardcoded unit conversions in addition to adding precomposed fractions", that didn't change the sense of the article one iota. Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 01:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

RFC: change "verifiable" to "verified"

STATUS QUO
There is clear consensus, regarding the question posed, that the existing wording is better than the second option. This early WP:SNOW close is largely a reflection of the way the question was presented; it should not be taken as prejudicial aginst other RfCs regarding how we handle unsourced content. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Which of these two statements for the lead of WP:V ("verifiable" or "verified") is better?

  1. (status quo) All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable.
  2. All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verified.

RFC advertised at WT:V and WP:CENT, and launched at 16:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  • Support #2 (as proposer RFC initiator). It's time for us to make this change. English Wikipedia is now at the top of Google search results, and our content is reproduced by Google, Amazon Alexa, Siri, and elsewhere, which we are encouraging with Wikimedia Enterprise. English Wikipedia is, generally, the anglophone internet's first stop for information. Our most important duty is to not misinform readers. The use of Wikipedia to spread misinformation and disinformation is a serious threat: see, for example, this study from 17 Oct 22 (and this article about it)--the latest of many such studies and articles.

    In the early days of Wikipedia, it made sense to allow unsourced mainspace articles, under the rationale that by putting them into mainspace, they would be more likely to be improved. As long as the information in the articles was verifiable, there was no risk of misinforming the reader. Today, with over 6.5 million articles (6,922,214 to be exact), we do not have enough editors to check or monitor each and every article. We've added over 500,000 new articles in less than two years (WP:6M was reached in Jan 2020). Category:All articles lacking sources contains over 136,000 articles. It is unrealistic to expect that we can have unsourced information in mainspace and not misinform our readers, and in 2022, the risks of misinformation and disinformation are too high. Wikipedia is too important, too widely-read, too much relied-upon, to risk it.

    If this proposal passes #2 is preferred, enforcement policy text changes of the "verified" requirement would be a separate issue, beyond the scope of this RFC. (I note that "verified" does not mean "must have an inline citation": general references can provide verification.) What to do with existing unsourced articles, and new unsourced articles, are nuanced and complex questions, but the first step towards answering those questions is to all agree -- to come to global consensus -- that mainspace articles should be verified, not just verifiable. If this much has consensus, then I expect future RFCs will be launched to explore what other changes should be made to policy to implement this change (e.g., renaming the "WP:Verifiability" policy to something like "WP:Verification"). But it's time to make this change: it's time to ditch verifiable, and agree on verified. Levivich (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

  • Oppose (will return with reasoning) Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The policy relies throughout on the current wording. Changing that one word makes the policy self-contradictory on many levels. As an example, the change would require that common knowledge, such as universally-accepted everyday orders that are taught in early elementary school, be, at a minimum, be looked up in a general reference while writing an article. Nobody would do this, so it would make all editors rule-breakers. Making everyone a rule-breaker devalues all rules. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
    I reaffirm my opposition after the changes by User:Levivich at 17:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC). The burden of looking up well-known information before writing it in an article would be so burdensome that it would be impossible to maintain one's train of thought. To borrow and modify a thought from Edsger Dijkstra "The use of COBOL the policy change cripples the mind; its teaching the policy change should, therefore, be regarded as a criminal offense.
    Source: https://quotepark.com/quotes/1816853-edsger-w-dijkstra-the-use-of-cobol-cripples-the-mind-its-teaching-s/ Jc3s5h (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment. What's the goal of this proposal? Is this an oblique way to try to get a certain behavior to change as well? Forgive me, but I am not clear on this after reading the proposal and first !vote. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
    • Since we're still in the first half hour of the RFC, I've changed the RFC statement to clarify. The goal is to determine if the community prefers "verified" to "verifiable" as the guiding WP:V principle. Pinging Beyond My Ken, Jc3s5h and Novem Linguae to let them know of the change. Levivich (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
      @Levivich, I read your statement, and I repeat the question from @Novem Linguae: What are you trying to accomplish? I know what (un)cited material is. I know what (un)verifiable material is. But I can't make out from your description what "verified" material is. Usually, when people talk about whether content is verifiED, they're talking about the actions they took immediately before slapping a {{failed verification}} tag on it.
      Here are some questions that might help me understand your proposal:
      • Do you mean that there must be at least one source named somewhere in the Wikipedia article?
      • Do you mean that there must be at least one source named somewhere in the Wikipedia article, and no content in the Wikipedia article that isn't also in one of the sources named in the article?
      • Do you mean that I need to check a source before I add basic information like "Joe Film is an actor", because I might have misremembered that, but citing the source would be optional (unless WP:MINREF applies, as it very often does)?
      • Do you mean that if I add basic information like "Joe Film is an actor", that someone else needs to check to see whether Joe Film really is an actor?
      • Do you mean that editors should be systematically checking articles to see whether they contain content that requires citations but doesn't have them?
      If the answer to the first question is "yes", then I think you'll want to withdraw this RFC and try again with a proposal that the WP:BLPPROD rules should be extended to everything. That has a chance of being accepted, possibly even with enthusiasm. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
      • Yes
      • Yes
      • Yes on checking first, but citing a source should not be optional, the source should be cited somewhere in the article (not necessarily inline)
      • No, the person adding the information should continue to have the WP:BURDEN (and WP:ONUS, etc.)
      • No, although I think some already do, and it's good for that verification work to continue
      I've already changed this from a proposal to a broader question, and I don't think I'd support expanding BLPPROD to everything. Levivich (talk) 01:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
      It sounds like you want editors to take a hardcore Wikipedia:Amnesia test approach to writing articles: Forget everything you ever knew, because you can't even be trusted to correctly remember that water is wet. It'll be a tough row to hoe in terms of marketing, but if you want to get to that place in the end, I think you'll have better luck with a frog boiling approach than a single massive change. The first baby step might be getting a simple glossary installed in WP:V, to differentiate between verifiable, sourced, and cited. From the comments below, they're not going to let you call your idea verified, but you might get agreement to call it sourced, and leave the term cited for inline citations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
      Yup, I agree, "sourced" is the next logical question. Levivich (talk) 02:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Oppose - these are two vastly different things. The current means that if someone sees something uncited, they can leave a [citation needed] tag. If this were to change, literally anything that was uncited should be deleted. This feels like it goes against WP:SODOIT Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
    Requiring content to be verified does not also require unverified content to be deleted. For example, the rule could be that before deleting unverified content, an editor must make a good-faith search for a source, similar to WP:BEFORE. Another possible rule is that unverified content can only be deleted if it's had a {{cn}} tag for a certain amount of time. A third possible rule is that unverified content should be moved to the talk page, or only moved to the talk page after a {{cn}} tag has been applied for a certain amount of time. There are many different ways to enforce a verification requirement (WP:NOCITE lists several), but requiring content to be verified doesn't mean literally anything that was uncited should be deleted. While I support #2, I would oppose any such draconian enforcement measures. Levivich (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose - would make it so any reversion of say a 10k vandalism removal of material requires the editor to themselves verify the content to restore it. As far as the reasons to make the change, WP has been the top google result and had its material reproduced by google longer than Ive been here, so I fail to see what has changed to require such a wide scoping change in our core policy. nableezy - 17:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Hizzell to the nizzo. There is NO WAY this is a good idea. Verified means that someone official has done some kind of confirmation, and signed off that the material matches the source. Verifiable means that any reader could do that by themselves. Verified carries the notion of official approval. Wikipedia does not operate on that model. Material needs to be verifiable, which means that I, as a reader, can check sources myself and confirm it. The current wording is not just arbitrary, it literally matters to how Wikipedia works, and changing it fundamentally changes the whole ethos behind Wikipedia. No way. --Jayron32 17:33, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
    Verified doesn't mean that someone official has done some kind of confirmation, and signed off that the material matches the source, it means there is an WP:RS cited as a reference (not necessarily inline; general references are already permitted). Levivich (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
    Once you start the RFC, it's up to the community to decide what the language of the RFC means. Just cuz you proposed it doesn't mean you get to decide what it means. I say it means exactly what Jayron32 says it means. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
    The applicable guideline is WP:CITE, and the sections WP:CITETYPE and WP:WHYCITE cover how/when/why to cite sources. Changing "verifiable" to "verified" in WP:V wouldn't change anything in WP:CITE. Complying with WP:CITE already complies with the "verifiable" requirement (as well as in the case of challenged content, per WP:BURDEN); complying with WP:CITE would also comply with a "verified" requirement. We don't have "someone official" on Wikipedia who verifies content; any editor can do that. Levivich (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
    Good rule of thumb… when proposing a change in policy wording (even minor changes) ask: “how might some other person misinterpret the language I am proposing?” Don’t assume your intent is clear to others. Blueboar (talk) 18:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree that things ought to be cited maybe more than they are but I think this is not the way to encourage that.Selfstudier (talk) 17:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose What will this actually achieve? Forests of tags, and random removals. In my experience, "referenced" material is often little more accurate than referenced stuff. Johnbod (talk) 17:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose In addition to concerns already raised there are also problems with things like SKYISBLUE. I presume we wouldn't expect people to cite that Paris is the capital of France but this change suggests we would. In margin cases it would suggest that facts that are grayish blue would need to be removed if the original editor incorrectly felt they were blue enough. The current wording allows for content to be retained when it falls into these edge cases. That's probably better than the alternative. Springee (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Springee and others. This change will not improve Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I believe it's snowing here. nableezy - 17:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose - impracticable notion with a possible significant consequence if adopted. (The more I think about it, the more I'm sure that this is not a good idea. (See opposing notes above) - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Readers, and the editors who write for them, should be credited with a modicum of intelligence when it somes to deciding what needs to be verified. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Jayron32. The point of verifiability is that I as a reader of an article can verify it by checking whether the source says what the article says it says. "Verified" means that someone has already done that and confirmed it (so I do not have to do it anymore, or have to be able to). That means that there has to be a system in place that ensures that before a user adds text and a source, they have to submit it to another user (not of their choice) for checking whether the source actually says that. Only after that check, the text can be added. That would be too much bureaucracy and would contradict the Wiki principle. Without that bureaucracy, the word "verified" would be a dishonest boast. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose I would be in favor of requiring all articles to cite at least one source; but a sourcing requirement of some sort is a far cry from requiring a citation for every fact in an article. The change proposed in option 2 would logically lead to a requirement for a citation for the assertion that "the sky is blue". Just as an experiment, I hit the random article button and got Guy-Michel Nisas, a stub about a Martiniquais football manager. That stub currently cites 3 sources for its 2 sentences. I count 6 distinct facts in those 2 sentences - if option 2 passes I would expect that article to need footnotes by each of those 6 facts. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Hizzeck to the nizzo, per above: while the large-scale removal of uncontroversial content pursued as an alternative to simple verification is certainly a phenomenon that happens here, I do not think we need to have more of it endorsed by policy. jp×g 19:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Utterly impractical. I recognize that standards are ever rising, but this is too sudden. {{Citation needed}}, {{Dubious}}, and {{Better source needed}} tags alert readers to potential issues of accuracy. Article-quality processes already require "verified" status. Aggressive removal of uncontroversial but unsourced information is a common form of biting the newbies and has drives away potentially highly skilled writers. I would argue that experienced editors should follow this as if it were policy, but that is a matter for their respective user talk pages. Ovinus (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose to match wording of article title/topic is “verifiability” the text should be about “verifiable”. A “verified” is an inappropriate term as that would indicate some third party checking cites against text and recording the check. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose for many of the reasons stated by others here, but also because WP:WIP. This change is more likely to lead to reliable, informative (albeit lacking an inline source) content being purged rather than improved. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. Editors should only add material when they have a source supporting that material, as otherwise they are engaged in WP:OR. Since they must already have the source, it is reasonable and efficient to require them to provide the source when adding the material.
For editors worried about 10k vandalism, there is a difference between adding and restoring material. BilledMammal (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
I can't agree. I can add "The capital of France is Paris" to an article without a citation, and without "having" a source, and I will not be engaged in OR according to the second paragraph of that very policy, which gives that exact sentence as an example of content that is never an OR violation regardless of whether it's sourced.
Also, BURDEN explicitly applies to anyone "who adds or restores material" and says that challenged material "should not be restored". There is presently no difference between adding and restoring material. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose - “Verified” is inaccurate and an entirely different, unrealistic standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swarm (talk • contribs) 20:09, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Besides the fact that verified and verifiable mean two different things, I can see the clear intent this RfC is trying to greenlight. Curbon7 (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment despite the so-far solid opposition to this proposal, it is actually merely attempting to ratify a point of view that many Wikipedians already hold. At the moment we're in a very unsatisfactory situation: we have guidelines that say don't knee-jerk delete unsourced stuff unless it's wrong or got BLP issues: instead first look for a suitable source or consider a citation-needed tag. But we also have a clear statement that if you choose to ignore this advice and delete it anyway, no one can put it back without a source. No one is ever going to get sanctioned for deleting unsourced information, so in effect, we already have a "must-be-verified" policy, wherever anyone chooses to enforce it. Logically it's like saying you can't pinch someone's chocolate, but if you do, they're not allowed to ask for it back. I welcome this discussion - the topic is very close to that which I raised just above - because I think it's a huge chasm between two groups of Wikipedians and needs sorting out. But I also prefer "verifiable"; deleting probably-correct information is disruptive, and makes articles less readable. It's lazy. It's much better to assess whether the information is verifiable, and if it is, verify it. Elemimele (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
    There is nothing murky about the way things are. Any editor is free to challenge uncited material, and any challenged material requires a citation be provided. If that is not done then challenged material can be removed and should not be restored without a citation directly supporting it. Needlessly challenging material just because there is no citation may however be treated as disruptive. If you think something is wrong, ask somebody for a source to prove it. If they dont, remove it. nableezy - 21:09, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the many statements above and this should be SNOW closed. Andre🚐 20:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose because Wikipedians are first and foremost encyclopedia writers and not blind citers of content. While citations are important, requiring citations of everything would bog down our editors and readers alike. Per User:Novem Linguae, this sounds like a proposal that was made in order to discretely stop a behavior that they don't like. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Verified is a goal everyone should strive towards in the long term, but making it an essential prerequisite would be catastrophic to the model we work on here. I've done some work on unsourced articles and I'd say at least 90% of the content is correct and readily sourceable with the growth of online access, especially the recent Wikipedia Library expansion. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose— the big problem, if this were passed, is who will do the verification? As I read the proposed text, verified would imply that someone has actually, well, verified the content added by others. That would imply all articles, new or existing, would have to have Pending Changes protection enabled to allow someone to verify edits before content appears to our readers. That also brings up another issue: not all of our sources are accessible online. Some are locked behind geofences, some behind paywalls, and some are locked in print in libraries requiring physical access. Instead, we operate on a principle of verifiability, meaning that readers should be able to verify the content they read, either through supplied references, or through their own research. (In the latter case, one would hope they'd give back by supplying a reference for previously uncited content.) Imzadi 1979 → 00:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
    "Verified" might mean that the editor adding content has looked in some source to verify it, and made sure the source is at least listed as a general reference in an article, if not an inline citation. But when working in an advanced article, even that is an unacceptable burden. For example, Date of Easter is a fairly advanced article, and it uses the word "remainder", referring to the arithmetic operation of division. Sorry, but when I finished fourth grade, the teacher collected my text book, so I no longer possess a book to cite on how to do long division. Even if I did, I shouldn't have to interrupt my thinking to bother with stuff like that. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
    That's certainly another interpretation, but if we start advertising that we have a policy that our content is verified, a very reasonable interpretation by the general population would not include such self-verification. Either way, a verification requirement, not a verifiability requirement, would fundamentally alter how people can contribute with a variety of poor consequences. Imzadi 1979 → 00:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. By aiming for "verified", we're saying "trust us, we checked", and barring some major change to how Wikipedia is edited, we can never be that trustworthy, because you always might get to the article after someone has added something inaccurate. "Verifiable" sets the goal of having a reference so that the reader can check some more structurally reliable source; they don't need to trust us. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose impractical and poorly thought out. If you want to throw away every single uncited thing by bot, be my guest, but that seems irresponsible to me. --Rschen7754 01:01, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While I see where the proposal is coming from, who will be the arbiter of what is a verified source? –Fredddie™ 01:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Would raise the bar for editing to a ridiculously high level. Also, it's snowing in October. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 01:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support the idea behind this (we should more aggressively remove unsourced content), but agree with everyone above that the specific wording proposed here is unworkable. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wikipedia should never be the "fact checker" by claiming that all its contents are "verified". To my limited knowledge, "verifiable" means that the editor is expected to verify themselves as the content can be verified, while claiming "verified" means that we claimed that it has been vetted and should not be checked anymore, placing Wikipedia to be on a similar level with "truth checkers" which in my opinion, is not the goal of this project. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TechConductCommittee acts like a cabal.. sanctions?

The TechConductCommittee blocks users from technical spaces without providing sufficient information on why exactly. See this topic about MZMcBride's block by Liz and the warning I got. It's like a small scale Framgate.
This kind of, to quote Anomie, secret court ultimately ends up being harmful for this project too. If users get blocked without sufficient information and/or warnings, that's a serious problem. English Wikipedia (and all other projects) are interwoven with the technical spaces. We need each other. Secret courts with zero accountability have no place in that.
After thinking about this, I was only able to come up with one solution: block all members of the TechConductCommittee from English Wikipedia. I know that sounds ludicrous, but sadly I am dead serious in thinking that's the only way up. An unaccountable secret court is a threat to this project. This block would not be punitive: once they reform they can be unblocked.
It would be nice if someone else could come up with an equally effective but less rigorous method, but I sure can't think of any. I'd really wish I could, especially considering it seems doubtful this idea would garner much support. But discussing this might lead us somewhere. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:45, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

The Tech Conduct Committee is a secret tribunal, a star chamber for sure, as you can see on the MZMcBride topic thread, where we have been assured that there is plenty of damning evidence, but the only links to evidence provided thus far have shown low-grade to moderate incivility that would result in a level-one warning (accompanied by links to diffs!) here at en.WP. If en.WP chooses to pursue a conditional block of those editors, what would the policy or guideline rationale be? If we choose to follow the path of evaluating a potential block, we should certainly act with integrity and transparency by using one of our established processes, notifying all affected parties, citing relevant policies or guidelines, and presenting relevant evidence. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
TechConductCommittee is a role account for a wiki that is not this one. Well i have my own objections to the whole thing, it is for mw.org to figure out how we want to be governed not en-wikipedia. If you somehow think its contrary to the principles of Wikimedia, you could start a discussion on meta, but it is not any of english wikipedia's business. Bawolff (talk) 01:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Jonesey95, the rule might be something like "If you serve in a function on a Wikimedia project where you block users or otherwise restrict their access to parts of Wikimedia, you must always provide the blockee with the exact links or quotes of their offenses that are the rationale of their block. Your process must also include that the community can overturn any block for which no charges were pressed with the authorities of the relevant government."
Well i have my own objections to the whole thing, it is for mw.org to figure out how we want to be governed not en-wikipedia. If you somehow think its contrary to the principles of Wikimedia, you could start a discussion on meta, but it is not any of english wikipedia's business.
Unfortunately, it is. We can pretend to be isolated islands, but we're not. They don't want to be blocked from enwiki any more than we want to be blocked from the technical spaces. English Wikipedia can't decide how mediawiki.org governs itself. I doubt anyone can, even if the community there collectively voted to dissolve the TechConductCommittee, I don't believe they would go down without a fight. But we can decide what's acceptable. And if anyone decides to harm Wikimedia as a whole, even if they don't do it on enwiki specifically, we could decide that's not OK. MediaWiki suffers from severe survivor bias, it's unlikely that community can reform itself at this point without outside help.
There is actually a kind of precedent for this: m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Kubura. Kubura created such extreme survivor bias on hrwiki as a corrupted admin and crat that they couldn't be blocked on hrwiki. So they got globally banned. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 03:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Jonesey, let's not hold up English Wikipedia's enforcement of our policy on civility as the shining example to compare TCC to. While there are some valid criticisms (transparency dominant among them - I share no love for the TCOC and its committee), that's not the one we should want to chase.
To some degree, there is hope on the transparency front: the UCOC will bring the TCOC under its umbrella (maybe even cause the TCOC to go away) and the expectations for the assorted committee should provide good cause for that group to adjust. And if they don't, that can be heard by the U4C (systemic issues). Izno (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
I'll be surprised if the UCOC and its committee do not turn out to behave in the same manner. I'll not be at all surprised if we get another WP:FRAMBAN-type situation with the UCOC as the hammer being used to justify it all, since that seems to be exactly why it was created in the first place. Anomie⚔ 11:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

proposal to improve reliability

Hello.

i made a mockup for a technological solution of improving reliability of wikipedia.

To be blunt, i am disappointed that an encyclopedia that has many thousands of contributors, many of which are working each day to improve accuracy, cannot already provide any substantial reliability guarantees, and provides little technical assistance to make citing more economical.

Looking for feedback to evolve the proposal. Nowakki (talk) 12:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, and no amount of "verification" will make it one. You are now suggesting (basically) that we have a subset of individuals who audit our content the moment a reference changes. If you would like a completely fact-checked encyclopedia, look at Brittania, or any other suitable text. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
you are interpolating my proposal to such extremes that it becomes easy to disagree with it.
i propose "reliable enough" to be used as a reference inside wikipedia (where there is no deadline). like a reputable journal is reliable enough, even though journals can be wrong and issue corrections.
all that happens is that a reference becomes flagged. i am not proposing to create an army of slave labor that solves resulting problems.
i am not proposing a completely fact checked encyclopedia, but rather an encyclopedia that contains fact checked tables, lists, sections that provides a guarantee that the external reference has been properly quoted. wikipedia at this moment already does proofreading of citations. that is nothing new. Nowakki (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
If a reliability of a certain section is determined by checking its sources, why not just cite those sources directly? CMD (talk) 15:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
go through 5 pdfs and a book that is not on your shelf, instead of linking to an already produced summary. saves time. if further references are added to improve the reliability of the original, both places where the references are used as a source benefit.
the mere reader of a page can confidently believe in the accuracy of the data, without even having to worry one second about vandalism.
if a fact is established in one place and used in many places, it is much more likely to receive scrutiny because of the larger potential impact of a correction.
editors will be incentivized to be more careful about citing something.
an articles value can be improved if it can be established that parts of it have gone though a peer review and that it has always been one version that all peer reviewers have agreed to over time. Nowakki (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
It's worth noting that vandalism, as it is understood on Wikipedia, really isn't part of the problem when it comes to verifying content in articles. Our bigger problems are systemic bias and savvy POV-pushers. signed, Rosguill talk 16:22, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
yes and murderers may use knives.
if a POV is pushed by very accurately quoting a source, that is nothing i can do anything about. Nowakki (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Proposals for locking verified content preemptively are perennial, even when solely talking about featured articles, our highest standard of vetted content. See Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Protect_featured_articles. signed, Rosguill talk 15:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
but this concerns whole articles and the objections revolve around featured articles not being finished and continuing to improve.
that's different from establishing a set of facts from sources. A data table or a section of an article or its infobox. the facts are not going to change. Nowakki (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not deal in facts, it deals in claims, and claims change all the time. I would suggest that you get more familiar with Wikipedia's processes before making sweeping suggestions that include a half dozen nonstarters in them, or at least bring them to WP:IDEA before VPP. I'd recommend Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth as an entry point to Wikipedia's discussions of epistemology. signed, Rosguill talk 16:05, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
i don't read about a single non-starter.
wikipedia can be verified. people who verify wikipedia can be given tools. wikipedia can become as reliable as the references linked to with a high probability of correctness.
the whole thing could be run off-site and wikipedia wouldn't have to change one bit. if a wikipedia article uses facts established by a secondary source that gives the primary sources for verification itself, then that would be a good source to link to.
sorry i meant to say claims, not facts. Nowakki (talk) 08:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
But what does "reliable enough" mean? This is another fuzzy term. Either a statement is reliable (i.e. based on easily discovered source material that is easily verifiable as factual) or it is not. If a statement is "mostly reliable" (?) then further analysis is needed to determine whether the lesser, unreliable part of the "mostly reliable" statement is in any way related to what the statement purports to support in wikitext. Or whether any depemdencies exist between the mostly reliable part and the other, less reliable part. 50.75.226.250 (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
"reliable enough" refers to the probability that the verification process was flawed.
in the mockup example i made, do you attach different chances of accuracy to the before and after? Nowakki (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Ok, basically then you propose a process for 1. validating citations and 2. determining citations are contextual (not just reliable but pertinent to the wikitext)? How do you arrive at the probability numbers? 50.75.226.250 (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
the ratio of verifications that are still not falsified by a user versus the total number of verifications. it is based on the track record of the user giving the thumbs up. Nowakki (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Validating citations for reliability and relevance is not a bad idea, it is actually necessary. If this website was publishing an encyclopedia (just because Wikipedia says it is an encyclopedia doesn't make it so) then the existence and validation of citations would be some of the mandatory requirements for publishing an article. This wouldn't make the article overall reliable; there are more criteria to consider. Also, per your proposal, I would not protect anything unless WP:PP has a reason to apply. And there are other, technical considerations.
I don't think any such proposal has much chance of success. The great majority of the miniscule minority of Wikipedia users that participate in these discussions seem content to let the mainspace area be filled with content of the same apparent quality as any random internet site. Vast swathes of unverified internet posts masquerading as knowledge, even when they look good. 50.75.226.250 (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
actually i was hoping this problem was already being worked on and i would be redirected in no time to a project page where technical details would be worked out.
the the logical next step in the evolution of wikipedia Nowakki (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

RfC on mid-sentence and mid-article title capitalization of the in the full name of the LDS Church

There is a request for comment about mid-sentence and mid-article title capitalization of the in the full name of the LDS Church at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#RfC on mid-sentence and mid-article title capitalization of the in the full name of the LDS Church. Please contribute there. Thank you. SchreiberBike | ⌨  12:49, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Impersonating an administrator

I just created Wikipedia:Impersonating an administrator (it is still rather stubby) as an essay, and I am actually rather surprised that I was unable to find a policy page saying that a non-administrator pretending to be an administrator is not okay. If I'm missing something, please point me to it, but this should actually be a policy. BD2412 T 05:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Wary of WP:BEANS. I'd assume handling impersonation would be common sense and akin to WP:MISLEADNAME.—Bagumba (talk) 07:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm not quite as WP:BEANS-wary—it's pretty easy to see if someone claiming to be an admin is or is not one. BD2412 T 15:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm sure it's easy for experienced editors & admins like you two "to see if someone claiming to be an admin is or is not one", but the most useful content in the essay would be to explain exactly how to do this, which the essay doesn't address at all! Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
@Johnbod: Good point. BD2412 T 19:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I have a quibble with one of your examples in the essay… saying “I will block you” or “I will delete this article” isn’t necessarily an assumption of Admin power. It’s more a mid-statement of procedure. We have mechanisms in place, after all, where non-admins can get someone blocked, or can get an article deleted. Ok, technically They need to involve actual admins to push the button, but when there is a serious issue, actual admins are happy to oblige. Blueboar (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
    • @Blueboar: You are, of course, welcome to edit the essay to clarify this, but there is a clear distinction in my mind between an "I will block you" kind of statement and an "I will get you blocked" kind of statement. BD2412 T 20:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
    I think it would be nice to warn against that kind of language without suggesting it's always impersonation. It is reasonable to conclude that someone saying either phrase has the ability to follow through single-handedly. On a related not, I'd like to see the essay/policy/guideline explicitly endorse the continued use of templated warnings, many of which say something like "You may be blocked from editing if ...", as I do see new editors every now and then upset that non-admins have posted such warnings. If not addressed, I think we'll see such editors citing WP:FAKEADMIN. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
    While I agree non admins shouldn't use language suggesting they may personally block an editor, we often seen including in a talk page discussion above, editors who seem confused and think that even the standard templates which are intentionally worded in such a way to avoid that, suggest an editor is threatening to personally block the warned editor. Even when they accept that the wording doesn't suggest the editor may personally block their warned editor, many still feel as also seems to be sort of shown in a discussion above, that non admins shouldn't warn other editors which of course isn't and couldn't be how things work around here. IMO these are bigger problems than non-admins being careless with their wording although I appreciate this isn't something an essay is likely to resolve. One thing that is IMO a bigger problem and perhaps an essay could help is to remind admins that even they have to be careful with the wording they use. While it's probably fine to threaten to personally block an editor if you're considering that because it's a situation where you can, I've seen cases where an admin has threatened to personally block someone in cases where they accept they should not do so because they are involved (in a non administrative capacity). Personally I find this more troubling than a non-admin threatening to block another editor when the threat is justified since even an experienced editor who bothers to check will know that this is a threat coming from someone who has the technical ability to block so may be more concerned. More importantly, it can lead to confusion by inexperienced editors on how things work, and IMO justifiable annoyance from experienced ones who know that it's not how things work. Note that this also means if you're going to give warnings with such language, you need to consider whether you are involved first rather than only doing so when it comes to using the tools. Nil Einne (talk) 09:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
    @Nil Einne: I have added a line noting that admins should not be making threats in content disputes anyway. BD2412 T 19:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Behavior that is unacceptable states the following: Do not claim to be an administrator or to have an access level that you do not have. User access levels can always be verified at Special:ListUsers. isaacl (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Multiple data points in a single table cell

This is something I've long been in disagreement with the community so to get me to shut up, I'd like to have this decided. So. In list tables for politicians, the trend appears to be towards including more information about them, rather than less; I say this damages accessibility, semantics, and adds little information to the article.

Here are two sample entries from List of Governors of Alabama:

Governors of the State of Alabama
No. Governor Term in office Party Election
13 Reuben Chapman
    July 15, 1799 – May 17, 1882   
(aged 82) 		December 16, 1847
–
December 17, 1849
(lost renomination) 		Democratic 1847
13 Reuben Chapman December 16, 1847
–
December 17, 1849
(lost renomination) 		Democratic 1847

The first row contains multiple datapoints: Name, lifespan, and age on death. To accomplish this requires extra formatting, such that the using of ! to begin a table cell to emphasize it as the scope of the row, as per Help:Table: "Row headers are identified by ! scope="row" | instead of |". The second row has how I think it should be, for the focus of the row: Just the name. My complaints go past the accessibility issues to the fact that I don't feel the lifespan adds anything to an understanding of the subject, which, in this specific case, is "list of governors of Alabama." Getting deeper info on a governor, beyond that which is immediately relevant to them being on the list of governors, is as easy as clicking their name. But, the accessibility issue is a bigger concern than me saying "i don't like it".

(note: yes, the next column also contains two datapoints, and I'd be willing to discuss that too if necessary, but my point here is that the governor, the scoped cell of the row, is one where we want to be as clear to the reader (and their tools) what the datapoint is, right?)

If there's a better place to discuss this please point the way, but it's time for my one-man crusade to end, one way or another. I think the method used in the first row is unsound, and I would like to know how the community feels. I figure this could go to an RFC but I wanted to check here first to see if I am just completely off base and not even go that far. --Golbez (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I've no objections to removing the governors birth & death dates. GoodDay (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
I would object to removal, as this will likely impact all lists like this. I supported the initial proposal to add these dates to the List of presidents of the United States, and it's based on the reasoning I gave there that I oppose this here. - wolf 22:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Support, oppose - who said anything about a vote? This is about factfinding. If the first one is in fact inaccessible, then it doesn't matter how much you support it, it shouldn't happen. --Golbez (talk) 04:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, @wolf. I notice several supporters at that discussion clearly wanted it limited to year and not full DOB: birth and death year in small text, Year only, to avoid cluttering, more is better, unless it's too much. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 23:51, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
I would consider the first example to be unnecessarily confusing. It is not at all obvious that a date range in a list of holders of some particular office is their lifespan; it might alternatively be their term in office. In this particular example, the fact that the date range is 82 years wide suggests that it is in fact a lifespan, but parsing that requires extra mental overhead. If lifespans are useful information in this kind of table, I would think it makes much more sense to list it as a separate column of the table (which would also have the benefit that it could be sorted on in a sortable table). If it's not important enough to get its own column, is it important enough to list in the table at all? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
@Caeciliusinhorto-public: It's clearer on the List of presidents of the United States; the column heading is "Name (Birst - Death)", and the next column is "Term" so, no confusion, just readily visible and useful information. (fyi) - wolf 16:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
I would agree that the example at List of presidents of the United States is clearer, both because the table heading explicitly says what the dates are and because the age at death isn't also included as a third data point in the same cell. I still think that it's clearer for each column to cover one piece of information. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
If you have to have birth and death dates (which I don't understand) then it should be in a separate column. Just saying it's a lot of work to fix doesn't make it suitable to retain. This table is against WP:ACCESS for many different reasons. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:31, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
MOS:DTAB (and its how-to MOS:DTT) is generally quite clear on how data tables should be formatted for screen readers (which is the WP:ACCESS issue I am assuming you are referring to). You need a good reason to do something that fails WP:ACCESS, saying that, multiple data points in a single field is not in itself anti-accessibility providing the table is formatted correctly. What is the exact accessibility issue here? Is the first not rendering correctly for screen readers? Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't know, I don't have one; that's why I'm asking. One thing I do know is that the first one lacks scope=row, which would seem to be less accessible; and a screenreader would presumably say that the 13th governor of Alabama was Reuben Chapman July 15 1799 May 17 1882 aged 82. But I don't use one so I don't know. --Golbez (talk) 13:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
First of all, this is a sortable table with three things it could be sorting for. Why wouldn't you have a column for the dates? Why do you require more than one piece of information in a cell? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Governors of the State of Alabama
No. Governor Born Died Age at death Start of Term in office End of Term in office Party Election
13 Reuben Chapman
 July 15, 1799 May 17, 1882 82 December 16, 1847 December 17, 1849
(lost renomination) 		Democratic 1847

(Reply here for lvl-1 indent with reply tool) ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 22:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Instead of more data in few columns, the third option is more data in more columns. This helps column sorting and copy-paste reuse, at the expense of readability and layout. I think the data-oriented table goes against the spirit of a "list article". ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 22:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
More specifically, for people, I don't mind years as qualifiers Reuben Chapman (1799–1882): that's done a lot in art-gallery and library cataloguing, and is easily parsed out. The full date of birth and death seem off-topic for a list of governors, though. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 22:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. - Enos733 (talk) 21:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

For the record, this is an example of an entry at List of US Presidents;

List of presidents of the United States from 1789 – till date.
No. Portrait Name
(Birth–Death) 		Term Party Election Vice President
1 Painting of George Washington George Washington
(1732–1799)
 April 30, 1789
–
March 4, 1797 		Unaffiliated 1788–89

1792

John Adams

Unlike the Governor's table being debated above, there is no detailed birth and death dates, just the years, and there is no age at death. I'm not sure there is a need for such details, but I am sure there is no need to create three extra columns just to include such details. - wolf 23:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

(ec, or rather simultaneous post) Indeed, I replied to similar effect further up. Apologies for forking. :) ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 00:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

So does no one here really know about the accessibility issues in removing scope=row and adding multiple data points in a cell? --Golbez (talk) 13:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

A very wide table has a different sort of accessibility problem: it's very difficult to read on a smartphone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Okay but I didn't ask about a wide table. --Golbez (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
@Golbez: For accessibility, so that non-visual browsers correctly understand the table, each row in a table should have one cell that is marked as a header cell (with !scope=row). Those cells should be the "primary" column of the table, e.g. it should "define" the row and you shouldn't be seeing a lot of duplicates. So, in the Governor example, is that the row about Reuben Chapman? Or is it the row about the 13th Governor? Either is fine. Ideally, the primary cell should also be the first cell, but it doesn't have to be. It does look better that way, though.
In regards to multiple data points, for non-visual accessibility just read it out to yourself (or if you have a mac, command-F5 to turn on voiceover. "Governor. Reuben Chapman July 15, 1799 May 17, 1882 aged 82". Is that enough context, on its own, that you knew what was said? I think it's almost fine- what's missing is what's in the President list, the (birth-death) line in the header, which would make it "Governor birth death. Reuben Chapman July 15, 1799 May 17, 1882 aged 82".
There's also the concern of it being cluttered, which can be an accessibility problem for people with poor eyesight or just visually overwhelming for anyone. Consider doing what the President list did, and making the birth-death bit just (1799-1882), and leaving the details up to the article. --PresN 14:33, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, there should be a scope=row, which is not possible unless we want the entire lifespan bolded, which is a bit much.
I would say the row is about Reuben Chapman, who was the 13th governor. Put in another example, Grover Cleveland properly shows up twice in a list of US presidents, and both times it is he who is the scope of the row, not the number of his presidency. However, I could see arguments both ways; as you said, there shouldn't be many duplicates, and if we are being strict about "list of presidents" and not "list of presidencies" then yes, one could suggest that he only appear once, and a list of presidencies/presidential terms would include him twice, with the number as the scope cell. And that's a viable discussion but beyond the scope of this one I think.
As for that, okay, so a screen reader will read this (without knowing it's the primary cell, mind you) and that seems like really poor form. Why is it that every other column should get clean data but the governor column, the primary column, throw three facts at the reader?
I consider the "what should we do otherwise" to be outside the scope of this, but, eh, this discussion is dying and I'm too lazy to make an RFC so why not: Why do we even need to include their lifespan to begin with? It adds absolutely nothing to an understanding of the subject, adds maintenance concerns, and opens the door to other pieces of info like spouse, birthplace, etc., which have similarly zero to add to the understanding of the subject. --Golbez (talk) 16:32, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the death of this conversation means no one cares, or if it needs an RFC. Shrug. --Golbez (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, this thread didn't die unattended. Several editors responded, and there simply wasn't a consensus. At least, not the consensus you were looking for. That in of itself could be considered an answer. Perhaps it's time to move on... - wolf 16:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
It seems like merely putting "(Birth–Death)" in the header would go a long way to clarifying what the date-range means. DMacks (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Well no one wants to discuss the accessibility and semantic ramifications so I guess time to move on to my other objection: why should we include that? --Golbez (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
  • My ranked preferences is to omit birth and death dates in a row because of accessibility issues. People can click on each officeholder to know more about the individual, but people reading the table are probably more concerned with the period they served in office. At minimum "(Birth–Death)" should be placed in the header. --Enos733 (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
    Is it possible to discuss something here without people having to state a preference or a vote? Seriously, can we just... talk about it first? No one ever established this as some kind of vote, and yet nearly everyone here... is this all we can do now? Really? Maybe trying to engage with the community was a mistake. I do better when I just do my own thing. --Golbez (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't think trying to engage is ever a mistake. It can often solve problems before they become out of hand, or even start. That said, I'm not sure what more there is discuss. You want to reduce, or eliminate altogether, multiple data-points in a single table cell. It's not all that suprising that some people are responding with !vote-like responses. I can see where, in some cases, you have a point, but not in others. This is demonstrated in the two examples we have just above (Alabama Governors & US Presidents). I think the best you can do is tackle this on a case-by-case basis. Tables such as "List of POTUS" is pretty stable now and unlikely to change, but you may have more success in changing the "List of Alabama Governors", and other tables with the same set-up. At least, more of a chance of success, that is, than continuing here, or in trying to create an RfC that will somehow cover every possible variation of table set-up we have, both now and in the future. And you may have to be wary of forum shopping as well. Hey, at least you gave this a shot, and good on you for doing so. - wolf 19:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm just annoyed that I asked a 'why should we include it' and the next comment was 'my ranked preference is not to include it.' Sorry, I'm in a [permanent] mood and should just do what I said and disengage. --Golbez (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Meh, I don't think you owe any apologies, afaic, you didn't come across as cranky. But just the same, taking a break is never a bad thing. - wolf 21:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

RFC LGBTIQIA+phobia

Hi Please look at this RFC about non-nominative insults and death threat against LGBTQIA+ people to integrate them in the oversight policy Scriptance (talk) 09:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

policy question

if somebody shouts across a crowded room, asking how many votes Joe Biden won in the 2020 Arkansas election, what should my personal policy be:

  1. meddle for 20 seconds and read the number on the wiki page
  2. meddle for 20 seconds, read the number on the wiki page and add: "but i don't know if that's accurate"
  3. meddle for 2 minutes with the sources on the wikipage and read out the number from the cited source

Nowakki (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Shout “Next round’s on me!” and change the subject. (Well, that’s my policy anyway).Blueboar (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers § Article titles for years: BC/AD or BCE/BC

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers § Article titles for years: BC/AD or BCE/BC. Interstellarity (talk) 14:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

The controversy over the issue has given rise to repeated consensus being later over-written or deleted for at least the last eighteen months that I've been editing. There are multiple issues on a number of pages continuing Foreskin - current discussion on repeat from last year - some deleted content now restored. I'm not looking for dispute resolution here - talk is ongoing - but some pages suffer so badly it makes wikipedia look wrong. Masturbation does not contain the word foreskin, it does contain the word lubricant. I post this because I read a noticeboard discussion about cabals. I think we need to do something about the entire subject area but I have little experience in the admin world so apologies if this is in the wrong place. I'd welcome broader feedback about bias problems across subject areas. Thanks.Thelisteninghand (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

What issue? What consensus? Back up and explain what you are talking about. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
There is a lot of discussion on the talk page, but no formal RFCs yet. ECP is also a possibility if there really is a problem with instability and disagreement. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
@Graeme Bartlett: Thank you. "Instability" is an exact description - the prepuce infographics restored last week, now deleted again on Foreskin because it used the term 'function' - medical doctor is over-ridden. (foreskin 'must not have a function' bias - the reason why it's missing completely in some articles) But I want make it clear I am not complaining about one page. NPOV has gone to the wall over many circumcision related articles - which is why WP perhaps needs to consider what its policy should be in terms of page protection or sanctions. Apologies, what's ECP? Thelisteninghand (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed protection, which would restrict editing to user with at least 30 days tenure and 500 edits. Often, a good first step in researching an unfamiliar acronym here is to slap a "WP:" before it and use the search bar. See WP:ECP. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

How to make edits on behalf of people without internet access

Wiki Education, the organization I work for, runs an extensive program where college and university students edit Wikipedia as a class assignment. We have one university instructor who's taught with Wikipedia through our program several times who is teaching a course beginning in January where her students will be inmates in a correctional facility (see Prison education). These students will be taking her course for college credit, but they will not have internet access. She is interested in printing out our how-to-edit trainings, printing out an existing article, and working with the students to collaboratively improve an article with citations to books or other physical sources they have at the facility or that she would bring with her. When she comes back to her office at the university where she has internet access, she'd then incorporate the edits to the article.

So my question: how does she do this in a way that follows policy? These students obviously can't create their own accounts because they don't have internet access. Should she make the edits with her account and provide credit to the person's name in the edit summary? Or is there a better solution? --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

One issue is copyright and attribution. Normally we would not allow putting in others work, but if the students were prepared to sign a permission sheet releasing their writings under the CC-BY-SA-4.0 saying what attribution they would like and who is going to be uploading them, then the instructor would send that to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Then when the instructor inserts contributions on the writer's behalf, they can put the attribution in the edit summary, along with the ticket number where permission can be confirmed. However if the only work is adding references, perhaps that is too simple for copyright. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
This brings up an interesting question of how we can accomodate editors who are physically incapable of entering text. What if I were assisting a disabled person who could not use a keyboard? Perhaps they were to dictate to me and I would do the typing. That's not fundamentally different from the situation here.
We surely would have no problem with a disabled person using an electronic speech-to-text device. Why should a human acting in that capacity be any different? And if I were acting in that capacity, would I be expected to log in under my own account and provide attribution in the edit comment, or would I be allowed/expected to log in to the account of the person I was assisting? In some ways, using their account would be better. Why should their contributions be called out as "entered on behalf of xxx because they're in prison and can't do it themselves"?
Just to be clear, I'm asking a question here, not handing out official advice. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:50, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
There are a couple of issues to deal with, copyright being first. If the off-line contributors release their work as CC-0, anyone can freely copy it for any reason; a CC-BY would be another possible option. Next would be the editorial decisions. Is the staffer going to take responsibility for the edits, or do they intent to act as a "proxy" only? Are they going to be making these edits as a function of their job (WP:PAID editing)? I think this is a good idea, but there may be better ways to get it started right away. Researching things and providing summarized, cited research - releasing that summary under an open license - then adding that as research notes to talk pages could help. Then an editor could incorporate it to articles as it makes sense editorially. That helps get around the problem of how to communicate with the editors, what to do if a revert happens, etc. — xaosflux Talk 17:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Bluerasberry (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Support... what? The opener said, "How does she do this in a way that follows policy," which isn't a support/oppose kind of question. --Golbez (talk) 00:31, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

RFC at Talk:Republics of Russia

There is an RFC on the Republics of Russia talk page that could use more editor input,Talk:Republics of Russia#RfC: Should Donetsk and Luhansk_be included in the table and infobox?. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:22, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

MOS: allow Private Use characters inline?

About Klingon scripts, see talk:§ Does this article need to include private-use characters?. The script is not defined in Unicode, but has Private Use designations. Question is whether this wiki can use these (requiring supporting font). Discuss over there please. DePiep (talk) 13:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Deleting articles: AFD and Article overflow

Articles for deletion is overwhelmed. There needs to be no discussion over this - everyone knows it.

And that's because there are not enough people to do source search checking.

Patrolling articles is also overwhelmed. Deletion of articles is often done without WP:BEFORE checks.

There might be no WP:DEADLINE, but unmaintainable articles(not notable articles, hoaxes etc.) continuously accumulating in Wikipedia is not acceptable either.

We need a solution to the problem that takes these problems as facts or solves these problems.

One possibility is blanking; replacing an article with a template "This article was removed because of quality concerns" if the problem is notability, no one has claimed to have done a WP:BEFORE check, and there is no valid redirect target, and the article subject isn't a BLP. But that leaves out BLP's.

But it is something that needs to be solved. Deletion is generating ANI threads at high speed, and got already one arbcom case. Let's not end with DS on deletion. (I submitted this here because the idea lab is not for policy discussions)Lurking shadow (talk) 15:06, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Seems like a non-issue to me. Let's say an article is deleted. Let's say that any time in the future after that you decide to create that article again, but when YOU do so, it has enough sources and context to easily overcome WP:N concerns, complies with all of Wikipedia's content policies, isn't a copyvio, etc. Guess what? Nothing happens. The article just exists at Wikipedia, from that day forward. I'm failing to see the problem here. --Jayron32 16:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
This just seems like another example of #I propose that an article being tagged for over a decade as completely uncited should be a reason for deletion. I don't see what blanking a page does to help other than being a soft delete that means no one sees the article. If there are hoaxes, then these can be dealt with at CSD. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
I think that is ALSO a bad idea. AFD is valuable for the reason that (when it works), it is supposed to be a discussion, and it gets eyes on articles. If AFD finds sources and ends up improving an article that was moribund for 10 years, then we still win. If AFD decides the article should be deleted on the merits, then that is ALSO fine as well. What isn't fine is when we make decisions not based on the merits, like when we clear some arbitrary hurdle like "been tagged for over 10 years" or something like that. --Jayron32 18:06, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
No, it isn't. It would be an alternative for soft deletion... or when consensus to blank exists.Lurking shadow (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
But this is just one idea. Let's not just focus on that. Do you have a good idea for fixing one or several of these problems?Lurking shadow (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure how it's all that different from WP:PROD regardless. I'm a bit confused where the issues are. You started this by stating that there's a massive issue at AfD, but I'm not sure I agree. Items being soft deleted due to lack of participation is fine. Whilst having articles on non-notable people isn't great - it's hardly the largest blight upon our website. I'm not sure how you'd get a consensus for blanking. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm going to be bold and try what has been rejected in the past.

Articles for deletion is broken. Vast amounts of badly or barely discussed articles are being deleted, or kept. There are way too many AFD cases every day. The edge of uncertainity is too great: AFD should be for special cases, not obvious cases. The discussion standards in AFD are terribly low. It's way too easy for less-well meaning people to nominate articles for deletion without being stopped fast.

1.New PROD criterion similar to BLPPROD: Articles created after October 2022 and more than 48 hours ago can be prodded with a prod that should not be removed as long as all sources in the article including its history are:

-obviously not independent

-obviously not connected to the subject

-deprecated

Obvious means: Immediately visible at first glance.

Editors must consult the history of the article before nominating. These articles can be deleted by an admin after 14 days have passed. The admin is required to make a second history check.

2.Enhanced AFD standards: Nominators must include a detailed analysis of the sources in the article if a reason for deletion is notability. Everyone is asked to provide detailed analysis if possible.


These low quality articles are lowering the standards in AFD. Increasing these standards will help AFD becoming what it should. In the beginning of the project these sourcing standards made sense. There were lots of extremely important unwritten articles. Right now, the focus on quantity is holding Wikipedia hostage. There is no immediate need to fill every article space with low quality articles; articles having low interest are much more prone to undue weight, special interests, and more, and bad info stays vastly longer; these should be held to higher standards to ensure accuracy, and allow minimum fact-checking by readers and editors alike.Lurking shadow (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

On the particular suggestion (1), a prod has to be easily handled by a single admin; this would put a lot of the burden currently spread over AfD onto the relatively small number of active admins who work in deletion. On (2) and more generally, we're just about to start an RfC on deletion at scale; Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/AfD at scale. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Per Espresso Addict, PROD and BLPPROD is designed to require little to no work or interpretation on the part of the tagger or the admin involved. Sources are impossible to evaluate immediately at first glance. You have to open the source, read it, interpret it against standards, etc. That takes time and energy, and requires a modicum of interpretation, where opinions may differ. In those cases, AFD is the only appropriate course of action. the scenario described above literally doesn't exist. --Jayron32 11:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Aside from the merits of otherwise of this proposal I’m surprised at the timing. AfD doesn’t look overwhelmed to me at all. Back some months we were often up to 120 or 130 listings a day and that has dropped back to something more manageable. Similarly NPP has gone from 14,000 to zero and us now at about 400. Both seem to me to be working ok for the moment at least. Mccapra (talk) 13:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
@Espresso Addict, Jayron32, and Mccapra: The burden is lower than for a single admin on a normal PROD, unless that admin doesn't take the job seriously. Enhanced AFD standards might be able to shoehorned into that RFC, the general deletion change could not. Sources can show a lack of independence at first glance sometimes, but mostly not.

There is no standard for obviously unreliable except deprecation, which is easily accessible. The scenario does exist, although many do fall under CSD A5. No sources at all do happen. This discussion is what brought me here. There might be a low number of AFD nominations currently, but this might change. Some current AFDs are problematic. A few:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StayPlain: The nomination does not discuss the sources in the article.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medanta: Some sources, but no source evaluation.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ikemba Chisom Sophia sources in the article, but no detailed source evaluation.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Connecticut Party (2021) No detailed source assessment.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Lady of Mato Grosso do Sul Eight sources, none of them analyzed publicly.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asabe Shehu Musa Yar'Adua No analysis of the sources in the article, again. Just a blanket assessment that it doesn't meet GNG.

And that's with low nomination numbers. Lack of source analysis in the nomination statement is bad(if the articles has some), If no one challenges that assessment then the article gets deleted, which might be problematic(the ANI discussion linked above tells you why).Lurking shadow (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I went and added some comments to each of those. You know you're allowed to do so yourself. Be the change you want in the world; if it bothers you that participation is low at AFD and the comments are not high enough quality, and then you don't make any comments yourself on these AFDs, you ARE the problem you are complaining about. Wikipedia is a volunteer organization, and the only reason things get done is because people who care about things just do them. If you care enough to write an entire post at VPP about something, you should care enough to do it yourself. If more people just did the thing they complain that others aren't doing, it would already be done. --Jayron32 18:26, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what sort of source analysis you are expecting, nor why you'd expect the nominators to have to provide this. Nominators can add AfDs for any reason, although they are better to explain why. How would blanking a page make a lack of a nomination statement better? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
The nominations are not enough high quality. The deadline for these discussions is not today. I am not obliged to do that immediately. Me adding comments there will probably help the discussions but it will not change the problem with the nominations. Nomination standards should be increased.
@Lee Vilenski: Blanking a page is a seperate issue. And no; nominators should not add AFD's for any reason, and the explanation is what is missing, at least the detailed one. Lurking shadow (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
@Lurking shadow: sorry but I’m not sure I properly understand your point above (“the burden is lower…etc.” if I understand you correctly you’re saying that a lot of nomination statements (and following comments) don’t provide much detail. That’s true but it’s not clear to me that it’s problematic. We’re not giving evidence in court and if a nomination is not well founded my impression is it generally doesn’t find support. I’m still not seeing any clear case that AfD is broken or needs some fundamental change. Mccapra (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
It generally doesn't find much support(but it does by drive-by deletion voters), but it may not find opposition; if there is a flood of deletions like previously... which can come back at any time. Lurking shadow (talk) 08:06, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Now I'm really confused. You think that people nominating items at AfD aren't doing a good enough job, so therefore it's suitable to just blank pages instead? What do you want to happen to people that nominate items at AfD who don't leave long nomination statements? Quite often a simple statement that someone simply isn't notable is fine. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok well we kind of rely on admins to properly weigh up skimpy nominations and drive by ‘delete’ votes and balance that up in their conclusion of where the consensus lies. Any other system of deletion (??) would also ultimately depend in the judgement of the admins, and I guess the people taking part in nominating and discussing wouldn’t have my more time to invest in it than they do now, so my sense is we could spend a lot of time trying to work out a better system only to end up with the same people doing more or less the same things in a somewhat different format. Mccapra (talk) 08:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Quite often a simple statement that someone simply isn't notable is fine. - Lee Vilenski
No, it's part of the problem. I could nominate anything with these statements; I am not backing up that it's actually true. The article might be notable, and have acceptable sources, but the nomination might sneak through and then the article would end up deleted. Or the article isn't actually notable but a few drive-by keep votes say it is, and it's kept.
We rely on admins. And the admins will make better decisions if the matter is being discussed for real; if the nomination and subsequent statments are all WP:ATA then the admins will probably make more mistakes. Lurking shadow (talk) 09:31, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
There's quite literally nothing you can do to have ANY impact on what anyone else does in terms of nominating articles at AFD. All you can do is make your own comments. If, for policy or guideline based reasons, a nomination was made inappropriately, you are allowed to make a comment to note exactly that. --Jayron32 11:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
You could indeed nominate any article for "not being notable", but while nominators missing an easy BEFORE check is already irksome, nominators who proposed an article for failing notability which already had clearly sufficient sources would be a quick trip to ANI for a TBAN. And even speaking as an inclusionist, notability is a positive duty - the article has to show it's notable not vice-versa. Nominators should provide additional reasoning if they need to clarify a query or rebut a logical (but apparently incorrect) objection in advance. For example, clarifying that a source from a RS is unsuitable because, say, it's an op-ed. But the large bulk of 1-line nominations are where a look at the article while confirm that yes, that's correct. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
No, we aren't going to ban someone at ANI because they made a nomination once that didn't properly address sources. Please stop suggesting such silliness. How about if you find a nomination that isn't sufficient, and you don't comment on it to make it sufficient with your own comments, we banned you from Wikipedia? That's just as stupid. Please stop suggesting that the way to fix problems is to punish people. It isn't. The way to fix problems is to fix them yourself. If you find it too onerous to fix it yourself, then it isn't that big of a problem. --Jayron32 12:34, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
You could indeed nominate any article for "not being notable", but while nominators missing an easy BEFORE check is already irksome, nominators who proposed an article for failing notability which already had clearly sufficient sources would be a quick trip to ANI for a TBAN. This should happen maybe, but it definitely does not in my recent experience. Jahaza (talk) 02:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Whatever process is used to delete articles won't work well unless enough people participate. Let's concentrate on getting more people involved, the first step of which is getting involved ourselves, rather than on changing the process. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Advocacy of political violence in userspace

As a general rule, it seems that direct threats of political violence are not allowed (WP:VIOLENCE, WP:CIVIL). However, it seems that indirect or implied threats or advocacy of political violence are more nebulous. I recently nominated a few userboxes supporting political violence to MfD, but consensus seems to be divided on whether they're appropriate for Wikipedia. Is there a policy that describes to what extent users may support political violence, military action, terrorist groups, etc? Would it be beneficial to hold an RfC on advocacy of political violence on Wikipedia? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2022 (UTC) Discussion moved below. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:05, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

That is so funny. 😂 I was creating a village pump thread at exactly the same time you did. Would you be opposed to merging your point into my below thread? 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
It was your suggestion of an RfC that prompted me to post this! I'll migrate it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Policy and maintenance templates on tables of statistics

Resolved

..Moxy- 17:29, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Some of our country demography articles have become dominated by tables of statistics without much by way of prose. See Demography of England for an example. What's the policy on this? WP:NOTSTATS states that "Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context". The statistics in these articles are in tables, but I'd hardly say that the articles are readable. Relatedly, do we have (or do we need) a maintenance template for such situations? Moxy recently tagged Immigration to Canada with a template for excessive images. Is there an equivalent for tables? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Demography of a particular country is a stats-heavy topic; if readers want something other than stats, there are a lot of other articles relating to England. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
agreed demographics of articles are a "Dumping Ground" for these sorts of things. But "DATA" spam is definitely a problem as seen at European Canadian. Moxy- 00:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree that this sort of article is always likely to feature more statistics than the average article. However, it's the complete lack of balance between prose and tables that I think is the problem here. Making sense of the tables requires prose, which can describe, explain and contextualise in ways that the raw data does not. Is there a maintenance template that can be used to highlight this issue? Cordless Larry (talk) 11:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
? Moxy- 12:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
That was the closest I found but it doesn't really cover it. What's needed is something to explain that more context is required for the tables. Perhaps a new template is in order. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
We could un-redirect Template:Toomanycharts and replace it with coding from Template:Toomanycharts/Draft
{{Toomanycharts/Draft}}
Moxy- 02:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Forgot to ping.... @Cordless Larry:. Moxy- 02:41, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
That looks great, Moxy. Thanks for creating that. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Category has been set up. Moxy- 14:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 Done all set up and runing.Template:Toomanycharts/doc and Category:Pages with too many statistics Moxy- 17:26, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_176&oldid=1240802565"