This is the Village pump (all) page which lists all topics for easy viewing. Go to the village pump to view a list of the Village Pump divisions, or click the edit link above the section you'd like to comment in. To view a list of all recent revisions to this page, click the history link above and follow the on-screen directions.
Discussions older than 7 days (date of last made comment) are moved to a sub page of each section (called (section name)/Archive).
Policy
Administrator Recall
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.
This discussion forms part of a debate on adopting a community-based process for the involuntary removal of administrator rights, administrator recall. This topic was most recently addressed at the 2024 Requests for adminship review; more background information may be found in a section below. The question of this request for comments was whether the result reached during that discussion immediately assumes force of policy, or whether it requires further ratification.
Due to the unusual nature of an RfC to clarify the outcome of a previous RfC, participants at times addressed somewhat different matters in their comments, and some cast bolded support or oppose votes on slightly varying questions. In this closure, I shall focus on the key question as identified above, that is, whether we in principle now have a policy on administrator recall, or not.
On the English Wikipedia, there are no formal requirements for policy changes; that is, there is no specific process that must be followed. The relevant policy Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines § Content changes only specifies that "Major changes should also be publicized to the community in general; announcements may be appropriate." This, to me, means that this RfC is a valid way of figuring out where we want to set the threshold for this particular policy amendment; there is no unequivocal policy argument to either adopt the Phase II result as policy or not. The RfA review was also publicized through several standard channels used for important discussions, fulfilling that requirement.
Proceeding to the discussion at hand, it appears at first sight that the bold yes votes significantly outnumber the noes. However, as mentioned above, in this discussion, bold words can deceive. Furthermore, some editors commented on the contents of the Phase II result rather than on whether it carries the force of policy. I have deemed such arguments irrelevant to this discussion. While weighing this is not entirely quantifiable, and I will therefore not state exact numbers, I consider those in favour of the procedure already being adopted to have a clear numerical superiority.
Some of those who opposed pointed out certain discrepancies in the information provided in the RfC statement, in the Phase II closures, and at Wikipedia:Administrator recall. As of the time of closing, many of these concerns have been resolved, see for example the note at the end of this closing statement. Some things remain undecided; in particular, how the 30 day limit should apply when an administrator elects to re-request through administrator elections. While some editors stated that unresolved questions impede the adoption as policy, most thought that any outstanding issues may be resolved through normal editing. Some editors also opined that, while there may be consensus for the individual conclusions of the review, the policy page written on the basis of these will need to be the subject of a separate RfC to adopt or not. Again, I see a majority of editors being of the opinion that the conclusions may be accepted as policy now, with any further issues resolved by normal editing.
In summary, this RfC has resulted in consensus to adopt administrator recall, according to the Phase II result, as policy. Now, the following should happen.
Any further issues regarding the administrator recall policy will be resolved through normal editing.
Please note the following discrepancies between the present RfC statement and the result of the Phase II RfC. The consensus at Phase II was that reconfirmation via administrator elections shall be subject to a fixed 55% threshold. The 25 editors supporting a recall petition must be extended-confirmed users. The result of this discussion concerns the existing consensus as documented at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator recall, not the summary in the RfC statement. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)15:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there consensus to have administrator recall based on the consensus reached during Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review? 03:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
The consensus reached there established recall with the following process:
Petition
Cannot be launched until 12 months have passed since the user has successfully requested adminship or bureaucratship, re-requested adminship, or become an arbitrator.
25 editors must support the petition to trigger the re-request for adminship process.
The format allows for discussion and reasoning to be explained.
To support a petition, you must meet the criteria to participate in a request for adminship. You must not support more than 5 open petitions. There is no limitation on how often someone can initiate a petition.
If a petition for a given admin fails to gain the required support, another petition for that admin cannot be launched for six months.
Support statements can be stricken based on the same criteria as for requests for adminship.
Re-request process
A bureaucrat will start a re-request for adminship by default. The admin can request a delay of up to 30 days. If the re-request does not start by then, the admin can have their privileges removed at the discretion of the bureaucrats.
The re-request can also take the form of participating in an admin election. (Not clear what the consensus is regarding the need for the election to fall within the 30-day window).
For either a re-request or an election, the following thresholds apply:
below 50%: fail
50–60%: Bureaucrats evaluate consensus
60% and above: pass
Background
During phase 1 of WP:RFA2024Joe Roe closed two proposals for recall with the following close (in part with emphasis in the original):
Considering § Proposal 16: Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs, § Proposal 16c: Community recall process based on dewiki, § Proposal 16d: Community recall process initiated by consensus (withdrawn), in parallel, there is a rough consensus that the community should be able to compel an administrator to make a re-request for adminship (RRFA) in order to retain their administrator rights. However, there is also a consensus that the process(es) for initiating an RRFA needs to be worked out in more detail before this is implemented. Phase II of this review should therefore consider specific proposals for RRFA initiation procedures and further consensus should be sought on which, if any, is to be adopted. The dewiki-inspired process suggested in Proposal 16c was well-supported and should be a starting point for these discussions.
When the second phase began the process was, after 3 days, structured in a way that took Proposal 16c and offered alternative options for certain criteria. This was done in good faith by Soni who had originally proposed 16c. Some editors objected to this structuring at the time and/or suggested that a 3rd RfC would be needed to confirm consensus; Joe Roe would later clarify well after the process was underway that the Phase 2 structure did not, in his opinion as closer, reflect the consensus of Phase 1. Others, including Voorts who closed most of Admin recall phase 2, suggest that there was adequate consensus to implement the process described above. Post-close discussion among editors has failed to achieve any kind of consensus (including whether there needs to be an RfC like this). As an editor uninvolved in the current discussions about Admin recall until now, it seemed to me that the clearest way to figure out if this recall process has consensus or not is to ask the community here rather than have this discussion in parallel with an attempt to recall someone. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Survey (administrator recall)
(involved) The question here is simple: did a two-phase discussion that reached consensus in both phases also achieve an overall consensus to implement? The answer is equally simple: yes, it did. The current strongest argument against this idea seems to be that Phase II's formatting didn't give enough leeway for someone to propose a recall system distinct from the dewiki process (while still using that as a starting point). But there was an open discussion, and I don't recall seeing a different idea gain any significant amount of traction. If we really need to go through an entirely new RfC to double-confirm a proposal we've already accepted in principle and fine-tuned, fine, let's do it, but it seems like a waste of community time to me. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 11:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Despite this, people added additional proposals, and additional options to existing proposals, and nobody complained about the open discussion section being closed, for months thereafter. Levivich (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(uninvolved) Yes consensus was reached. Naturally new tweaks/discussions will come along. Let's have specific RfCs on those. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is a consensus (uninvolved). A legitimate objection is that the process of managing the second RfC may have stymied other possible outcomes beyond a de wiki style process, and this may have been the case. However, RfCs with perceived flaws tend to generate lots of comments pointing this out (as we can already see below) and I'm just not seeing that that in the 2nd phase RfC. The 1st phase confirmed that the community wanted a recall process, the 2nd phase asked for proposals to be developed for implementation and there was a consensus found within that discussion for a specific variant. In the interest of not letting the perfect being the enemy of the good, I believe there is sufficient support for the admin policy to be updated based in this outcome, with further adjustments being made as required (or indeed removing it entirely should a subsequent consensus determine that it should). Scribolt (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strangely-worded question. No, there isn't currently a consensus for this proposal; but yes, I think we should reach consensus for it at this RfC.—S MarshallT/C16:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A key challenge in trying to reach agreement by consensus is that interest tends to wane as discussion moves from higher-level concepts to more fine details. One way to address this is to get consensus for a general initiative, obtain consensus for key aspects to incorporate, then work on implementation details. For this specific situation, I think the phase 2 discussion did a sufficient job at taking the support shown during phase 1 and working out agreement on the broad-stroke steps for a recall process. As always, because it's hard to get people to pay enough attention to reconcile specific wording, part of working out the implementation means finding a working procedure that is the central object illuminated from different directions by people's statements. I feel the phase 2 results reveals enough scaffolding to proceed with implementation. isaacl (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(involved) Yes. There is consensus per my comments in the post-close discussion, as well as per leeky and Scribolt above. Those editors raising objections to the idea of admin recall or the proposals that gained consensus, but who did not participate in the earlier RfCs, should have participated; phases I and II were both widely advertised (I remember them being posted at T:CENT, VPP, AN, AN/I, etc.). I worry that a third RfC will fatigue the community and disproportionately draw the most vocal opponents to the process, resulting in a small group of people overriding a consensus already twice-determined by the community. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I participated in both Phase I and Phase II. I believe the results of Phase II achieved consensus and should be implemented. I do not see how this contradicts the results of Phase I. As others have pointed out, an actual policy page is still being drafted and might have to go through yet another RfC. Having an RfC on the validity of each step seems like a waste of time. Toadspike[Talk]07:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think your question answers itself. "Was there consensus for the consensus"? The answer is obviously yes. Now, if you want to ask a different question, open a different RFC. --130.111.220.19 (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, there isn't consensus for the recall process proposed at Wikipedia:Administrator recall. I'll reiterate a comment I made on the Phase II talk page: taking the mini-consensuses from that phase, then using them to cobble together a process, doesn't translate into a solid policy with broad community consensus. The fact that various aspects of the proposal, even now, are up in the air disproves the notion that "the consensus already exists". Those who are advocating for Wikipedia:Administrator recall need to finalise that page, then present it for a simple yes/no RfC, so that the consensus (or lack thereof) on the policy as a whole is beyond question. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 20:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is no consensus for this, and I've explained why on the pages where the proposal is being developed. But I think it's unfair to ask this question now, because the editors who support the proposal are still working on it. I therefore think this RfC should be closed as premature. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had hoped that this RfC would be withdrawn, but it appears that it won't, so I feel the need to say why this RfC cannot establish consensus for the policy change.
First, Barkeep49 gets the facts wrong in the statement of this RfC. He says: Joe Roe would later clarify well after the process was underway that the Phase 2 structure did not, in his opinion as closer, reflect the consensus of Phase 1. In fact, he said more than that: I'm really sorry to say this, but reading it all through now, I think Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator recall has trainwrecked... I just cannot see how a genuine consensus can be said to come from a process like this... The only way I can see of salvaging this is to take whatever precise version of 16C got the most support and present it as a straight support/oppose RfC.[1]. Barkeep49 goes on to quote Voorts as having determined that phase 2 established consensus: Others, including Voorts who closed most of Admin recall phase 2, suggest that there was adequate consensus to implement the process described above. But in fact, Voorts drew a clear distinction between his close of individual sections, as an uninvolved closer, and his personal opinions about overall consensus, which were separate from the close: [2], [3].
And the bullet-list summary differs in some substantive ways from what appears to be the proposed policy. 25 editors must support the petition. Isn't it 25 extended confirmed editors? Who closes the petition? In fact, this is still being discussed: [4].
Since when are policy pages simply a bullet-list? Are we being asked to establish the bullet-list as a policy page, or are we being asked about Wikipedia:Administrator recall? The latter is beyond any question a work-in-progress. So if it needs to be changed as the editing process there continues, are we establishing consensus for the current version, or for some indeterminate version that will emerge in the future? And if the real purpose of this RfC is to establish consensus against, is that a fair process?
Phase 1 established consensus for some form of process. Phase 2 established consensus for some particular forms of the process, but did not establish whether those forms are actually to be implemented as policy, or whether those forms are the best version to be submitted as a policy proposal. This RfC muddles two different questions: whether the process so far has already established consensus, or whether the proposal summarized in bullet points should now be adopted as policy. And some editors here have been answering the first question, whereas others have been answering the second.
No one has answered the question of what is inadequate with the status quo, with ArbCom handling desysop requests.
The bullet-list proposal would be a disaster for Wikipedia if enacted here. It can't even be launched within the first year after the successful RfA? What happens if an admin does objectional things before then? More importantly, we are in a time when many members of the community are deeply concerned that we do not have enough new admins emerging from RfA, and that we are starting to see backlogs. Many members of the community regard RfA as being unattractive to well-qualified candidates, too stressful, not worth the aggravation. So if any random group of 25 users can force a recall, and just a few can start the petition process, how will that affect administrator morale? Will even more qualified RfA candidates decide against applying? Will current admins become too fearful of angering 25 disruptive editors, and hold back from dealing with contentious tasks, such as AE?
At least we should have a fully-developed proposal for the community to evaluate. Given that there are editors who are working on just that, it seems foolish to demand an up-or-down RfC now, before they have finished, on the theory that this would save them the trouble of working on something that will fail. Plenty of editors want the proposal to succeed, so they are not being imposed upon by giving them the time to finish. And the proposal here isn't ready for prime time. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes (uninvolved) - There is a super clear consensus to have an administrator recall. Still work to be done om the actual policy page. But to the question of this RFC, Is there consensus to have administrator recall based on the consensus reached during the last review? Yes clearly, otherwise the right next step would be to challenge that close. This is not the place to relitigate the RFC or how the policy page is being created. PackMecEng (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No IMO the question is unclear but I think interpreted as "was it decided that the deWiki version be adopted?". In shorthand, the main close was a general consensus that there should be a recall process, with the related verbiage in essence implicitly saying that it needed to be developed and then approved. The close on adopting the deWiki version was that there was insufficient participation (in this context) to consider it to be a decision either way. So the next step is to develop a proposal that can get wide support and get it approved. While keeping in mind that the first close says that it's already decided that "we want something like this" and so that question should not be revisited, and "There should not be any such recall process" is not a valid argument at this point. North8000 (talk) 13:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. If this discussion is "Should Wikipedia:Administrator recall be implemented?", my answer is yes. That is effectively what the list of points above effectively are. If this question is "Is there consensus already to implement Wikipedia:Administrator recall?" then my answer is also Yes. I think there was consensus via Phase II to do this. If people believe there isn't, then I strongly prefer resolving the first question right now instead of bunting this entire thing to a second RFC further down the line. I also personally would have preferred a week while editors already discussing the matter at Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall could resolve this. But the cat's out of the bag, and nobody seems to actually close this as premature. So I would prefer going through with this RFC instead of alternatives that draw this out for everyone. Soni (talk) 05:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Soni's first question, my answer is unreservedly Yes. Regarding Soni's second question, my answer is a Very Weak Yes. Also, this RfC is a premature mess. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. We do not need an RfC to answer the question "Did the previous discussion, with a consensus close, actually close with a consensus?" Just get it done. Details will, as usual, be refined as we go along. If the entire thing turns out, after post-implementation experience, to be a bad idea, then it can be undone later. PS: If there is doubt whether a close of an RfC or other discussion actually reached the consensus claimed by the closer, the place to hash that out is WP:AN (unless it's subject to a more specific review process like WP:MRV for move disputes, and WP:DRV for deletion ones). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 13:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. The partial trainwreck of the discussion that happened at the Phase II RfC meant that consensus for several critical aspects of the recall proposal did not gain sufficient consensus to enact such a significant change to a core policy (WP:ADMIN). And for my own part I failed to see a consensus on some matters at all, though I suppose reasonable minds can disagree on the matter. JavaHurricane10:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the question here is whether there is consensus for some future version, in which the details will have been finalized. It's whether there is consensus for what it says at the top of this RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right. And my position is that there is (or at least it should be established here) consensus for the form of recall described in the 14 bullet points listed above. Some people in this discussion have queried the precise interpretation of some of the points, so another round of workshopping precise language would not be amiss, but the proposal should continue to move forward on this basis without "going back to the drawing board" because of concerns about a previous RFC. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is consensus to adopt an administrator recall process that includes the characteristics that achieved consensus in RFA2024 Phase II. To my eye, the proposal here successfully reflects that consensus. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"25 editors" is much too vague. Could be 25 IPs? Only logged in editors with some experience should be allowed, and the simplest way is to require EC. Zerotalk02:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Already done. The suffrage requirements for recall petitions are "same as RFA". That was one of the Phase 2 consensuses (consensi?). Phase 1 consensus set RFA suffrage to EC. Levivich (talk) 03:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, confirm consensus. The weight of community involvement and the clear consensus close are sufficient to grant this process the effect of policy immediately. I will say this: I am absolutely shocked that the second phase of the discussion was not better advertised; given the long-anticipated nature of this process and the importance to community functions moving forward, it should have been better attended. And yet, the dozens of editors that did participate came to reasonable and clear consensus conclusions on various facets of the process. Beyond that, we are years deep into repeated derailing of the creation of this function, despite clear community support for some sort of process. There is absolutely no reason why further discussion to clarify, alter, or amend any provision of the process cannot take place after the process is codified in its namespace. But the time has come for the process to exist, and there is nothing egregiously problematic in what was decided upon in the foregoing discussion. With the caveat that, no matter what the community decided upon for the initial procedure, there are bound to be things we can only think to address and adjust after the first community RRfA discussions take place. SnowRise let's rap10:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, fair enough, if it was posted on CD, which is arguably the single best thing you can do to promote an issue. But I do think spaces like VP are a vastly more reasonable place for posting a notice intended to draw in general community input about the recall of admins, compared to AN, with it's limited traffic mostly constrained to admin activity (or at least as much constrained as any open space on the project). In fact, some may argue (though I'm certain it was lack of forethought rather than intent) that the only noticeboard to receive a notice of the discussion being the one noticeboard with the highest admin-to-non-admin activity ratio is maybe the least optimal way to advertise a discussion that would seek to create the community's first direct means for recalling admins. The CD link seems to have been the only notice well-calculated to reach an average community member: the mass mailer, the discussion link in the closure of phase I, and the watchlist notice, all of those were only ever going to reach those who participated in Phase I. Which is good, but again, probably a lot less than this discussion warranted. SnowRise let's rap17:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there appears to be community consensus to implement an Administrator Recall process as described. I think some of the concerns raised are genuine, especially the potential for abuse... But I doubt the community would look kindly on editors who chose to WP:GAME this new system. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes (involved). The existence of the pre-voting "open discussion" section, as well as the widespread "find a consensus" sentiment was enough for the consensus found to be valid. Mach6114:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes (involved). From the get-go, the purpose of WP:RFA2024 was to reach consensus -- not to workshop a proposal for later ratification, but to workshop proposals and approve/deny them in the same RFA2024 process. In Phase I, Proposals 16 and 16c, the overall proposal for a community-based recall system (#16) reached consensus. On the numbers, 65 editors voted, and it was 43-22. On the proposal for a specific dewiki-like system (#16c), 34 editors voted, it was a 25-9 majority, but this was determined to not be consensus because of the (relatively) lower participation.
We went on to Phase II, where specific proposals for details of the recall system were made. The purpose of Phase II was, clearly, to iron the details from Phase I #16c, not to draft a proposal for submission to the community, but to decide the details, in Phase II. This is evidenced by the many "find a consensus" votes in Phase II (the phrase appears 27 times on the page, in addition to which there are various variations on the theme), which were editors expressly saying they'd rather have a recall system in place with any of the proposed details, than have the proposal for recall fail due to disagreement about some of its details. It was clear that the participants wanted Phase II to end with a consensus for an actual system, not a proposal for a third round of RFC. 93 editors participated in Phase II [5], which is even more than in Phase I.
Both Phase I and II were widely advertised, tagged with the RFC template, advertised on watchlists, and posted on WP:CENT -- they more than complied with WP:PGCHANGE. They had broad participation, and the fact that Phase II ended with a system very similar to dewiki only confirms the budding consensus from Phase I. The fact that the "open discussion" section of Phase II was closed after a few days does not undermine the consensus-forming process in my view; discussion continued, new proposals continued to be made, and some voted against the entire idea of recall. Nevertheless, consensus was formed on various proposals, leading to the system that is now well-documented at WP:RECALL.
So, yes, this months-long process confirmed what we all already knew was global consensus (to have a community-decided involuntary recall system, and to have it be modeled on dewiki's successful system); this RFC will be the third time in a single year that this global consensus will be confirmed. When this RFC is closed as "yes," as I believe it will be, we should put the policy template on WP:RECALL and that should dispel any and all doubts as to whether WP:RECALL has consensus. 100+ editors in 3 rounds of voting is more than enough to establish global consensus. Levivich (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and No. It appears that Wikipedia:Administrator recall is still being developed and that these dot points are the basis for that development. There is a consensus for a recall policy according to these dot points but as has been pointed out above these dot points are not a policy in and of themselves so cannot be adopted immediately. When there is consensus for a barebones policy (the dot points) it is then developed into an actual policy page before a final RfC to adopt it. That's the normal process and should be followed here. So, yes there is a consensus to have a recall process along the lines of the dot points and that is correctly being developed into a policy before final adoption so, no, there is not yet a consensus to turn the wordy version at Wikipedia:Administrator recall into policy. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like it's ready for an RfC for formal adoption as a policy then? I don't think it's appropriate to merge this RfC into that given that the proposal here is a series of dot points that is different to what's at Wikipedia:Administrator recall. For example, I wouldn't support 25 editors as listed in this proposal but would support 25 extended confirmed editors. Other questions have been raised above (for example what if there's a concurrent ArbCom case) and I would encourage editors who have raised those concerns here to take them to Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall for a further discussion and whether or not they should be incorporated into that proposal before it is put forward for adoption. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I have expressed agreement with this sentiment before, I am also a firm believer of not putting everyone through additional WP:BURO after this. So I'd rather User: Barkeep49 or someone else add a link to WP:Administrator recall to the topic above instead of trying to wrangle a 4th RFC. I'd phrased my !vote above to answer the question I think we should be asking anyway. Soni (talk) 06:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed: Callanecc and Dilettante's points are accurate and well taken, but this really does come down to a more direct call on community will and BURO. I think the obvious emerging consensus here is that if a version of the policy language has already been rendered which includes all of the consensus elements agreed to for the process, without any glaring contraventions or other issues, then as soon as this discussion closes with a consensus in the affirmative, that version of the guideline becomes policy immediately. Repeating the process yet again for purely pro forma reasons is not necessary, appropriate, or a reasonable use of community time. Let's remember that any version validated can thereafter be reasonably expected to be subject to discussion and further tweaking, particularly in its first months. EDIT: Though I do think one reasonable thing that could be done thereafter would be to advertise every major disputed discussion on the guideline talk page at VPP for the next six months (and having a tendency to do so thereafter, really). It is, after all, a new process that has non-trivial consequence to our administrative operations, so continuing to have heavy community input in its initial evolution here can only be regarded as a good thing. SnowRise let's rap03:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding on to the pile that says that we've already gone through so much bureaucracy at this point that any more after this would be really out of the norm. If there's consensus here, mark it as policy and work out fine details as they are brought up. If there's not consensus, let's find out right now, and not after more formal RFC cycles. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes on principle, but some points still need to be workshopped. How does 50–60%: Bureaucrats evaluate consensus work for an election? Is it split in the middle? This kind of details should've been made clear before putting the proposal up to a vote. (Edit: looking at the comments below, this appears to have already been discussed) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 06:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Close as the proposal is still being developed. A draft of a full proposal is being discussed at WP:Administrator recall that refines and adds clarification to the closes at WP:RFA2024. All editors are welcome to participate in the discussion. I do anticipate that this proposal will come back for community discussion. --Enos733 (talk) 03:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As noted when this was raised on my talk page, the work there appears procedural. There is no agreement even there about whether or not this is already policy or not. Having editors spend time developing something in detail when the core policy doesn't have consensus is a poor use of time in my opinion. If it does have consensus the details can be worked out and will be made to happen. We have seen that happen with Admin elections coming out of the RFA2024 process. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand where you are coming from, but the detailed efforts identified a couple challenges with how to implement the close, and I wouldn't suggest that the policy described above is the exact proposal coming from those efforts (although it is in harmony with the closes in WP:RFA2024). While every policy could be further refined, I am of the belief that our community is best served by bringing forward a more complete proposal for community discussion. - Enos733 (talk) 04:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This should be closed. For most people, whether they support admin recall depends very much on the details of the proposed mechanism. For a sensible RfC, the mechanism has to be spelled out (as above) but must not change for 30 days. That does not match reality at the moment. Johnuniq (talk) 04:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49, I oppose the proposal, but I think you should withdraw this RfC for now. What people still need (or at least should be entitled to) is to see a full proposal, a proposed policy page, not the bullet list summary you posted here, and to see a rationale for adopting the proposal, prepared by its supporters. And editors are working on those things now. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I long ago tuned this out as a TL;DR waste of my time. But curious, is there a consensus that the current Arbitration Committee-led "recall procedure" is not up to the task, and should be discontinued? Or, rather, is there a consensus that both procedures may be used. Can an admin be subject to both an Arbcom case *and* a "community recall procedure" at the same time? Is there a consensus for that? To be clear, I oppose the possibility of simultaneous, competing recall procedures. wbm1058 (talk) 09:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wbm1058 Nothing in this above would prevent someone from becoming a party to an arbcom case, or from arbcom issuing any remedy. How would you like a blocking condition to work? Perhaps a prohibition on community recall rrfa launching while the admin is a party to an arbcom case? — xaosfluxTalk10:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If stripping the Arbitration Committee of the power to desysop isn't part of the package, this whole "recall procedure" strikes me as highly problematic. Imagine an Admin suffering through a month-long Arbitration Commmittee proceeding, ending with an "admonishment" to the administrator, followed hours later by the opening of a "community recall procedure". – wbm1058 (talk) 10:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should be consensus for 55%. Option C stated the midpoint of whatever passed in the other discussion. Option C won there, which was 50-60%, so the midpoint is 55% which is explicitly called out in the first discussion. Pinging @Voorts: in case I'm completely misreading something here. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving aside everything else, this part is confusing: A bureaucrat will start a re-request for adminship by default. The admin can request a delay of up to 30 days. If the re-request does not start by then, the admin can have their privileges removed at the discretion of the bureaucrats. Is this implying that if the admin requests a delay then the admin is responsible for creating it? Why not have the 'crat create it after the delay, same as they would for no-delay? Anomie⚔14:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like that part at all. I'd rather see the admin start their own RRFA within some short deadline (7 days - with possibly the option for asking for the 30 day extension) -- and if they don't start it anyone can ask at BN to process the desysop. Crats never have to edit, so requiring the crats to create a pageto move the process forward gives them a pocket veto. — xaosfluxTalk14:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this RFC's summary of that part of the proposal. As I read it, an admin chooses whether to start an RFA (or stand for election), which must be done within 30 days, and if it's not done within 30 days, crats desysop with discretion ("discretion" such as taking into account whether the petition was entirely signed by obvious sock puppets or had the requisite number of qualified signatories, or to extend the period to 32 or 33 days instead of 30 due to the admin's RL schedule, things of that nature). Levivich (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option E there is where it says the 'crat should open create the discussion. The other options had the admin being required to say "come attack me" within a certain period of time. The combination of E+A is where we got the confusion here, since E didn't explicitly say what should happen if a delay is requested. Anomie⚔15:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OTOH, looks like only 9 of those 30+ voted after E was added. That part, at least, seems like it could use further discussion by people who care. Anomie⚔15:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it would ever happen, but in theory the crats could just wait 30 days and then decide to revoke privileges without any community input, which seems like a flaw, that part should be reworded to clarify who is responsible for starting the process in each situation. ASUKITE17:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Close as premature. The page is a mess right now, as several people have posted above. It isn't anywhere near finalized so of course there will be holes and parts where it doesn't judge consensus. When I said "What we need is an RFC to decide whether or not we need another RFC", I didn't expect anyone to actually do it.Sincerely, Dilettante15:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little confused as to what is being asked here: is this a request for approval of a process? Or are we judging whether consensus was previously formed for it? The latter does not seem to me a good question to ask, as it is sending us further into the weeds of a proposal that has already gotten out of hand with respect to creation and approval procedure. But that's how I read my colleagues' !votes above. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really need another bureaucratic mess that is another RfC? I think the last one had enough consensus. Ping me if there's anything in particular we're trying to work out and I'm not getting the point of this. I'm trying to take a step back from the more complicated aspects of the project right now but this is important. Clovermoss🍀(talk)16:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Close as a confusing, duplicative mess. The specific question in this RFC, as far as I can make out, is asking whether the previous discussion had consensus to implement something following discussion, or whether the outcome of that further discussion needs to be subject to an RFC. I don't think it's sensible to even ask that until that further discussion is complete and we can see the differences between it and the consensus outcome. However, above there appears to be discussion of things other than that question, and no clear agreement about what the consensus of the last RFC was (with the consensus as determined by the closer having changed at least once since the initial close) - other than more discussion of the details was needed (which seems to be happening in two places). I don't think it's possible for this discussion to be useful in any way so it should be closed before it creates even more confusion. Thryduulf (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: I think there might be some confusion about what this discussion is for – it would definitely be silly if it was trying to ask people to assess the consensus of the post-close discussion on talk. This RfC asks the same question the post-close discussion has been focused on: did the Phase I and Phase II RfCs result in a consensus to implement? That, I think, is worth discussing. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "25 editors" figure in the initial proposal was qualified as being extended confirmed. Definitely not supporting a process whereby any 25 editors, over the course of a full month, can start this process. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 13:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's a consensus ... but whether there is or isn't, "There is no limitation on how often someone can initiate a petition." needs to be clarified. You can't support more than five open petitions, but then the next sentence says you can initiate a petition without limit. Those two statements need to be harmonized. --B (talk) 13:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "There is no limitation on how often someone can initiate a petition" is entirely accurate. There are limitations on how often someone can initiate a petition (there are cooling off periods, plus the 5-petitions-at-once limit), limitations that were decided in Phase II and are specified at WP:Administrator recall § Petition. Levivich (talk) 18:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Close as premature comments, I said my piece above and on my talk page about why I thought (and think) it appropriate. I also don't think I hold any particular status other than being UNINVOLVED in this process. So if some other UNINVOLVED editor wants to close this as premature, I'm certainly not going to push back. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For further background, see wp:Administrators_open_to_recall and the associated categories and pages. (including pages related to some actual recalls) When we came up with this back in the Jurassic Era, we intended it to be voluntary. It's interesting to see that there appears to be consensus that some kind of mandatory process be implemented. ++Lar: t/c15:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Looking for guideline, forgot where it is
I recall a while ago, I found and/or was pointed to a guideline that basically stated cosmetic changes to links or templates should not be done if there is no change in functionality or where the page links (such as replacing a link to an redirect with the link to the target page). Can anyone point me into the direction of that guideline? Steel1943 (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COSMETICBOT is a policy for bots, which includes tools that assist manual editing, and it identifies itself as a general guideline for other "bot-like" purely manual editing. So it might apply with different strength depending on how many such edits someone is doing, how they are doing them, and if/how-much disruption it's creating for other editors working on certain pages. DMacks (talk) 13:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any legal reason we can't have Fair Use images in sandbox articles under active dev?
I'm collaborating with another user on a sandbox draft, and I want to show my thoughts of what an article might look like. I was tempted to upload a fair use image to help facilitate the discussion, but of course, that's verboten here. A question just occurred to me; now I need to find the answer.
Is there any legal reason we can't use fair use images in collaborative drafts before the article goes in Article Space? Or is this some sort of self-imposed superstitious villager taboo we do to ourselves, unnecesarily, as a sacrifice to imagined gods of US copyright law in the hopes our rite will appease them? Is the project actually at ANY legal exposure if we allow fair use in collaborative drafts under active development? Feoffer (talk) 05:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no legal reason we can't use fair use (outside of fair use allowances), the stipulation stems from the WMF's resolution on non-free content, which stresses the need to keep non-free use minimal. On that end, en.wiki has adapted the standard that the only allowable space for non-free content is within mainspace article content, as we have seen non-free used on user-page drafts without ever being converted to mainspace, which violates the need for minimal use. If you are trying to prepare a draft that will use non-free, and want to make sure that the article looks decent with the images in place, its recommended this to be a last step just prior to moving from a draft to mainspace,so that the necessary non-free can be uploaded and queued for inclusion. Or you can use placeholder free images while the draft is in development. — Masem (t) 06:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the image is available elsewhere online then you can link to that on the talk page so that other editors know what image is being discussed and offer critique, etc. on it. If it doesn't exist elsewhere (e.g. it's something you've scanned) then it is far from impossible that your uploading it to a third party image host for the purposes of said discussion will be compatible with fair use (but do check the image host's terms of use). Thryduulf (talk) 11:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a legal time frame that WMF is forced to store IP addresses of users? It seems the WMF has given them out before and has said to an Indian court that they are going to again. If there is no legal reason then they should be purged after a certain time frame. This would make it difficult for checkusers and sockpuppet admin. We could easily store them in an area that only those groups would have access to. Then the WMF could say that the court would have to subpoena someone from those groups. Thoughts?Music Air BB (talk) 17:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Foundation:Privacy policy#How Long Do We Keep Your Data? states Once we receive Personal Information from you, we keep it for the shortest possible time that is consistent with the maintenance, understanding, and improvement of the Wikimedia Sites, and our obligations under applicable law. In most instances, Personal Information is deleted, aggregated or de-identified after 90 days. and further links to Foundation:Legal:Data retention guidelines, which states that IP addresses will be kept for "at most 90 days" and then "deleted, aggregated or deintentified".
The Sharing section of the privacy policy details when, why and with whom your data may be shared by the Foundation. The "For legal reasons" subsection begins We will access, use, preserve, and/or disclose your Personal Information if we reasonably believe it necessary to satisfy a valid and legally enforceable warrant, subpoena, court order, law or regulation, or other judicial or administrative order. However, if we believe that a particular request for disclosure of a user's information is legally invalid or an abuse of the legal system and the affected user does not intend to oppose the disclosure themselves, we will try our best to fight it.Thryduulf (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should knock that 90 days down to 7 days but leave in a limited access area for 90. Only sockpuppet and checkusers would have access to it. What about email addresses? I thought no human had access to those? Music Air BB (talk) 17:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The IP information (for accounts) is already limited access - only checkusers (with good reason), stewards (sometimes), some techies and some staff can access it. It gets automatically removed from the database after 90 days. That seems a reasonable timescale to me - it's mostly used to reduce abuse of the site, which can be chronic. As for email, if it's in a database and can be displayed to a human, then a human can access it. The people operating a database (in this case the WMF) can access pretty much anything that's in there, with enough effort. They surely have policies and checks in place to prevent willy-nilly access, but it can't really be stopped on a technical level. -- zzuuzz(talk)18:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The WMF's privacy policy is not something that the en.wp community has any control over. If you want to suggest changes to them you need to do so elsewhere. I don't know where that place is, but the people who watch meta:Wikimedia Forum are likely to. Thryduulf (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a shedload of fora I could have posted to including Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) where there seems to be some drama about the WMF take down of an article and doxing because of a court order in India. The article contents are still in a sub-section of a parent article so I don't know why the grand uproar. Just expand that section like a WP:COAT. I doubt many people have Wictionary:Village Pump (WMF) on a watchlist nor the main WMF ones. This page probably has the best input. Music Air BB (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps somewhat ironically, the OP is the sock of a user who has already been subject to multiple blocks. The 90 day limited access was enough to confirm this without any doubt. GirthSummit (blether)16:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have trouble locating AfD deletion discussion
How do I find the discussion concerning deletion of Effie Awards? I attempted to search the tool in Articles for Deletion section, but it doesn't yield the relevant result.
I have encountered many kinds of COI editors, autobiographers and paid editors (disclosed and undisclosed) in my time but I've just stumbled upon something that I've never seen before; a page where the text strongly suggested the user had paid someone else to write text for them that they were then posting on Wikipedia. The telling part was that when copying the text they had left in part of the correspondence they'd been having, not unlike when users forget to remove the "Sure, here is a draft Wikipedia page" text from a chatbot.
The page has already been tagged for speedy deletion by @FifthFive because it was in any event autobiographical, promotional and NOTAWEBHOST, but out of mere academic curiosity: is there any area of policy that deals with this kind of thing? AntiDionysius (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright is the first thing that comes to mind. AIUI, unless it is a work for hire or you explicitly assign the copyright to me (or release it under a Wikipedia-compatible free license), you own the copyright and my posting it here would be a violation of your copyright. Other than that I don't think there is any need for policy here - if I wrote it and it would be deleted (NOTWEBHOST, spam, etc) then delete it for that reason, if it isn't a copyright violation and it wouldn't be deleted if it was self written then I don't see any benefit to deleting it. Thryduulf (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re copyright, really depends on jurisdiction, the communications between the parties and (as mentioned) an absence of any express licence, but if it was clear between the parties the text was going to be used for Wikipedia, it wouldn't be unreasonable to argue that an implied licence exists compliant with Wikipedia's requirements. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this particular case, it seemed like it was very clear that the writer was aware their work was for Wikipedia (not that this stopped them from writing promotionally, but anyway) but yeah I can see how those contextual questions would be important. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For sure, yeah - it strikes me as likely to end up being promotional most of the time (why else would you pay someone if not to promote something?) but I'm not suggesting we need a policy to ban the practice as such. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's promotional enough that deletion is better than rewriting, then it should be deleted for being promotional regardless of who wrote it. If it's not that promotional then it shouldn't be deleted, regardless of who wrote it. Thryduulf (talk) 01:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my limited dealings with COI's, a thought occurred to me that, in working with them, I risk subjecting myself to suspicion of being a COI editor myself (Wikilawyering intensifies). Cheers. DN (talk) 00:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Date redirects to portals?
16 August 2006 points to the current events portal as a result of this discussion. However, date redirects will continue to come up at RfD, some some wider community discussion and input is helpful on whether or not the current events portal is an appropriate target for mainspace redirects. See also: this ongoing discussion for some context.
The second question is easy: Yes, portals are part of the encyclopaedia. As to the first question, portals are reader-facing content and so I see no reason why they wouldn't be appropriate targets for mainspace redirects, given that uncontroversially target mainspace redirects to reader-facing templates and categories when they are the best target. Whether the port is the best target for a given date will depend on the specific date but in general the portal should always be an option to consider. Thryduulf (talk) 01:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. The portal is definitely not always the best option and it has its limitations, but, as I wrote at WP:RDATE it should be considered and assessed along with mainspace articles. Cremastra (u — c) 01:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5.) Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).
6.) Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. This should be adapted appropriately for musical genre; for example, having performed two lead roles at major opera houses. Note that this criterion needs to be interpreted with caution, as there have been instances where this criterion was cited in a circular manner to create a self-fulfilling notability loop (e.g., musicians who were "notable" only for having been in two bands, of which one or both were "notable" only because those musicians had been in them.)
These appear to have been put together by a very small number of editors over a decade ago and hasn't seen much change since then and I feel it's much more lenient than just about anything else. This SNG defines a "label" that has been around for over "a few years" that has a roster of performers as "important". So, any group of people who have released two albums through ANY verifiable label that has exited for more than a few year can end up being kept and this isn't exactly in line with GNG. I believe a discussion needs to be held in order to bring it to GNG expectations of now.
Especially given how broadly the various criteria have been "interpreted" in deletion discussions, the best way to go about it is just to deprecate the whole thing. Rely on the GNG for band notability, and if that results in a heap of articles on ephemeral outfits, garage bands and local acts vanishing, huzzah. Ravenswing 09:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The SNG isn't workable in the age of digital distribution. It's very easy to create "an independent label with a history of more than a few years". If someone wants to suggest a way to reform the SNG, I am open to solutions. But deprecation is a simple alternative if we can't. The GNG is always a good standard because it guarantees we have quality sources to write an article. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was active in AfD discussions when NBAND was pretty new, and it was useful for dealing with a flood of articles about garage bands and such, but I think our standards in general have tightened up since then, and I agree it is time to review it. There is the possibility, however, that revising NBAND may require as much discussion as revising NSPORT did. Donald Albury17:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the underlying question is: Is there actual harm in having a permastub about a band that proves to be borderline in GNG terms? Consider this:
"Alice and Bob are a musical duo in the science fiction genre.[1] They released their first album, Foo, in 2019 and their second, Bar, in 2020. Both albums were released by Record Label.[2] They are primarily known for singing during a minor event.[3]"
I'm asking this because I think that the nature of sources has changed, particularly for pop culture, since NBAND and the GNG were written. We now have subjects that get "attention from the world at large", but which aren't the Right™ kind of sources and, while these Wrong™ sources definitely provide "attention", some of that attention might not provide biographical information (which means we're looking at a short article).
For example, instead of getting attention in the arts section of a daily newspaper, they're getting attention from Anthony Fantano on YouTube. He's an important music critic,[6] but I suspect that our knee-jerk reaction is "Pffft, just some YouTuber, totally unreliable". Consequently, we might rate a band that we theoretically intend to include ("attention from the world at large") as not meeting the GNG (because the whole field relies on the Wrong™ style of sources). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that like most other notability guidelines, it is a presumed assumption that a topic is notable if it meets these criteria. If you do an exhaustive Before and demonstrate there is no significant coverage beyond the sourcing to satisfy there criteria, the article should still be deleted. None of the SNGs are geared towards preventing this type of challenge. — Masem (t) 19:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we had to yield to presumptive notability about some random band because it released two albums with Backyard Trampoline Recordings established few years ago and had to do exhaustive search to disprove notability, we're getting setup for a situation where removal is 10x more challenging than article creation. So.. I see a great value in scrapping NBAND 5, and 6. Graywalls (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to WP:SNGs. As Masem said, they're supposed to be a rough idea of gauging notability before exhaustively searching for sources. But pretty much all of them have ended up being used as means to keep articles about trivial or run-of-the-mill subjects. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Graywalls listed two criteria but the main discussion seems to be about the 1st (#5). I agree with Graywalls on that. With the evolution of the industry, the label criteria is no longer a useful indicator as it once was and IMO #5 should be removed or modified. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that as well. I think #6 has some value still, while #5 is like saying an author who has published two or more books by a major publishing house is presumed notable. Way too low a bar without requiring some level of reception of those albums/books. (WP:NAUTHOR doesn't have that 2-book criteria, of course, just seems like parallel benchmarks.) Schazjmd(talk)13:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, in this case, I suspect that an artist that "has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels" will in 99% of cases have enough coverage to clear the GNG bar. I'd like to see an example of one that doesn't. Black Kite (talk)13:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of important as said in #5 is "history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable". This would mean that a garage band is notable, because they've released two CD-R albums on Rotten Peach Recordings which has been around for 3 1/2 years, has a roster of performers and some of whom have a Wikipedia page on them. Often time "notable" is determined by the presence of a stand alone Wikipedia page. When you look at the page, many band member pages are hopelessly non-notable, but removal takes an AfD. So a simple deletion can become a time consuming multi-step AfD. Graywalls (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not opining on that band's notability, but Metal Blade is a famous independent label that has existed for 42 years, has released material by very high-profile bands, and is distributed by Sony - it's not some one-person imprint operating out of their garage. Black Kite (talk)11:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One suggestion I would add is to make these two criteria apply only to bands before a specific year, that year being where physical releases still dominated over digital sales. I don't know the exact year but I am thinking it's like around 2000 to 2010. There may still be older groups during the time of physical releases that don't yet have articles that would fall into one of these criteria. Masem (t) 20:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who's had WP:DSMUSIC watchlisted for most of their editing history, and who tends towards deletion at that, I actually don't see much of a problem with these criterions. It certainly seems true that the majority of musicians who are signed to a label or a member of multiple bands with two other musicians who meet WP:GNG themselves meet GNG. I do think it is sometimes justified to accept less-than-GNG sourcing in articles where a SNG is met (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John LeCompt for this as it applies to c6 specifically) and more importantly, NMUSIC contains language that allows deleting articles even where it is technically met (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rouzbeh Rafie for an extended argument about that. Mach6123:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've understood these criterion to be supplementing GNG, that is, that if a band or individual artist meets one or more of these criterion, they *likely* are notable. However, in the past when I was a younger and less experienced editor, I think I did understand these as being additions or alternatives to GNG. So I think that should be clarified. This has come up on the deletion discussion for Jayson Sherlock. He is a member or former member of several very notable bands, and for that reason I presumed that he would easily have independent coverage about him specifically. However, to my surprise, there's only one interview of him in a reliable source that would provide notability (there's some interviews on personal blogs or minor sites that wouldn't be RS except for him making statements about himself). But at least one editor has used the above criterion to argue that the article should be kept.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an aside, interviews do not contribute to GNG unless they include secondary independent SIGCOV (such as a substantial background introduction by the interviewer). JoelleJay (talk) 15:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's how I see most SNGs (and the outliers ought to follow their lead). At the very least, we can clarify that NBAND is meant as an indicator for the GNG, and not a substitute. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who thought the old NSPORTS was wildly overinclusive and needed cleanup... these NBAND guidelines don't seem that bad? If two plainly notable musicians were discovered to have done some obscure team-up in the 1970s, that does indeed seem to be a notable topic and useful to have linked somewhere, even if there isn't tons of info on this collaboration. It's worth mentioning because minor subtopics are often merged to the overarching topic (e.g. songs to the album), but there may not be a clear merge location for this if both parties were equal contributors, and a short separate article is an acceptable compromise. Similarly, the complaint about #5 seems to be about just how "indie" the hypothetical label is, but this seems like a solvable problem. If a band fails GNG, that implies that either their two albums really were from a very obscure indie outfit and thus also fail NBAND, or else that we have some sort of non-English sources issue where we may consider keeping on WP:CSB grounds (i.e. that sources probably do exist to pass GNG, but they're difficult to find, and we can trust they exist because this was a major and notable label releasing the band's work). About the only suggestion I can offer is that the comment in 6 about avoiding circular notability could probably be phrased in the sense of GNG, i.e. that the two notable musicians need to both meet GNG and then this will create a new, safe NBAND notability for their collaboration. SnowFire (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
To anyone unfamiliar with this, admin recall is a new process that is exactly what it sounds like. Currently, there is a 30 day petition period: if 25 people sign it, the admin then needs to pass a new RfA within 30 days to keep the tools. Should we change the petition period?
Option A: Keep the petition period the same (30 days)
Option B: Change the petition period to 7 days
Option C: Some other time period (like 14 or 15 days?) that's longer than a week but shorter than a month.
B. Geez, an RFA is bad enough. If there aren't enough editors who jump on an admin recall within a week, meaning there is a strong community opinion that the specific recall has to happen, then it's not worth it. Steel1943 (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I think a community recall process is useful but it's clear to me that many people in the current recall petition think that 30 days is way too long for this part of the process, so I think it's worth formally seeing if this has support."
...with something like:
"I propose to change the length of time the recall is open, and here are some potential options:"
(edit conflict) WP:RFCNEUTRAL is sometimes interpreted to mean that the transcluded part of an RfC should not have statements like it's clear to me that many people in the current recall petition think that 30 days is way too long. Sdkbtalk19:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. The RFCbefore should be a link to the relevant discussion where this potential change was discussed before the RFC, presumably the current recall petition. Selfstudier (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to avoid potentially canvassing as it an ongoing discussion. But I do think my statement is an accurate reflection of what is going on over at Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Graham87 and that it is neutral to simply describe that consensus. Regardless, I can rephrase things if that makes it less problematic. Clovermoss🍀(talk)19:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like option B, because that's how long an RfA would be. While other people are clearly upset with other parts of the process, I would like to keep this RfC limited to the length of the petition period. Feel free to start your own RfC on other aspects of desired. Clovermoss🍀(talk)19:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This RFC is significantly premature. There is a large amount of RFC before currently happening at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Avoiding a long month of drama, including discussion of petition periods. Rough consensus there is to wait until after the dust settles on the first recall petition (and any subsequent re-RFA) and use that time to workshop a well-crafted RFC to address all the issues. I strongly encourage Clovermoss to withdraw this and contribute there. Thryduulf (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I only started this because I was asked to. In any case, this is already way more well-advertised than that discussion is, because I haven't even heard of it yet. I posted to CENT and AN already. I don't think it's necessarily premature when dozens of people clearly want something to change. I don't think waiting a few days would make them suddenly change their minds. Clovermoss🍀(talk)19:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I didn't participate in any part of the consensus forming to create this new process, so I disagree about withdrawing this discussion. In addition, it seems that the current active recall petition is turning into a cluster, so I think this RFC is quite warranted and not premature at all. Steel1943 (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this whole implementation was probably a mess. Either way though, that currently-active recall ... since it seems there is no type of restrictions on how editors can comment in it, in the current state of the recall petition, I gotta give the admin under recall some props because if I had to deal with a basically uncensored recall like that, I'd just turn in my tools to shut the recall down and then think if I want to still edit on Wikipedia after that. Steel1943 (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given this isn't being withdrawn as premature: Option A until after the first petition (and any subsequent RRFA) has concluded, at which point we should have a sober debrief without any knee-jerk proposals that consider everything in totality, including but not limited to duration. I also endorse Levivich's comments below. Thryduulf (talk) 21:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Too soon. I think we need more 'before' discussion before running RfCs on changing the policy/procedure, and that we should wait until at least the signature phase ends. - Donald Albury20:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option B. The recall petition being longer than the potential WP:RRfA in question is illogical, so reducing the time-frame to 7 days makes the most sense here in line with RfA time-frame. Fundamentally, if there aren't 25+ editors who have serious issues with an admin within the time-span of a week, there is no good reason to be taking them to RfA. I admittedly haven't read all of the RFCBEFORE, but I have seen recall in action and at present its far from ideal. Apologies to Clovermoss for editing RfC, won't happen again.CNC (talk) 20:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B For starters, the idea lab discussion is multifaceted and not exclusive of this discussion. While the idea lab may ultimately come up with a better overall solution to RECALL, the time aspect is an obvious issue. We don't have to be bureaucratic and wait for the idea lab discussion to end. We can shorten the time that a petition runs, and still be thinking about ways to rework the process.On the merits, we have to remember the human dimension: admins are people. Being in the lurch for an entire month is an enormous stress on a person. For me, my RfA was the single most stressful week of my life--even more so than the bar exam! I can't imagine being at RECALL for an entire month, and then also having to re-RfA. If you can't collect 25 signatures in a week, then there's no way you're gonna get 40%+ of the community to oppose a re-RfA. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓20:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option C - 14 days. I believe 7 days is quite short, and risks becoming a huge furore each time a new petition is started. 14 days feels jsut right, editors should be able to find the problems and report them without canvassing or similar. My second preference is B, and third is A. I am explicitly against a no consensus outcome. Soni (talk) 20:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Premature - it hasn't even been 7 days since the first petition was started. How can any of us know whether 7 days or 15 or 30 is the right amount of time, since so far we've had zero petitions of any of those durations? There are also other factors to consider, such as whether the number of signatures should be reduced if the time frame is reduced, since the signature threshold and timing were discussed together, at length, in Phase 2 at WP:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator recall § Initiation procedure. Similarly, whether the "cooling-off period" should be reduced if the petition duration is reduced. We don't have enough data to make a decision about this yet. Things we should learn before deciding include: whether (or how often) people add or remove their signatures during the petition period, to what extent discussion results in people adding/removing their signatures, whether people will wait until the last day to sign, how often people start new petitions, and whether different petitions all end up looking the same or different (in terms of temperature, outcome, who signs them, etc.). Levivich (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Premature agree with Thryduulf and Levivich. We don't know enough yet to make a determination on the length. Some editors think the first one is unwarranted (for various reasons), and this RfC just seems like a reactive measure based on those sentiments.Isaidnoway(talk)21:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A or extend to a year, with rolling petitions like dewiki, alternatively abolish recall. The Graham87 recall petition is a mess because of back and forth arguing by supporters, which has no place on the petition page at all. Either the petition hits the quorum (and then we can have the seven day RfA-like bloodbath if we must) or it does not. A short period just makes the admin recall process usable only for cases that would have been handled by ArbCom anyway. —Kusma (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B. 30 days was a logical choice when rolling petitions were on the table, but once they were overwhelmingly rejected, a month-long process made considerably less sense. One week is more than enough to gauge community sentiment, and it will make for a much less painful process for everyone involved. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I can certainly understand why folx see this as premature, I still believe we should address the issue sooner rather than later. 30 days is too long when you consider the person on the other end of the screen — thirty days of what will always be a negative experience irrespective of the merits of the recall, followed by potentially seven more days of the near-universally agreed upon "most stressful week on-wiki" is just unfair. I'm torn between option B (a week may well be a little too short to adaquately capture a good percentage of community feedback) and option C (on the other hand, anything more than 15 days starts to feel excessive again). If pressed I'd opt for shorter though, so option B. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 22:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B. On the one hand, I agree with editors that this RfC is premature; we really should wait with any proposals to change this thing until the first run of it is completely over. On the other hand, I've been saying for as long as this recall process has been discussed that the "consensus" in favor of enacting it has been egregiously rushed through. So there's a certain justice in chopping away at it this early. And on my third hand (hey, I'm actually a fish, so I can claim anything about my anatomical structure), I oppose the whole thing anyway, so anything that chips away from it is good with me. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B. The period of angst for the admin should match the length of RfA (and the default length of deletion discussions) in order to give adequate time for those who might wish to support to discover the petition and decide whether to sign it. It seems perverse to have a longer period for considering whether to require a new RfA than for considering whether to support one, and it's cruel and unusual punishment, to borrow a phrase. The mention in this discussion of signatories having the option to withdraw their signatures is the first such mention I've seen. I admit I don't think I participated in the discussions of this recall proposal; I've supported one or two preceding proposals, but I have a dim memory of looking and finding this one so complex that I didn't understand the options on the table well enough to vote in the then open RfC; and I also admit I haven't read all the comments on the current petition page in response to those of us registering our dissent. But there isn't even any provision made for the admin to make points in their defence; 30 days of this is more than 4 times as bad as 7 days of RfA responding to a multitude of questions while obeying the unofficial guidance not to respond to "Oppose" !votes. The community has in my view experimentally established that the process is flawed in respect to the petition period length. It shouldn't require huge amounts of bureaucracy to learn from this, just as if the community has lost trust in an admin it shouldn't require 30 days to get 25 signatures to a proposal to force a reconfirmation discussion, especially with bludgeoning of dissenters. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B with a caveat -- not explicitly 7 days, but "whatever duration RFA is" at the time. But prefer abolish recall as the better option. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!00:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option B per my comments here. I support having a recall process, but not as it is currently setting up. This is one of a few changes I think are needed, and probably the most major. Daniel (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B. Not premature – there is no reason problems must exist for a period of time before we are allowed to solve them. I am torn on whether this should happen retroactively or not. It feels unfair to put someone through more petition hell; it feels unfair to change the rules in the middle of the game, so to speak. I think I land on changing the rules to help the players (i.e. apply retroactively), but I am open to being convinced otherwise. (It now occurs to me that this discussion will probably wrap up after the current petition ends, and I doubt a new one will be opened in that time. Hopefully this is a purely academic discussion, but I spent too long agonizing about it to not include it in this post.) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
there is no reason problems must exist for a period of time before we are allowed to solve them it's not about being allowed to solve them, but about having enough knowledge to know what the problems actually are and what alternatives will solve them. The issue most people have is not so much the length of time of the petition but the nature of the petition, and only changing the time will not solve that. Thryduulf (talk) 01:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need anything more than having gone through a week-long RfA to know that a month in the spotlight is too long, and that a week is plenty of petition scrutiny. And at VPI there appears to be pretty strong consensus that the length is at least part of the problem – so I support fixing it now. YMMV, of course. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A only because this should wait a bit and see how the policy works, going by one troublesome instance is not the proper basis for a decision on just one aspect of it. Selfstudier (talk) 00:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Think it through. If you tell people they've got to get 25 signatures in 7 days, then they will plan. They will draw up draft petitions in userspace, gather support and evidence and diffs, and then transclude when they're good and ready. The scrutiny will take just as long but the target won't be aware of it or have the right of reply.
S Marshall, the target doesn't have an explicit right of reply in the petition process as it now is. The purpose of the Discussion section is undefined, and there is neither a questions nor an oppose section. The pushback has in large part been occasioned by the presence of discussion in itself, and the current target was given well-intentioned advice to ignore the petition. Whereas when there isn't a petition, including if one is being drafted, the potential target has the same opportunity and obligations under ADMINACCT of any admin to respond to expressed concerns about their conduct. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The target does seem to have been able to reply, though! It's all happened with his knowledge and with plenty of input from him.This proposal would end that. 25 signatures in 7 days is an extraordinary requirement, considering we don't get that much engagement even with Arbcom cases. A 7-day process requiring 25 signatures reduces the odds of success to near-zero, which I'm sure is why nervous sysops are rushing to support it. Initiators will respond by preparing their petitions privately or off-wiki, canvassing support privately or off-wiki, gathering diffs privately or off-wiki, to enhance their chances of success.Whatever the rules are, people will game them. Obviously, there are people who'll flock to all or most recall RfAs !voting support; equally obviously, people dislike this process are going to brigade every single reconfirmation RfA opposing the desysopping and complaining that we shouldn't have community de-adminship at all. We need to set the rules so they're harder to game. Allowing more time for discussion and greater transparency is a key part of that.—S MarshallT/C14:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be worse for them to be unaware though, if people think the duration that they're aware of it is what is causing them stress? I do think being able to address issues might be helpful if they're made aware, but that doesn't necessarily need to be part of the formal recall process. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why one of the suggestions in the meaningful discussion is for the petitioner to present a short statement of why they are raising the petition and the admin to get a similarly-sized reply (if they choose), but everyone else limited to either just a signature or a signature plus a few words. Discussion on the talk page would be permitted but maybe restricted to keep decorum, other venues like the admin's talk page would not be restricted. Thryduulf (talk) 09:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That suggestion would displace the discussion about open recall petitions to other venues. It would not prevent the discussion from happening.—S MarshallT/C19:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The aim is not to prevent discussion completely, but to dissuade it and make it less prominent. It would almost certainly achieve the latter and the former is certainly possible. I don't know yet whether I support that idea (we don't have anywhere near enough information to make that decision, and cannot before at least one petition has concluded), but it is something that is worth considering. Thryduulf (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well. If it takes you more than 5 minutes to consider it, then knock yourself out. Reflect about which off-wiki sites will host the discussions you want to dissuade and conceal. Take your time.—S MarshallT/C23:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A I agree with others that changing this is premature. It also doesn't seem like the right lever to pull. If discussion is the problem, then require that the petition contain nothing but signatures and a particular paragraph identifying it as such a petition. I'd also like to suggest that if the time is shortened, the number of signatures required should be reduced as well to avoid neutering the mechanism; these can't really be decided independently. McYeee (talk) 00:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not unusual for an RfA to have more than a hundred participants in a seven day timeframe. If there aren't enough signatures in 7 days, a brand new RfA is likely to be pointless anyways. I honestly think this is the best compromise to keep almost everyone happy (keep the recall process but also make it less cruel). I'm one of the people that actually supported the recall process being implemented in its current form. I supported a month because other options like a year sounded too cruel. I also didn't expect a petition in itself to be so dramatic. I thought people would save all the arguing for an actual RfA if things progressed to that point. People are allowed to change their minds instead of just sitting there watching everything happen. I try to be someone that acts if I think I can do something to help, even if my intentions don't always shine through. Not all of this is directed at you personally by the way, I just figured I'd respond since this argument has been echoed a few times. If my counterargument isn't convincing then so be it. Sometimes reasonable people disagree with each other. Clovermoss🍀(talk)01:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC), edited 01:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly what is being discussed at VPI and why you should have done some discussion beforehand rather than launching an incompletely thought out RFC. Your problem is not with the time but with the discussion being "dramatic". Thryduulf (talk) 01:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand my perspective here. As for launching an incompletely thought out RFC, that's very much your opinion. I think before I act and I wouldn't have done so if I didn't think this was worth doing. I think we're not likely to convince each other at this point so maybe we can just agree to disagree? Clovermoss🍀(talk)01:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fully-thought out RFCs don't get launched without RFC before, duplicate an ongoing pre-RFC discussion, or need non-trivial edits after launching. I'll grant you that it is theoretically not absolutely impossible that all the problems with a process can be correctly and fully identified, and workable solutions that will actually fix those problems without worse unintended consequences fully developed when the first instance of that process is less than a quarter of the way through, but it is at the very least extremely improbable. If you wish to continue asserting that, despite all of this, the RFC isn't premature then we aren't going to be able to have a rational and objective discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very inexperienced with RfCs, that doesn't mean I can't have fully thought out my actions. As far as I can tell, I followed WP:RFCST. If you want to give me open feedback on how the process is supposed to work that isn't spelt out in black and white, do it on my talk page, but I don't think it's fair to imply my actions as reckless. As I already said, I was not aware of the idea lab discussion. I'm not the only one who found it difficult to find, it obviously wasn't well publicized. But changing one small thing that is obviously causing issues now doesn't mean people can't discuss other options. One of the main pieces of advice that I've read about RfCs is to be simple and not make them complicated. So it's honestly a shock to me that you seem to prefer the latter. Why?
As for my inexperience with RfCs, I'm really not kidding: there's this and this. Not the best track record but as always, I'm willing to learn. But those two experiences made me feel like maybe the intricacies of RfCs aren't for me, kind of like how I've never closed a discussion. It's why I even suggested someone other than me start the RfC! Because I'm not the best at these things! But I feel obligated to act when my conscience screams at me and I figured it was worth a try after thinking about what BusterD said. Clovermoss🍀(talk)03:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requests for Adminship are much better advertised than these petitions, so it's not surprising they get more engagement. If the goal is to prevent cruelty on those pages, I see no advantage of the proposal in the RfC over the proposal to make the petition a form letter along the lines of "The undersigned request an RRfA. This page may be edited only to add signatures to this list and remove vandalism." McYeee (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first petition is much higher profile than petitions are intended to be. In the first 24 hours the page was edited by 59 separate users, only 7 of whom supported. After 6 days the petition still only has 12 supporters. All 12 supporters meet the extended confirmed threshold for signing the petition, but not all the commenters do (e.g. one IP editor commented in the first 24 hours). Thryduulf (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The number of distinct editors doesn't seem particularly meaningful unless we figure out how many of them meet the extended-confirmed threshold. McYeee (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
some change is needed. I'm just still not sure what change is needed I'm in exactly the same boat, which is why it's such a shame that this RFC was launched without any attempts at workshopping. Thryduulf (talk) 17:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B but the existing recall process will still be terrible. I'm not against any form of recall, I'm just strongly opposed to this form of recall, and anything that mitigates against this otherwise unmitigated disaster is good in my view, including reducing the timeframe. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B while I'd prefer 10 days, 7 is acceptable. As several editors have hinted at a desire to do away with recall altogether, I will raise my voice in strong opposition to any such notion. This community is frustratingly allergic to change, often to its own detriment. We've had one recall petition that got off to a shaky start, but that shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who understands that new processes are usually a little rough at first. Stop overreacting. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B Seems fair to match to the RfA proccess, though I would be willing to go even shorter, perhaps 5 days. Highly in favor of the process of a whole, give it some time to shake out bugs.Kingsmasher678 (talk) 06:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B or C (possible suggestion of 14 days). The admin recall process really doesn't have to drag everyone into a flaming train that destroys us from the inside out in 1 month. Mox Eden (talk) 07:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is completely premature and a week for 25 signatures is absurd. How are editors supposed to be aware of these petitions if they're only open for a week without being canvassed to it? Traumnovelle (talk) 07:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
option D Oppose Recall this is just a formun to bash admins WP:POINT, an admin that goes rogue can be dealt with through ANI. Obviously not fair process, when you cant oppose the process just its length. This was always going to be ridiculous unhinged process Gnangarra07:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These petitions may not be created for a year after a failed one. That's fine for a month-long discussion (1/12), but it would make a week-long discussion inappropriately effective (1 week affecting 52 others). We've copied an idea from an established dewiki process but failed to actually implement rolling petitions for every administrator, where having a petition for re-adminship is nothing special and mostly the existence of a dedicated page for negative feedback, and where RRFAs are created with far less drama when more than 25 people voice their unhappiness in a month or 50 in six months. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other current recall rules like An editor can sign no more than five active petitions are also built on the "a petition will be open for a long period of time, at least a month" idea. Shortening the duration while leaving all other parameters intact may be a net positive but won't come without unexpected downsides. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine for a month-long discussion (1/12), but it would make a week-long discussion inappropriately effective: I happen to disagree. I don't see this an unexpected downside but a safeguard. As for dewiki, the RfC made it pretty clear that we don't want to copy them in the rolling process. It's only natural to take inspiration from other communities with similar processes but things don't have to be an exact copy. Clovermoss🍀(talk)13:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A safeguard against... having a page where people can request a re-RfA? Perhaps having such a page is only an issue because there's currently one instead of 839. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A safeguard against the human cost of having a petition open for a month. Only having to go through that once a year seems like it might be reassuring to some. I think the cost outweighs the benefits... I don't think we really need more petitions that are a month long to realize that while this idea may be fine in theory, but in practice it's extremely messy and stressful. Clovermoss🍀(talk)14:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A, because this is premature. We haven't had a single petition concluded yet (successfully or unsuccessfully), nor have we had one open even for seven days. -- asilvering (talk) 14:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree with the people who say that this RfC is premature because we haven't learned enough from the first petition. We have learned that a weak petition with no chance of leading to a successful desysoping can get 12 signatories with 20+ days to go, a direct empirical rebuttal to the idea 25 signatories over a month is an effective filter Mach6105:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
C. 14. Since it was pointed out that that's longer than a week but shorter than a month, seems like the obvious choice. 7 days... too short. 25 is a big number. Herostratus (talk) 05:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B > C. B if the recall is being advertised somewhere so anyone who wishes to partake in the recall has adequate oppurtunity to learn about the recall in-progress. Otherwise, C (14/15 days) if not being advertised. —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X})13:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Advertised in the sense that RfAs are advertised. Let's say, I think that User:X shouldn't be an admin, but never really pursued that on my own. So, I would need to know if/when someone starts a recall petition on User:X without me having to watch WP:RECALL. I don't really see any negative side to it. —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X})21:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Premature We should let the process play out to see what changes are necessary, or desirable. That said, I supported a 7 day period when these procedures were discussed and still agree with that length of time a petition can be opened (and I could be amenable to an even shorter period). --Enos733 (talk) 18:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support B, oppose anything longer. Not necessarily opposed to shorter. Thirty days sounded reasonable when the process was still at WP:RFA2024, but the Graham87 petition shows that in practice, it's too long. It's cruel to keep someone on the hook like this for up to a month. Additionally, 25 signatures inside a week is far more compelling in terms of demonstrating the strength of feeling against an administrator. (With 30 days, signatures can come in at a rate of less than one a day, yet the threshold will still be reached.) Lastly, it feels counterintuitive having a petition phase four times as long as the RRFA phase that follows it, seeing as any RRFA would be bound to attract a lot more than 25 total votes. As I see it, the petition duration is not the only problem with this new policy, but it's the biggest. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 21:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
C. A month is too long, but a week is too short. 14 days seems like the right amount. I would be fine with B if petitions are advertised like RFAs. If not, I prefer A to B. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B Just from the current petitions, I can see how much of a living hell it is for the admin/s who is/are the subject of the petition. We don't need to put them in that for longer than seven days. If there aren't enough people wanting to desysop after seven days then a desysop is not warranted. Relativity ⚡️01:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I think we should revamp the whole process anyways. Just reading the comments added by editors at the discussion should highlight why. Relativity ⚡️01:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drm310 and I have a polite disagreement on the interpretation of WP:PAID, and I may very well be mistaken. What is very clear is if an editor is an employee of a company, they are a paid editor. What's not clear is what happens if the editor is the owner of a company. Sure, there's a conflict of interest, but are they a paid editor? I'll quote Drm310, as he says it better than me. "They said that they were a company owner and not an employee. You said that makes them a paid editor. I always interpreted the policy as: if a person is receiving (or expecting) compensation as part of their job, then they're a paid editor. But if they have an ownership stake in the company/organization, then they fall outside the definition of employee. Are we now interpreting it so that owners are paid editors too, because they are drawing an income from their business?" My position is that an owner of a company counts as a paid editor by virtue of the ownership (they don't even need to be drawing an income). Is that position correct, or is it a step too far wrt WP:PAID? --Yamla (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would read it as you do, @Yamla:; they have a vested interest in the company being successful, which, in my book, ultimately means getting "something" out of it (which in most cases will mean an income of sorts). Reading it differently smacks slightly of (wiki-)lawyering. Lectonar (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Well, Lectonar, it has always seemed to me that the line "you stand to gain from your editing, so it's effectively paid, even if you aren't actually paid for the editing" is wikilawyering, so evidently that's a matter of point of view.
I have always taken it that paid editing does not include editing about one's own business, in line with what Drm310 says, but my experience is that many, perhaps most, administrators take it the way that Yamla and Lectonar do. In a way it doesn't make much difference, as in either case the conflict of interest issue applies, but there are ways in which it may make a difference. In my opinion the most important way it may make a difference is the purely practical consideration that most owners of businesses writing about their own businesses don't recognise "paid editing" as a description of what they are doing, so it is, in my opinion, more helpful to use other wording which they will be more likely to understand than insisting "yes it is paid editing". (There's already enough of a problem with: "No, I'm not paid to edit Wikipedia, it's just part of my job" ... "Yes, but if it's part of a job that you are paid for then it's paid work" ... "Yes, but..." without adding another layer of room for misunderstanding.) I therefore think it's more helpful to treat the expression "paid editing" as not applying to editing about one's own business.
Theoretically it isn't up to us to decide what the expression means, because it's part of the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use, over which we have no jurisdiction. However, those terms of use refer to "each and any employer, client, intended beneficiary and affiliation" and as far as I can see there is no definition or clarification of the word "affiliation", so that doesn't really help. JBW (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm of the opinion that PAID applies to owners, but the wording of WP:PAID is ambiguous enough that a reasonable person might very well disagree with that opinion, and I think that should be clarified on that page. An owner of a company can still be an employee of that company (e.g. if the company is set up as a C corporation they can be considered an employee for tax and insurance purposes). I don't think the applicability of the paid-contribution disclosure should change depending on how you structure your company if the role in the company is similarly situated. If you are compensated by working at a company as an owner or otherwise, that needs to be disclosed. Even situations where an owner does not receive direct financial payments or dividends from their ownership of the company (like with a smaller startup company) they would still need to disclose that under WP:PAID, as money is not the only form of compensation. Even in a sole proprietorship they are directly paid for their work at the company, the same as if they were an employee. Owning the company should not be a loophole precluding the need for disclosure. - Aoidh (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoidh: Has anyone suggested that it should preclude the need for disclosure? If they have, I haven't seen where tgey have done so. I assumed it was obvious that there is a need for disclosure of one's position because it is a conflict of interest. JBW (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JBW: I'm sure I've seen it come up but I can't recall where. Someone with a COI reading Wikipedia:Conflict of interest might reasonably assume that if they are not considered a paid editor, then they are not required to disclose anything. The difference between the PAID verbiage (required...requirement..you must disclose...you must not use administrative tools for any paid-editing activity) contrasts with the less strict wording of non-PAID COI (expected to disclose...should disclose...COI editing is strongly discouraged). The section Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide#Disclosure also makes this distinction. I'm not saying I don't think COIs should be disclosed, but someone with a COI who is going to split hairs about whether an owner of a company make one a paid editor would be likely to split hairs there as well. - Aoidh (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jessintime I do not intend to tell you that your opinion on this as "absurd"; I prefer to just say that I respectfully disagree. You may like to consider which of those two approaches is more constructive. JBW (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jessintime OK, thanks for clarifying that. However, having looked at the article that you have linked, I am wondering what the absurd result you think would ensue. What is it that an owner of a company would be allowed to do which an employee wouldn't? Certainly not editing without disclosure of conflict of interest. JBW (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the policy page: Interns are considered employees for this purpose. So unpaid interns count as paid editors when editing the Starlink Wikipedia article for their employer. But edits by Elon Musk would not count as paid editing. That sounds like an absurd result to me. Do I misunderstand the policy? BusterD (talk) 19:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who has a few shares in a large company is one of its "owners" in law, but likely doesn't have a big enough financial stake in it to amount to a COI in Wikipedia terms. Someone who has most of the shares in a small company, on the other hand, has a COI.—S MarshallT/C22:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I may extend your example, if I were in the business of stocks or futures, I might actually have a stake (direct or otherwise) sufficient to put me in direct conflict, no matter which company is the subject. BusterD (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have just seen a message on Yamla's talk page, where I think he makes a point that I have tried to make, but he has expressed it perhaps more clearly than I have. He said: "In the end, whichever way the consensus goes, I think the combination of WP:PAID and WP:COI means the end result (though not the communication) ends up the same." Many of the comments above appear to be based on the assumption that not interpreting "paid editing" as including owner-editing would mean letting owners edit without disclosure, but it wouldn't. JBW (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for copying my comment here, JBW. In my initial post, I meant "Sure, there's a conflict of interest" to cover this point, but failed to be clear. I do think the communication around paid editing is important, even if the end result (user has to declare a conflict) is the same. This is frequently a challenging concept to communicate to new editors. --Yamla (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there may be a more fundamental misunderstanding of WP:PAID here than you think. Paid editing is about people being paid to edit. Let's take What is very clear is if an editor is an employee of a company, they are a paid editor to the point of absurdity: a burger flipper at a 40,000-location chain fast-food restaurant who edits the article about the chain is in no way being paid to make that edit. Their job is to flip burgers, not to do corporate PR. They do have a COI (positive or negative) due to the employment relationship, but unless the CEO or PR department or whoever is telling employees that editing Wikipedia is now part of their job it's not WP:PAID.But like many other things around here, since WP:PAID has stricter requirements and penalties than WP:COI, people tend to try to stretch the definitions as far as they possibly can to use the stricter requirements and penalties to combat editing they don't like. I won't be surprised if people in that space take objection to my paragraph above on the basis that restricting WP:PAID to the clear definitions would hamper their efforts to combat the spammer scourge.As for the business owner, if the business is making paid edits on behalf of clients then the company as a whole, including the owner, is being WP:PAID to edit on behalf of the company's clients. And the required disclosure includes those clients, not just their general ownership of the paid-editing company. On the other hand, if the business is making widgets then I'd say the owner's editing is a very major COI but it's not specifically WP:PAID. Anomie⚔00:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with that interpretation of WP:PAID. The policy says: "Users who are compensated for any publicity efforts related to the subject of their Wikipedia contributions are deemed to be paid editors, regardless of whether they were compensated specifically to edit Wikipedia." I think it's completely reasonable to hold the belief that "publicity" is almost always part of the job of a company owner and other senior officers e.g., C-suite occupants, governing board members. ElKevbo (talk) 02:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and even more than that, the owner, officers and board members are fiduciaries of the company, and "compensated" and "incentivized" by ownership and/or other compensation (money, goods or services -- possession of the company is a good) to work in the company's best interest, whether in editing Wikipedia, or elsewhere. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly the sole or majority owner of the company has an actual or risk of COI (depending on which definition of COI you use), But "Paid" implies more that that.....that somebody is paying them and telling them what to do. North8000 (talk) 02:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Technical
Edit filter graph links broken
Hey all. This was raised at Wikipedia:Edit_filter_noticeboard#graph_links_broken, but it appears the edit filter graphs, seen at [7], are not currently working and display an internal error. Would anyone happen to have an idea what happened to it? One idea that was raised over at EFN was that the log table may have been messed up by protected variables being introduced, but I'm not sure if that's the case or it's something else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EggRoll97 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@EggRoll97: I'm about to get on a flight, but a quick look at the tool's error logs shows:
The abuse_filter_log table was deliberately removed from the wiki replicas in gerrit:1077360, pointing to two Phabricator tasks I don't have access to. It's likely to remain broken unless Danilo.mac puts in an amount of effort that's basically rewriting the tool from scratch. * Pppery *it has begun...04:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can not do anything while the abuse_filter_log tables are inaccessible. They were removed from replicas databases because some data in those tables are restricted, se T375751. Danilo.mac (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On mobile - Starting a few days ago, When I go to “recent changes” on my watchlist tab and click on an article, I no longer get sent to a page with the changes highlighted Instead, I just see the current version (without changes highlighted) and must take the additional step of clicking the history button to see the changes highlighted. Is this intentional, or has something glitched? Blueboar (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Blueboar: Phab, or phab:, is Phabricator, which is where all MediaWiki bug reports and feature requests are filed. A ticket has already been raised (by Danbloch at 21:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)) - it's phab:T378142, as shown at the top right of this section. It's public, so is available to read without logging in there, but Phab doesn't accept anon editing so you need to log in to Phab if you want to comment. Fortunately, this is easy: there's a "Log in" button at the top of the page, and also a "log in to comment" button after the last post; your login and password are the same as for Wikipedia. If you do comment, you're added as a subscriber, and you get an email every time somebody else comments or updates the status. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not only on "Recent changes", but also on the mobile version of "Watchlist". And this also happens at the mobile "Watchlist" of Wikivoyage. --FredTC (talk) 10:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm noticing that the reverted tag is showing up slowly. When an edit is reverted, the edit has the "reverted" tag. However, I'm noticing that today it takes some time for it to show up. For example, I reverted two of an IP's edits, but the reverted tag is still not showing up. It will after a couple of minutes. Does anyone know why this is happening? Myrealnamm (💬pros · 📜cons) 22:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not forcing you to use it, nor am I saying anything along the lines of "your problem is that you have not done this". I offered the CSS rule not as a solution but as a potential visual aid for those who might find it useful - clearly the OP (see below) was interested enough to try it. Others may have done too, I don't know. But you're the only one who complained. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So when I click on Notices a little popup show up and tells my notifications.
According to it I have 7 new notifications.
But if I press on it says I have no notifications. If I click on all notices it shows an error message: 7ab4ef4a-e38b-462a-ab56-edfdc2d62732] 2024-10-27 04:43:21: Fatal exception of type "InvalidArgumentException"
Weird. I have this problem, but they don't work when I click "all notifications". (If you reply to this, ping me - I still get those, for some reason.) -- asilvering (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same problem for me the notifications icon shows I have alerts, but when I click on it I get the error message: [2b363018-cbbb-45da-8f73-056cf4cbd0de] 2024-10-31 12:53:02: Fatal exception of type "InvalidArgumentException". and the icon greys out. A temporary work around is to go to Commons and click on your notifications from other wikis. Then they can be read, but only on Commons once, then they disappear from Commons. Mysterious! Netherzone (talk) 12:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've found that I can read them if they get over 30 notifs or so. So now I'm banking a truly stupid number of notifications so that I can at least tell what discussions the most recent ones are for. -- asilvering (talk) 14:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't let it get too high. If the counter reaches 99 and more notifs come in, the icon doesn't show 100, 101 etc. but 99+ and the only way to find out how many you really have is to delete some until it drops to 99 or lower. Unread notifs get automatically deleted after a while, I think that it's about 16 months. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, when I click on my alerts bell at the top, it says "There are no notifications", even thought I can see there are. When I then click on "all notifications", I get the following: "[5aff3dcb-50f3-4b16-9566-60ba693bfa63] 2024-10-27 21:50:42: Fatal exception of type "InvalidArgumentException".
Any help would be appreciated. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds just like my problem, just the other notification system.
I have been unable to test that one since I have no new Alerts. It does show my previous Alerts.
Hello, I'd like assistance moving my draft from my user sandbox (User:Abuibrahim100/sandbox) to Draft:Admas Pee for AfC review. My account isn’t autoconfirmed yet, so I’m unable to move it myself. Thank you for your help!
@Abuibrahim100 Your sandbox is already is the queue for review. There's no need to move it to Draft:Admas Pee yourself -- the reviewer will do that for you if necessary. That being said, your draft cannot be approved in its current state because it needs citations to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. All the sources cited are either to companies writing about themselves (which is not independent) or to Wikipedia articles (which are not considered reliable sources since anyone can edit them). --Ahecht (TALK PAGE)20:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Searching for pages by category and talk page content
Does anyone know how you would search for all of the pages in a certain category whose associated talk page contains a certain string in its source? So, for instance, what search would return all of the pages in Category:Princesses in Greek mythology which contain "WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome" in their talk page's source? – Michael Aurel (talk) 07:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can be done in PetScan. Put that category name in "Categories", then go to "Templates&links" tab, put that template name there with " Use talk pages instead" checked. – SD0001 (talk) 08:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As of recently (probably last Thursday), the snackbar popup I get from an archived / missing section link has stopped unpopping-up until I navigate away from the page.
For clarity, my other snackbars (e.g. "Redirected from Wikipedia:vpt") pop away normally. It's just the archived section one that persists. Folly Mox (talk) 13:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That popup is generated by DiscussionTools, not the gadget. You can dismiss a popup on Minerva by tapping it (around a link if it includes one). Nardog (talk) 00:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the DiscussionTools notification. It's supposed to stick around until you interact with it. Could you confirm whether it's dismissed if you directly tap on it? (If it is, it's working as-intended. If not, that's a bug we should fix.) DLynch (WMF) (talk) 02:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay everyone; yesterday was exhausting. After constructing a test case, I can confirm that the snackbar disappears properly when tapped. I feel like the persistence is new behaviour(?) but understand why such a message would be intentionally left around until interacted with.Perhaps removing the snackbar once e.g. the editing interface is opened might make more sense: it does look like a bug in the screenshots I posted (to me, anyway).And apologies for throwing the find-archived-section gadget under the bus: I wasn't previously aware that Mediawiki had incorporated the same functionality until reviewing the documentation for my OP above.I guess I was also wrong about DiscussionTools having no effect in Minerva: I don't see the "people in conversation" or "subscribe to thread", but upon reflection I suppose the linkable timestamps that point straight to a comment supplanting the prior requirement of diff hunting must be part of the extension as well. Folly Mox (talk) 12:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mobile editing and the reply tool don't reload the page when editing and then the popup remains. I don't know whether something could be done to make it disappear automatically on those actions. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
mw:Help:SourceEditor is pretty uninformative on this point, but maybe one of the devs who frequent this venue knows which hook triggers the opening of the edit interface and can add a snackbar disappear function there? Folly Mox (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Script to highlight new users
Is there a script to specifically highlight new user (non-EC)? I know there are ones for highlighting by usergroup, but I'm looking just to highlight new users. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°17:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That script imports many additional scripts, including at least one personal user script of a retired user who would no longer maintains said personal script. I wouldn't use it for that reason, but I don't immediately see any thing malicious in it. The primary maintainer is listed as @Plastikspork:. (Perhaps Plastikspork can work on deprecating that load-in from retired user User:Jerome_Frank_Disciple). — xaosfluxTalk22:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The specific technical reason script-installer is declaring the script insecure is that it can be edited by admins rather than interface admins as a result of being in the project namespace rather than the MediaWiki namespace. And I, back when I was still an admin, was the one responsible for adding someone's personal script to the mix - the script in question is so trivial it hardly needs "maintenance" so that's not really an issue. * Pppery *it has begun...23:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The general risk is that that account could be compromised, and with the account being unused this could be unnoticed, and then used to insert malicious code which would be executed by others who imported the prior codes. Just like with any imported script, you need to trust everyone who may modify the script. — xaosfluxTalk00:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Might be trivial, but some maintenance might be in order if it can do this:
[[:File:IL CONSOLE USA IN VISITA ALL’UNIVERSITÀ DI PAVIA (28250236188).jpg]] → [[:File:IL CONSOLE USA IN VISITA ALL'UNIVERSITÀ DI PAVIA (28250236188).jpg]]
When using Twinkle to welcome new users, I am unable to add an article input to the Welcome Cookie Template like I can for some of the other welcome templates (e.g., "I noticed your contributions to Article")- it would be great if I could do this so I don't have to leave a separate message. Let me know if I am making any sense.
Are articles moved from userspace to mainspace not indexed?
So, recently I created FoodPharmer in my userspace and later moved to the mainspace. I keep noticing that search engines (Google, Bing) do not show this if you search "FoodPharmer Wikipedia" or "Revant Himatsingka Wikipedia". But the DYK page on him created 4 days after moving the page and his picture uploaded 8 days after (yesterday) shows up in the search results. This makes me wonder, is the article not showing up because it was initially in userspace (not-indexed)? —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X})16:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do overlapping range blocks work? For example, with these two:
51.191.128.0/17 blocked (block-evasion) on 2024-10-31T14:55:40Z by JBW until 2025-02-21T19:11:00Z. anononly: False, account creation blocked: False
51.191.0.0/16 blocked (block-evasion) on 2023-11-27T22:25:01Z by JBW until 2025-01-21T19:11:00Z. anononly: False, account creation blocked: False
An edit from 51.191.128.1 would (if I've done the math right) be in both ranges. In this particular case, both blocks have the same effect, but what if one was a hard block and the other a soft block? Which would apply? RoySmith(talk)03:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have notifications but it shows that there are no notifications
Occasionally when I check my notifications, the popup that appears will display "There are no notifications." even when at least one notification is present. Here is a picture:
is there a script to change parameter mane on every wiki article in a wiki project (si.wikipedia.org). The change i want to do is; replace "deadurl" or "dead-url" with "url-status" on all wiki articles using the cite web template. Or can someone fix the module so it happen automatically? si:Module:Citation/CS1VihirLak007hmu!/duh.05:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For JWB, once you have it up and running, go to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ahecht/Scripts/Replace_dead-url.json&action=raw&ctype=application/json and save it as a .json file on your computer. In JWB, on the Setup tab, click "Import" and choose the file you saved. In the "Load" drop-down, choose "Replace dead-url". Then click on the Generate button, make sure Wiki Search is checked with insource:/dead\-?url *= */ in the search box, and hit the Generate button. When it's done, click outside the Generate box to close it. Then go to the "Edit" tab and click "Start" to start going through all the pages.
Once you're done, you can go to this page to see the remaining pages that need to be manually fixed. You may need to wait a few minutes first as there can be some lag between when you edit pages and when the search results catch up. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE)17:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps someone who hangs out at VPT could take a look at this HD discussion. The OP seems to be experiencing the same issue described here, but it's not clear whether the problem is on the OP's side or Wikipedia's side. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to find out a list of articles and redirects for Climate change in .... ?
Hi all
I'd like to spend a significant amount of time writing and working with experts on creating Climate change in NAME OF COUNTRY / STATE etc articles. First I would like to understand which do and don't exist. I tried making a simple list of all the countries to see redlinks however it seems that one or more users created a significant number of redirects so this doesn't work. I've been using List of sovereign states to create a list, but I'm sure there are other options like islands, states within countries etc. Is it possible to do a query or is there another way to find:
A list of existing articles for Climate Change in ...
A list of redirects for Climate change in ...
A way to have a live list of missing Climate change in NAME OF COUNTRY articles since simple redlinks don't work because of the redirects that have been created (I guess I could make a table of redlinks with comments on which are redirects as a basic version)
PrimeHunter thanks so much :) you always know the right answer! I can create a manual to update page from this now I think, if you or anyone else has any ideas about creating an automated page please let em know. Thanks again. John Cummings (talk) 12:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PrimeHunter thanks again, super helpful. One final question, do you know if there is a template I could use to tell if a page includes a specific word or phrase? I would love a way to tell if articles for countries mention climate change. I know this is probably a very niche use case but I'm wondering if there is template that might do this for another reason. John Cummings (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Graphs of categories
Is there a way to create a graph that shows how many pages are in a category (y-axis) over time (x-axis)? It would be particularly useful for error tracking categories. Failing that, a text-based way to monitor category population changes. -- GreenC02:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's also User:SDZeroBot/Category counter which I just finished setting up. Raw counts only, no graphs for now. (I noticed that the MusikBot task, apart from being disabled, stores the counts on-wiki which seems like an unsuitable place for large-scale storage, and it also requires an admin to enable new categories for counting.) – SD0001 (talk) 18:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tech News: 2024-45
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Updates for editors
Stewards can now make global account blocks cause global autoblocks. This will assist stewards in preventing abuse from users who have been globally blocked. This includes preventing globally blocked temporary accounts from exiting their session or switching browsers to make subsequent edits for 24 hours. Previously, temporary accounts could exit their current session or switch browsers to continue editing. This is an anti-abuse tool improvement for the Temporary Accounts project. You can read more about the progress on key features for temporary accounts. [8]
Wikis that have the CampaignEvents extension enabled can now use the Collaboration List feature. This list provides a new, easy way for contributors to learn about WikiProjects on their wikis. Thanks to the Campaign team for this work that is part of the 2024/25 annual plan. If you are interested in bringing the CampaignEvents extension to your wiki, you can follow these steps or you can reach out to User:Udehb-WMF for help.
The text color for red links will be slightly changed later this week to improve their contrast in light mode. [9]
View all 32 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week. For example, on multilingual wikis, users can now hide translations from the WhatLinksHere special page.
Updates for technical contributors
XML data dumps have been temporarily paused whilst a bug is investigated. [10]
In depth
Temporary Accounts have been deployed to six wikis; thanks to the Trust and Safety Product team for this work, you can read about the deployment plans. Beginning next week, Temporary Accounts will also be enabled on seven other projects. If you are active on these wikis and need help migrating your tools, please reach out to User:Udehb-WMF for assistance.
The latest quarterly Language and Internationalization newsletter is available. It includes: New languages supported in translatewiki or in MediaWiki; New keyboard input methods for some languages; details about recent and upcoming meetings, and more.
Meetings and events
MediaWiki Users and Developers Conference Fall 2024 is happening in Vienna, Austria and online from 4 to 6 November 2024. The conference will feature discussions around the usage of MediaWiki software by and within companies in different industries and will inspire and onboard new users.
Proposal for trial: assignment to a small random group of editors to elevated permissions for a fixed short term by sortition.
Test 1: Selected extended-confirmed editors, who have edited in the past 100 days, get AfC and/or new page reviewer, which have backlogs. They still have to read the instructions. (PCR is too weak for a practical experiment imo.)
Test 2: Selected auto/confirmed editors, who edited recently, get bumped into extended-confirmed.
Rules: Any admin can strike for any behavior at any time; one strike and you're out; no extension of term; no exceptions. Also: you cannot refuse permissions, and your editing or sanction history (but not block history) has no bearing on whether you get or don't get permissions. Every admin and editor with equal permissions capable of oversight will have a readily-accessible list of test editors. (It's not difficult to deduce otherwise.)
Numbers: As a conservative estimate for a first experiment, maybe 200 editors on both tests simultaneously for 6 months, depending on the activity level of those in the sample -- if 20 editors substantially increase their activity in response, that's measurable and manageable.
The purpose is to increase engagement by somewhat active editors across the spectrum, and perhaps even motivate requests for permanent permissions and adminship down the line. In that spirit, if a test editor loses permissions in the one-strike rule, it should have minimal or zero bearing on requesting permissions in future. This is a learning and motivational experience. That permissions here are ultimately reversible and have oversight means that, on balance, if an ill-behaved editor now ends up being able to credibly seek permissions in future, this model, should it be causative, was indeed a success.
A high barrier to entry of WP adminship and some permissions, combined with thanklessness of tasks and relatively low social prestige, means that we are probably below rate-of-replacement on adminship, and there are backlogs for areas needing permissions. Sortition, if it results in participation, relieves this burden. It also increases representative fairness and ideological diversity to those who would handle the content and administrative backlogs. (Afaik this is a WP-unique issue.) In Polish Wikipedia the exclusionary effect on new candidates of acquaintancy among admins was studied (Spychała et al 2014 "Does the Administrator Community ... Acquaintance Relation?"); so if a similar phenomenon exists in all permissions then sortition would help disrupt it.
On the effects of granting priveliges/power: In (Sassenberg et al 2014 "Power corrupts: revisited"), the relationship of elevated power and a sense of communal responsibility vs individual corruption (whether one is elevated as opposed to the other) is complex with contradictory results in the literature. In general, if people are in a socially-oriented environment and goals, which I'd suggest epitomizes WP editing, then power would orient them toward the former. However, the review also suggests that the perception of power as an increase opportunity or promtion, rather than just increased responsibility, is a big part of the increased motivational effects, which would suggest that since sortition may lower the prestige of elevated priveliges, it would have a negative effect on motivation; but this seems again highly social-context- and goal-dependent in the literature.
I have trouble imagining us (i.e., those of us who have achieved a measure of power and control in the current system) being willing to give up control over permissions, no matter how slight this might be.
That said, I think that both Test 1 and Test 2 would be worthwhile experiments, and I specifically suggest considering selecting candidates for Test 2 from among those who are nearly EXTCONF anyway (e.g., they have the time but they're short 100–200 edits, or they have the edits, but they're short 1–2 months).
Even if there's an element of power and status to them, the vast majority of what people with advanced permissions do is just drudgery. It seems really unlikely to me that somebody randomly assigned NPP or even admin is actually going to want to use them. And one of the main functions of the perm system is to reduce the attack surface these rights offer by only giving them to people motivated enough to ask for it.
Also, yes AfC and NPP are backlogged, but 'reviewing the reviewers' is also work and there are very few admins doing it. This would massively increase that workload - who's going to pick up the slack? – Joe (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine that an editor who receives a note saying something like "You've been given this permission temporarily. Please read up and use it if you want" might use it a few times, at least to try it out. If they have a positive experience, they might request to the perm later through the usual channels.
Giving a perm only to those motivated enough to ask means that a higher percentage of the requesters is improperly motivated. Undeclared paid editors will be more motivated to ask for the permission than an ordinary volunteer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think "checking up on whether people did the thing correctly" and "doing the thing" are really different actions. So while I think it's obvious that this would increase the amount of "checking up on each other" work, I'm not sure it's the admins at AfC and NPP that will be shouldering that work, though I'm sure we probably would do so somewhat disproportionately. -- asilvering (talk) 21:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite a fan of sortition for filling real-world positions, both where it is used in many countries (mainly for selecting juries) and for some other positions. A few thoughts on its applicability to Wikipedia:
I doubt that many people would devote much time to the task, because they have to earn a living, and paying the people selected would cause many other issues.
Many people would try out their new permissions, but most would drop out.
There need to be clear success/failure criteria. Too many things are tried here, then clearly fail, but continue to be used because of the sunken cost fallacy (I know this is controversial, but I would class draft space as being one of these).
Clear criteria are highly desirable. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that a single metric works (e.g., we don't want to lose these randomly selected editors and we don't want WP:UGLY articles in the mainspace), and it's entirely possible that doing the jobs correctly would result in the selected editors quitting. For example:
Existing AFC promotions have a very low rate of deletion at AFD. (I believe that the normal rate is about 75%.) Given that they're supposed to promote articles that are likely (i.e., 51%, not 90%) to survive AFD, this means that they are underpromoting and overrestricting.
If the new AFC people collectively promote articles that get deleted only 40% of the time, that's a sign that they're doing it correctly (still underpromoting, actually), even though theirs are getting deleted more often than older AFC folks. Thie AFD metric would show success.
But: if each AFD, or the run up to those AFDs, comes with recriminations and complaints about how they're being too "lenient", then the yelled-at editors might quit. The editor-retention metric would show failure.
If the new AFC people collectively promote articles that get deleted only 40% of the time, that's a sign that they're doing it correctly (still underpromoting, actually)Not necessarily. If they promote articles with a chance to survive AfD above 50%, and we assume they are uniformly distributed in probability, the average promoted article would have 75% of chance to survive AfD, or in other words get deleted 25% of the time. If they get deleted 40% of the time, there might be a level of overpromotion going on. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(I love people who can math.)
I think it depends on your underlying assumptions about the distribution. If you have 10 articles, each with a 51% chance of surviving AFD, and you promote them all, and all 10 get sent to AFD, then you'd expect five to get deleted – and they were all still correct promotions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That definitely depends on our hypotheses about the distribution, indeed. If the 10 articles range from 51%, 56%, ... up to 96%, then you'd have a lower expectation of deleted articles (2.65 if I mathed correctly). But there's also a hidden assumption in here, in that an article with 96% chances of surviving an AfD will probably not be sent there to begin with, meaning the deletion rate of articles being sent at AfD will naturally be higher than the total deletion rate.All in all, it would be interesting to have more statistics about both the deletion chance of AfC articles at AfD, and how much AfC articles are underrepresented at AfD to begin with. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion stats are difficult to measure retrospectively. It might be something that we need to study prospectively. There's also the complication of experience: people submitting articles through AFC are not going to have the same deletion rate as people like you and me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Complicating this, I don't think most AfC reviewers go for "50% likelihood of AfD survival" so much as "I'm more than 50% sure this would survive AfD" - not quite the same thing. I think I'm one of the more lenient AfC reviewers (well, of those among us who aren't socks), and if 25% of my accepts went to AfD I'd be shocked. Also I think people would be telling me to resign. -- asilvering (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that you're correct. Just having more than a small number of articles sent to AFD, even if they were all kept in the end, would raise some eyebrows. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also while it's tempting to consider, if this experiment is successful, a radical future proposed sortition of admins, akin to the admin-for-a-day proposed in 2012, but per WMF this is not legally doable, the prohibitive priveliges being rollback and deleted material. That doesn't necessarily have to prevent it; the WMF doesn't set an actual bar for the community review. Therefore, we could have a much lower-pressure, lower-stakes community review of every editor who meets a certain threshold of edits and age to determine eligibility for one day obtaining those rights via sortation, with the sole focus being "is this person likely to abuse rollback or access to deleted material?" (which would almost always lean towards acceptance, since it is automatic, done for everyone, and doesn't directly grant adminship.) Only arguments and rationales specifically related to that question would be allowed and considered by closers when closing such discussions, not general discussions of whether they'd make a good admin in other ways; and they wouldn't require bcrat closures or anything. This would then allow admin status to be granted to those editors via sortition because they'd previously passed a community review on the aspects the WMF cares about. --Aquillion (talk) 19:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the prohibitive priveliges being rollback and. Rollback doesn't seem very dangerous. I doubt wmf would put their foot down about handing out that one too easily. Agree that wmf would object to handing out view deleted though for legal reasons. This has been well discussed before. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the WMF cares about Wikipedia:Rollback (which doesn't even get used much, because Twinkle and other scripts can mimic the same effect). The legal problem is viewdeleted. They have consistently said that they want proof that the community trusts the people who have that particular right (e.g., we trust them not to restore copyvios or re-post uploaded revenge porn to another site). The process of community vetting can change, but there must be a community vetting process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(e.g., we trust them not to restore copyvios or re-post uploaded revenge porn to another site). I've never heard that. WMF's stated reason for viewdeleted being sensitive is that they want to be able to say in court that when something is deleted, it is well and truly deleted, and that only vetted individuals will have access to it, rather than it being easily accessible. The vibe I'm getting is to make sure BLP, libel and defamation, etc. stays deleted and that they can argue it is truly deleted in court. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is restoring the inappropriate here or posting it on other websites, then that's not "staying deleted", and nobody could argue that it is, even around the dinner table. We need to be able to trust that admins won't do that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, though, my point is that we can have a more lightweight vetting process focused specifically and exclusively on whether someone is likely to abuse the specific tools the WMF is worried about. Whenever alternative approaches to adminship come up, people bring up that WMF concern, and it's easily addressed. The WMF isn't worried about people abusing blocks, or unblocks, or weighing in at WP:AE, or AE enforcement actions; and the (perceived, at least) high risk associated with those things under the current system is what actually makes people reluctant to promote admins and which therefore makes RFAs hard. This is also self-perpetuating in that the fewer admins there are the more impact each one has, raising the stakes of RFA in a way that risks breaking it. The community and the WMF are worried about different things. --Aquillion (talk) 22:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This is a solvable problem. Also, it doesn't have to be solved in the first iteration. We could test the system on a couple of other userrights, and circle back to test some others later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WMF doesn't care about rollback. We could even auto-promote users to some "been around a while" group that includes all of Autopatrolled, New page reviewer, Page mover, Pending changes reviewer, Rollback and they wouldn't care. — xaosfluxTalk13:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be tempted to do it slightly the other way around - go ask the editors whose sortition perms are about to expire if they want it taken away, and leave it otherwise, so long as they used it non-disruptively. -- asilvering (talk) 22:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the idea about temporary permissions is that you can't build a fiefdom. Do the work for a designated period of time, and then your turn's up, and someone else takes over to do their best. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if we could do this in reverse. Specifically, I worry that the regulars at ANI and COIN (in particular) see so much bad behavior that they develop a distorted view of the community and its goals. For example, if you see an endless parade of accusations about undeclared paid editing because the complainant believes the content to be 'promotional', then you'll start seeing UPE scammers behind everything, even when it's just an ordinary person, not fully aware of our house style[*], trying to write about a subject that interests them. Could we pick a random set of 'regulars' and invite them to take a break for three months? And invite, say, 10x as many uninvolved folks to step up to take their places?
[*] For example, our house style declares that "offices in 26 countries and as of October 2024 in the process of opening offices in two more countries" is okay, but "offices in more than 25 countries" is culpable promotionalism, and the maintenance cost of the first style is unimportant.
I don't like proposal 1. NPP and AfC are the most important roles to encourage new editor–retention. Overzealous deletion/declines can drive new editors, content, and ideas out. (Speaking personally, it also doesn't seem very nice to have your fun revoked after making just 1 goof. The strike thing would be agonizing to enforce. Admins may get angried against for "why did you strike this patroller just because they were too officious, jargony, and laconic and scared a newbie away?". Meanwhile, I see no better alternative to the 1-strike system, therefore I do not like proposal 1.) I don't really see the purpose of proposal 2 as pretty much only editing contentious topics directly without edit request relies on this (who would be autoconfirmed and run for administrator?), and such experience is quite essential towards editing such flamewar-inducing pages directly, but I could be fine with it, I suppose. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you assuming that someone new to NPP and AFC would be more likely to delete/decline new articles than the existing folks? I'm not sure that would be true, honestly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this will work. Firstly, we need to at least attempt to establish that someone understands the rules and instructions before we give them these rights. Secondly we don't expect perfection from admins, so one strike and you're out is excessively harsh - particularly as that strike will count against them if they ever want to apply for advanced permissions in the future (whether it should nor it, it will). It will be a big disincentive to actually use the tools, particularly if they have shown no interest in the job (and not using the tools when they had them will be something they have to defend at RFA if they stand). Thryduulf (talk) 03:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redesigning shackles and other icons
Re-instating this proposal, I want to make the icons look more clear and sleek; I will eventually add on more to the icons (such as good articles, audio articles, etc.) I also want to add region-based letter shackles, so for example 拡 (拡張, Kakuchō) would be the Japanese extended-protection icon, same with 満 (満杯, Manpai) for full-protection.
Agree with others that these new icons look dated. However, if we are discussing changes to lock icons, then I must say the the purple for upload protected is incongruously gaudy. Cremastra — talk — c20:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I think the gradients or bevels make these icons less clear and sleek, at least in their current iteration. The icons also become less readable at smaller resolutions since the shackle part of the padlocks takes up more space, making the actual symbol inside smaller.
Pretty strong oppose trying to run a geolocation script on every load to try to make dynamic labels here. If anything (which I also don't like) labels should follow user interface language. — xaosfluxTalk17:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the differences, I was just suggesting (because I don't really speak any other language you could propose a specific version) Also, I will later add the letters on the shackles.
Oppose making the primary (only) differentiation be color, as that gives out less information then the current scheme and is useless for those without color viewing abilities. — xaosfluxTalk17:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Xaosflux on this one. Furthermore, the two issues of the old icon scheme (color and "realistic" shading that doesn't look great on small icons), which were the reasons for the change to begin with, are present on this one too.Regarding the region-based symbols, it would make more sense to display them based on the language edition, and, since each language edition already sets its own standards for this stuff, there isn't much more we can do. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, but only slightly. If you added the letters, it would be better. Also, a solution to your region-basing could be to do a Language-based (like "O" for "Office" would become "S" for "Schoolhouse" in a theoretical "Reversed English") The Master of Hedgehogs(converse)(hedgehogs)14:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we were using "shackle" as the word to describe a thing by a single aspect for the purposes of avoiding conflation with protecting/locking editing. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we shouldn't, because as @WhatamIdoing noted, the shackle is one part of a padlock. And simply using the word "padlock" avoids conflation, without calling things the wrong thing. (It's even the exact same number of letters.) FeRDNYC (talk) 03:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:WIKICLICHE we've been asked to not say this quite as much, due to supply chain issues – if we use them too much we could see a huge shortage down the road. But I hope I'm not generating more heat than light with this comment, or throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Cremastra — talk — c20:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Never throw the baby out with the bathwater. This will contaminate your greywater collection system. Like other meats, babies are not compostable, so they should be sorted into the landfill waste stream unless otherwise advised by your municipal waste management authority. Folly Mox (talk) Folly Mox (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The pseudo-3D shading looks dated compared to the current flat icons. Most modern design systems (including codex, which is the new design system for Wikimedia wikis) are built around flat icons. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE)18:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just for funStill feel like a step backwards. The current "Good article" icon, on top of having less of a distracting shading and being more readable, is in a consistent style with a lot of our other icons. The current "Featured article" icon, although not consistent with the others, is pretty unique and recognizable in design, while this one looks like a generic star.Just for fun, I did once make a "Good article" star in the style of the FA one – not meant for any official implementation beyond my personal script of course, but it's neat to see how it would look like. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever looked at the Featured Article icon, full-size? (If not, check it out at File:Cscr-featured.png. I'll wait.) ...Like or lump @Chaotic Enby's GA star, it's actually of a fairly harmonious style with the current FA star, which is (as noted) currently not consistent with anything else anywhere. Arguably it's well-known/recognizable — Chaotic makes that argument, anyway — but TBH I have a feeling the great majority of readers never see it larger than head-of-a-pin-scaled, and wouldn't even recognize the actual, full-sized image AS our FA icon. FeRDNYC (talk) 04:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen the full FA icon; the GA star is just straight out of Cthulhu (...positively). It is fun, but I think GA should be more inline with the rest of the article-rating icons because of the kinda lesser rigor. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, it's definitely a concept design rather than an actual proposal. If anything, I far prefer having the current GA icon as our official one, as it is more harmonious with basically anything that isn't the FA star. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are not visual improvements whatsoever, unfortunately. They are clear regressions in design, and the current icons are fine. Our system is particular to the English Wikipedia, so it's perfectly appropriate for their design to be relative to the English language.Remsense ‥ 论19:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Color me baffled. By starting with Re-instating this proposal, you make me think you want to reinvigorate some failed proposal. But then I follow your link and see that the proposal led to the implementation of new padlock icons, which; I guess, you mean to reverse. I also fail to understand what you mean by region-based letter shackles; do you mean for articles about, e.g., Japan? Or articles viewed by somebody we're supposed to have guessed might be in Japan? Or somebody with the Japanese language listed in a userbox on their User page? It's English Wikipedia, so I can't see the last two being useful options, and the first one will only lead to arguments and confusion and we've got that already. The current icons seem clear enough to me, although I don't know how to measure "sleek", I guess. In summary: baffled. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits)12:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean region-based letter shackles basically like the letters on shackles but different regional translations. (This'll probably not work because of @Chaotic Enby's post.)
So (just to see if I understand it finally), you're proposing on English Wikipedia that Japanese Wikipedia use icons with Japanese symbology, and Spanish Wikipedia use some Spanish-language indicator on the padlock, etc. Yes? — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits)22:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Status quo is fine. It's really cool that you're contributing your graphics skills to the movement though. I'm sure there's some less high profile areas that could really benefit from your skills. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: New proposals are nice but I personally like the style of the old ones better, and flat icons also seem more up-to-date to me. Regional shackles sound like a good idea, but don't appear to be in this proposal, so I'll just say I support those (maybe in the old design-style in my preference). Mrfoogles (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Remsense. The new 3D icons look like something from the early days of the internet. Plus the shadowing makes the icons appear unnecessarily "bulky" (not sure how to say this). Nythar (💬-🍀) 22:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose here as well. It's not about status quo or resistance to change, I vastly prefer the current icons to the proposed replacements. (Admittedly subjective) points in favor of the current icons over the new ones:
The flatter look will render better at small sizes (since these icons are actually shown at a fraction of the size they're displayed in this thread)
Ditto the blockier font
Ditto the thicker shackle arcs
The skinny shackles and rectangular body give the proposed replacements the appearance of handbags, not padlocks
The letter placement is more uniform and precise in the current icons; the proposed replacements appear to have been "eyeballed". IMHO SVG art of this sort is best hand-coded (if not from scratch, then at least as a finalization pass to clean up the code), with all of the dimensions precise and uniform.
I appreciate the effort, and I'm sorry to be critical, but I'm just not into them at all. The current set, OTOH, are actually fairly well-designed and optimized for their purpose, which is an important consideration in designing functional artwork of this sort. It's puzzling to me that anyone would be looking to replace them, as there's surprisingly little room for improvement IMHO. FeRDNYC (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the proposed sets may been cool at the time of the previous proposal. Those locks would be more appropriate for something like in 2008. It's for the same reason why traffic lights are always (from top to bottom) red yellow green. And why train doors on British trains need doors to have sufficient contrast to the rest (see PRM TSI). In other words, using colour alone for distinguishing isn't enough.
Oppose - not a fan of the proposed icons (see also Nythar's comment), and the current locks work quite well. however, I would be supportive of a redesign of the GA/FA icons (/the various icons of the same style) in a style similar to the current locks. Rexo (talk | contributions) 20:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What if we kept the shackles and good icon, get a new featured icon, and make a built-in feature that allows shackles to be compatible with dark mode? 2I3I3 (talk) 03:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(to clarify: the style used by a lot of icons across the wiki (including FA/GA) feels dated, and the locks have a cleaner look that I think could be used as a basis for further redesigns. I don't think that would inherently lead to the quality symbols implying protection.) Rexo (talk | contributions) 13:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the Norro or FA icons are dated, and using padlocks to indicate quality just makes no semantic sense. We adopted padlocks because it showed that the article was locked from editing. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our article Shackle says "A shackle is also the similarly shaped piece of metal used with a locking mechanism in padlocks.[1]". Some here seem confused, but anyone using "shackle" to refer to the handle part of the handbag-looking icon is correct. Anomie⚔21:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Enabling SecurePoll elections with the electionadmin right
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.
WP:SNOW: unanimous support to have the ability to hold local SecurePoll elections, including enabling the electionadmin right on enwiki. An RFC to determine how the new right should be distributed can be launched at any time; it may be advisable to advertise that RFC on WP:CENT. Levivich (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC) Levivich (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! My name is Joe Sutherland and I'm on the Trust and Safety team at the Wikimedia Foundation. In the past, your community has shown interest in holding elections with SecurePoll — perhaps you already have through votewiki. We are now looking into making this available to local communities to run elections themselves. This will require the "electionadmin" right to be enabled on your project, which is a right that allows access to sensitive information.
As such, it is likely that you will need to run a Request for Comment (or similar process) to ascertain consensus for the implementation of this feature. To help guide such a discussion, we've put together a Meta-Wiki page with more information about what enabling the right will mean for your community.
If your community does discuss and decides to move forward with this, T&S would like to support you — please let us know via email ( ca@wikimedia.org ) if and when consensus is reached. Thank you!
Sorry, I wasn't totally clear - this would be for future (admin/ArbCom) elections that the community would like to run. The elections scheduled to start soon will use the existing votewiki system. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This isn't a requirement holding for admin elections, arbcom elections (or any other type of elections) but (if I've understood correctly) it will reduce the amount of support we need from the WMF when we do hold them. I agree completely with Sdkb's last sentence. Thryduulf (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This would help us host local administrator elections and arbitration committee elecitons that aren't so dependent on the limited bandwidth of the stewards (scrutineers) and WMF T&S (for vote.wikimedia.org setup). By the way, are electionadmins basically checkusers within the SecurePoll tool (being able to see IP information for voters)? So we'd need to make sure that folks that receive that permission are a functionary and/or sign an NDA? –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Is there a ticket on Phab to separate election checkuser capabilities from election creation/editing capabilities? This might be worth looking into. The person that sets up polls doesn't necessarily need to be the same person that checks all the voters. And it may make sense to have a division here. For example, someone technical can set up SecurePoll, and existing checkusers could do the scrutineering. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did some research and it looks like any admin can create a poll, but only electionadmins (scrutineers) can edit a poll or view checkuser-like data on voters. This split is a bit odd, as I think it'd be better if admins could also edit polls that they were added to when the polls were created, so I've filed phab:T377531 to explore that idea a bit further. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support to help us implement administrator elections in a more practical way for both us and the WMF. However, will electionadmins be a new user group? They seem to combine characteristics of checkusers and bureaucrats, and I'm not sure whether it would work to bundle the right into either by default. On the other hand, Novem Linguae's proposal of splitting the user right could work better, with a technical-minded crat setting up the poll, while checkusers get the scrutineering right. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm reading the code right... yes, electionadmin would either need to be a new user group, or the permissions for it (securepoll-create-poll, securepoll-view-voter-pii) added to an existing user group such as the checkusers. The latter might be simpler than creating a whole new appointment process for electionadmins.
At first glance, I don't see a relationship between bureaucrats and electionadmins. Electionadmins can't grant any user groups, unlike bureaucrats. Again, if I'm reading the code right, any admin can create a poll. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the relationship between bureaucrats and electionadmins, it's more to have the same group in charge of regular RfAs and admin elections, and to decouple checkusers from this additional responsibility. But that might be too redundant, and having any technical-minded admin able to do it could be enough, although it would be a major responsibility to give to any admin and might make it more difficult for potential candidates to gain the voters' trust. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The technical village pump is for questions about how to do X, whereas how to grant the electionadmin right requires a proposal for a policy, so this page is the appropriate place. Since the right provides access to voter information (as per meta:SecurePoll/Local elections § What does the electionadmin right do?), a process is needed to establish who is trusted with this access. The options I can think of are by consensus discussion, by election, or by appointment (which would push the question up one level on how to decide what group does the appointing). Being part of an existing trusted group, such as those with the oversight right or the checkuser right, could be a requirement to become an election admin. isaacl (talk) 23:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might be simplest to grant the permissions securepoll-create-poll and securepoll-view-voter-pii to the checkusers. That way we don't need the overhead of a separate user group or separate appointment process. I think you have to specifically be added to a poll by the poll creator to see its PII, so there shouldn't be any security risk from giving all the checkusers the ability to be added to polls by the poll creator. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This feels like a major oversight. The admin elections are modeled after WP:ACE but apparently nobody thought about the scrutineers that need to be approved and tooled up each year for ACE. I'm presuming this means the elections are on hold until we clear this up? Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today00:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Locally, we have a few options that we could consider if we decide to do polls. First, we don't HAVE to encrypt the database, it doesn't make the votes readily available - but a developer could access them, so that is something to consider (also means not having to deal with key escrow to finalize the election). Additionaly, we don't have to let SP collect private info. We would still have the usernames - it would just prevent using the checkuser info on the securepoll votes. These are all just things to consider if we set up polls - point is that there are options. — xaosfluxTalk13:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Local communities should have the autonomy to conduct elections when they see fit, and not be so dependent on a certain WMF team that has a tight calendar. Also, the inability to conduct separate elections on multiple sites at the same time is a big limitation of the current system that would be addressed by this. – SD0001 (talk) 08:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Per SD and Xaos above, I think deploying SecurePoll locally so that individual communities can conduct elections in a autonomous and decentralized manner at the tradeoff of some confidentiality is a good idea in general. Sohom (talk) 14:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support An RFC will definitely be necessary to determine who can scrutineer. I imagine we have a few options, the first two I can think of being either assigning the CheckUser group (or perhaps a different set of users?) the electionadmin right, or just creating a new usergroup and having Stewards go ahead and assign it to the relevant scrutineers a week or so before an SP is scheduled to occur, then remove it afterwards. EggRoll97(talk) 03:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have organized Wikimedia elections for affiliate organizations and after trying open processes, have found that commercial software is the only practical option. The Wikimedia community loves democratic process and elections, but has never had tools to support that. Making an option for SecurePoll has been a longstanding community request since at least 2016 when meta:SecurePoll was set up. Bluerasberry (talk)15:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Task: When an edit adds an file link without "|(\s*)?frameless" or "|(\s*)?thumb" within it, warn the user and tell them they probably wanted to put a |thumb in. Still allow them to save the edit. Can also scan for every format supported if wanted.
Needs wider discussion but until then, {{EFR}}. The basis for this request is on one accidential removal of a colon. This seems more like something that might be raised at Phab if nothing else, but I don't think we need a filter to warn people to use thumb. EggRoll97(talk) 23:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coming from VPR. I'm not sure what our standards are for edit filters enough to be able to comment on the appropriateness of one for this. But I can say that I've certainly been guilty of forgetting to add thumb and not previewing, resulting in situations exactly like the linked diff.
Actually, no, I'm not sure if edit check applies. Its project page defines it as a set of improvements for the visual editor, where I highly doubt editors make this mistake. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, true, I forgot that. In that case, we might want a different sort of warning, perhaps akin to the disambiguation link added one. Sdkbtalk02:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Might be a good idea for community wishlist more than anything else. I don't think an edit filter is really the best way to go here. Even on a warn-only, it will be catching good-faith edits, and (temporarily) slowing down these contributions. This isn't to say this isn't a problem, just that edit filters may not be the best way to solve it. EggRoll97(talk) 04:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Technically a lot of the formulas in maths articles are inline images (see e.g. series (mathematics)). These are generated rather than transcluded, but it wouldn't surprise me if there is some edge case where an image is transcluded inline for a similar purpose. Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are certainly articles containing inline images for discussing symbols (which may not have straightforward Unicode character representations), e.g. rare historical letter glyphs or musical notation elements (see Archaic Greek alphabets or Mensural notation, to name just two that I happen to have worked on). Yes, I guess articles like these are few, but if an article requires them, it will require them numerous times. Fut.Perf.☼11:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that will be scalable, given the number of potential articles and the number of potential images. What might work would be something in the syntax to say "I am intentionally using this image inline" Thryduulf (talk) 12:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From testing in my sandbox it seems to me that this would work in all cases where there isn't a caption being used as alt text (#10) as that removes the alt text. Glagolitic script#Characteristic uses captions in this manner.
However, when I tabulated the results (Special:Permalink/1253409176) any double pipes were interpreted as table syntax, even inside the file link, so broke things. Which makes things complicated. I'd also like to know if this breaks anything for users of screen readers.
We could also do [[File:Slinky shrewsbury.jpg|inline|]][[File:Slinky shrewsbury.jpg|inline|caption]] for case 1 (no caption) and case 2 (w/ caption). Regex would scan for |inline|. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another thought is that we'd need to get VE to insert this parameter too, otherwise it would trigger the warning for the next person to edit the source, with the potential for confusion and lost edits. Thryduulf (talk) 01:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I agree with both those suppositions, but I don't know if there are other uses than maths articles. However my main point was that good faith reasons for using an inline image, however rare, almost certainly do exist and so there needs to be some provision for allowing them. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of templates that use inline images, so be careful. I general I would say, please don't make too many assumptions about how people should NOT use wikicode. People are for more inventive with the syntax than you expect :) —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the examples. However, I think we all should refocus the conversation onto the |inline| override idea proposed above. With the override idea, editors adding new inline images can see how to stop the message from popping up again and go on on their merry way. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you're modeling here – thinking about how a policy/convention could be programmed into editing experiences – is precisely the kind of practice we're intending Edit Check to inspire.
I like and support this idea for that very example you state (geez that was a big image). My one concern related to the warning message encouraging the usage of these parameters, however, is that it needs to be very clear upfront that |frame, |frameless, and |thumb may NOT be used in any combination together since these three are contradictory parameters. When these conflicting parameters do appear together on a single image, it triggers a Bogus/Invalid Image Option syntax error, a Wikipedia tracked error that sprouts a dozen or so new cases daily. I and another editor teamed up this summer and finally eliminated the existing backlog of the 7000+ cases of active Invalid Image Options, and is one of a few error types our little community has caught up with and are keeping mowed down so that it doesn't resprout and grow wild again. My main concern is that if Wikipedia is not clear up front that these cannot be used together, people might think to there is no issue in just adding all the options and being done with it, (a "Heck with it all" reaction) leading to a higher rate of repopulation of this error type. Would stating use only one (to discourage combinations) be effective, or might a second/subcheck message be reasonable on (re)submission in these cases? Zinnober9 (talk) 05:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A proposed override for the edit filter above is introducing multiple captions, which is also a linter error. Do you know if there's a way to configure the linter extension so that the override is an exception? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is well beyond my knowledge. Jonesey95 knows more than I do, they might know, but I'd suspect that's more of a question for WMF. If multiple captions were introduced, I'm concerned with how that would work and how are the controls for determining which caption displays. I think the current WP:EIS syntax is fairly straight forward, and people make all sorts of unintended messes with it now. Zinnober9 (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If multiple captions were introduced, I'm concerned with how that would work and how are the controls for determining which caption displays.
The software currently handles this well: by always only displaying the last caption, as you've probably seen at Thryduulf's sandbox. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have, as that's how I learned about this discussion. (see discussion User talk:Thryduulf#Image syntax). Multiple captions, while "handled" in the way you expect, are not error-free syntax in current WP:EIS code, and Thryduulf's current sandbox example has four cases demonstrating multiple captions, which are each causing invalid image errors (Lint report page) (cases 10 and 16, 11 and 17). These reported errors from the EIS syntax usage are the objection I have have in regards to this proposal. 22:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC) Zinnober9 (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I understand. Would you have any objections if only adding "|inline|" before another caption would not trigger a linter error? Aaron Liu (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm coming to this discussion late, so forgive me if I misunderstand. I read through it twice, and I don't get it. The proposal is to stop people from inserting File:/Image: calls unless they have thumb or frameless? If that is the proposal, I don't see how it is reasonable. People insert such images all the time and have done so for decades, and things are generally fine. I did a semi-random search for insource:/\[\[File:/ -insource:/thumb/, and I got List of world sports championships, Nephrozoa, Filozoa, Countries of the United Kingdom, Papua New Guinea at the 2015 Pacific Games, PubChem, and more than 100,000 other pages that do not appear to be causing any trouble. I think there may be an XY problem here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not stop completely, give a warning for new additions through an edit filter that won't stop them if they save a second time or include some kind of override. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But why stop or warn at all for a completely valid usage that appears in more than 100,000 pages without a problem? What is wrong, for example, with the image used in the infobox at PubChem, which is not an inline image and does not use thumb or frameless? What is wrong with the image used at Short story, which uses neither thumb nor frameless and is not inline? What is wrong with the map images at Political divisions of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which use neither thumb nor frameless and are not inline? These are just three easily accessible examples from well over 100,000 pages. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the PubChem case, I'm not sure if the image was correctly added, as from what I recall the file name should be given directly as a parameter in infoboxes. However, basically every article with a phylogenetic tree, a series template, or a list of countries with flagicons would be affected, which isn't great. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 04:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would this stop occur when someone adds a template using {{ambox}} or a similar message box to a page? Those templates use images that are not inline, frameless, or thumbnails. I think this idea may need a significant re-think. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back the original issue was accidentally transcluding very large (in terms of dimensions) images at full size, which is an issue, but one that is very significantly narrower in scope than the proposed solution would address (and I agree that is not practical). Adding a warning only when the image exceeds say 2000px wide or 1200px high (larger than standard 1080p resolution) is unlikely to inconvenience many pages. My gut feeling though is that this would need to be done in software as whatever generates the warning would to get image dimensions from Commons as part of the parsing of the wikitext. Thryduulf (talk) 04:49, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts maybe only the width criterion is needed, as something long and thin will just vertically scroll without too much disruption? Most very wide images should probably be using {{wide image}} or thumb. Thryduulf (talk) 04:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That could work, but, if we wish to tackle the narrow issue of wide images, I am not sure whether an edit filter alone would work. As far as I know, regex can't go in the file page and check its metadata? (Or maybe the edit filters have more capabilities I don't know about) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you've said, that would require quite a bit more work than an edit filter. The issue is also that valid new usages of inline images without a template are quite little. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is also that valid new usages of inline images without a template are quite little. Are you sure about that? There are lots of examples noted in just this thread? How often are problematic (i.e. extremely large) images added inline accidentally? Unless it is significantly more than valid uses of inline images then it's not going to be worth it. Thryduulf (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How often are valid images added inline? Anecdotally, it happens quite occasionally enough. In fact, its usage at NCAA Division III—one of the results on the first page of search—was a mistake that had been there for 4 years before I fixed it today. I was preparing a paragraph that evaluated the first page of the search results when I realized that I can't find any guidelines on using non-small inline images instead of frameless images within infoboxes and tables, therefore, half of my basis for this proposal may be incorrect. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the short story case, could you explain which image? If your concern is the sidebar, I'm pretty sure we can exclude the template namespace, which also tends to have arcane wizardry. (Also, the edit filter would not warn just for existing usages. It would only warn on additions and new usages that don't use some e.g. Liechtenstein flag template (it only detects the relevant wikitext)) Aaron Liu (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 frequently edit articles about small towns in Iowa. When the 2020 US Census results were released, the vast majority of these articles had multi-paragraph summaries of the 2000 and 2010 Census results, usually under the heading "Demographics". The 2010 summaries appear to have been made by a bot, which is no longer active. The 2020 Census results have been available for several years now, and no bot has run through these articles and inserted 2020 Census summaries. For a few of the larger cities in Iowa, editors had added 2020 summaries, but for the vast majority of cities, towns and CDPs, the articles only had 2000 and 2010 summaries. So I updated the 974 articles for the Iowa towns with no 2020 summary, manually (I didn't clobber any exisiting 2020 summaries, unless they had fewer than 3 sentences). I spot checked the situation for other states, and found a similar situation. There may be as many as 40,000 articles that have this issue (for example: Northfield, Minnesota).
I think a case could be made that these articles really don't need extensive summaries of the census results. But I don't think many people would think that these articles should have extensive summaries of past censuses, but not the most recent one. Surely the most recent census is the most relevant. Having the summaries end at 2010 makes the article look abandoned.
Before I edited all those Iowa city articles, I made a Python script that called the US Census Department servers' API, to fetch the data, and the script produced a text block formatted properly for Wikipedia. I think it would be useful to to make a bot to update the articles for other states, but there are tricky issues, and I have never made a Wikipedia bot. Is there anyone who would be willing to work with me to make a bot to do these updates? If this is the wrong place to be asking that, can someone direct me to the correct place? Thanks for any info! PopePompus (talk) 01:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PopePompus, you're definitely correct that census data for U.S. cities is a very lacking area.
I'd start by reviewing the discussion here from 2020 — as you'll see toward the end, my view is that we very badly need to be converting this information into template form, rather than copying and pasting it (which is a large part of what has created the mess). I'd then open new discussion at WT:CITIES to get a sense of where current consensus is at. You may also want to look at what information Wikidata has and whether that can be of use. Once you've established consensus there to make changes, bot approvals go at WP:BOTREQ.
Overall, this will certainly be a major project, given the complexity of the information involved and the wide scale at which changes are needed. Good luck! Sdkbtalk04:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will just add that a bot created almost all of the articles about places in the US that were enumerated by the US Census in 2000. Many of those articles for years consisted of very little more than the demographic section. I believe that most of the 2010 census data was added manually, generally attempting to follow the 2000 bot-created format. Adding the 2020 census data has been piecemeal, at best. A bot to handle this sounds good, but getting agreement on the format for the data in articles may require some discussion. Donald Albury13:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the mass creation of the articles by a bot was a very good thing. At least in the case of Iowa, most of the articles have accumulated non-bot content. Since the barrier to entry for editing an existing article is far lower than creating a new one, it's safe to say that most of the post-bot content would not ever have appeared absent the bot. I agree with Sdkb that a template is the way to go. I had not seen the 2020 discussion he pointed to, and I found that discussion somewhat disappointing, because a lot of the discussion was about details, rather than focusing on what I think are the major issues: Template or not, should old results be retained in the main body of the text, and perhaps most importantly who's gonna do it. PopePompus (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency of the Demographics sections across articles about (Census enumerated) populated places in the US is desirable. Unfortunately, I have no experience with bots, and have fallen into the hole of trying to expand articles about almost 80 species in a genus. Donald Albury14:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see a bot add this information. Adding the same thing as last time is okay with me, though a complete re-write might eventually be desirable. It looks like Yellowcard has done some work at getting the US census numbers into Wikidata. Perhaps he has the needed skills, or at least is familiar with the format of the database?
(In terms of a complete re-write, imagine that an exact replica would result in these three sentences in the article (in separate sub-sections):
[From 2000] The racial makeup of the city was 95.67% White, 3.29% Native American, 0.17% from other races, and 0.87% from two or more races.
Would it be possible to combine this into a single statement like:
The racial makeup of the city was 88.5% White, 0.5% African American, 1.5% Native American, 1.5% from other races, and 8% from two or more races, representing a decline in <name listed groups with significant change> and an increase in <name other groups> since the 2000 census.
Thanks @WhatamIdoing for the ping. We (a interested user group in the German Wikipedia) have invested a lot of time and effort by extracting the data from the US Census Bureau website/database and uploading it to Wikidata. This is done for data like population, number of households, area, water area, per capita income (which comes from the ACS) etc. The population data is available for the 2010 and 2020 census.
Creating a bot that fetches the information from the Census Bureau's website and creates plain text (!) is a horrible idea to me. The data is available on Wikidata and usable for Wikipedia already (and has been since 2021). The project on German Wikipedia has a bit stopped due to real-life timing issues, but could be restarted. For the German Wikipedia (where article creation by a bot is rejected, for whatever reasons), we use the data in the infoboxes for all US cities that have an article. The data is so reliable that we even have removed the parameters for population and household counts in the infobox - they are fetched from Wikidata no matter what. No manual updating of Census information in the article necessary nor possible any more.
Articles in German face the same issue as in the English Wikipedia - totally outdated, bot-generated and therefore boring Demographics paragraphs. There is a clear consensus that we will not make this mistake again. Data like this should go into the article via templates, not via plaintext. Yellowcard (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some editors at the English Wikipedia distrust Wikidata, so relying entirely on Wikidata isn't accepted. They worry that vandalism (or innocent mistakes) will go unnoticed and uncorrected. We also have a substantial group of editors who believe that paragraphs are preferable to infoboxes, or necessary in addition to infoboxes. Between them, I think the most likely outcome is plain old paragraphs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Idea lab
Fix Draftification with a new template
Draftification has long been criticized as a backdoor to deletion. In New Pages Patrol (NPP), it is common to move new articles that are not ready for mainspace to draftspace. This way, articles that could potentially be suitable for Wikipedia, but are not yet, are preserved. The article creator then gets a chance to improve their article without NPPers breathing down their necks or having it taken to Articles for Deletion. If anyone, including the article creator, objects to draftification, the article should be moved back to mainspace (draftification should be reversed). This is explained by DRAFTNO #6 and #7. No reason is required for the objection.
Problem: However, we also have a rule that drafts that haven't been edited for six months get automatically deleted, under Criterion for Speedy Deletion G13. So, well-meaning New Page Patrollers will unilaterally draftify new articles that are not yet ready for the encyclopedia. The new editors who created the article may disagree with the move, without knowing that they can object. The new users can get discouraged and leave Wikipedia altogether, and after six months the draft is deleted under CSD G13. As this process happens without community discussions, it results in draftification being called a "backdoor to deletion".
Solution: This problem can be solved without changing policy or current practice. We just need to make it very obvious to new users that they can object to draftification. We can also make it easy to reverse the draftication (assuming the new user is autoconfirmed). I suggest we do this by adding a template to all draftified articles. The template would include a big blue button, similar to the "Submit the draft for review!" button at Template:AfC submission/draft, which says "Object to this move". Clicking this button either: 1. Leaves a message on the talk page of the editor who draftified, notifying them that there has been an objection to the move and requesting that it be immediately reversed. 2. Moves the page back to mainspace automatically, or if the editor's account is unable to perform this task, creates an entry at Requested moves/Technical moves to that effect. The latter is better, but also more technically complex. Adding a similar button to Template:Uw-articletodraft, the warning typically given upon draftification, would also be helpful.
Implementation: Once the new template is ready, it can be added to MPGuy's MoveToDraft userscript, which is the most common way for NPPers to draftify articles. It should be placed above the AfC template on all draftified articles.
I would appreciate comments from technically skilled editors, who could create this template (or tell me that it's impossible), from NPPers who draftify articles, and from uninvolved editors who have opinions on the draftification process. Toadspike[Talk]10:37, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This idea isn't really my own, it was obviously sparked by the most recent RfA. A similar idea was previously discussed here, but that discussion proposed a requirement that all editors have to follow (policy), not a technical solution, and turned into a trainwreck. To prevent something similar, I ask all participants to please focus on improving the current situation instead of debating the morality of draftification as a whole. Toadspike[Talk]11:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notifying the users who commented most directly on this topic at the RfA: @Alalch E.@User:Onel5969@User:Hobit@User:Fangz@User:Nsk92. I have also notified the NPP Talk page and posted a message on Discord. I am not sure how to notifying all participants of the previous discussion (aside from doing it manually) and I am not sure that is productive considering how many people were involved and how offtopic it got, so I won't do that for now. Toadspike[Talk]11:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The draftification message could be tweaked, but a big button to reverse the move will lead to more AfDs, higher strain on NPP, more BITEY behaviour, and worse editor retention. Draft space is incredibly valuable, and people have some incredibly warped views about the space. If we did something like this then we'd end up chasing away new editors because learning how to make your article meet our complicated guidelines in under 7 days (AfD tag) is not easy for a lot of folks. Draft space gives them the opportunity to work on the content, to receive advise, and to make articles that will actually survive at AfD and allow them to stick around. Really we need to draftify more, and I've taken it upon myself to begin to do so again and encourage others to do. I'm big on editor retention. This is not the way to do it. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with unilateral draftification is that it can also be incredibly bitey, especially when done for arbitrary reasons that have nothing to do with any of the reasons why something might be deleted at AfD (although this is less prevalent than the trivial reasons things are rejected at AfC). We should be draftifying fewer articles and not sending them to AfD either but rather leaving them in the mainspace (With appropriate tags where justified) so that they can be found and improved rather than pretending that they don't exist for six months and then deleting them. Thryduulf (talk) 12:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really convinced draftification is any worse than the alternatives - tagging is *also* bitey as well, and one user tagging an article and leaving it in mainspace could lead to another user seeing it and deciding to AfD. Draftification could be a way to protect an article until it enters a better state. But I think the other part I have an issue with is the lack of clear guidelines. Clearly some people have an issue with draftification and others do not, and people have different ideas what it is for. That needs to be made more concrete. Otherwise just saying "we should use draftification less" isn't going to lead to any positive changes. Fangz (talk) 12:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the general sentiment – arguing for more or less draftification does not solve the problem that new users basically can't object to it. Toadspike[Talk]12:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I envision a template (possibly one specific for relatively new users?) being something like:
1. Hi, this article has been moved to a draft form because another user thinks it has potential but is not ready for the encyclopedia just yet. REASON:
2. You can continue to work on it while it's not published, though note that if not editted for 6 months it will be deleted. Here are some useful resources.
3. When you think the article is ready you can submit the article to a review, which can give useful feedback. []
4. Alternatively you may return the article to the main encyclopedia at any time and have it be editted while part of the main encyclopedia. See WP: Draft Object. Note however that if other users think there are unfixable issues with the article it may be put forward as a candidate for deletion. Fangz (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my view draftified articles should (semi?) automatically return to the mainspace after timeout instead of be deleted. Or at least be re-evaluated for notability. I do not really see the reason for automatic speedy deletion, except as backdoor deletion. Fangz (talk) 18:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't they just improve it in mainspace, without the sting on of an initial rejection and a six month deletion countdown hanging over them? I don't get why you keep presenting this as a choice between draftspace and AfD. – Joe (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is that "improving it in mainspace" has its own issues. An article in mainspace has to juggle being of service to the reader to being of service to the editor. This implies formal processes and wikijargon for consistency, unified templates for issues in the article, clear and ruthless labelling of problems and so on. There's a strong tendency for the first experience of an editor to be a very public and humiliating fight against established editors who have a better understanding of wikipedia processes, quickly driving the editor away or getting them blocked. It is also very difficult to improve on this experience as it would imply fundamental changes affecting all sorts of things. Meanwhile improving an article in draft mode allows for a more informal process of communication to shepherd an article towards an acceptable state. Fangz (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did a little work on page view statistics recently. The median article gets about one page view per week. So if the new article is typical, then it doesn't have to "be of service to the reader", because there aren't really any readers. Editors (especially NPP and RecentChanges folks) may look at a brand-new article a few dozen times on the first day, but once the reviewers leave it alone, most articles just don't have much traffic.
I think the reason we are unwilling to "improve it in mainspace" is because we're scared that we'll forget that it was there, and years later, someone will be embarrassed to discover that an WP:UGLY article has been neglected ever since. We are using draftification and other threats as a way to make otherWP:VOLUNTEERS improve the article to our idea of acceptable quality. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if we're looking at different draft namespaces, but an "informal process of communication to shepherd an article towards an acceptable state" sounds like the precise opposite of our current AfC process. – Joe (talk) 06:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the idea of a button but I do think the template should be changed. I think having a button suggests it's a default option, but I think a link is okay. Fangz (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But articles aren't inherently "AfC drafts" once draftified. People are allowed to move them back to mainspace themselves, no questions asked, or optionally submit them to AfC. The AfC draft template makes no mention of the first option. CFA💬12:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if we will ever quit using the inappropriate and legally unsound "publication" language in that template. On this wiki, it's the author, not the AFC reviewer, who "publishes" it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but then you have to specify "move to mainspace" or something and that feels really jargony. "Move out of draft", maybe? – Joe (talk) 04:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that might solve the problem. I doesn't explain to new users how their article turned into a draft, but at least there's an easy way to reverse it. I won't withdraw this for now, maybe others have thoughts. (P.S. you might want to update User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft) Toadspike[Talk]12:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the idea lab so no bolded comment from me, but I have mixed feelings. I am in favour of softening the experience for newcomers, but I'm opposed to the concept of draftification being automatically reversible. If a new page patroller reviews a new article and moves it to draft because it's clearly unsuitable for mainspace, the creator should need to do more than just say "I object" in order to move their clearly unsuitable article back again. I've recently proposed that all of draftspace should be move-protected at the semi level (the proposal was not well received - fair enough). This is probably the rule I ignore more than any other on Wikipedia, mostly dealing with spam sockfarms that try to abuse the rule to promote their garbage. Besides, a new user whose submission is quarantined to draft space and they're left with instructions and a list of suggestions with helpful links is already getting better treatment than most editors ever have or will, and if their reaction to that is to rage-quit then they're probably not a good fit for the collaborative environment of Wikipedia anyway. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector, you know the joke about "If you ask three people, you'll get four opinions"? I wonder if we ask three NPPers what "ready for mainspace" means, if we'd get four opinions. AFAICT, "ready for mainspace" most often means "contains at least as many refs as the median article, but higher quality ones". All the children in Lake Wobegon are above average, and all the new Wikipedia articles must be, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I see it draftification should never be used for subjects which pass GNG, and it should only be standard for things like films/TV series/games which are in the works but have not yet begun production. Subjects with debatable notability should be sent to AFD to the issue can be resolved.★Trekker (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Subjects that pass WP:GNG should never be draftified at all, instead they should be tagged and dealt with using normal community procedures. I agree that films/TV series/games/political events probably best fit the bill for draftifications, but so do potentially notable but underdeveloped articles. Sohom (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is out of step with the present form of Wikipedia:DRAFTIFY, and I don't think it makes sense anyway. Articles that fail GNG should not be draftified, they should be AfDed. Films etc that are in the works should not be draftified merely because they aren't in production, and it's not really a great use for draft space because there's no guarantee that there would be a change of situation to establish notability within 6 months. Articles should be draftified only if the reviewer believes the article can be editted into an acceptable state within the time window. This implies a pass of GNG - i.e. a belief that reliable sources are potentially out there. Remember that GNG is about the *subject*, not about the state of the article. Fangz (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my view the correct use of draftification is sort of as an alternative version of the WIP template. An acknowledgement that the article is not ready and should be being worked on and will likely have multiple issues, but in a protected sandboxed environment to avoid overly zealous moderation and promotion of misunderstanding for casual readers, and without implying the original editor is the one working on it. For new users it should offer a less formal and jargony process to learning how to improve an article than tagging based methods, because the latter has to balance the need to inform *readers* as well as editors. Fangz (talk) 14:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you evaluate that a article passes WP:GNG, then there is not point in draftifying it, you could just add a {{sources exist}} template, patrol and move on. Alternatively, if you evaluate that a article fails WP:GNG, there is no point in wasting the article creator's time and you should WP:AFD/PROD it.
The only case where you would draftify a article is if you saw a article that a) had a credible claim to significance/notability b) does not meet/prove notability in it's current state c) has been created in the last week or so by a inexperienced article creator. Sohom (talk) 14:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if we're disagreeing or we're having some semantics thing about what "passes GNG" means.
I think then you're pretty much arguing that the draftification process should be removed entirely, and I don't agree with that. It has its advantages. It should not be made a mandatory process by any means but just as some users prefer to work on articles as a draft and then push to the public wiki, it can be a better resolution to certain issues than the alternatives. Fangz (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that we've fallen into a false binary here. The options are not "garbage in the mainspace" vs "auto-deleted as in the draftspace". There are other options (e.g., sticky prods for uncited articles, userification, bold stubbification, bold merging, developing a more consistent and predictable standard for evaluating articles, etc.). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a argument to be made that this landscape might have changed a fair bit since this research was done. The latest data that these projects consider is from 2014-2017. WP:ACTRIAL happened after that research was done, and Wikipedia's policies have changed since those times. Sohom (talk) 20:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that things have changed, and I'm never one to turn down a new research project if you happen to be volunteering to do it (I believe that all the necessary data is public), but looking at the overall deletion rate in that namespace, it seems unlikely that the result will be materially different. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think then you're pretty much arguing that the draftification process should be removed entirely, and I don't agree with that. I'm sorry to pick on you but this is the clearest example yet of the circular reasoning that has got us into this mess: draftification must be good because we do it, so we must keep doing it because it's good. From literally the moment draftspace was created and people started doing this (before that, the equivalent process of userfication was expressly forbidden without prior discussion), others have been pointing out that the underlying logic makes no sense. Draftification is only for articles that shouldn't be deleted, but it's also only for articles that can't be in mainspace. But since fix good content in place is a part of the editing policy and almost all the community accepted reasons for deletion involve the potential of the article, not it's current state, the intersection of those two sets is functionally zero (apart from some consensus-established edge cases like paid creations or upcoming films).
This is why attempts to clarify and improve policy around draftification—and I've been closely involved in many of them—keep failing. You try to find a solid basis for guidelines and there just isn't one. We really need to stop trying to square the circle of justifying draftification as it is practiced now, and start asking what we the community actually wants to achieve with it and whether what we're doing now fulfils that aim. So far it's not looking good for the send-them-all-to-draftspace-and-the-god-of-notability-will-recognise-his-own camp, because there's not a shred of evidence that it helps improve content, retain editors or manage the NPP workload, and as WAID says above the empirical studies we do have concluded the precise opposite. But that picture could change with more research – somebody just needs to step up and do it! – Joe (talk) 07:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe RoeDraftification is only for articles that shouldn't be deleted, but it's also only for articles that can't be in mainspace. That is the exact reason why draftspace exists in the first place. Imagine you see a article with the following content: Nicholas Carlini is an amazing researcher at Google working on adversarial machine learning. created in the last week or so and sourced to a person's personal web-page. On doing a quick google search, you see that the person exists and is a researcher at said company, however, due to your unfamiliarity with adversarial machine learning topic-area you are not able to immediately identify the person's impact on the field. Do you 1) WP:BITEly nominate the article for deletion 2) leave the content up for somebody to deal with it (and hope that the other somebody will not choose option 1) or 3) draftify the article with a note that more sources are required to prove notability? Sohom (talk) 11:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sohom Datta None of them. What you do is add a template to the article noting the lack of sources, leave a friendly message on the creator's talk page explaining the issues in plain English, and leave a note about it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science. Depending on what your research found you could add more information, add some sources that might or might not demonstrate notability, remove the peacock terms, etc. Yes, this is more effort than blinding draftifying or AfDing but it is far more important that things get done well than things get done quickly. Thryduulf (talk) 12:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sohom Datta, thanks for creating Nicholas Carlini, whose first version does not contain the hypothetical sentence you gave in your comment above. In your example above, why can't that stay in the mainspace? I frankly don't love it, and I'd immediately pull the word "amazing" out, but what's the policy basis for saying "that article truly can't be in mainspace"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fangz I'm not arguing for the elimination of draftspace, it has it's uses as an optional space where articles can be developed over time so they don't have to meet all the relevant content policies from the very first edit. I'm also not arguing for the elimination of all draftifcation, just the majority of unilateral draftification because, as Joe has put better than I can, it is not a net benefit to the project as currently practised. Thryduulf (talk) 12:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a middle ground between meets-GNG-mark-as-reviewed and fails-GNG-send-to-AfD: recently created articles where the sources in the article do not validate GNG, but where the new page reviewer hasn't done a BEFORE search. I think it's perfectly fair (and permissioned within the current draftification process) to say "this recently created article doesn't demonstrate GNG yet, but I'll kick it back to the creator in draft form to put in some more sources." Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This would mean we're either leaving these articles unpatrolled (which is obviously undesirable), or giving new page patrollers the job of finding sources on every article where the original author hasn't, which would be ideal in, well, ideal conditions, but puts the burden of actually sourcing the encyclopedia on a very small group of editors. In my opinion, there should be a way to ask the original author to add sources to show it meets GNG, beyond just putting a "notability" tag and being done with it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Chaotic Enby. Drafification is a good solution because it strongly encourages the author to improve the article, and, most importantly, gets it out of mainspace so that it isn't a problem for innocent readers – without forcing NPPers to clean up other peoples' messes. Cremastra (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drafticiation [...] strongly encourages the author to improve the article. That's the theory but the evidence is that in practice it very rarely does this. There is also little to no evidence that most pages moved to draftspace are actually a problem for innocent readers rather than being a problem for those who want immediate perfection. Thryduulf (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About wanting to ask the original author to add sources to show it meets GNG, beyond just putting a "notability" tag and being done with it, I wonder if it's actually possible to do this in a non-coercive way. The options right now are:
Move article to Draft: space (essentially holding the article hostage, to be deleted if you give up or can't figure out how to do it).
Send to AFD today.
AFAICT a method for "force another WP:VOLUNTEER to improve the article to my standards" option has proven pretty elusive. But if you want to reach that point, I suggest that you take a baby step towards it in the form of getting a policy (any policy, really) to actually, directly, unambiguously say that every article must cite at least one source. Until the community agrees that this actually is a requirement, then we have no hope of getting them to increase the requirement all the way up to "show it meets GNG". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a new editor thinks their article is ready for mainspace, they will put it there. They will also happily revert the move. If a new editor is unsure, they will probably ask for help first or use draftspace. Cremastra (talk) 19:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the concern expressed by Joe and others who support the "backdoor" theory is that new users do not know how to revert the move to draftspace. Do you disagree with that assumption? Toadspike[Talk]19:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think most users do not know how to revert the move, yes. I also think we shouldn't hand it to them on a silver platter, because that likely largely annuls the whole point of draftification. What is the solution to this? I couldn't tell you. Cremastra (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They don't know how, maybe, but more importantly that they don't know that they're allowed to. We have to remember how very unusual our collaborative process is. If an inexperienced editor contributes an article to Wikipedia and then it is swiftly unpublished with a message that there's something wrong with it, they won't think, hmm, I'm not sure if I agree with that, I'm going to revert and/or discuss this with my peer-editors to find a consensus. They'll think that with someone the authority to decide what happens to articles has rejected my contribution, and I'm a mere newbie. At that point they will either give up (the majority) or they'll persevere and get into cycle of trying to satisfy first the NPP reviewer and then a succession of AfC reviewers until they finally give up or manage to write a GA, which seems to be roughly the standard AfC is applying these days Even very experience editors fall into this trap because even though the templated messages try to communicate the full range of options the user has (now at least, after I and others have spent several years fighting for it), it's really hard to communicate that we're all equal and all have a say here within a draft–review structure that implicitly elevates the opinions of reviewers over others. – Joe (talk) 07:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've pulled the most recent 10 articles moved to mainspace with the AFCH script. They are:
That's an average of 372.5 words and 12.6 refs. The median article has 338 words and 4 refs. Compared to existing articles, 53% of our existing articles have fewer than 372.5 words, and 83% have fewer fewer than 12.6 refs. One in six articles has fewer words than the shortest in this list. One of three articles is shorter than the second-shortest in this list.
I think it is clear from these numbers that AFC is expecting more refs than existing community practice, and that they are trying to accept only articles that are already as long as ones that editors have been working on in the mainspace for years.
BTW, during the same span of time, more than 100 pages were deleted from the Draft: namespace. You shouldn't assume this means that more than 90% of drafts get deleted, because deletions are bursty and this is a relatively small sample size, but that's about what I expected. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Conclusion: I am sadly not surprised at the current state of this discussion. Some of the heated off-topic arguments verge on NOTHERE behavior. I am very disappointed to see this from experienced editors. To those of you who simply commented on the proposal: I appreciate you a lot.
Since the default NPP draft template was changed to Template:Draft article a day before this discussion began, I think my proposal is moot. I don't see how we could improve that template much, but I may raise some minor wording changes on the Template Talk. If someone wants to close this discussion, that's fine; if others wish to continue discussing other things here, I wish you the all best. Toadspike[Talk]21:16, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Worth also talking about the usertalk notification MTD leaves, which only provides one option: submit for review. Agree in principle we shouldn't trick people into thinking draftification/AfC is mandatory for a typical article creator. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 13:29, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose All it will do is destroy the draft system as it stands and eventualy destroy Wikipedia. This almost happened between 2008 and 2012, before the draft process was available, when Wikipedia was flooded with paid/coi editors and there was no effective system to deal with them. Do folk not understand what draftification is. Every publisher has draft process. It is NOT a route to deletion. That is what the detractors of the system say, many of them who are paid to oppose it and destroy it. It is the one of the core safeguards we have against the complete destruction of Wikipedia. scope_creepTalk11:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That comment is almost entirely evidence free assumptions of bad faith. Please try engaging with the discussion rather than just knee-jerking oppose to changing the status quo because it would change the status quo. Thryduulf (talk) 12:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its not evidence free and I resent the fact that you have said my comment bad faith. Why would I make the comment if I didn't know what I was talking about. I've worked in NPP/AFC since it was created and was involved in some of the early discussions. I now how exactly how UPE/paid editors behave. It would lead to an exodus of editors after the place gets flooded with adverts. It would be free-for-all. The reality is that the editor who posted hasn't thought it through and hasn't looked in the archives to see what the situation was like then. scope_creepTalk16:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Trust me, I was there" is not evidence. Your comment assumes bad faith from those disagreeing with you, and of everybody submitting new articles. Not every editor is paid (and disclosed paid editing is explicitly allowed), not every paid edit (disclosed or otherwise) is bad, not every paid editor (disclosed or otherwise) is attempting to harm the encyclopaedia, not every paid edit (even undisclosed ones) does harm the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is true to certain extent, but the majority of editors who create modern biographical, organisational and product articles which make up the majority are undeclared paid editors. They do not have our best interests at heart and never have done. scope_creepTalk16:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that is true (and you haven't provided any evidence, of either your assertion or the implications of it that these articles harm Wikipedia and/or that draftification as currently implemented and practice prevents that harm), that doesn't mean that draftification as implemented currently can't be improved and that any changes to the status quo will mean the death of Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If drafts get deleted, that's because their creators have abandoned them. That's what G13 is. Perhaps more effort should be spent encouraging article writers to improve their articles after they got moved to draft (where they can be improved without interference), but draftification is not deliberate, malicious backdoor deletion, and I resent it being characterized as such. Cremastra (talk) 19:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a Double-barreled question? The comment you're replying to said only "route to deletion", and you've turned it into four separate parts:
deliberate
malicious
backdoor
deletion.
I wouldn't personally characterize any of them as malicious, but I think a fraction of them are deliberate. IMO claiming that nobody ever sent a borderline subject to AFC instead of AFD (which has lower standards in practice) would be rather extraordinary. I frankly don't think we're all so stupid that we can't figure out which route is most likely to end up with the result we prefer.
If we characterize AFD as the "front door" for deletion, then it seems fair to describe letting articles expire in the Draft: space as the "back door".
But the original comment is merely that it's not a route to deletion. But if 90–95% all of the articles put on that path actually do end up getting deleted, then is it not basically fair to say that it is one of our routes to deletion? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The current verbiage of the tag makes it clear to anyone with a lick of common sense, that the article has potential, but in its current form it is not ready for mainspace. Some of the comments here from folks clearly indicate a lack of understanding of what the draftification process is for. If an article, in its current form, passes GNG, then there are only certain circumstances where it should be draftified (e.g. paid editing), but if an article probably would pass GNG, but does not in its current form (e.g. there are not enough in-depth sources from independent, reliable sources to meet the standard), than that is a poster child for draftification. When I was more active in reviewing articles, I created several custom responses, which took the standard message and massaged it a bit depending on the reason for draftification (e.g. UPE, lack of GNG) or a specific topic (e.g. NFOOTY, Populated places). In some instances those messages contained an offer to ping me directly when they felt the article was ready for mainspace. I am all for article creation, but I also care about the quality and reputation of Wikipedia, which is often seen as the punchline for jokes regarding garbage information on the internet. And I would completely disagree with those who say that draftification is not a net benefit. In fact, I think it is one of the most useful tools to helping improve the quality on WP. Is it always used correctly? No. But that's an education problem with individual users, not an overriding issue with the process itself.Onel5969TT me14:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That might be fine in theory, but it doesn't match the what is happening in practice. Especially given that articles are being moved to draftspace for not being of sufficient quality that are C or even B class. If an article is neutrally written and meets the GNG then there is no justification for moving it to draftspace just because someone might (or might not) have been paid to edit it. Thryduulf (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Kian Breckin (footballer) – 316 words, 15 refs (moved by the author with no reason given, but it was deleted at AFD last year)
I have skipped redirects, some round-robin page swaps, and a couple of editors moving AFC submissions from User: space to the Draft: space, and tried to include only articles being moved from the mainspace to the Draft: space. I can't get the ORES ratings for these articles, but at a glance, I think that Start and C-class is not an unreasonable description. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, thanks for providing the list. The issue is, in reviewing those drafts, most are solid drafts, and not " Especially given that articles are being moved to draftspace for not being of sufficient quality that are C or even B class." Although I think a more careful explanation could have been made. For example, the first one would have been better with a "more in-depth references from independent, reliable sources" needed, rather than simply saying "more sources needed", as there isn't a single, in-depth reference from an independent, reliable source in the draft. The second and third examples are the exact same issue. The 4th and 5th examples are properly labeled as covert advertising (both editors have been blocked for it - in addition, the 4th one didn't have a single in-depth reference from an independent source, either). The 6th example, while having 3 sources, none are in-depth, and while it might be a spelling difference on the translations of the 2nd and 3rd refs, it does not appear that the article's subject is mentioned in any of them. The 7th article is not a true example of draftification, as it was moved by the author. The 8th and 9th article have zero independent reliable sources (for the 9th, the newspaper referenced does not have a page number, and the link does not appear to bring up anything in depth about the hack lab). Not sure about the 10th, for the history is a bit wacky, but again, does not look like an example of draftification.
I think this illustrates some of the misunderstanding that folks who don't like draftification make. You look at the list provided, and you go, wow, lots of references, most not stubs or micro-stubs, why in the hell were they draftified? Hell, I did that myself, wondering if all 10 were done by a single editor, who perhaps did not have a firm grasp of draftification. But then you dive into the merits of the sourcing, or the upe issues, and it appears all 8 of the draftifications appear justified.Onel5969TT me20:32, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Onel5969, I wonder if you could explain "the newspaper" in the 9th article a little better. You say that the article has "zero independent reliable sources", but traditional print newspapers are independent reliable sources. Then you say it doesn't have a page number, but the link takes you directly to a scanned copy of the correct page; the cited article [title given in the citation] is in the last two columns. None of that makes the newspaper less independent. Is your concern that the article appears to predate the use of the name in the article title ("De Zanbak" means "The Sandbox")? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could be the translation, but there does not appear to be anything connecting the group mentioned in that article, with De Zanbak. But even if there is, agf, that still is the only in-depth independent source. Onel5969TT me01:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a new editor includes 5 sources in their submission and it gets moved to [somewhere I didn't put it] because "more sources needed" or "no sources" how many of them are going to take the time to learn that the experienced editor actually meant none of these sources contain what I think is significant, in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources and then have the confidence to say "actually, this experienced person with the power to remove my article from Wikipedia is wrong and I'm right, I'll learn how to challenge them and how and where to express my view in a way that the powerful people will listen to me" rather than just give up at some point along that path? And before anyone says it, no, just because a few bad faith editors might be among the dissuaded does not justify the loss of good faith editors. Thryduulf (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that's the difference between editors who care about quality on WP, and those who care about quantity. But that's why I said that the rationale given could have been better. Onel5969TT me01:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really a quality vs quantity question?
Or is this the difference between editors who would rather see a page run through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion or Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers instead of being unilaterally hidden until it gets deleted without the level of community oversight that we expect from AFD? For example, I'm not convinced that "De Zanbak" is a viable subject for an article, but I think there are several ways that we could address that concern, and I don't see the Draft: space helping. In fact, the only thing that moving that page to the Draft: space does that's different from moving that page to the User: space is: It's far more likely to get deleted during the next year if it's in Draft: space than if it's in User: space. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since draftification isn't a "backdoor to deletion", nor is it "hiding an article", it's definitely a question of quality vs. quantity. Draftification, in short, is a quality control measure. These are articles that might be notable enough for mainspace, but simply aren't in good enough shape to be there. But, like other vehicles in WP, good faith editors might disagree on an article's notability, so for example in the De Zandbak articlem, Jay8g (who tagged it for notability), and Jonathan Deamer (who draftified it) might deem it potentially notable, while you, WhatamIdoing, might have simply sent it to AfD, because you do not feel it notable. But that doesn't mean the system isn't working. Perhaps we can tweak the current verbiage in the template to include where resources about where an editor can reach out for help might be added (e.g. AFC or Teahouse)?Onel5969TT me09:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since draftification isn't a "backdoor to deletion", nor is it "hiding an article", you say that as if there is no possible way good faith editors could disagree, but that simply isn't true. Whether either of those things is true is a matter of opinion (and, in my opinion, one that is consistent with the evidence presented). Thryduulf (talk) 10:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. No, editors can certainly have different interpretations and disagree on issues. However, in this instance, it is not a matter of disagreement. In order to hold those views indicates a lack of understanding of what the draftification process is. That's not what draftification is, it is, as I've said, simply a quality control measure. It would be like saying, it's a matter of opinion whether or not this person wrote an article about themselves, that can be interpreted as not being COI editing. Of if a an article simply cut and paste the info from Encyclopedia Brittanica, you cannot say it's your opinion that that isn't a copyvio. I mean, I have the utmost respect for you, Thryduulf, and you do a great job on WP. There are things on WP which are subjective (e.g. exactly what constitutes SIGCOV), while others are objective, (e.g. UPE/COI editing, copyvio). What draftification is falls into the latter category. All that being said, we can disagree on whether or not an individual article should or should not have been draftified. You say the evidence presented shows that it was not warranted that those articles be sent to draft. Going through the sources, however, it looks like draftification was justified. That is a difference of opinion. Onel5969TT me14:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's your opinion that moving an article to the Draft: space is simply a quality control measure.
It's my opinion that moving an article to the Draft: space is also simply a quality control measure that, compared to the available alternatives of leaving it in the mainspace, sending it to AFD, or moving it to User: space, substantially decreases the likelihood of the quality being improved and substantially increases the likelihood of the article being deleted.
Oh, right: Those last two points ("substantially decreases the likelihood of the quality being improved" and "substantially increases the likelihood of the article being deleted") aren't "opinions". They're objective facts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rhodesia Railways 19th class is not a list; it's a train that was in operation for multiple ranges of time. Even if it were a list, the empty headings and only content being a table is nowhere near start-class, maybe even substub. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
only content being a table have you actually read the page? That infobox is full of content, there are two apparently reliable sources and the table itself has about 20 rows of content. Thryduulf (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is just an idea, and I want to workshop this a bit more, but I think it would be helpful to have pending changes at the extended confirmed level. This could be called "PC2" again (not to be confused with the original PC2) or "PCECP". The idea would be to help enforce WP:ARBECR and similar restrictions where non-extended confirmed users are prohibited from certain topic areas. Under this level, edits by non-extended-confirmed editors would be held for review, while extended confirmed users can approve these edits and thus take responsibility under WP:PROXYING.
I think it would be helpful for pages where (1) parts of the article intersect with a contentious topic, or (2) the article in its entirety intersects with a contentious topic, but not edited frequently. AwesomeAasim16:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like it could be useful. It would have to be restricted to infrequently edited pages (likely excluding all current events articles) so as not to overwhelm Pending Changes every time Reuters publishes a new story or an edit war erupts. The big question is: what problem are you trying to solve? Toadspike[Talk]20:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are some contentious topics designated either by ArbCom or the community where only extended confirmed users are allowed to participate. However, admins refuse to protect pages where there isn't enough disruption to justify protection. Although, it should be considered that the XCON restriction applies regardless of whether a page is protected or not.
What PCECP would do is essentially remove fears that there "isn't enough disruption to justify protection" while buffering all non-extended-confirmed contributions so they have to be approved, in line with "non-extended-confirmed can only make edit requests". Templates that are specifically for this case like {{edit protected}} break when the page is not protected. AwesomeAasim22:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is that the 500/30 rule is specifically designed to keep newer editors out due to extreme amounts of disruption as a rule. There's a good reason why both of the world's main hot wars (the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Russo-Ukrainian war) are under 500/30. And, as has been brought up repeatedly and bears repeating again, high volumes of edits on a given article contraindicate CRASHlock.
But the biggest stumbling block here is that no consensus exists yet for an extended-confirmed CRASHlock. The last discussion about expanding CRASHlock to higher protection levels predates XCP entirely. There would need to be a formal RfC for this, not VP spitballing. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques15:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
XCON protection makes sense for high traffic articles, but low traffic articles? If the edit is minor such as fixing spelling mistakes or grammatical errors, there should be no problem. Fixing spelling and grammar is generally outside of contentious topic areas anyway. From WP:ARBECR: On any page where the restriction is not enforced through extended confirmed protection, this restriction may be enforced by other methods, including ... the use of pending changes.
I probably would set up abuse filters as well to see if a page is in a category that primarily deals with a contentious topic, and then warn and tag the edit in question. AwesomeAasim16:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most low-traffic CT articles don't have any protection since they never saw amounts of vandalism necessitating protection. Protection requests that solely rely on arb enforcement and little to no evidence of vandalism get declined. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I see that, but the problem is that a non-XCON edit will get approved on pages that not many people are watching. Pending changes still allows non-XCON users to make these edits, but their edits will need to be approved and they can be reverted if in violation of WP:ARBECR. This is also in line with how pending changes is used on low-traffic articles to monitor (not prevent) disruption. AwesomeAasim18:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aaron LiuMost low-traffic CT articles don't have any protection since they never saw amounts of vandalism necessitating protection. Protection requests that solely rely on arb enforcement and little to no evidence of vandalism get declined. Untrue, articles in ECR topics can and are pre-emptively locked. What actually happens is that articles with minimal disruption are usually not brought to WP:RFPP or noticed by a wayward admin. Mach6119:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Untrue, articles in ECR topics can and are pre-emptively locked.
Seems reasonable. I've always wondered why pending changes isn't deployed more often. It seems a useful tool, and there are lots of pending changes reviewers so very little backlog Cremastra (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still not seeing it. People supposedly mistrust it because there was a trial 14 years ago and enwiki admins didn't immediately stop using it after the trial period pending a consensus on the future of the feature? Anomie⚔18:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The TL;DR I'm taking away from this discussion is that you're still butthurt over consensus not going your way 12 or 13 years ago, and assuming that anyone opposed to PC shares that reason and no other. I think it's unlikely continuing this conversation is going to go anywhere useful. Anomie⚔18:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't how consensus works, either. Consensus can be determined by an RfC, yes. But it can also develop just by the way that things are done already, regardless of whether it has formally discussed.
I think about the example given by Technology Connections about "the danger of but sometimes". The LED traffic light is superior in energy savings and much more, but sometimes snow and ice builds up on them, so they are bad. Likewise, XCON pending changes will help with enforcement of WP:ARBECR but sometimes admins might apply this to pages out of policy, so it shouldn't be used again. The correct response would be to place in policy guardrails so that admins don't do that. AwesomeAasim19:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is an RfC from over 13 years ago still reflective of consensus today? I am pretty certain that while some opinions might not have changed, others definitely will have. No one is saying there should be full pending changes. AwesomeAasim18:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you might be the only one using this terminology; as it is not in WP:GLOSSARY or anywhere else.
Nonetheless, this is the Idea Lab; it is the place to develop ideas, not to show stark opposition to ideas. That is what the other discussion boards are for; consensus polling. It should be noted that WP:ECP was created originally for the purpose of enforcing arbitration decisions and community sanctions. It was never intended for anything else; it just got used for other stuff de facto. AwesomeAasim18:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) All these things you think are obvious really are not. You should try explaining yourself better instead of emphatically waving your hands at something random. Anomie⚔18:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious perhaps, but it still doesn't make much sense. I'm not sure how using your own special terms of unclear implications to disparage things you dislike is helping communication or community understanding here. Cremastra (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. People mistrust PC because of a bureaucratic misimplementation of an experiment over 10 years ago? (In a noncentralized bureaucracy where dumb shit happens all the time?) The RfC is explicit that it makes no normative judgement on PC, and it seems the !voters are not doing so either. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that the 2017 RfC is the last one about any aspect of CRASHlock, to my knowledge. As I said above, there would need to be a new RfC in order to get consensus for extended-confirmed CRASHlock, as PC2 was originally full-protection level and no ECP!CRASHlock question was asked in the2016RfCs, none of which were particularly comprehensive. (The last comprehensive RfC was the 2014 clusterfuck.) —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques06:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main reasons editors don't want to expand the use of pending changes are practical: no technical support for fixes (or additional feature development) is on the horizon, in spite of documented bugs; and uncertainty in the community's ability to manage expanded use. There are certainly vocal editors who are wary due to past history, but this has already been a factor in other decisions, and they have accordingly been influenced to be more definitive about how any trials will proceed. isaacl (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so there's a lot of history here as you are already seeing above, and no one's even gotten to discussing Phillipe's little misadventure yet. Despite all that I actually think the general idea here is sound. And since we are discussing history its worth pointing out that as a practical matter this is actually closer to what the EC restriction was intended to do in its earliest incarnation where it functioned as a softer version of 1RR originally enforced as a bespoke AE remedy on one specific article reverts of non-qualifying accounts did not count towards 1RR.
Times have changed, ECR now tends to be enforced in mainspace with ECP and is applied far more broadly than anyone from then would have envisioned, for better and for worse.
The best use case here is for quiet pages where the history of non-EC editing is largely one of minor non-contentious fixes and improvements, but have caught attention due to sporadic contentious edits, where it can offer a middle way between leaving enforcement to post-edit reverts and preventing all non-EC editing.
As a practical matter the limitations of the extension mean that it really only works-well on low-traffic pages and realistically improvements to the extension aren't coming anytime soon. So use case (2) makes sense, but (1) is a harder sell. Might not be enough of a use case to justify the hassle. Personally I'd have to do some research and think about this a little but the basic idea is sound.
A multi-part RfC asking how ECR should be enforced for existing pages, including based on activity. High traffic pages will need extended protection retroactively as those tend to get the most disruption from ECR violations. Low-traffic pages, not so much, but we can use abuse filters and workshop ECP pending changes for this. Spelling and grammar fixes as far as I am aware are excluded from WP:ARBECR. AwesomeAasim19:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good - but bear in mind we are discussing CRASHlock (which would require developer buy-in to make XC happen) and an Arbitration policy (which ArbCom may short-circuit). Also note that there would likely need to be a separate RfC consensus to allow XC CRASHlock in the first place; like I said above we haven't had a comprehensive discussion about it since 2014. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques16:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano, I do wish you would quit using that made-up word. WP:PC is shorter to type, and when editors use the same words for the same thing, then we're less likely to end up with avoidable confusion ("CRASHlock sounds really bad, but I'm just asking for WP:PC"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ARBECR can first just be XCON PC. After extensive edits by non-EC, piling on to PC backlog, then it can just be upgraded to normal XCON. If the disruption is already severe before being brought to RFPP or other venue, then XCON protection can just be the first action. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping>13:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano the discussions that you linked are from 2016, so we cannot assume the consensus has not changed. Also, I believe that this is a platform for building ideas and new proposals, hoping to bring them to reality while abiding by consensus. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping>15:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On another thought I am actually wondering if we can just have a two-part RfC as to whether to turn on this feature I discuss. Part 1 would just be about PCECP and part 2 would be just about replacing ECP with PCECP on low-traffic WP:ARBECR and related articles. AwesomeAasim16:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, but the second RfC might fail, as it one would have to discuss page wise about the change in protection. Also proving that PCECP is enough for said pages will be complicated, and also have to think about the storming of backlog in PC if it is not enough. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping>16:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the Wikipedia main page would be more educative and with a section riddles, proverbs, idioms, wise saying. You know, a collection from many languages around, their origins, past meanings, reforms, present meanings, examples of their usage in history (past & present), their literal meanings, word for word rendering in english, etc. I don't know, who has better ideas? Let Wikipedia be a fun place too for visitors and readers to always learn more. I'm looking forward to seeing this by the start of next year and in other language wikis. Any and all contributions are accepted. elias_fdafs (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, one person's "wise saying" is another person's "deepity". I don't think having these on the Main Page, especially in a dedicated section, would actually be very encyclopedic. However, like Folly Mox says, a more general concept of showcasing sister project content (a word etymology, a quote, etc.) could be interesting! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with idioms and proverbs is that, usually, they are regional. They are widely used at some area, but hardly mentioned or even unknown in others. For each user that see such a section and says "oh, that's the origin of that proverb" we'll have several who will say "what, was that a proverb? Never heard about it". Besides, explaining their background is just impossible with the limited text in main page boxes. Perhaps DYK may be a better venue to show those articles in the main page. Cambalachero (talk) 13:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know that editors should seek to remain unbiased, but it seems on divisive topics we can end up with one side who manages to tilt the article toward their POV. We can then end up with half of the editors saying "This article is perfectly fine" and the other half of the editors saying "There are big POV issues, here they are..."
The side who are happy with the bias can actively work to prevent any fixes to the page to address the bias, while simultaneously blocking the addition of a NPOV tag to the page.
It seems that if half of the editors are saying "it's fine" and the other half are saying "there are big issues" this is extremely indicative of a POV problem even if there is not consensus that one exists.
So I'm wondering if there should be an exemption to the Consensus Required Restriction and if some sort of critical mass short of consensus should be enough to allow for NPOV tag.
Putting the {{POV}} should never be an end goal. The goal should be to fix the problem, and adding the banner frequently provides no practical benefit at all. Imagine a wildly non-neutral article about an article under the Wikipedia:Consensus required restriction. Maybe it's an article called 2+2. The article says that 2+2 is generally understood to equal four, but there is a significant minority of respectable mathematicians says that 2+2=5. Here's the story you seem to want:
The discussion on the talk page about the tag ends in a stalemate. Because of the 'consensus required' rules, the tag would normally not be added, but because of the newly carved-out exception, the tag can be added.
End result: The article is tagged, but it's still wildly unbalanced.
The discussion on the talk page about the tag ends in a stalemate. Because of the 'consensus required' rules, the tag is not added.
Alice decides to quit worrying about the tag and start worrying about the content of the article. The regulars on the talk page can't reach a satisfactory agreement, so she takes the dispute to a relevant noticeboard or starts an RFC.
Remember: Maintenance tags are not badges of shame. They do not exist to 'warn the reader' or to formally express your disagreement with the article. They exist in a (mostly vain) hope that editors will fix the article's content. If you can fix the article's content without a tag, then everyone wins. If you can't fix an article (tagged or otherwise), then read up on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Depends… how many are on each “side” of the debate?
If there are multiple editors on each “side”, then I don’t think we can say that a consensus actually exists (in either direction). However, if it’s just one or two disgruntled editors against many, then we can say there is consensus, and that consensus does not require unanimity. Blueboar (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Describing Notability in plain English
The name we use for Wikipedia:Notability has long been a source of confusion. People can guess the basic concept of many policies and guidelines from the plain-English meaning of the title (e.g., Wikipedia:Reliable sources are sources you rely on; Wikipedia:Copyright violations is about violations of copyright etc.), but this one has quite a different meaning. You can have several sources that directly say ____ is a notable musician, and we'll reply that he's not WP:Notable.
I'd like to brainstorm some alternative phrases that could be used instead of "notability", or as a supplement to it, that would be less confusing to people unfamiliar with our internal jargon.
Abbreviation found in comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and in edit summaries, indicating that the article's subject is not notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. A subject is non-notable if editors agree not to have an article about this subject. Their decision is usually based on things like not finding enough reliable sources to write a decent encyclopedia article, but it can also be based on things like a desire to present a small subject as part of a larger one.
A characteristic held by article subjects that qualify for separate, stand-alone articles. A notable topic is one that "is suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Note that "notability" is a property of a topic, and has nothing to do with the quality of an article, or whether an article exists for the topic.
Words for the concept: criteria, concept, test, quality, qualities, requirements, notedness, guideline, threshold, when to create an article
Words for the result: separate article, stand-alone article, separate page, stand-alone topic, new topic, own page, article creation, article suitability, inclusion
Some specific ideas:
Collapsed list of prior ideas
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Article concept guideline
Article creation criteria
Article creation guideline
Article sourcing test
Article suitability criteria
Article test guideline
Article threshold
Criteria for article creation
Guide to which topics should be included as articles on Wikipedia
Guideline for when a topic should have its own article
Inclusion criteria
Is the subject written about in reliable sources?
New topic test
Notedness
Own page threshold test
Page sourcing guide
Primary notability criterion
Qualifying for a separate article
Separate article criteria
Source availability
Source depth
Stand-alone concept
Stand-alone article criteria
Stand-alone topic criteria
Stand-alone topic criterion #1 (#2, #3, etc.)
When to create an article
Feel free to expand the box if you want to see some of the prior ideas. It's collapsed because some research on brainstorming ideas suggests that looking at other people's ideas can reduce the total number of ideas shared. Duplicates are fine!
I had also been thinking about this. The core issue, in my opinion, is that we're trying to describe as "notability" something that is closer to "for someone/something to have an article, they should be well-documented in reliable sources". At its core, the term "notability" carries more of a connotation of relative importance, leading to a lot of newcomers, and sometimes even other users, being misled as to what makes a topic notable. On the other hand, the actual guidelines describing it focus on the existence of reliable sources about the topic, with importance only being used by some guidelines as a proxy for these sources being likely to exist.A word like well-sourced or well-documented would carry this idea better, without the a priori of "importance/fame is what matters" that "notability" carries. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of topics are documented by primarily primary sources (eg like many news event), but we require coverage by secondary sources, so those would worsen the situation. — Masem (t) 21:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, although it could still be a first start, and no word can fully convey our notability guidelines either. Maybe encyclopedically sourced could help convey the fact that not any source works? Or, as you employ the term "coverage", we could make the difference between (primary) documentation and (secondary) coverage and call it well-covered? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chaotic Enby: I am still chewing over all this. I fear that encyclopedically sourced could be easily misunderstood and potentially lead to more newbies trying to cite Wikipedia itself. I really don't have a sense of how well people outside Wikipedia and academia understand the distinctions between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. I think well-covered does capture the essence of what we're trying to convey without causing more confusion. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 23:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that people outside the wiki-verse and academia understand primary/secondary/tertiary "not at all", and I'd say that people in the wiki-verse understand the distinction "poorly". Editors struggle with WP:PRIMARYNEWS, especially when it comes to the question of notability ("But event is obviously important, so obviously this breaking news article is secondary"), and most of them could not explain why Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, the GNG requires secondary sources, but NPROF does not. Both are still wiki-notable. We therefore need a handle for this concept that does not assume the GNG approach. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I caution against this because as it is used now, notability is not used as a check at new page review, and primarily is a method used for evaluating whether to delete an article at AFD. We should have an advice page with that title about how to make sure you have a good topic and reviewing the notability of the topic is a good starting point as part of it. — Masem (t) 21:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A nod to WP:Structurism as an existing concept. Also a hint that newcomers should add content to existing article, and no be trying to add a new orphan topic as their first contribution.
I'm inclined to something like "stand-alone topic criteria" (to clarify that the point is determining whether a topic warrants a stand-alone article) or, in a similar vein, "when to create an article" (or possibly "when it can be appropriate to create an article", since in occasional cases it can be appropriate to cover a small number of closely related topics that could be notable in the same article rather than separately). I do agree with the notion that notability isn't the best name for this guideline and that having a term that's more like plain English. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe something like suitable topics or suitable article topics would work. That implies the existence of editorial judgement and that some topics simply aren't suitable. User:Chaotic Enby, this was inspired by your idea of "well-sourced", which has the potential to be confused with well-cited (i.e., the number of refs in the article right now, rather than the number of sources in the real world). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From all the suggestions so far, this seems the most understandable so far. It's short, it communicates that some things are excluded and that there is 'judgement' involved. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really like this, because (1) it removes the emotional pain of being deemed "not notable", and (2) it avoids the confusion we currently have of subjects that are notable but about which we cannot have a meaningful article. To clarify: (1) AfD and Teahouse waste a lot of time trying to explain to upset people that Wikipedian notability has nothing to do with importance, creativity, or future value to humanity. We could save a lot of trouble by focusing on the objective need for sources rather than the subjective view of importance. (2) Notability is currently only half of the two tests we need to pass: We can't have an article unless the subject is notable and someone's written something about it for us to summarise. We have a lot of guidelines that say "XXX is generally considered notable", which result in unexpandable stubs because although it can be demonstrated from primary sources that two old ladies and a chicken once lived near a railway siding in Ohio (making it a genuine inhabited settlement), there is now nothing there, and no one has ever written anything about it, or ever will. Focusing on what is necessary to create an article would cut to what actually matters, practically, rather than getting tied up in legalistic debates about what constitutes a notable thing. Elemimele (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But all too often, we get the argument that we should have an article on XXX because sources exist, even though no one has demonstrated the existence of such sources. Attempts to add the requirement that reliable sources must be cited to create or keep an article have been repeatedly rejected. I would support replacing "notability" with something like "specific topics are suitable for articles if they are well-sourced, NPOV, and meet certain broad topic requirements (i.e., replacements for SNGs)". Donald Albury17:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Donald Albury, do you mean that topics are suitable/notable if they're neutral, or do you mean that articles are suitable/notable if they're neutral? I'm not sure if you mean that you want to repeal WP:NRVE and expand the deletion policy to say that a (deserved) {{POV}} tag is grounds for deletion, or if you mean that citing sources in a neutrally written article must be possible, even if it hasn't happened yet (including for many years). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was just trying to express that availability of reliable sources is required, but not sufficient, and that other policies and guidelines also must be met for an article to be suitable for inclusion in WP. Donald Albury18:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do like suitable much better than notable (and came here to suggest it). It's more accurate, but still gives some flexibility in definition, where something like well documented might be open to misinterpretation / lawyering. Folly Mox (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Seraphimblade also deserves credit for this idea, since a comment from him is the source of "article suitability" in the list above.
I'm leaning a bit towards "topics" (or "subjects"?), because "articles" could be argued to exclude lists, and because of the endless problem of "it's not notable because the article's quality is currently too low". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like that a lot. On Wikipedia, a suitable topic for an article is one where either sufficient reliable, independent sources can be found or which meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific suitability guideline (SSG)... – sounds both more understandable and closer to how we actually decide whether or not to keep articles, in practice. – Joe (talk) 08:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to throw out an idea that I think can minimize disruption, is to consider a comparable situation to the relatively recent rename of of the old Naming Convention page to WP:Article Titles while specific advice of naming for various fields are still at "Naming Convention". In that same vein, if the GNG was moved to its own page (thus sitting alongside the sepearate SNG pages) and what's left at WP:N left there, then renaming that leftover to some of the suggestions above would still allow us to keep the principle of notability via the GNG and SNG while having a better landing page at a more familiar term and to explain the GNG and SNG functions within that. It would minimize a mass edit on p&g pages. The GNG and SNGs can be described as tests used on Wikipedia to measure how notable (real world definition) a topic is within the suitability on an encyclopedia. Masem (t) 18:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in terms of providing g a word that is closer to the real definition for our practice related to when a topic is suitable for it's own article, treating the existing idea of notability through the GNG and SNGs as is and focusing on a clear word for the broad concept is a clean solution. Masem (t) 19:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that GNG is about how well-documented the topic is in independent secondary sources, which doesn't necessarily map to real-world notability, and using the latter word for it has been just as much source of confusion. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can frame the GNG and SNGs as semi objective, source based tests to evaluate real-world notability, and establih in the top level guideline that one reason to allow a topic to have an article is via demonstrating real world notability using the GNG and SNGs tests. That moves us away from having notability take the wiki definition. We still need a clear understandable title for the top level guideline, and that would also discuss more that the GNG and SNGs, such as the current NLIST advice. — Masem (t) 16:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is, basing article suitability on real-world notability is a very iffy definition. GNG (and to a lesser extent the SNGs) provide us with a better foundation for defining what is suitable for our encyclopedia, which is quality of independent secondary sourcing. "This person is important" is ultimately a less relevant criterion than "this person has enough secondary sources to write an article about them", if our goal is to write an encyclopedia (tertiary source, i.e. relying on secondary sourcing). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consider that several of the SNG do give measure of real world notability based on claims of importance which can be given by a single reliable primary source, the expectation they can be expanded. The key is that with a tiny bit of rewording of the GNG and SNGs are set as the evaluation of real world notability with the expectation of sourcing and coverage required for an encyclopedia, either which establishes one way a topic is suitable for a stand alone article. Masem (t) 17:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reality is that wp:notability is the operative word for "allowed to have a separate article" and the talisman for the fuzzy ecosystem/process which decides that. It incorporates with wp:notability guidelines, degree of compliance with WP:not (a measure of the degree of enclyclopedicness of the article) and a bit of influences from real world notability/importance. Any term needs to acknowledge this. If one tries to base it on summarizing just what the wp:notability guidelines say, IMO it won't work. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And the strongest consideration in it would be wp:notability per the notability guidelines, but the above other factors described above are also a part of that consideration. North8000 (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to see a more obvious name for the guideline for article creation. Something such as like "Guideline for article creation" would be more obvious. TFD (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. My point was agreeing with the structure/content. If we want this to have legs, we'll need something with an even shorter with a good acronym for it. North8000 (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural request I don't mean to gum up the process. But there's a risk of having 100 different ideas from 99 different editors, which can make it difficult to reach a consensus. Whenever this brainstorming step is over, I want to recommend compiling them into a list, sorted by some type of subcategory. That way we can slowly funnel our way towards something that can earn a consensus. I believe you'd probably find (at least) three or four types of names:
Non-descriptive (compare WP:NOT or WP:SIZE): inclusion criteria, inclusion test, article creation threshold, etc.
Type of outcome (compare WP:DISAMBIG or WP:STANDALONELIST): separate article, stand-alone article, separate page
Standard of sources (compare WP:RELIABLE or WP:VERIFIABLE): independent sources, third party sources
Standard of coverage (compare WP:OR or WP:COPYRIGHT): significant coverage, minimum coverage, coverage threshold
I lean towards something more descriptive, because "inclusion criteria" just shifts the complaints from "Wikipedia has an arbitrary definition of notability!" to "Wikipedia has an arbitrary list of inclusion criteria!" Newcomers and outsiders notoriously don't read passed the headline, or even twist ambiguity in bad faith to attack Wikipedia with misinformation campaigns. It would help the project much more if the guideline title summarized an uncontroversial standard for our encyclopedia. (Currently: if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. or A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.) Shooterwalker (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "inclusion criteria" could shift the complaints from "Wikipedia has an arbitrary definition of notability!" to "Wikipedia has an arbitrary list of inclusion criteria!" However, the current name has an additional problem, namely "I have three Wikipedia:Reliable sources that WP:Directly support a claim that this subject is 'notable', so why are you claiming that it's non-notable?" That problem would go away with a name like "inclusion criteria". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do have arbitrary criteria, though. All the WP:SNGs are arbitrary. The WP:GNG is arbitrary in what it considers "significant", "reliable", and "independent". Individual decisions on articles are arbitrary in how these guidelines are interpreted and how strictly they are applied. It's better to be open about that than pretend, like too many 'notability theorists' do, that we've come up with a 350 word rubric that objectively divides all of human knowledge into worthy and unworthy. I think most people can understand that to make a large project like this manageable, you have to agree on some boundaries – and respect them, even if they don't agree with them. – Joe (talk) 08:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except we do also have rubrics, and we also have to work together, so we have found it necessary to define together. There's boundaries, you say? What are they? We have to go about answering that question together. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I'm saying. WP:GNG and the WP:SNGs are the boundaries we've arrived upon. They aren't objective, they're arbitrary and subjective, but that's okay. – Joe (talk) 11:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would be more precise to say that there is an element of arbitrariness and subjectivity to decisions, especially for borderline subjects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:35, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But, they are not just arbitrary. They describe real world things (sources) and using them for coming to decision (measure), and even more importantly, the rationale for doing so (writing based on what reliable others do). Arbitrary would be no definition, no rubric at all among us. We may suck, but we don't usually just rely on throwing darts or dice to delete articles. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do they really describe real-world sources? Consider "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." The basis for deciding this is: Wikipedia editors say so.
Yes, they do, those impacts are sourced, somehow -- you actually do have to prove it to each other. (Besides, you already know, this "independence" is a both matter of degree, and not strictly necessary to be in the definition for all real world sources -- and as a matter of various qualities a real world source might have, we are generally more concerned with trustworthy). Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been told that the usual way of qualifying under the second one ("significant impact") is to write a book that is used in (undergraduate?) classes at multiple universities. But some classes, and some universities, appear to be more equal than others for this determination, which is arbitrary, using the definition as a decision made according to individual personal preference rather than by its intrinsic qualities.
I agree with you that supporters of these two criteria use sources whose independence can often be most politely described as a "matter of degree", and they appear to agree with you that independent sources are "not strictly necessary". (For example, I have seen sources accepted by other editors that were just a few links to class syllabi, saying that the text for the class would be Big Textbook by Alice Expert. In GNG terms, these are mere passing mentions in self-published sources, and would not be accepted for any other subject at all.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with the statement that the WP:GNG is arbitrary. (Or even the additional requirements of the WP:SNGs.) At worst, the application of WP:N requires some level of judgment, based on a consensus of editors applying the principle. But the evidentiary standard for writing an article is based on real, practical, and empirical experience. And it helps our project when the world understands that we write articles based on evidence. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not completely random, but it is arbitrary, in the sense that nobody on the face of the earth except for English Wikipedia editors uses this definition of "notable". For example, I think virtually all people would agree that a YouTube celebrity with twenty million fans was "a famous or important person" -- it is only Wikipedians who have a secret alternate definition where it means "has had three newspaper articles written about them". jp×g🗯️12:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a different point, and the real point of this brainstorm. Asking for sources isn't an arbitrary standard, but in hindsight, the word "notability" is an odd choice of words to describe it. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I think that it is an obvious error that we incorrectly refer to our guideline as "notability", and that we call things that meet this guideline "notable". It is not arbitrary -- there are rules -- but they aren't about notability. No normal speaker of the English language, when they say "notability", means what that guideline says.
If I'm going to be totally honest, it feels like -- whether designed intentionally or not -- the guideline's name is designed to make sure that newbies give invalid arguments during deletion debates, thus ensuring that their autobiographies/advertisements/etc are deleted and they are dismissed, because they stupidly assume that the word means the thing it means in 99.999% of its usage in the English language. For example, the obvious direct interpretation of "Smith is not notable" is:
The speaker's subjective opinion, which you can argue against by saying "Yes he is".
A claim that he is not very famous, which you can argue against by saying X million people listen to his podcast
A claim that he is not very successful, which you can argue against by saying he made X million dollars or has Y thousand clients or employs Z hundred people.
A claim that he is not very unique, which you can argue against by saying that he's the first X to ever Y, or the only Z who's ever Qd while Zing.
We do not accept any of these arguments. If you make any of these arguments, we sneer and ridicule you for being an idiot.
I would propose that the "notability" guideline be called something that does not, in any way, create "two-tier" sentences (e.g. ones where there's an obvious plain English interpretation, and then a second Wikipedian English interpretation where it means something else). For this reason I think stuff like "impactfulness topic criteria" might be helpful, but would not fully solve the issue, as people still know what the word "impactful" means, and would argue that things were impactful, when what we actually meant was impactful, and only a moron would think that meant impactful. It should be something that nobody would ever think to define in terms other than looking up the Wikipedia policy for it. For example: "includability" or "florfbap". jp×g🗯️12:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "sourceability"? It brings the idea of having quality sources, while not being an already existing word, to make it clear that it's a unique Wikipedia concept. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honest answer, you deprecate NPROF. I don't know why this one guideline has been repeatedly giving exemptions to sourcing requirements in an encyclopedia that should rely on secondary sources. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Sourcability" is far too close in meaning to WP:Verifiability and implies a weaker aspect when in fact what notability currently is is more complex than just WP:V itself. (that's one reason why notability remains a guideline rather than a policy, because of how complex it is) Masem (t) 17:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Binominal expression or complete sentence This is a great discussion and thank you to OP for starting it. I think all the suggestions presented so far are great, though, they each introduce some of the ambiguity that already exists with Notability. I guess my comment is that we seem to be caught up on coining an all-encapsulating single word that could replace Notability. Maybe this is a case where a binominal expression ("Nice and Plenty") or even a complete sentence would be more appropriate to communicate the complexity that WP:NOTABILITY houses? Chetsford (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Timeline of significant figures
While many people have made contributions to history (many more than could fit in one timeline), it's undoubtable that some people's influence far exceeds that of others. 
Therefore, I think we should have a timeline of the significant figures in history. 
I completely understand that determining how significant some people are is a difficult task. It's expected to take struggle and effort to make this work. However, people deserve to know who made the greatest contributions to the advancement of humanity.
Also, many scholars themselves have written about who they believe are to be the most significant people.
I have created a sketch of this idea at User:Wikieditor662/sandbox. It's far from perfect, but you get the main idea. The people are colored based on the era they were in. The most significant people make it to the overview and those who are not as important but still nonetheless significant (as well as people born earlier so the overview doesn't get clumped) go to the individual timelines (below the overview) along with those in the overview.
I would again like to reiterate that this is something that is going to take effort, dedication, and much debate, but if we do this, then I think it could be worth it. What do you all think?
Kindly, I'm experiencing philosophical opposition to this project. History has been a team effort, and further elevation of the already elevated is not likely to improve genuine understanding of historical processes. The Great man theory correctly fell out of fashion early last century.Having said that, I don't mean to dissuade you from undertaking a project you're clearly interested in, and this seems like it could serve as some kind of subpage of WikiProject Vital Articles. Using the inclusion criterion "listed at WP:VA" is probably the only way you'd ever develop any kind of agreement as to which historical figures to include. That WikiProject has already done a lot of debating over which topics are more important than others.The periodisation scheme is pretty parochial and Eurocentric, and would have to be converted to numeric year spans or whatever schema WP:VA uses (and the section headings would have to be delinked per MOS:NOSECTIONLINKS). You'll also want to consider how to handle cases where vital dates are approximate, unknown, disputed, etc. Folly Mox (talk) 00:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to agree with Folly Mox on this. I'll add that it might be pretty much impossible to find an actual inclusion criteria, that is, any kind of consensus in reliable sources as to who is a significant enough figure – or even if we can compare the significance of historical figures across times, cultures, and domains. If anything, that page will inform more about our own selection than about any historical truth behind it.However, having it as part of WP:VA, rather than as an encyclopedic article, could make it a pretty useful reference for articles about famous figures needing improvement, without claiming that these are necessarily the most significant ever. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason we aren't or can't scrape and extract basic cite template information (webpage title, domain, visited datetime) at submit-time from bare URL <ref>s? Personally, I use bare URLs all the time as I consider filling out the cite template the most emphatically tedious part of editing WP (as it is when writing scholarly manuscripts) and know that some robot editor will just come along and fix it for me anyway. Since the code already exists and could be done more efficiently server-side, why don't we just pull it into the WP core? Just a small and probably extant idea I had while feeling a little guilty for adding a bare <ref> to a nicely-formatted article with proper tag attributes and template use. Cheers, fellows. Elliott-AtomicInfinity (talk) 01:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite what you are looking for, but there is reFill for bare URLs, and Wikipedia:Citation expander for when the URL is within <ref> ... /ref>. You can save your edit, and then immediately run those tools. As always, the output of any such tool must be reviewed and verified. Donald Albury14:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You might be looking for this.
Or use the visual editor, or use the ref filler in the 2010 wikitext editor's toolbar. Or maybe even embrace the idea that everyone contributes in different ways, and that WP:CITE means what it says about doing your best to accurately communicate what your source is, and that editors can, do, and should work together on the formatting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, but it doesn't always work. It is particularly annoying when I'm trying to cite something that I have accessed through the Wikilibrary (with a long list of authors) and it doesn't work, and I am unable to go to the non-Wikilibrary page for the article. Donald Albury20:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed unfortunate that many websites do not properly mark up their pages so that the automated tools and Zotero etc are unable to extract the appropriate information from webpages. But that is a problem that we cannot really solve. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recently (1-2 months back?) I saw a project to improve the automated tools (or maybe just one tool), iirc by adding local code for specific commonly cited websites it consistently gets wrong. Unfortunately I can't find the discussion now, but if someone remembers it (user:WhatamIdoing?) you may be interested. Thryduulf (talk) 22:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, this was about better (more complete, more correct) automated filling of source metadata (author, publisher, title, etc) when a reference is added. Thryduulf (talk) 00:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right, and the "Edit Check" thread I guessed first had a tangential subthread about better metadata, including adding a local translation layer to Citoid as invoked from the Visual Editor interface, but no one gave the subthread a heading for me to link. I think it starts around here.Folly Mox (talk) 11:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or they do mark them up, but they block our servers. That's probably happening with The New York Times. Properly formatted refs are in their interest, too, but it's likely that all they see is some automated thing or another and automatically block it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've also had the problem using DOI. It looks like WikiLibrary sets cookies on my device (when I go back to a source a day or two after I looked it up with WL, WL immediately jumps in. I saw this happening even when I was logged in with my alternate account, which is not eligible for WL.), so any attempt to reach a link outside of WL gets diverted back to WL. Donald Albury18:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia talk:Please do not bite the newcomers § RfC: Is this rewrite ready to replace the current page?, which only got 8 responses in 3 months, with 4-4 deadlock. In particular, two editors have expressed concern that the rewrite was not persuasive enough, which I attempted to mitigate by expanding the lead with more emotionally-driven prose. I have therefore withdrawn the RfC. There seems to be a consensus that an rewrite is needed, however. While many of the suggestions provided on the RfC and the previous idea lab were added to the rewrite, I am thinking of advertising the next RfC on WP:Centralised discussion, so I would like further feedback for the proposed rewrite: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers/rewrite.
I would lean towards option 1, with option 2a as a second choice. The less bureaucracy the better, and CUs are trusted enough to use the permission responsibly. They have also already signed the NDA. If we are going to create a separate right, ArbCom is the body which is best equipped to assign (and importantly, monitor the use of) tools which give access to non-public information. Are there other options I am not thinking of? Reasons to pick a particular option? Other comments? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2a with the right being given initially to any current CU or former CU in good standing who asks for it. That way it can be added/removed independently of the CU rights if there is any reason to do so, and allows for any changes in the future. Thryduulf (talk) 03:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that ACE scrutineers are routinely granted local CU for the purpose of properly scrutinizing the election, I do not think an electionadmin without CU makes any sense. (I can see the argument for having CUs without electionadmin, however.) In other words, I do not think it should be added independently of the CU right, but removing it would be acceptable. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the ability to assign/remove it independently of CU is more important than whether it ever is given to a non-CU or removed from someone without removing CU. Thryduulf (talk) 03:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2a and personally, I don't think it necessarily needs to be restricted to CheckUsers. As long as the appointment comes with a vote of ArbCom and has community consultation, it satisfies the WMF's criteria for access, assuming the recipient is identified as well. I see no reason to lock it behind the CheckUser right, though I do think ArbCom is the right choice for who should be assigning it. EggRoll97(talk) 04:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should postpone considering this until phab:T377531 is resolved. Communication from WMF regarding SecurePoll related groups/rights has not been technically accurate. In particular I want to note the following points:
electionadmin group gives access to sensitive data as of today, but this is actually because of a bug. If/when the bug fix is merged (gerrit:1083337), no PII would be leaked – and the ability to setup and configure polls becomes quite low-risk and can be bundled into the sysop toolkit.
The user right which actually does expose PII, securepoll-view-voter-pii, is extremely sensitive! It allows viewing the IPs and UAs of all the voters in a single page. This is a much higher level of access than CheckUser which only allows viewing the data for a user individually, and the use of such access along with the given reason go into logs which are audited by ArbCom/Ombuds for compliance with local and global CheckUser policy. Compare that with securepoll-view-voter-pii which allows viewing PII en masse without any audit trail (phab:T356442).
This idea starts with the presupposition that PII must be collected on these. That is something that can be discussed. Perhaps it doesn't need to be, especially if we are going to keep using manual whitelists for the electoral rolls. — xaosfluxTalk09:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per SD, I think that all admins should have electionadmin right, since scheduling elections seems like great mop work. However, I disagree that the right to view voter private information shouldn’t be given to all CheckUsers. I think that it should, since the users that have accessed the information are already logged (T271276), so there is an audit trail. CheckUsers are also the ones who know about socks, so they seem like a great fit.
Unless we start doing an election a week we'll ever need more than a handful of election admins, so I'm not sure giving it to every admin is necessary. It sounds more like interfaceadmin (of which we have 10) or bureaucrat in that regard (15, and they aren't busy). – Joe (talk) 11:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What benefits would there be in having way (as in perhaps 100x) more people than needed? The drawbacks I can see immediately are: increased risk/attack surface (we generally follow the principle of least privilege for even the most minor rights); increased chance of misunderstandings arising from the lack of clarity over who's responsible for elections (look at what's happened already); increased chance of conflicts when too many people are trying to coordinate one election; increased expectations for new admins from adding yet another bundled responsibility. – Joe (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The arbitration committee election is run by volunteers who co-ordinate to avoid overlapping work. I'm confident that Wikipedia's collaborative community will continue in this tradition with administrator elections.
Bundling privileges together is a tradeoff: sure, election admins could be a separate user group, with the overhead cost of the processes to add or remove members. That has to be weighed against the risk of someone setting up votes without community approval. I think I agree with SD0001 that it's not a high-risk scenario. There are much better ways for someone who obtained access to an admin's account to disrupt Wikipedia than trying to setup clandestine polls. isaacl (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I'm basing my numbers off. The ArbCom election is run by three coordinators, three scrutineers, and a couple of people setting up the pre-RfC. So eight people, and none of them seem particularly run off their feet. We have over eight hundred admins.
I imagine the potential for abuse would not be in setting up bogus elections but in manipulating or sabotaging real ones or (if CU ends up being included in this) doxxing voters en masse. Admin accounts are scarce and valuable enough commodity for it to be worth the effort for some people. But again, we apply the principle of least privilege to rollback and page mover. Why wouldn't we do it here? – Joe (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the arbitration committee election: anyone is eligible to co-ordinate the election RfC and the non-votewiki portion of the election itself. They don't all rush in and try to perform tasks without co-ordinating with each other.
SD0001 suggested that the electionadmin right be bundled with the admin toolset since, after the bug is fixed, it does not require CheckUser privileges. I appreciate that, in your view, the risk is sufficiently high to warrant the overhead of managing the electionadmin right with a separate process.
Regarding the page mover and rollback rights, they remain bundled with the sysop group, though. Since those rights are granted separately, if the principle of least privilege were followed, admins should have to apply for them separately rather than getting them bundled. I've previously stated my support for tailoring permissions with matching roles (see this comment thread on protection for Did You Know queues for example). But I recognize that there is an overhead cost, and there have to be willing volunteers to pay it. isaacl (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who will have access to the vote details? Unrelated to the other private details who voted, and how they voted should be encrypted and access extremely limited. If that's not the case these won't be 'secure' elections, and voters need to be very visibly warned that their votes aren't private -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°12:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The creation and setup can be done by 'crats as Joe mentioned. For the PII exposing rights, I do agree with SD's views, I also have another option, this right can be asked only by existing Check Users, and the ArbCom can grant it to the ones who have a respectable experience using CU tools. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping>12:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One thing to keep in mind, to see SP PII you have to be listed on the specific poll (and you have to be in the electionadmin group to be eligible to be listed on the specific poll). So if we decide to collect the enhanced PII in SP, then it is still limited to only the users registered to the specific poll. — xaosfluxTalk13:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the attack vector for users with the electionadmin, a compromised account could add more scrutineers to the poll. Thus the risk would be that everyone in the group with the securepoll-view-voter-pii right could gain access. So for simplicity, I think we should be prepared to accept that everyone with the securepoll-view-voter-pii right might have access. If want to be able to move users in and out of this group on a per-poll basis, then there should be a separate user group for it. isaacl (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: It is certainly possible we could have multiple, overlapping secure polls at the same time on different topics with different admins, etc. — xaosfluxTalk18:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So one thing that needs to be considered is, first assuming we collect the PII in SP, is that if a scrutineer wants to be able to further investigate a voter using other on-wiki data, they will also need to be a local checkuser to be able to check those logs. So it needs to be established that those checks are appropriate, and additionally we currently give arbcom exclusive decision making authority on who may be a local checkuser. — xaosfluxTalk18:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing Xaosflux above, I believe electionadmin / securepoll-view-voter-pii does not grant every electionadmin the ability to see every voter's data ever. I think it just grants the ability to be added to a poll during setup. There is compartmentalization. So how this would work in practice if we gave the right to all the checkusers is that when we have an election, we'd probably want to pre-pick 3 checkusers to scrutineer the election, add them to the poll, then only those 3 would have access to the data. Right now the way I am asking WMF to set up SecurePoll for us is to let any admin create a poll, and then only that poll's designated electionadmins can edit a poll or scrutineer. phab:T378287. There's 3 pending patches related to phab:T377531 that may change some details of how SecurePoll permissions work. We may have some additional clarity after those patches are merged and have been in production for a few weeks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need a discussion of who should have it. The RfC linked above gave this meta page as an explanation of what an 'electionadmin' is, and it says (perhaps contrary to the default in the documentation) that it's a right that allows users to set up elections with SecurePoll. – Joe (talk) 07:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm opposed to local CUs doing scrutineering. For electionadmin (excl PII), I don't see why we don't give it to the Electoral Commission only? They're elected to manage the ACE process. This is distinct to option 2 in my eyes; it would be assumed consensus upon election of an Electoral Commission (perhaps the crats could action the userrights changes). For AELECT, it's trickier but could be discussed in post-trial discussions. For PII scrutineering, I think we should continue using stewards for ACE; for AELECT it's up in the air (and subject to them willing to do it, and the frequency of admin elections being reasonable for them, I'd prefer stewards handling it). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But is it really good to require relying on Stewards for local stuff? It just seems more logical to me that we make it all an on-wiki process. I just don't see why not local CU. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think so, at least for scrutineering. Stewards are happy to deal with it AFAICT and it's been the way it's done historically. Aside from independence reasons, I'd be concerned with local CUs doing election scrutineering with PII because that would give local CUs a dual-purpose. Their purpose atm is tackling abuse, and they're restricted by the Wikipedia:CheckUser policy. In particular, they need cause, and their checks are logged. But scrutineers see all voters', which is a large portion of the active editor userbase, and their checks aren't logged. I find it hard to reconcile this in my head with the restrictions placed upon CUs in our local policy, which become meaningless to my mind if CUs can see most active editors' IPs come ACE/AELECT anyway. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly sure what @Xaosflux meant above, but the task he mentioned only said that it was a bit too easy (as in friction, not permission) to access the PII, not that it's not logged; in fact, the task links to phab:T271276, which made access logged. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the list of users who can access PII have to be whitelisted by the electionadmin for every election? Aaron Liu (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, to see securepoll data you have to be an explicitly listed admin for the specific poll you want to view; to be eligible to be listed you have to currently be in the electionadmin group. Viewing the securepoll data is logged in securepoll. It is also possible to configure a poll to not collect personal data at all, so just the public list of usernames would be available. — xaosfluxTalk23:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know about the feature mentioned in phab:T271276 and didn't see it in localhost, probably because of some missing setup. It does seem to be logged after all. Nevertheless, it just records that someone saw the full list – there's obviously no way of logging whose PII they happened to look at or take note of. That's more of what I meant. – SD0001 (talk) 22:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A possible solution CUs having a lot of instant access, if a CU wants to become a PII scurtineer, they would have to apply to it, and a group of trusted users (crats/ArbCom/anyone else that the community deems trusted) can approve it. This perm can be granted/requested per election, and they would be added into the securepoll view PII whitelist. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping>10:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In summary, you're proposing we ask bureaucrats to give people the electadmin right. Honestly, since we (probs. justifiably) don't appear to want SecurePoll to be frictionless, I think that's a good-enough idea. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original purpose of the arbitration committee election commission was to be able to decide on questions that needed to be settled quickly to be effective, and thus a community RfC discussion wouldn't be feasible. Community expectations has shifted the role to include more management of community comments. Most of the election management continues to be done by other volunteers. Personally, I don't like continuing the trend of making the commission more central to the arbitration committee election process as I'd prefer that it remain a largely hands-off role. I like how the arbitration committee elections are run through a grassroots effort. isaacl (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How are election admins on votewiki currently decided? It looks like Cyberpower and Xaosflux have had electionadmin for various periods.[13][14] Is consensus needed, or do WMF just appoint people who express interest in helping manage the process? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When an election is being configured on votewiki the coordinators have accounts made and are added to the group, then are added to the election, as are the scrutineers. In elections such as ACE, the coordinators are removed when voting begins so they can't access the PII that gets collected. — xaosfluxTalk23:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When there are non-technical coordinators, they may not get added as they wouldn't have anything to do - in which case the WMF resource generally does all the work. — xaosfluxTalk23:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to split a couple of ideas out in to subsections below. There are a few complicated things that need to be considered. Let's assume this isn't for ACE right now, but for any other use case we decide to use securepoll for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaosflux (talk • contribs)
create new separate userright Setting up elections is a specialized, new, sensitive, very social process. Although elections require checkuser services and support, there is little overlap in the roles. I presume how this is going to work is that we have a noticeboard for requesting elections, a form to complete in that noticeboard, and then the electionadmin will use the tool which generates the election instance. When the election is complete, then I think the electionadmin should turn the results over to a checkuser for scrutiny. The major English Wikipedia election is Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Coordination, but I think that whomever is in this role for English Wikipedia should be open and eager to collaborate across wikis with elections including Picture of the Year, WMF board elections, special elections like the Movement Charter, and Community Wishlist. All of these elections have had very serious social challenges which are beyond the role of technical functionary. It may not fall to the role of electionadmin to resolve all social issues, but the electionadmin certainly should not create election instances carelessly or without confirming that community support for an election is in place. The results of Wikimedia elections direct investments at least in the tens of millions of dollars. This election committee should consider the possibility of requesting a budget from the Wikimedia Foundation to communicate the elections, train election coordinators, discuss election policy and best practices across languages and wikiprojects, and try to establish some social and ethical norms that apply through Wikimedia projects. I would like for people to trust our elections and believe that Wikipedia is democratic. Activities like "promoting democracy" are not in the scope of checkuser duties. If we assign this userright to checkusers, then I think that will restrict elections to what checkusers currently do, rather than allow us to design elections to meet community needs. And yes of course - people with electionadmin rights should not get checkuser access to personal data. Bluerasberry (talk)21:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I have many words to say against your argument on electionadmins, this is a workshop, so at this point I think we should accept "create new electionadmin user group" and "add electionadmin to all admins" as separate options.
If we assign this userright to checkusers, then I think that will restrict elections to what checkusers currently do, rather than allow us to design elections to meet community needs.
@Aaron Liu: Scrutineering and election administration are non-overlapping workflows. Part of scrutineering is checkusering. Another part of scrutineering could include confirming that someone is eligible to vote by non-standard, non-machine readable criteria, which Wikimedia elections often include. For example, elections over off-wiki processes often give voting rights to people who contribute to Wikipedia outside the Wikimedia platform, such as by processing Wikimedia Commons content for upload or similar. Bluerasberry (talk)00:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly sure election administrators configure the list of eligible voters, not scrutineers. I have trust in administrators to conduct diplomacy and even more trust in a potential group of "specialized, sensitive, and very social" users. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scrutineering and election administration are non-overlapping workflows. I agee. I envision splitting electionadmin into a user right that adds and edits polls, and a user right that scrutineers polls. They are currently kind of combined. phab:T377531. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You lost me a bit in the second half of your post, because you switched to talking about global elections and WMF budgets. I think that would be unrelated to what we're talking about here, which is developing the ability for enwiki to host its own non-global elections, with the goal of 1) not depending on and using the resources of global partners such as stewards and WMF Trust & Safety, 2) developing the technical and social ability to hold many more elections than we do currently, and 3) increasing autonomy. Our use cases are things like WP:ACE and WP:AELECT. By the way, global elections are their own special beast, and are much more technically challenging than local elections (phab:T355594, wikitech:SecurePoll#How to run a board election), and basically require WMF Trust & Safety and WMF software engineer support no matter what, unlike local elections which will run completely self-sufficiently once we have a system in place. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need PII in SP for local elections?
So this is something that is going to be important as to who is going to be allowed to do what, and how they will be allowed to do that. Polls don't have to collect PII. If they don't, they will still collect usernames. PRO's are that if we don't collect PII in the vote action, then the bar of who can administer elections is much lower. The con is that checkuser data of the vote-action isn't collected. Keep in mind the username is still collected - and checkuser investigations of everything that person has done on-wiki can continue as per normal. This is very close to how it is in RFA now, if the only edit/action that wasn't checkuser recorded for someone was their "vote". — xaosfluxTalk14:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of collecting the PII from the voting data, as it's a good way of excluding some socks and catching others. However that's not the really the purpose of having a poll, so I don't see why its collected. Maybe I'm missing something, is there some other reason to collect the data? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°15:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of collecting the PII is to detect attempts to circumvent the one person, one vote requirement by one person voting from multiple accounts. This is done by analysing the public and non-public information in the same way that checkusers at SPI do. At arbcom elections struck votes fall into five categories:
Editors in good standing voting twice from the same account. This is permitted and should just automatically invalidate the older vote but occasionally it doesn't happen. Scrutineers strike the earlier vote.
Editors in good standing voting twice with different accounts in good faith. e.g. someone with a valid alt account wanting to change their vote but forgetting which account they used first time, or forgetting that they'd already voted. Scrutineers strike the earlier vote.
Editors discovered to be sockpuppetteers by normal means after they have cast votes. If only one account has been used to vote the most recent vote by that account is allowed to stand, if multiple accounts have been used to cast votes then all the votes are struck.
Known sockpuppetteers voting with one or more accounts discovered to be sockpuppets by the scrutineers. Scrutineers strike all votes.
Editors, not previously known to be sockpuppetteers, discovered by scrutineers to be voting with multiple accounts in bad faith. Scrutineers strike all votes.
Without PII being collected I believe that the first three types of multiple voting would still be detectable, the rest would not. Sockpuppetteers who vote using only one account will not be detected by scrutineers regardless of whether PII is collected or not. Thryduulf (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last two fall into the using the poll to catch editors who are socking that I mentioned, but should this be something that's part of the poll? I guess the main issues would be a sockpuppetiers setting up accounts that allow for voting, and then never using them again. That would be near impossible to catch unless they slipped up before hand.
Say the was a EC requirement to vote, a malicious actor could setup multiple accounts, use them to make good edits in completely separate areas to avoid scrutiny, and only bring them together within a vote in an attempt to sway the outcome. The normal methods for catching sockpuppets would be ineffectual in stopping that.
CUs who aren't election admins can't see anything more about the vote/voter that a normal admin can, even if they have a reason to look. Thryduulf (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant the scrutineers, not either of the above. I know that this is somewhat CU procedure and typed my thoughts out wrong :) thanks for the correction Aaron Liu (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
only if the poll is set to collect PII. I don't see any option to turn off PII collection on the page Special:SecurePoll/create. One way to turn that off would be to not grant the user right securepoll-view-voter-pii to anyone. Unless I am missing an option somewhere. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, seems like this feature didn't get off the ground (only hide the voter list from other voters did). Sort of why we are in idea lab though -- if this is useful we could put in a feature request do "disable PII collection". — xaosfluxTalk22:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Electionadmins do not need access to personally identifying information Someone should be able to scrutineer election data. Right now checkusers do that. I do not think electionadmins should have access to personally identifying information, but they should be able to consult with checkusers or have some way to confirm election validity. Bluerasberry (talk)21:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is about whether scrutineers should have access to PII, not about electionadmins. Scrutineers are the people whitelisted for each election to view a list of the browser-used and IP-used for every vote. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
?? I must be misunderstanding. Who gets whitelisted to scrutineer, and on what basis? As I understood, checkusers can already do this, and the discussion is about whether users with the electionadmin right could additionally scrutineer. Is "whitelist to scrutineer" an additional class of users? Bluerasberry (talk)00:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, this subheading is about whether scrutineers should be able to access PII, not electamins. For each election, highly trusted users (so far, with the votewiki elections, those users have been stewards) are asked if any of them would like to volunteer to scrutinize the election (and just that election, though they can also volunteer to scrutinize futre elections separately). After that, when setting up the election, two lists have to be added by an electamin: 1. a list of all users who may vote; and 2. a list of users who may view the PII-containing logs of voting.A list from which a software may "bouncer" to deny everybody not on the list is called a whitelist. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who gets whitelisted to scrutineer, and on what basis? Depends on the election. One common format is to pick 3 stewards to scrutineer an election. Then WMF T&S gives them electionadmin permissions on votewiki, and they are added to just the election they'll be scrutineering. As I understood, checkusers can already [scrutineer]. I don't think this is correct. The checkuser group does not have any SecurePoll related permissions by default. We would have to change the #Wikimedia-site-config via a Phabricator ticket. However giving checkusers these permissions is a logical idea since checkusers have already signed the NDA and are already trusted to handle the kind of voter data that SecurePoll collects. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checkusers do not currently scrutineer our elections and never have. Stewards, those who are not from enwiki, do it. Nobody aside from the three designated stewards who are scrutineering (which are any three stewards who volunteer) are the only ones who see the PII of voters in elections. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No PII means no scrutineering. Are we comfortable with having 600 vote WP:AELECTs or 1,600 vote WP:ACEs without anyone double checking IPs and user agents for obvious socks? I'm leaning towards yes collect PII. Also SecurePoll does not currently appear to have an option to turn off PII collection. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No PII means no scrutineering. I wouldn't say so. It would mean elections have the same level of (sockpuppetry) scrutineering as RfAs, where only usernames are visible. I don't really think a sock is going to change the outcome of an ACE election. At the same time, it may well help ensure the integrity of elections, if even through deterrence, thus I'm ambivalent on whether to collect PII.
I think either stewards scrutineering with PII or no PII scrutineering are OK with me. I'd prefer either of those options to local CUs scrutineering though, which I find a bit discomforting. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would mean elections have the same level of (sockpuppetry) scrutineering as RfAs At the moment, not exactly – an RfA vote is an edit, so its PII is available to CUs, whereas a SecurePoll vote is not logged to Special:Log, so the CU tool has no access to its PII. I've filed phab:T378892 regarding this. I concur that local CUs should not get access to the wholesale PII of all voters. Scrutineering should be either done by local CUs using the CU tool only (assuming the ticket is resolved), or by external stewards like currently. – SD0001 (talk) 10:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need to encrypt the backend poll data?
How people voted isn't available through the securepoll system, but when setting up a poll you can optionally choose the configure encryption. This will prevent vote data from being able to be accessed by system administrators who read the datastores. This provides quite strong voter secrecy. The downside is that cryptography is hard, and will require election administrators to understand these aspects, develop and strictly adhere to secure processes for key management. As this larger idea is about who can be an election admin, if we need this component we will need a way to ensure that such admins are not only trustworthy, but that they are also technically competent. — xaosfluxTalk14:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused, you say How people voted isn't available through the securepoll system and encryption will prevent vote data from being able to be accessed by system administrators. So to clarify without encryption can system admins see how people voted, or is that information store elsewhere? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°14:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you create a poll, you can choose to optionally encrypt the poll data. This can be done with SSL or GPG keys. If you encrypt the poll, the stored data can't be read by system admins (note, this is not a wikipedia admin, or 'election admin', but the back-end server administrators). Finalizing the poll requires loading the decryption key in to the tallying mechanism. If the poll isn't encrypted it is possible the vote data could be accessed by system admins accessing the raw stored data. In either case, the software doesn't ever produce a voter:choice output. — xaosfluxTalk15:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so the choice that voters make isn't accessible even without encryption, which would suggest encryption isn't needed. What general type of information about the vote data is accessible without encryption? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°15:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not available through the poll system (the confidentially risk is only of stored raw data for server admins). The public data is what you can already see on all elections: date of vote, name of voter, and if the vote has been replaced or stuck. — xaosfluxTalk15:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the current poll encryption feature still doesn't entirely prevent an actively malicious sysadmin from, say, modifying the software to do something with the unencrypted data either before it's encrypted or after it's been decrypted to be counted. Of course that's much harder to pull off than just reading the unencrypted database (especially if you don't want to leave any traces) and requires a bit more server-side access, but not impossible. Taavi (talk!) 15:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(no opinion in whether it should be encrypted, just stating some facts) Not all sysadmins are WMF staff. And there are a total of 192 sysadmins, which is much more than you might expect. * Pppery *it has begun...17:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, where's the 192 number coming from? Folks in the ops LDAP group would definitely have enough database access to modify votes in the SQL database, but that's only 65 people I think. Who'm I missing? –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The first two can modify the running code, and analytics-privatedata-users can also read things from the database (in addition to the restricted group). Taavi (talk!) 04:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
analytics-privatedata-users contains 270 people, 128 of whom are already in one of the other groups, making 334 people total. No, I don't expect any of them to go snooping, but it is what it is ... * Pppery *it has begun...21:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that voting choices could be accessed I would say it needs to be encrypted. Obviously this only makes it harder to access the information not impossible, but that is true of all such measures. Account passwords are required even though as a security measure they can be overcome.
This should be decided on a case-by-case basis. If a WikiProject is using SecurePoll to elect its coordinators, using encryption seems like overkill. For ArbCom elections, on the other hand, I see no reason not to encrypt. For such significant elections, there would be no shortage of volunteers who can handle OpenSSL keys. – SD0001 (talk) 17:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning no to encryption. Seems like overkill. "Make the workflow more complicated for every electionadmin in every election" vs "make it harder for a rogue sysadmin to tamper with an election one time or a couple times until they get caught/fired/access removed" seems to be the tradeoff to weigh here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not tampering with the result that is the problem, and reading the vote choices is unlikely to get caught. I wouldn't vote if I knew my vote was so easily accessible. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°22:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to try out encryption in a SecurePoll test wiki sometime. I should probably also take a peek at the database and see exactly what it encrypts. But my impression is it increases complexity for the electionadmin, who has to do stuff like generate encryption keys, then make sure the encryption key doesn't get lost else the entire election's results are lost. This will reduce the pool of folks that can easily administrate an election, limiting it to a small pool of technical users who are familiar with this encryption workflow. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Avoiding a long month of drama
Well. WP:RECALL is upon us now, and, while clearly an improvement for community accountability, the first petition is already showing that the system has its limits. To be fair, that is to be expected – we can't really brainstorm a perfect system without any real-life testing, and such a new system should be open to community inputs for tweaking it into a more functional state.
Namely, the issue is with recall proposals that are, from the start, overwhelmingly likely not to succeed. In a case such like this one, where the number of (informal) opposes far outweighs the number of signatories, prolonging the long drawn-out process (the petition being open for a month, and then potentially seven days of RRfA) isn't desirable if the outcome is already pretty much known. I figure there should be a way to cut short petitions where it is clear that most editors are not behind it, a sort of WP:SNOW close, to avoid dragging the admin and the community through a month-long slog.
Of course, the petition itself shouldn't be the final !vote on admin accountability, but only a means to bring up the issue. So, if we go through an opposes/signatories ratio to close it early, for instance, it should be pretty high (maybe 3 to 1?), but still allow a way to cut short petitions with no chances of succeeding. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. If each person were allowed to write a single short statement (absolute maximum 2 sentences) about why they support/oppose and no discussion or replies were allowed then a month would be reasonable. A month of what's currently happening at the first petition is completely unreasonable - a week of that plus a week of RFA hell is not reasonable even for someone whose conduct is beyond the pale (and they should be at Arbcom anyway) let alone a month for someone who has just made a few minor mistakes or pissed off a few people.
The Crats should be empowered to close petitions early if the result is clear (either way). Arbcom still exists as a venue should people think that a petition that was going to succeed was closed too early. Thryduulf (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the primary point of the petition process to ensure that we don't have frivolous RRFAs? It seems that most of the participants are already trying to skip to a future RRFA discussion that may not even materialize. — xaosfluxTalk14:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is indeed an issue, the petition is itself getting a RfA-like amount of discussion before the RRfA even started. Thryduulf's proposal of limiting the conversation to a single short statement per person could make it much more manageable, and cut short the problem by making 30 days long petitions less awful. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Opposes don't formally affect the outcome of the petition, that's what the RRfA is for. From my own thought process (and from what I read from that discussion), opposes can only dissuade potential petition signers to NOT sign the petition. fanfanboy(block)14:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know, that's why I was referring to them as informal opposes above. But there should still be a way for the community to formally state that the vast majority is not in support of a petition. At least to shut down frivolous petitions in advance. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Lizardman's Constant means that pretty much all views will be supported by some people, so no, I don't think we can rely on that. It's a complete waste of everyone's time if we only pay attention to the support votes and force a WP:SNOWBALL petition to go to RRfA. Theknightwho (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no drama except what some editors are creating. I don't think an admin is going to quit because they discover that five people think they shouldn't be an admin. Those that oppose the petition can just... not sign it. It'll be over in 30 days. I'm not opposed to shortening the 30 days but I'd rather wait at least one full cycle before deciding. Preferably more than one full cycle. Levivich (talk) 14:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said elsewhere, we need to reduce the drama surrounding these. I agree that people opposing the petition should just leave it alone. There should be no discussion section and no threaded responses to endorsement; a week of discussion (which is plenty) happens once the petition is successful. Additional discussion only makes the signal to noise level worse and cranks up the heat. —Kusma (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with some of the others that shortening the time makes sense, though I don't think we should be cutting it to shorter than 2 weeks if we started at 30 days. 25 signatures in 30 days does seem really out of wack - less than one signature a day, in a community this large, where RFAs have some 200 votes in a week and we've already got more than 400 votes in the admin elections? Seems very off. -- asilvering (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is that many editors (including myself) voted for the 30 days. Now seeing what has happened, I agree it should be shortened. 2 weeks seems like a good number. fanfanboy(block)16:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose, we'll have to be mindful of the potential for editors to seek an administrator's recall, who blocked/banned them, in the past. Grudges are always possible as being a core of recall attempts. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think shortening the time period for the petition to 10 or 14 days makes sense. I would oppose allowing snow closes regardless of how unlikely it appears that a petition will pass. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to believe that, instead of tinkering with this on an ad hoc basis with every new petition, we modify the terms of the recall process to be a six-months trial and then -- at the end of that -- evaluate everything that worked and didn't and make whatever modifications are needed in one fell and final swoop. Chetsford (talk) 16:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chetsford The close of the final RfC establishing recall instructed that any outstanding issues may be resolved through normal editing. (emphasis mine), and personally, I am very burnt out by all the multi-step trials and ratification RfCs that sprung out of RFA2024. Mach6116:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, this is a discussion on the idea lab, so the goal is first to figure out what to change before figuring out how to change it. And also because, even if a user could technically make a WP:BOLD edit, having a consensus behind it is always good. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the petition before it closed, and realised multiple editors opposing it despite it not having any effect. I think it should be possible to run a petition in a closer timeframe to an RfA or AfD. To summarise, petitions could be changed as follows :
Each petition runs for exactly a week.
Any extended confirmed editor can support or oppose the petition
If consensus is reached to desysop after a week (ie: support / support + oppose = 70% per current RfA thresholds) then the admin is desysopped
I think holding an admin to the threat of being desysopped for over a month is worse than what happens at Arbcom. Conversely, if the community is in obvious agreement than an admin has outstayed their welcome and must go, it gets the job done far more quickly without people getting frustrated about when it's going to happen. And furthermore, if somebody starts a petition in retaliation ("Desysop this admin, he blocked me for no reason!") it'll get short shrift and SNOW opposed by the community.
The only issue I have with that is theoretical. Ostensibly, the petition is supposed to create a turnstile sparing an Admin from having to go through the back-and-forth of an entire RfA unless there's some minimum support for that. In other words, ideally, the Admin simply ignores the petition until or if the threshold is met. Only then do they need to ramp up to start compiling, potentially, years of diffs, etc. to defend themselves at RfA. Going straight to RfA means any single, aggrieved editor can encumber an Admin with the significant angst of a full RfA. Of course, that's all theoretical. As we've seen from the current example, the mere act of petitioning creates the angst it was designed to mitigate. So, if we're going to introduce a Reign of Terror anyway, we may as well make it the most efficient Reign of Terror we can come up with, on which basis I'd support this suggestion. Chetsford (talk) 17:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The other option would be to make it so that the petition doesn't turn into a Reign of Terror to begin with. Which is easier said than done, but a good first step would be to limit back-and-forth conversation and just have it be, well, a petition. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do have a few concerns on that. In this situation the Admin is being recalled for reasons no one is allowed to articulate to them, but maybe they'll learn them during sentencing (RfA)? I liked The Trial as much as anyone, but I'm not sure how I feel about recreating it IRL. But I'm open to whatever. Chetsford (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No it wouldn't prevent reasons being given, it would just restrict discussion of those reasons. So everybody supporting or opposing the petition would be able to (arguably should be required to) give a single short statement (50 words or 2 sentences have been suggested) about why they are supporting/opposing. However there would be no discussion unless and until an RRFA was opened. There would be no restriction on clarification being sought on user talk pages, e.g. if user:Example wrote "Support because of their actions at the recent AfD" anyone would be allowed to go to user talk:Example and ask which AfD(s) they were referring to if it wasn't clear. Thryduulf (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say no. If the petition can get 25 people to agree (despite all the issues of the discussion section), then the RFA should run. Y'all are Streisanding the current petition and bringing people in. If it was as sterile and clinical as the process laid out was supposed to be, it would more than likely died in a month. spryde | talk20:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think any petition is going to get significant amounts of attention, maybe not quite this much if they become routine, but certainly enough that it's never going to be "sterile and clinical" under the current setup. Thryduulf (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the time is reduced to a week, then the number of signatures needed should be reduced. I also don't understand the point of opposition statements. If it is a petition, then there should just be people signing it, maybe proposing changes to the petition statement. It seemed like a lot of the opposition was based on people not likely the process. There is already a problem with accountability for admins in Wikipedia, because admins are not only well known, but have power to block people, and probably have more knowledge of how Wikipedia works than the poor editors who try to recall them. Admins are pretty safe. Term limits would have been a better solution, as well as temporary blocks for admins. Tinynanorobots (talk) 11:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For now, we have a sample set of one incomplete case. Ten editors have signed the petition in the first 40 hours. A linear projection would predict that 25 signatures would be reached in less than five days. Some commenters have assumed that the level of opposition expressed to this petition indicates that Graham87 would retain the admin bit in an RRFA. If a case that appears this weak does reach 25 signatures in less than a week, why should we have to wait a month for cases where there is less enthusiasm for signing a petition. I will note that the rate of new signatures likely will decline, prolonging the end, and that some commenters are claiming that many potential signers will wait to the last minute to sign to avoid social pressure, but that is not an argument for waiting a month, as they can sign the petition at the last minute whether the duration is for a week, two weeks, or a month. But, as I said, this is the first case, and my crystal ball is very murky. Donald Albury13:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that that first recall petition showed some of the warts of the process in a really stark way. Floating 4 significant changes for the community to think about here, either separately or in combination:
1) - The petition process is too long. If these are going to turn into mini-RfAs, then the petition needs to be significantly shorter than a RFA. 24-72 hours is plenty of time to see whether the petition has legs, anything more is cruel.
2) - The petition is too easy to initiate. I know that people will complain about cabals, but I really think it should take an admin to initiate one of these. Alternatively a small group (3 ish) of extended confirmed users works.
3) - We should move from number of supports to number of net supports. If a petition has 1 net support at closing time, it can go through as prima facie evidence that the petition has legs. If the ratio of opposes to supports gets over 2-3 to 1, we can close early without losing many petitions that would wind up successful.
4) - The commentary is too much. Restrict people, both support and oppose, to something very short, like 10 words and 1 link.
Obviously this is idea lab, so please discuss which of these have merit fluidly either alone or in any combination. tweak numbers, break things. Tazerdadog (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with shortening the petition process (although 72 hours might be too drastic), but I think turning them into mini-RfAs is not the goal. The point of the petition is to see if there is a substantial number of editors wanting a recall election to begin with, not to replace the recall election entirely. And, if you need to get 3 people on board to start the petition, you're functionally making a petition for the petition.For the same reason, net supports shouldn't really be what is measured (as it isn't about whether the admin has majority support, but only about whether some people are questioning it). A large oppose ratio, however, would indicate the petition will likely not be successful, so the early close you suggest could work. Also agree with your idea of restricting commentary, as said above. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The old RFC/U process required two editors to sign within 48 hours, or the page would get deleted. These two editors had to show evidence(!) of having attempted to resolve the same(!) dispute with the targeted editor. This was fairly effective at preventing RFC/Us over disputes that just needed a Wikipedia:Third opinion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's impossible to constrain the discussion when the petition has started and for the petition page not to turn into a quasi-RfA. That's why the petition signatures and comments should be understood as RRfA !votes. The signatures would begin counting as !votes when 25 of them are collected, and prior to that, the signatures would be null !votes, and only valid as fulfilling a precondition to their collective validity as !votes. A signature is actually a latent 'oppose adminship' RRfA !vote. An "oppose petition" comment is actually a 'support adminship' RRfA !vote. At any point, if the admin does not like the protraction and feels secure about passing, the admin can cut the petition stage short and start the RRfA with their statement, answers and all, without a need to wait for signatories to reach 25. That imbues all signatures with the power of a !vote immediately, regardless of how many there are, whereas the "oppose petition" comments have had the power of a 'support adminship' !vote all along. If the admin doesn't feel secure, they can wait it out, and are protected by the fact that the opposition to their adminship is ineffective until it reaches the critical mass of 25 signatories. It isn't reasonable to think that the admin is unfairly treated by the fact that opposition to their adminship is rendered ineffective until a difficult procedural barrier is overcome; that's obviously a mechanism that protects their status. If they don't feel like they need that protection, if the climate seems friendly to their adminship, they can relinquish it and start the RRfA.—Alalch E.17:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we should understand them as quasi-votes, since it would be perfectly reasonable for someone to sign the petition because they think a re-RFA ought to be initiated, not because they think the admin should step down. That is, I can easily see someone putting their name on the petition because they believe a re-RFA is the right thing to do, not because they desire for the admin in question to be de-sysopped. But it's true that nothing is stopping an admin from "calling the bluff" and standing for re-RFA before the petition reaches 25 signatories. At this point, frankly, that doesn't look like it would be a bad move for our unfortunate first candidate. -- asilvering (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The way the process is currently set up, you're right. But I would argue that it should be different (that's the idea I'm presenting): If you do not think that the admin should cease being admin, you should not sign the petition. On the material side, the petition should be presented as: "By signing you are stating that the administrator has lost your confidence"; and on the procedural side: "By signing you are stating that (because the administrator has lost your confidence and provided that he has also lost the confidence of many other editors) the administrator should undergo a RRfA". —Alalch E.11:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't impossible to constrain discussion. We are capable of setting and enforcing a rule that says "Signatures only. No diffs, no explanations, no discussion, no opposes". This might be fairer, since even a few words or a single diff could prompt "me too" votes from people who had no concerns of their own, and a diff or a brief comment could be taken unfair or out of context. It would probably be stressful for the admin, as people would be publicly expressing dislike without any reason.
Editors generally oppose efforts to prevent them from talking about other editors, though, so I doubt we'll end up there. More realistically, we could insist that any discussion happen on the talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom manages to have strict rules about constraining discussion, and it does lead to more productive cases (read: not a shiftest). I would support a "Signatures only" rule, especially considering the opening comment should already be expected to have the needed context.A talk page discussion would be already lower profile and likely more calm, and ultimately look less like a !vote or like its own mini-RfA. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any rule restricting what can and can't be said on the page needs to come with explicit instructions to this on the page and a clear statement of who is allowed to remove things that objectively break the rules (I'd favour "anybody"). Perhaps accompanied with a "you will be partially blocked from this page if you reinsert, without explicit advanced consensus, something removed." Thryduulf (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That could definitely work. WP:RECALL doesn't need a set of clerks like the (much more complex) ArbCom cases do, if the only rule is "just leave a signature" or close to that. Also agree with the disclaimer, and good of you to be thinking of the implementation details already!I'm thinking of having a formal proposal with both the restriction on discussion and the shortened timeframe as independent options. Given how the WP:RECALL RfCs have been criticized for not being well-advertised, it might be good to bring this one up on WP:CENT. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion will migrate elsewhere. ArbCom is mentioned as a counterexample, but discussion there is quite free-flowing, only formatted differently to avoid long non-constructive threads... but the stated problem here is not non-constructive threads, the stated problem is comments. That is completely different. "Discuss calmly and with measure" and "don't talk" is different. It will be possible to have an adjacent discussion on some other page or pages. And if you are blocked from the page, so what, what you added to the page, diffs and all, stays in history and can be viewed by anyone. —Alalch E.23:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And if you are blocked from the page, so what, what you added to the page, diffs and all, stays in history and can be viewed by anyone.
I agree that a complete ban on discussion will result in the discussion happening elsewhere, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Wherever there are humans, there will be gossip mongers, but gossip whispered between a few people (e.g., via Special:EmailUser) for a few days, or even for 30 days, is not as widely and as permanently destructive as accusations posted on the internet forever. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That elsewhere could just be the talk page, and it appears that it might just be that. Edit: All in all, "discussion elsewhere" + word limits + RfA monitor function preserved + "five uninvolved signatories first" latch mechanism could all add up to something good. I'm for trying. —Alalch E.22:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It all depends on who you want to sign up to a petition. If it is only "editors who have independently decided that an admin's conduct should be examined", the only way is to disallow comments from both signatories and opponents. Otherwise many signatories will sign because they are convinced by the arguments, even if they never heard of the admin before. In that case, allowing only signatories to comment will dramatically skew the results and be quite unfair. In summary, allow everyone to comment or allow nobody to comment. Zerotalk02:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to raise another issue. We have created a risk-free way for editors to get back at an admin who has sanctioned them. I think that editors who have received a recent (definition?) personal sanction from an the admin should not be a signatory. Zerotalk02:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can see both sides of this. Perhaps a reasonable way forwards is to disallow someone from initiating a petition if they have received a recent (within the last 3 months?) personal sanction from the admin. They can still support a petition initiated by someone else, but perhaps only if 5 uninvolved editors have already supported. If there is a genuine issue this should be an easy bar to clear but it would make retaliatory petitions much harder to initiate and harder for them to succeed. Thryduulf (talk) 02:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we could make it so that the first five signatures (other than the initiator) must not have been involved with any dispute in which the admin concerned acted in their capacity as an administrator within the last (1? 2? 3?) months. If five uninvolved editors are prepared to sign a petition that suggests it's more likely to have some merit than if no such group of five are? Thryduulf (talk) 02:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's say it's day three and there are fifteen signatures. The first five signatories have not been involved in the discussed sense, followed by ten signatures from people who have been involved (they were the greater cohort that was waiting for the special signatures to add up so that they can add theirs; imagine ANI participants). One among the first five withdraws their signature ("I changed my mind after reading the talk page"). There are no longer five signatures from uninvolved signatories. What then? All's good? (Probably not.) Petition has failed? (Probably not.) Monitor halts signature collection only allowing signatures from uninvolved signatories, until one such additional signature is collected? (Probably not.) Monitor notes that the petition will be invalid unless at least one more special signature is supplied during the entire remaining period? (Maybe.) Monitor notes that the petition will be invalid unless at least one more special signature is supplied during a set period, for example three days? (Maybe.) —Alalch E.17:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't thought of that scenario. The simplest option would just be a latch - once five uninvolved people have signed the petition is unlocked and remains that way for the duration. Thryduulf (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the two main proposals that editors seem to converge on (limiting discussion and shortening the petition timeframe) are essentially independent, I'm thinking it can be best to go for a two-part RfC, with the following questions:
Should input to WP:RECALL petitions be limited to signatures only?
Should the petition duration be limited to X amount of days?
There is also the possibility of having multiple options for each question. For the first one, an alternate proposal of limiting input to to a short statement per person was also suggested, while multiple timeframes for the petition could also be proposed. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a RFC like this needs to happen. I think the second bullet point is fairly self-explanatory, but the first needs more thought. On a recall petition, is there value in having a statement from the initiator? A statement from the admin being recalled? Statements from people bringing up new evidence? Statements/signatures from supporters? Which belong on the main page, and which belong on the talk page? If we impose a length limit, can anyone truncate statements to fit in it? Do we need clerks, arb style?
For example, I favor the initiator getting a short statement, the admin having unlimited length to respond optionally (hidden comment in the template that makes a section if they choose to respond), all recallers signature only on the main page, with limited commentary on the talk page, and any list of supporters with limited commentary on the talk page, no threaded discussion anywhere. Any editor except the initiator and the admin being recalled can move comments to enforce length/threading/talk page. This is not about my preference, but more saying that this bullet point can get really complex really fast, and we should think about that now in workshopping. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for the feedback! You're right that the first bullet point should definitely be clarified before the actual RfC.In my mind, the initiator would be able to make a short statement, with the rest being only signatures (as the point of the petition isn't to be its own RRfA, but only to gauge whether it has enough support). Regarding the admin responding, I think it (and other replies) should be reserved to the talk page, to avoid it becoming a RfA-lite where the admin has to respond to the claims to not be seen as suspicious. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the admin is allowed a right of reply, but only on the talk page, it should be possible to see from just the main page whether they have chosen to respond or not. Regardless of where, everybody who has the right to comment (including the responding admin) should be subject to a word limit, although not necessarily the same limit. Thryduulf (talk) 02:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my mind, the initiator is no more or less important than anyone else who prefers to recall that admin, I prefer not creating a "first mover" advantage. So I'd rather just be strictly signatures only, or strictly "Short statement on main page without replies" for everyone.
I can get behind a word limit for the responding admin. I do think it's important that the admin have the ability to present their case in the same location that the initiator does. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that as well, I just end up at "Initiator and all future signatures should be given same weightage" and "Maybe both should be on talk" as my preferences. Soni (talk) 05:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I start with "someone should say why we're all here" and "I don't want everyone piling on with extensive commentary. I will concede that I create a first mover advantage as a consequence of those, but I think that's the best we can do. Either way, I think we can craft a RFC that presents all this fairly without too much difficulty. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, a "first mover" advantage makes sense in that, since they're starting the petition, they are responsible for explaining it. We don't need 25 redundant explanations, but we don't need an unexplained petition either, so it is logical that the creator of the petition be the one to state the case for it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 08:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The talk page will be open anyway", will that result in all the "pre-RRFA RRFA" stuff just happening there instead of on the petition itself? Anomie⚔07:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moving the discussion to a less prominent place behind the petition, plus a word limit as Thryduulf suggested, would definitely limit the "pre-RRFA RFA" stuff. Not everyone will go through long talk pages, making it less critical to respond than with the "in-your-face" discussion that currently runs in the middle of the signatures. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 08:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's mandated that no discussion happen on the petition page, I'm not so sure the petition's talk page would remain very much "less prominent". Sure, not everyone will bother to check the talk page, but knowing that's where discussion is I suspect anyone who would have pre-RRFA RFFA-ed as things are now would. Anomie⚔07:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a good idea to start a two-part RFC so soon after we just ended a three-part RFC. Take note of the backlash to the third RFC; a fourth RFC will get even more backlash; a fifth even more. Levivich (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But you really think, three days into the first petition, you've learned enough about this process to know how to change it for the better? There's no part of you that's thinking "it's too soon to draw any conclusions"? Levivich (talk) 17:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I share Levivich's concerns here. Now's a fine time to take some notes, but we're 10% of the way through the first use of a process. We might learn something in the coming days, or in a second petition. We might also discover that the RFC question needs to be "Well, that was a disaster. All in favor of canning the idea completely?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And this is why I said, above, We can start workshopping the RfC right now, but it's probably best to hold off opening the RfC itself for the moment given how heated emotions are. I do not claim to personally know exactly how to change the process, but we can already start discussing the shortcomings we can see, even if we are not going to open the RfC right now. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People have been proposing changes all over the place. Why not have a discussion that will hopefully bring up possible problems with proposed changes, even if it will be a while before any RfC should start? Donald Albury19:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chaotic Enby: I've been thinking about how to format this RfC for a fair while. If someone has a better idea than yet another dedicated subpage, I'm all ears, because I'm not sure how else to deal with the number of proposals and changes people are asking for. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think subpages is fine, but we probably should try to limit the number of options to be voted on, in some way. Either by number or some other ways.
Say if a proposal is something like "For 2 future RECALL petition, the petition will not have any discussion. After this trial, you need consensus to make it permanent" - that's self contained and gives place to start off from. Much better than just trying to push through every change at once. Soni (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point of starting this discussion now. We're at the ideas stage, at some point after the first petition ends (and, if one happens, after the subsequent RRFA ends) this will move into the stage of collating those ideas that both could work and got some indication they might be supported and refining them into draft proposals. Once we have a rough idea of what and how many proposals there are is the time to work out the best structure for an RFC, as until we know those things we can't know what will and won't work. Thryduulf (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One should exist for Authors to personally fill out a profile. Many book readers would like to know the "about" information about writers that have books published. 91.242.149.121 (talk) 09:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to the authors/editors of an article, editors already have their own user pages, which are accessible from an article edit history. If you're referring to the authors of books that merit Wikipedia articles, this isn't a place for people to tell about themselves(see WP:AUTO). 331dot (talk) 09:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Allow IP editors to set preferences
IP editors now have the ability to turn on dark mode, which previously was limited to logged in users setting a preference. We should extend this concept to allow IP editors to set other prefernces such as disabling fundraising banners or whatever other preference they prefer. RudolfRed (talk) 23:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting preferences in general would mean the caching infrastructure could no longer be used for non-logged in users, which would have a big impact on the amount of computing resources required to handle Wikipedia's traffic. So I don't believe that general support is in the works. isaacl (talk) 05:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They could 1. restrict preferences to a subset that won't interfere with caching; or 2. figure out a way to serve cache to everyone who didn't touch certain preferences. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've discussed this before so don't really want to get into the details again, beyond saying that making the servers do anything is more expensive than reading ready-to-go HTML content and sending it back. Please feel free to discuss your ideas with the WMF engineering team. isaacl (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comparison shopping with data from factboxes
As more information is put in Wikidata and is presented in Wikipedia's fact boxes, I think this opens a possible new feature or gadget similar to the comparison shopping offered by many e-commerce websites. As I visit the article Thailand, the factbox should have a little tick box to add this article to my personal comparison basket, and when I tick that box on another comparable object (using the same factbox template), say Chile, I should be able to view my current comparson set, presenting a table with two columns for Thailand and Chile, and rows for their attributes: capital city, main language, population, area, GDP, etc. LA2 (talk) 11:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Horse Eye's Back, thanks for flagging this. To clarify, the way this tool works requires the user (must be logged in and autoconfirmed on English Wikipedia) to manually select a snippet of text in a source (in this case, a Reuters article) to check against Wikipedia. That text snipped itself is not modified in any wayby the tool (it's not even possible for the user to modify it once they've elected to look it up on Wikipedia via this tool). So I suspect what happened here is actually that the source itself (i.e., the Reuters article) was edited by Reuters after this user found the claim and sent it as a suggestion to the talk page via the tool. There appears to be an "updated a day ago" message at the top of the article, indicating that this may be the case. So I think the user of this tool unintentionally caught some possibly-fishy information that Reuters itself was putting out there and then walking back... Maryana Pinchuk (WMF) (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple Court Reporting Portals — including Live Law and Bar&Bench — report that WMF's lawyer was willing to provide details about the "authors" of the ANI article but in a "sealed cover". But the Court didn't accede to such a compromise and wanted it to be filed in public.
Raises a number of questions... Most importantly what is meant by subscriber information? Most of us edit pseudo-anonymously after all and the Foundation doesn't have our names, birth dates, etc and technical info like IP can tell you what device the edits are being made from but not who is making the edits. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh — IP address is considered as PII (though it doesn't disclose device details; are you confusing with user-agent?)? For example, if the address is from an Indian ISP, the Court will compel it to give up the name of the person the IP address was assigned to, during the timeframe of the edits.
Now, I do not know for how long Indian ISPs retain their IP assignment logs. For a comparison, in most European states, it's about 6-12 months. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah theres a few different bits of technical info, but none actually tell you the author unless I'm missing something. So how does WMF know who the author is? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All major ISPs in India require their subscribers to produce personal details like Aadhaar at inception. All ISPs are "intermediaries" and are bound by Indian IT Act. So WMF's disclosure of IP addresses is all that the Indian authorities would need to personally identify editors if they are based in India. Read [15] for further info. — hako9 (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question isn't how the court could figure out the name from the technical details and a subsequent investigation... The question is how the WMF has a name. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They don't need to even if they wanted to. Disclosing IP would be as good as disclosing the name in India. How do you not get this? — hako9 (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lawyer probably misspoke because admins do not have the NDA requirement like checkuser/oversighters. The Indian judge/lawyer also seem to have misspoken when they said 3 admins. I think they meant editors. — hako9 (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Names" is an imprecise substitute for "Identifying Information". How do you not get this?
These are fragments from an oral argumentation in a court before ~60 y. judges who, going by the literature on Indian Courts, are usually not very technically adept. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know where you are going ahead with this — conspiracy theory territory where WMF has somehow managed to access our IRL Identities / WMF's lawyer being either incompetent or taking the Court for a ride / .. — but this is my last comment on this topic. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are blowing this out of proportion, there are a large number of scenarios in which the WMF might be privy to the IRL identity of an editor. I don't think that it hurts to get clarity on the issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ANI had asked for details of three "administrators" — do note that their usage of administrator might be lax and not correspond to what we understand as admins; publicly available court records do not mention the names of these three entities — who supposedly inserted and restored defamatory content in the article, from Wikimedia. These are the "authors" referred to, by WMF's lawyer. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. But, because of a couple of roles I have filled over the years (OTRS and ARBCOM), I have had to provide WMF with identifying information. The WMF has at least the same access to editor information as do checkusers. If you put your mind to it, you can make it difficult for anyone to identify you, but most editors leave breadcrumbs, and some of us have left a lot. Donald Albury20:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cabayi and Doug Weller, identifying to the WMF did used to require sending them a copy of some ID but that has since changed and you no longer do. I don't remember exactly when it changed but it was after December 2014 when I was elected to the Arbitration Committee, it's possible it coincided with the introduction of the current Wikimedia Foundation Access to Nonpublic Personal Data Policy in November 2018. My recollection is that the copies of the ID were retained only long enough to verify you were who you claimed to be and were then destroyed. Thryduulf (talk) 16:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what I know of WMF and Wikimedia culture, I would not expect WMF to disclose any private information about an individual editor to a foreign court. WMF has a history of sticking to open source values in foreign courts even if it means being blocked for years by that nation's ISPs. I think this would be a great opportunity for someone at WMF to clarify what exactly is being disclosed to the Indian courts about our editors. If nothing private like IP addresses were disclosed, this would be an excellent time to set the record straight. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Novem Linguae I agree about the culture of WMF. But given that Wikimedia retains no private data except IP addresses and UAs (correct me if I am wrong on this point), I do not see what else their lawyer could have been willing to provide only under "sealed cover". And I support the call for WMF to clarify on these issues. TrangaBellam (talk) 02:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I am wrong, but twitter/X warns their users before disclosing their IPs on orders of a foreign/local court, when they receive and comply with takedown requests like some mentioned here [16]. If the counsel for WMF has no qualms about throwing wikipedia editors under the bus should push come to shove, shouldn't wmf warn the specific users whose IPs they are willing to disclose? — hako9 (talk) 14:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine that WMF would have to disclose personally identifiable information (PII) in USA lawsuits since WMF is based in USA. My hypothesis is that WMF would not disclose PII to foreign courts. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, notwithstanding the fact that WMF's lawyer did broach a "sealed cover" approach, WMF appealed the order — this time, being represented by a different lawyer — petitioning that the Court must find the accusation of defamation to be prima facie true before ordering disclosure. However, the appeal was not granted and additionally, WMF was asked to take down the page(s) on the litigation. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is the same lawyer, Akhil Sibal, representing WMF in the main case as well as the appeal. The appeal was a bit pointless. See below. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of the case at this point is that it is at "ground 0", meaning it hasn't taken off. ANI wants to sue somebody for defamation, it doesn't know who. It can't sue WMF because, under the Indian law, WMF is just an "intermediary", equivalent to a television cable company that just trasmits signals. The people that can be sued are the authors of the content, of which there are probably many. Somehow or the other, ANI narrowed down to three editors who, it believes, can be held liable for defamation. So it is weighing in on WMF to reveal their identities. The court, quite reasonably, agrees that it needs to be done. Unless they appear in court and plead, the case doesn't even begin. So, when the WMF lawyer says, I will provide the information in a "sealed cover", I think he doesn't undrestand what is going on (in fact "clueless" would be more accurate). There are only two ways out. Either WMF reveals the identities of the editors so that they can appear in court and plead. Or, WMF waives its status as an "intermediary", and pleads on their behalf. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"There are only two ways out." the WMF can also just close their offices in India and tell the court to pound sand. There is no need to operate in India, its not like there are profits to be made. If they block wikipedia they block wikipedia, we get blocked all the time. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WMF has told us the information is in the US, that they will only release under U.S. law, and told us what those laws are under which a foreign tribunal could get their hands on the information. I hope WMF thinks the court is already pounding sand. fiveby(zero) 16:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your analysis is missing the WMF's argument that the court must first make a prima facie determination as to whether the content was defamatory before it orders the WMF to turn over identifying information they have on editors. That determination really can't be made, when the Wikipedia content is (1) true, and (2) simply a summary of public facts already published elsewhere. Levivich (talk) 00:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Judge Chawla did make some remarks in the initial stages, which sounded like he made that determination. But to contest that, WMF would have had to plead, which it has refused to do, claiming itself to be an "intermediary". Recall again an "intermediary" is like a cable company that just transmits signals. Twitter has tried to do something like that a year ago, to contest the blocks the government was ordering. It lost. The judge said that it had no locus standi because it was just an "intermediary". The only people that could contest the blocks would be the authors of the content. If I was WMF I would have filed a motion to dismiss, on the grounds that Wikipedia just summarises what the reliable sources say. So the people that can be held to be liable are the authors of those sources, not Wikipedia. But that point has not been brought up in front of the court yet. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of the articles hyperlinked to ANI’s page is of The Caravan. When Wikipedia argued that the publication had not been made party to the case, the Court called it a convenient answer:
An article published by say X magazine which is read by a hundred people, you don’t bother about it…it does not have the gravitas that it deserves a suit of defamation. If it comes to Wikipedia, it is not going to have a viewership of hundred, it may have it in millions and then it becomes a cause of disturbance.
Yeah, I noticed. This is probably part of what transpired in the 20th August hearing, which I was asking about a while ago. It did not get reported in the press at that time. The WMF lawyer gives me the impression of trying to bargain with the judge(s) rather than to assert our rights forcefully on legal grounds. My disappointment continues. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is part of our fundamental msision is to bring to the public, knowledge that might be known only to a select few. We cannot be faulted for doing this. We are not producing our own knowledge here, only collating it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but at least for me, there is a difference between "knowledge that might be known only to a select few" and "pushing fringe sources, limited to a selected few (for good reasons), as authoritative to defame someone or something, thereby promoting the fringe source in the process." This issue is not just limited to ANI, but practically applies to all Indian media news channels that do not bash the incumbent government day and night, using motivated and third-class sources like Mohd Zubair's Alt News. Should self-proclaimed fact-checkers and rival news agencies be used to defame other news agencies? Please do a quick check regarding this if you don't believe me. It's not just about ANI. When someone starts using these sources as authoritative to defame something or someone, it becomes difficult to determine who is at fault—the source, the people pushing those sources, Wikipedia itself, the Wikipedia community that allows this, or the person who feels they are being defamed because they are trying to censor "free speech." The thing is, no discussion will result in anything unless all parties are determined that they are right and the other is wrong. Let's just leave this to the court. My comments on this issue end here. DangalOh (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should self-proclaimed fact-checkers and rival news agencies be used to defame other news agencies? This would likely be a content-related discussion if it arises, and should be held on the article's talk page or at WP:RSN if it warrants an input from the wider community. – robertsky (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
using motivated and third-class sources like Mohd Zubair's Alt News Wikipedia has WP:RSN, where the editor community decides collectively whether a source is reliable or not. You can start a discussion on a source there, if you wish to. — hako9 (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We really don't... We will in rare instances kick people out of the community for abuse but as far as a new editor joining there aren't any nescessary qualifications (we don't even technically have a minimum age). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody else apparently filed a defamation case against The Caravan and lost, in the very same Delhi High Court. That explains why ANI doesn't have the guts to go after them. We are easy pickings, apparently. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I was WMF I would have filed a motion to dismiss, on the grounds that Wikipedia just summarises what the reliable sources say There's no motion to dismiss like the US, in India. Cause of action and merit is decided in the pre-admission stage. — hako9 (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quashing in a criminal defamation case is a difficult prospect. This is because – to simplify – under Section 499 of the IPC, a prima facie offence of defamation is made out with the existence of a defamatory imputation, which has been made with the intention or knowledge that it will cause harm. This is, evidently, a very low threshold.
Section 499 also contains a set of exceptions to the rule (such as statements that are true and in the public interest, statements made in good faith about public questions, and so on) – but here’s the rub: these exceptions only kick in at the stage of trial, by which time the legal process has (in all likelihood) dragged on for years. What we essentially have, therefore, is one of those situations where the cost of censorship is low (instituting prima facie credible criminal proceedings), but the cost of speech is high (a tedious, time-consuming, and expensive trial, with the possibility of imprisonment).
I, Kabir Darshan Singh Choudhary, am a Senior Counsel at the Wikimedia Foundation’s Legal Department. The Foundation is in receipt of your message(s) regarding the developments in India around a defamation suit filed by ANI.
We are currently reviewing the recent order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and will take all necessary actions, in accordance with applicable laws, to ensure that the people of India continue to have the right to share and access free and reliable knowledge in an open and safe online environment. The Wikimedia Foundation is committed to safeguarding the rights of Wikimedia community members and preserving uninterrupted access to Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects in India. As a standard practice, we do not share specific details of ongoing legal cases that are sub-judice.
Additionally, since this is an active legal case, we recommend caution while sharing, discussing, or speculating on the topic. Please contact ca@wikimedia.org for any trust and safety concerns. Also, please direct any press inquiries you receive to pr@wikimedia.org.
Do we have to rewrite WP:NOTCENSORED now? Currently it reads "Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia's policies (especially those on biographies of living persons and using a neutral point of view) or the law of the United States (where Wikipedia is hosted)." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I think IAR is about community conduct as well. OA goes beyond that, but can include stuff (like in this case) that can appear like censorship. So I think NOTCENSORED could include something like "For X actions, see WP:OA." Or "or the law of the United States" could have the addition "... and in some cases, other countries." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IAR does not apply, as this action does not improve or maintain Wikipedia (unless, arguably, it is a good-faith attempt to preemptively maintain India's access to Wikipedia). Randy Kryn (talk) 07:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant meta-policy is not IAR but WP:CONEXCEPT. NOTCENSORED exists as a matter of editorial consensus, and the WMF is exempt from that. Whether this was a good use of that exemption is something we'll probably only be able to say some time after the dust has settled. For now, histrionic responses (not like yours, GGS, but some others') help nothing and may risk making things harder for the WMF (and thus all of us), given that the court does not seem to recognize much distinction between the WMF and Wikipedia editors. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 07:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's really unhelpful at this juncture to characterize matters in this way: this is part of a live legal dispute, and it's pretty clear to me that the WMF's strategy is in service of getting content back up. They're taking what they see to be the least obstructive means—the least censored means possible frankly. I'll put it like this: if all of Wikipedia got censored in the largest country in the world on the pretext of WMF violating this order at this stage—I would hold them partially but meaningfully responsible for that because they fell for easy bait and handed them that pretext. It would be a tremendous fuckup. Remsense ‥ 论09:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I must disagree in the strongest possible terms, Remsense. This is about much more than the access of one country's population--even be it the the first or second most populous country in the world--and capitulating to such demands increases the liklihood they will be made in the future, sets a highly dangerous precedent for acceding to them, and, along with various other orders of the court in this case (and the WMFs decision to tow the line with them) creates a number of profound chilling effects upon the project (which serves a much wider world than India's population, and cannot do so effectively and with any accodrance to our traditional image of what what our part in the free knowledge movement looks like, maintaining certain principles)--as indeed has been noted by a number of legal and policy experts who don't even have the added benefit of a Wikipedian's perspective.So, no, I don't think the concerns being raised here about what this says about 1) our project's role and the interference of outside parties, and, more crucially 2) the culture and decisions being made by WMF and it's legal team in this instance, are at all hyperbolic. This is deeply, deeply worrying stuff and more or less unprcedented (even considering other office actions over the years), and I'm frankly not sure what I am more gobsmacked by: some of the WMF's decision making in this case, or the relatively low level of response from the community so far. And this is all the more inexplicable because, bluntly, I think the writing may already be on the wall when it comes to India. It's ruling government and high court have become increasingly ambivalent, and indeed sometimes quite hostily postured, when it comes to imporant principles that the free knwoledge movement is predicated on generally, and the operations of Wikipedia in particular. Orders from India's higher courts, and saber rattling about the consequences of not complying with them, are becoming regular affairs. I honestly doubt that the WMF can maintain the dance you refer to above for much longer, and in the meantime it is now unambigously crossing its own Rubicon in respect to the independence of the community in editorial matters in its effort to do so. The people of India elect their leaders, who in turn appoint and regulate the high officers of their courts. If access to Wikipedia is lost in their borders, and that loss is important enough to them, they can make their voices heard. Meanwhile, we cannot continue down this road of abrogating key principles of the movement upon which the basic functioning of this endeavour rely, nor should we take lightly that the WMF seems to be increasingly open to coercion in doing just that. SnowRise let's rap18:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess they were lying about this then? The Wikipedia database is stored on servers in the United States of America, and is maintained in reference to the protections afforded under local and federal law. I thought i knew what those protections were, and must have misread some of the claims made about Wikipedia. fiveby(zero) 05:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can the WMF office engage with us here and provide additional details?
I would like to know what our options our. For example, we’ve accepted being blocked in various countries before - why isn’t that outcome acceptable here? BilledMammal (talk) 05:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but it would be good if the WMF could be clear to the community about what penalties the court threatened, and which of those penalties the WMF believes the court could enforce.
If the only realistically enforceable penalty is blocking, then I think that is a decision that should be devolved to the community and let us decide whether we want to go down the slope of deferring to censorship, or if we wish to continue rejecting it. BilledMammal (talk) 06:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Obviously it's not blocked everywhere, as I'm making this edit (from the United States) without applying any kind of anti-circumvention measures. Do you have some evidence to support that hyperbolic claim? * Pppery *it has begun...06:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think they’re saying the because the WMF has removed the page in response to this lawsuit, there is a global partial block on Wikipedia.
It’s a reasonable perspective, in my view, and asks the question of how much are we willing to let Indian courts control the content that our global audience views. BilledMammal (talk) 06:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no one is worried about youPppery, except in a hope you are well and having a nice evening way. Now i see in the X thread below more talk of releasing info under sealed order. This is baffling unless employee(s) there are truly in danger. How many more of these will there be now that everyone knows it works? fiveby(zero) 06:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
not the first time the High Court has ordered an online platform..., as far as i am aware this is a first for WP, which they told us they wouldn't, but much more importantly told editors in India they would not. fiveby(zero) 07:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd think at least one part of it is the short deadline given (especially given Levivich's quote of the applicable policy). For something easily reversible like hiding the article, it's more practical to temporarily accept the legal orders and then arguing it's invalid after. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If an applicable legal order requires changes to on-wiki content, we will only make direct changes via office action if there is a legal deadline and local process is unavailable or unable to respond in line with the legal requirement in time. In the event that we make a change via office action, we will provide an update to the local community after the change explaining the reason.
Today's hearing can be followed here. tl;dr : WMF's lawyer is willing to disclose the sought details in a sealed cover but wants the Court to make a finding on defamation before that and is wary about precedent. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The final sentence in the court order uploaded by WMFOffice at foundation:File:October 16 2024 ANI v Wikimedia order.pdf gives me pause: "this Court directs Wikimedia Foundation Inc.– the appellant herein to take down/delete the said pages and discussion with regard to the observations made by this Court within thirty six (36) hours" (emphasis mine). I do hope the "discussion" refers to the article's talk page, and not this and any other related discussions. DatGuyTalkContribs13:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a Russian Wikipedia editor this leaves me stunned. We as a community have always thought the NOTCENSORED policy is one of the most important ones, refusing to block pages with valuable information on requests from Roskomnadzor, and now... WMF does this? Well very well (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be beneficial to have a clear list of questions for the WMF to provide answers to. As an initial draft:
The Indian Courts are demanding that the WMF disclose the identity of three or four editors, and according to recent media reports to WMF is willing to do so.
Are these reports accurate?
If they are accurate:
What types of PII would the WMF be disclosing?
Have the editors involved been informed that the Indian Courts are seeking their PII, and that the WMF is willing to disclose it?
What would be the consequences of not disclosing this PII, including:
What sanctions have the Indian courts threatened to impose?
How realistic is it that the Indian courts can enforce these sanctions?
What would have been the consequences of not taking down this page, including:
What sanctions have the Indian courts threatened to impose?
How realistic is it that the Indian courts can enforce these sanctions?
Why did the WMF diverge from its standard policy of refusing to comply with these requests, such as in Turkey and France?
Are there any additional questions that the community wishes to get an answer to, or changes to these questions, before I start badgering the WMF to get answers to them? BilledMammal (talk) 07:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like as a community that we take time to make careful and thoughtful considerations about this, which may involve not badgering the WMF for immediate details on a live court case where they are already handling apparently quite serious contempt of court allegations. CMD (talk) 07:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict × 2) Without details we don’t have the information needed to make careful and thoughtful considerations. Once we have the details, we can consider them and decide if, as a community, we endorse or reject the WMF’s stance. In particular, I’m very concerned about the WMF being willing to disclose PII in cases like this, and I would like the community to have the chance to determine a position on that decision prior to the PII being disclosed. BilledMammal (talk) 07:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Ongoing lawsuit, no comment for now" is likely to be the response if any for now, but we'll see. A known Wikipedian said this [19] regarding the ANI-case in early September. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, that is not a position that the community has to, or should, accept in this case, with very clear indications that there has been actual consideration by WMF and their internal counsel to actually disclose personal information of editors. Sensitivity to the delicate position of the WMF in such cases is one thing, but BilledMammal is correct: insofar as these reports are alarming and represent and unprecedented step that has substantial implications for the basic manner in which this project has already operated, we cannot accept the very piecemeal and unreassuring limited statements we have received thus far. The questions BM raises are a reasonable first step in getting some clarity here--and in any event, do not seem to contain anything which would impinge upon it's duty before the court in the current case. The only real potential fallout from their answers is their relationship with the community--and if there is anything that should damage that in the information to be disclosed, it suggests all the more reason we would want to be aware of it. SnowRise let's rap19:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The questions about sanctions are not based in reality. No one knows what the outcome of a court case might entail until long after the verdict, and no one has any idea about enforcement apart from a few obvious platitudes about due process. Fortunately, the WMF lawyers are smart enough to not make a public statement about on ongoing case (apart, perhaps, from a few obvious platitudes). The WMF's actions might be a little late, but they look like the first step in protecting identities to me. Johnuniq (talk) 07:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The questions about sanctions are not based in reality. No one knows what the outcome of a court case might entail until long after the verdict, and no one has any idea about enforcement apart from a few obvious platitudes about due process.
I think the WMF would at least have an idea of what sanctions would be imposed, as well as which sanctions can be enforced on an entity based in America, but I’m not an expert and could easily be wrong on this.
The WMF's actions might be a little late, but they look like the first step in protecting identities to me.
Given the WMF is willing to disclose those identities, I don’t see how this is the first step in doing so. Given past actions and focuses, I’m wondering if they are more concerned with protecting the WMF’s Indian revenue stream than editors identities or our core mission. BilledMammal (talk) 07:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are unlikely to ever see a public statement from either side regarding this case except for something released by a public relations department with legal vetting. I doubt there is any reliable information about the WMF's intentions but we can see some action: the article and talk page have been deleted and all edits, edit summaries, and user names have been suppressed. Johnuniq (talk) 07:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given our track record over a great many years, that's an odd thing to wonder. But for the avoidance of doubt: no one at the WMF, no board member, no one at all as far as I know, has brought up the question of "protecting the WMF's Indian revenue stream" - because it isn't in any way a concern that is motivating anyone. I think you already had all the information you needed in order to come to that conclusion, before you started the speculation. Please don't do that, it's not the right way to AGF, ok?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In recent years, the WMF has behaved problematically in regards to its revenue stream and the use of that revenue, and one of the areas it is attempting to increase revenue from is India. Given this, and the unusual behavior we are seeing here, I think some "wondering" was appropriate at the time - the WMF needs to earn back trust in the area of revenue, it can't expect it. BilledMammal (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Literally none of that resonates with anyone who has been aware of the facts, so let me just repeat it - no one on staff or on the board has raised or mentioned or discussed in any way any question about revenue in the context of fighting for editor privacy and freedom of expression. It's literally not true, not even close to true. That's really about all there is to say about it. Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm going to have to agree with our first citizen on this one, BM. Putting aside for the moment that I think substantial portions of the community discussion around how "the WMF has behaved problematically in regards to its revenue stream and the use of that revenue" are ginned-up histrionics more indicative of the desires of certain community members to convince themselves that they are corruption-sleuthing muckrakers, there is just no principled reason, supported by anything outside of wild speculation, that considerations relating to revenue streams have played any part in the decision making on this issue. Considering that you are also getting additional affirmation that they did not from the community member best positioned to know, I'd drop this line of inquiry. It's signal-to-noise ration in the presence of the much more well-attested and profoundly worrying concerns that the community might legitimately have here is just far too low. I otherwise strongly support your call for responses on your enumerated list of inquiries for the WMF above, but this revenue topic is not only an unfruitful line of discussion, it is an active distraction from the real issues of consequence you are trying to reach to. SnowRise let's rap19:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like one of those questions is more important than the others, and so it might make sense to just focus on that: "is WMF going to divulge any personal information (emails, IPs, etc.) about the three editors accused of defamation, under sealed cover or otherwise?" –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It is unfortunate that WMF is being submissive a wannabe authoritarian regime that is known for jailing people even for the most trivial things.[20]Raymond3023 (talk) 08:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It raises a good question of whether the WMF is making some sort of determination that some court systems are legitimate and others not... I would note that almost all of the North Korea and China related editing I do could now in theory be undone by defamation orders from the courts in those countries. The very idea that Taiwan isn't part of China is after all offensive to the "Chinese nation" same for the idea that Kim Jong-Un is a human rights abuser. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is of course true that in any situation, any rational and thoughtful defender of human rights will take into account various factors about the legitimacy of court systems and about the likely result of various courses of action. Again speaking only for myself, I think it should be fairly obvious to anyone who is thinking thoughtfully about how to fight would realize that doing anything in order to comply with courts in, per your example North Korea, would be pointless and hopeless. There would be no question of "we need to respect sub judice so that we can fight the real fight which is about user privacy and freedom of expression" because North Korean courts have zero chance of acting independently. If the WMF told me "we need to take down this page for now, so that we can preserve our ability to fight for the principles we believe in" in North Korea, I'd be totally unpersuaded. Nothing would change the outcome there, as it wouldn't be a real process.
If the WMF said "we need to take this page down because it offends the sensibilities of the 'Indian nation'" I'd be similarly unimpressed, as I'm sure you would be as well. So, again, don't worry - serious people, acting on top level advice from top people, are fighting the fight in a smart way for the principles that we believe in. Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jimmy, I have no reservations about assuming the dedication or the WMF board and legal team to broadly defending the movements principles, nor their competencies in that task, but I'd be lying if I said what we already know about the strategy adopted and concessions made in this case doesn't give me more pause than pretty much any other set of responses I have ever seen the foundation make in response to any challenge to our free speech principles. I have extremely mixed feelings about undertaking the decision to pull the article even temporarily and as a strategic temporary measure to keep options open; I think there is a very compelling argument for not going down that most slippery of slopes. I'm only somewhat re-assured by the knowledge that it is a course that, in theory anyway, the WMF can abandon at any time if they (under their own analysis cost-benefit or bowing to community will if we arrive there) determine that enough is enough. Unfortunately, that is (and this highlights the extreme nature of this situation) not the action by the WMF which commands my deepest apprehension in this complex of issues. Rather, that is the apparent willingness of the WMF (or at least momentary indication of its counsel to that effect) to consider turning over private user data to the court and parties to this case. You of all people need no explanation for how potentially explosive such an act could be, and damaging to the fundamental operation of this project--for reasons too vast to summarize here, even if you did need that information. Maybe I'm not caught up on some particulars here which would otherwise indicate a reason to think that the reports are inaccurate to a degree that obviates reasonable concerns. If so, I'll be relieved to hear it. If not, I wonder if you are in a position to illuminate what is happening in that arena? How close did WMF counsel come to revealing that information, even in a sealed disclosure? What is the WMF's current position on that matter, and what is the current posture of any motion or order dictating the court's current expectation in relation to this information and the timeline to act, do you know? This is one matter I would hold that it is not proper for the community to forebear on demanding answers about, even considering the complex legal situation in which the WMF finds itself unenviably captured by. It goes to fundamental assurances the organization has given to the community time and again about protecting its volunteer's privacy, especially from the overreach of entities as powerful as those involved here and which, frankly, are displaying increasingly worrisome tendencies in both their propensity to request such information and the possible actions which follow from such disclosures. Historically, I have been reassured by the foundations firm commitment to maintaining the necessary bulwark against such intrusion, but the indications and messaging I have seen so far in this situation have me about as worried as I have ever been in my time with the movement--both for the individuals involved here (and any others similarly position in the future) and for the endeavour as a whole. Any insight you can provide would be deeply appreciated. SnowRise let's rap20:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that WMF's legal team is advising they definitely not come in here and officially explain the action to us all. This is breaking news, and there's no particular reason Wikipedia itself needs to have this article live right now. No deadlines, we'll finish writing it after the case is settled. Valereee (talk) 09:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Jimbo Wales
Hi everyone, I spoke to the team at the WMF yesterday afternoon in a quick meeting of the board. Although I've been around Internet legal issues for a long time, it's important to note that I am not a lawyer and that I am not here speaking for the WMF nor the board as a whole. I'm speaking personally as a Wikipedian. As you might expect, it's pretty limited as to what people are able to say at this point, and unwise to give too many details. However, I can tell you that I went into the call initially very skeptical of the idea of even temporarily taking down this page and I was persuaded very quickly by a single fact that changed my mind: if we did not comply with this order, we would lose the possibility to appeal and the consequences would be dire in terms of achieving our ultimate goals here.
For those who are concerned that this is somehow the WMF giving in on the principles that we all hold so dear, don't worry. I heard from the WMF quite strong moral and legal support for doing the right thing here - and that includes going through the process in the right way.
Prior to the call, I thought that the consequence would just be a block of Wikipedia by the Indian government. While that's never a good thing, it's always been something we're prepared to accept in order to stand for freedom of expression. We were blocked in Turkey for 3 years or so, and fought all the way to the Supreme Court and won. Nothing has chnaged about our principles. The difference in this case is that the short term legal requirements in order to not wreck the long term chance of victory made this a necessary step.
My understanding is that the WMF has consulted with fellow traveler human rights and freedom of expression groups who have supported that we should do everything we can to win this battle for the long run, as opposed to petulantly refusing to do something today.
I hope these words are reassuring to those who may have had some concerns!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indian courts are extremely powerful thing in India. They have the power to scrap the ruling governments, change the constitution and what not. This thing is not related with the government. DHICKYPEDIA (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree on a top-line level with the sentiment in the penultimate sentence regarding long term benefit vs short term benefit, my concern would be: is this likely to happen again? We saw with the squabble with the Supreme Court only a few weeks ago regading a victim's name of a crime, now this in the same jurisdiction. Are we setting ourselves up for failure here by showing that we will repeatedly acquiesce to demands—that conflict with our values and mission—from Indian courts that we wouldn't accept from any other jurisdiction outside the US? Daniel (talk) 09:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a lawyer either, but I'm fairly sure wisdom I've heard from lawyers talking about analogous disputes has some purchase here: one has to play ball to some degree. If the WMF throws up their hands, says the entire court is out of order, and declares they will not participate in this legal farce—that is what will make them look vulnerable, because it's handing every bad faith actor an automatic pretext to get the website they hate to shoot themselves in the foot. See also my comment above. Remsense ‥ 论10:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hear what you're saying, but the Indian courts are continually looking to expand their power, influence and jurisdiction. They are often seen as more powerful than the legislature and executive within that country; they share some alarmingly similar characteristics in their conduct and processes with the judiciaries of failed states and military juntas. I expect we will see this conduct continue over the coming months and years with more frequency until a line is drawn somewhere in the sand. Daniel (talk) 10:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel, I think there is long-term reason for concern, certainly—I think one has to play ball to some degree, but determining when that degree has been exceeded is a big part of what you pay your shiny expensive counsel for. After that, who knows! — Remsense ‥ 论10:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that Jimbo. WMF Legal are in a hard place. Having 48,218,122 "clients" it's impossible for them to give confidential strategy briefings. Cabayi (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comforting in what you do not mention, the anonymity of editors in India is not at risk? If it's not a concern that is great, and i am sure you would have mentioned if it were. fiveby(zero) 10:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like, what? If India wants to block us like Turkey did, well, that's why people invented things like Tor, VPNs, etc. If India's threatening something else to WMF there, get out of India. India can't do anything to someone who's not there. (Unless, of course, the WMF is going to hand over data about editors who are there, in which case I hope no one would ever trust them regarding anything again.) SeraphimbladeTalk to me10:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it's better for Wikipedia to cease all operations in India than for it to hand over personal information of editors to the Indian courts. Ratnahastin(talk)10:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sera, WMF pulled the article to keep the ability to appeal open. They aren't trying to make sure we aren't blocked in India. They're trying to make sure whatever decision is made can be appealed up the line. Valereee (talk) 12:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I entirely understand that. The answer to any such demand still must be "No". If that means they block us, they block us; that's all they can do if WMF pulls anything they may have there out of India. Unless, of course, they want to involve the community in the discussion about what's going on, and we agree that it's better to have it removed for some time so they can do what they're going to do. But otherwise, if having it up messes with their appeal, well—that sucks, but we should not be telling governments "Just make threats, and we'll remove whatever you don't like!". And now they even know how to make the threat—"Remove it right now or we won't let you appeal!". That cannot happen. SeraphimbladeTalk to me12:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think they believe that, like in Turkey, if they appeal it high enough, WMF will win, and that will be not only a win for Wikipedia but for free speech in India in general. And having the community discuss isn't really practical when a court order expired two days ago and the hearing is about to open; we could spend three months discussing this. I think temporary blanking is worth it, myself. We can always open an RfC here to get input. Valereee (talk) 12:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably what we should do, but I think we'll need some more information first. To start with (and Jimbo Wales, maybe you can answer this, or know who can), how temporary is "temporary"? If we're talking "Leave it down for a week or two until the appeal's filed", then I don't think people would object to that too much. If it's "We'll have an answer in five years, maybe, if we're lucky, and it might still be no"—I think that would be a very different conversation. Legal processes can be very lengthy indeed, so I think we need to have some time frame more specific than "temporary". SeraphimbladeTalk to me12:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's 'no' once there's no ongoing litigation, then yes, that's a very different conversation. That would be actual censorship. This is just complying with the laws in a country where discussing ongoing court cases is considered an attempt to influence those cases and therefore contempt of court.
But yes, it would be good to clarify what happens when the case is decided in Delhi High Court, but before an appeal is filed with the Supreme Court. Valereee (talk) 12:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't be complying with those laws. Now, if we need to as a genuinely brief measure to achieve some goal—maybe we say "Okay, this is worth a one-time compromise"; all rules can be ignored after all. But we certainly shouldn't be making a habit of knuckling under to things like that, and I'm afraid we're setting a very, very bad example for other such governments to follow. SeraphimbladeTalk to me12:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add a plus one to what Valereee is saying here and additionally that in my view the Wikimedia Foundation legal team has earned some trust that it understands the principles that we are all collectively fighting for and that it is acting competently to advance those principles under difficult circumstances that call for hard tradeoffs. Say what you will about other parts of the WMF, but our Legal team is genuinely top-tier and alined on principles, and I am 100% sure that they detest complying with this order. Best, KevinL (aka L235·t·c) 13:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"That would be actual censorship. This is just complying with the laws in a country where discussing ongoing court cases is considered an attempt to influence those cases and therefore contempt of court." Well there's the rub, though. Typically it is only in nations with recent or historical trends towards the public suppression of information reasonably viewed as in the interest of the public that the act of tertiary source summarizing the facts of a legal case, as reported on broadly by news sources, would be considered an act to "influence the case" that is so improper that it can lead to findings of civil contempt or criminal charges. And that's so even where those reporting the news or summarizing it have some degree of involvement in the underlying dispute around which the case revolves. Rather, most modern democracies and free societies have some combination of constitutional and precedential legal authority which provide express protection for such public reporting and discussion. So your argument somewhat relies on a conflict of terms, because this action very much is considered "actual censorship" under the most common applications of the term, and orders of this nature are part and parcel of the active broader discourse of the eroding of freedom of expression and individual rights in contemporary India. SnowRise let's rap21:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia clearly is a party, but I don't see where that in any way obviates the rejection of your argument. Your basic position was "This is not censorship, it's 'just' the court ordering a party to sublimate its content under these circumstances." Well, those two things are not contradictions in terms and, yes, this very much is censorship, by any reasonable conventional use of the term--and it's actually a particularly onerous and problematic form for us. I can appreciate your decision to defer to the difficult position of the WMF in the circumstances: it's perfectly reasonable. But let's not let deference lead to language minimizing the extraordinary circumstances this situation constitutes for this project and its community. Nor indeed write a blank check on our position regarding the extraordinary, unprecedented, and potentially future-of-the-movement shaping impact of the WMF's own actions in this case. They are at a minimum exceptional in the extreme (in fact, easily near the very top of the list of most consequential decisions ever made by the WMF on behalf of the project, with jaw-dropping consequences for the independence and operation of this project and the privacy protections its volunteers are supposed to receive) and deserve the highest possible level of immediate scrutiny.Even now, being in possession of some more context for the WMF's actions and assurances from Jimmy that he thinks this is the proper course, there are still many, many unanswered questions and cause for profound concern. If nothing else, I am deeply worried by the lack of communication directly from the Foundation to justify in detail either of two seismic actions it has undertaken in relation to this case: the apparent courting of the idea of revealing the personal data of volunteers, and the decision to use an office action to censor content that in every respect seems to have comported with this project's rules. The latter goes against this community's--no, in fact this entire movement's--most core principles and the former against assurances we have tacitly given to every new volunteer for decades. Mind you, I have nothing but understanding for both the strategic argument and the time constraint which justify the WMF leadership's willingness to call the shot on whether to comply with the take-down order for the immediate term. Actually, I have more reason to relate to and respect the position of the Board of Directors and the foundation's legal counsel in those circumstances than you might think. However, what I am less prepared to gloss over is that the Foundation's position now seems to be "Decision made: we'll let you know if there are any developments." Well, no--I'll say to the WMF on behalf of the community, if no one else of higher stature within it is willing to--it's not remotely that simple. These are big issues with the potential to define key aspects of the future of this movement, and, not withstanding our willingness to understand your short-term, buck-stops-here call that needed to be made to preserve legal standing for appeal, the next steps are not your decision to make alone. I respect that the WMF has a unique organizational and legal role in these circumstances: indeed, I find myself in a very weird position at this moment, because I have historically more often found myself defending the WMF from what I have often viewed as hyperbolic or even histrionic complaints about how it navigates its work--specifically because of the Foundation;s unique role in the movement and the Boards particular fiduciary duties. But at the same time, in terms of the organization of the movement, it has never been the understanding of the community that the WMF was entitled, whatever it's technical and legal powers, to make a decision as profound as the ones involved here without consultation with the community. At least, not unless it was prepared to face a serious loss of volunteer confidence and commitment.Or so I would have thought, anyway. I will confess to being beyond confused right now about the level of alarm-with-potential-for-outrage that I am seeing in the community over this situation. Or even the level of awareness it is getting. Considering the speed and scope of furor from the inception of Framgate, when half the community of veteran editors went into open revolt almost overnight for a single (arguably very defensible) office action that temporarily limited the privileges of one community member, I don't understand how this infinitely more serious situation--with the WMF 1) reportedly contemplating the divulgence of private information of editors with deeply worrisome consequences for those volunteers, and 2) definitely having been willing to suppress content at the direction of a state entity--does not have the entire community mobilized and demanding answers. I only know I am more than a little worried about what the relative level of response says about our current priorities, and how we feel about the privacy rights of volunteers and the importance of maintaining a firewall against state influence over our content. Again, for sake of making myself perfectly clear, I understand the WMF having acted in haste as it did in the circumstances. A quick call had to be made and the people authorized and positioned to do so made that call. It would be absurd to hold that they should have done otherwise. I'd even go as far as saying that I'm not sure I can see a cognizable argument for them having made any other decision on whether to pull the article to preserve appeal. If only to buy enough time to raise the issues with the community, it was almost certainly the right call. But said consultation should start today. Or bluntly, should have started, in a deep and fulsome fashion, immediately contemporaneous with the office action. It certainly is not something I think the community is required to (or should) enter into a holding pattern about. The WMF's legal position the Indian court will in no way be negatively impacted by taking a read of whether the community thinks the office action was the right thing to do in the circumstances, or what the collective response of the movement (in this case involving both the WMF and the en.Wikipedia community) should be to the Dehli high court's ultimatums. The community may very well wish to draw a line in the sand here and now, as both a matter of principle speaking to the values of our movement, and as a pragmatic signal about how we should be responding to the acts of courts in other countries with dubious present day positions on the free exchange of information, who might bring undue pressure or consequences down upon our volunteers engaged in the hard work and principled work of that mission. And while we cannot as a legal matter dictate every particular of that response, we can sure as hell, as an organizational and community matter, make our will (and the potential consequences of rejecting it) known to the Foundation.And in those terms, let me be the first to state my line on one of those issues in the clearest possible terms: : if the WMF adopts a policy of being willing to disclose PII in circumstances such as these, I will immediately suspend my contributions to this project indefinitely and until such time as the Foundation reverses that position and I believe I can trust they will never go down that road again. And I'll probably only be satisfied about that latter part after major changes in the WMF leadership on both the Board and operational levels, if the current Board and counsel are willing to breach this community's trust on what I consider to be a longstanding implicit compact between the two sides of this movement's leadership. And one of the last things I do before leaving will be to create a user page notice template for anyone who wishes to follow suit. And if I'm the only one to use it, that will be the largest surprise to me of all. SnowRise let's rap21:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought about this over the past few days, and I've come to the same decision. If the WMF chooses to disclose personally identifying information to an entity in a foreign country based on the content of an article, I fully intend to retire until such time that certain members of the Foundation's leadership are no longer employed by the organization. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The circumstances of which Wikipedia was blocked in Turkey are vastly different from this time round. At the very least, there is still a legal pathway for WMF and the other parties to resolve the matter. If ultimately Wikipedia has being blocked in India totally, we can argue for the Office action to be lifted. For what reason will we want to the article to be not being written by then?
While English Wikipedia has its own rulebook, and one that is evolved largely within USA's set of laws, as an international encyclopedia, we have to be cognizant that the world is made up of different cultures, and accompanying them, different sets of customs, rules, regulations, and laws. What one may think as censorship or self-censorship for not covering an ongoing legal case, in other parts of the world, it may be more prudent to have the case covered only after the case has ended so that one does not prematurely receive an invitation for a coffee/tea session with the authorities.
In the meantime, we can collect the relevant sources for referencing for the article when the Office action is lifted. At the same time, in recognition of the ongoing archive.org issue, please archive the sources on other archival sites such as archive.today or ghostarchive.org. I just realised that some links I had tried to retrieve from archive.org aren't archived in the last two weeks or so. – robertsky (talk) 12:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to worry about what's prudent when deciding to write an article. If a court orders WMF to take it down, and WMF decides that's in the best interest of long-term goals, fine. But to not write it in the first place because I'm worried a judge might take offense? No. Valereee (talk) 12:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not worried about the judge, but instead fellow editors who are in India. Ever stop and think what adverse effects it may bring to the local community/groups there? – robertsky (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already grabbed a copy from an archive site, and saved it offline as well. If anyone has an issue with getting it from archive sites, I'm happy to email them my copy. SeraphimbladeTalk to me13:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, I'd hardly say there is zero chilling effect from permitting the government and courts of India to dictate whether articles will be retained. SnowRise let's rap21:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"but instead fellow editors who are in India" thats the hostage fallacy. Its the same problem with paying terrorists for hostages... You incentive hostage taking, not disincentive it. Ironically what would endanger editors in India the most is setting up a system where the Indian government can use editors in India as leverage against editors outside of India. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jimbo Wales, thank you for that update regarding the page takedown; that is reassuring to hear.
However, of greater concern is the WMF's apparent willingness to share PII with the Indian Courts; in line with Novem Linguae's question above, is WMF going to divulge any personal information (emails, IPs, etc.) about the three editors accused of defamation, under sealed cover or otherwise, and if so what types of PII will be disclosed? BilledMammal (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like an entirely reasonable decision, and I'm thankful that Wikipedia is prepared to be blocked in India for the sake of freedom of expression if it ultimately comes to that. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimbo Wales: An appeal on constitutional matters, although usually accepted, could perhaps take years for a final decision because of the seemingly endless pendency of cases in India's Supreme Court. But once the matter is no longer sub-judice in the Delhi HC, the page on ani vs wmf can be put right back up, afaik (correct me if I am wrong). If the appeal is on civil matter (i.e court finds wmf guilty of defamation), editors here won't be able to add the defamatory content (mouthpiece of BJP) back up until resolution in supreme court. Is this correct? — hako9 (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You or someone on legal team of wmf will need to explain this to editors here because, they will keep editing cluelessly about the matter and admins won't know what they are supposed to do. I can reproduce the content on the deleted page right now, to a section in Freedom of expression in India. Will there be a staff action again? — hako9 (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. My preference, speaking personally, is that people mainly not do that sort of thing just to stir the stew. I don't see the point. WP:POINT. At the same time, I don't think it's necessary to step around on tip-toes nor for anyone to go wild WP:TROUTing anyone who talks about the case anywhere. We are all, or should be, reasonable people acting with kindness towards others. Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hako9: look at Jimbo's statement again above. The reason to take it down for now was so that we can appeal the case and not lose it by default (i.e. get Wikipedia blocked sitewide in India and probably a bunch of other bad things I won't speculate about). This is not a new permanent precedent where WMF will start taking down content on request from India or any another government. Since the purpose was to enable an appeal in an undecided case, let's keep our cool and not jump to conclusions. Steven Walling • talk21:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more concerned about the disclosure of the identifying information about editors to the court. That is irreversible, and should not happen, even if it wrecks chances of appeal, and even if it means Wikipedia is blocked in India for a very long time or forever. I mean that seriously, and with real consideration behind it. I'm also not happy in the slightest with the WMF takedown of the page. If that is a takedown with a timescale of days to a week, I can hold my nose, although it is offensive on principle. If this is a more permanent takedown, that can be reasonably foreseen to last months or years, that would not align with the values of the community as I understand them. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have a somewhat different view of it. I don't like the idea of the WMF disclosing personal data about editors to anyone, either. But I live in the US and I know the WMF is subject to subpoena in the US: if a US court orders the WMF to turn over my IP address, etc., the WMF is going to comply. They might appeal, they might ask the court to not require compliance until after the appeal, but ultimately, they're going to comply with a US court order, as they must. So would every other US-based website.
That's the US, but if Wikipedia wants to be a global website, then it's going to have to comply with the laws of multiple countries, not just the US. The EU's privacy laws are different than those in the US; I have rights in the US I don't have in the EU, but if I want to edit here, I have to understand that if a court in an EU country orders the WMF to disclose my IP and stuff, the WMF is going to do it.
Unless we want Wikipedia to pull out of India -- which I don't think we should, like a sixth of humanity lives there -- the WMF is going to have to comply with India's court orders, just like in the US or EU. Same goes for blacklocking the article: the WMF would comply with a gag order from a US or EU court, it should comply with Indian court orders, too, because a lot of people live there and we should not give up those readers (and editors). So I think complying with Indian court orders does align with the community's values, which is to be a global encyclopedia with a global readership. Levivich (talk) 03:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope WMF decides to defend the personal data of our editors in this situation. Unmasking our editors because a company doesn't like the edits they made would set an ugly precedent. This talk of disclosing personal data of our editors under a "sealed cover" makes me uncomfortable. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: That's an appallingly bad argument. The concerns of user-privacy, a no less fundamental cornerstone of community values, needs to be balanced with that of potential loss of readership. It would be a global encyclopedia with a global readership but USA-based-authorship if WMF starts going down this slippery slope! Taking your logic to its rational end, you ought to have no problems with WMF disclosing IP addresses of Palestine based editors upon receiving requests from Israeli courts; what if, upon defiance, Wikipedia cannot reach the Israelis?! TrangaBellam (talk) 08:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Israel isn't India. Neither is Venezuela, Turkey, Pakistan (all of which have blocked Wikipedia at one point or another). Neither is North Korea, Iran, etc. etc. There are some nations where we shouldn't try to comply with their laws. I don't think India should be one of them. Levivich (talk) 14:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to your list. Some people might say that "Levivich distrusts this country" or "TrangaBellam trusts this country" is an useless way of discussing these issues — esp. when these assessments are not corroborated by any reliable sources — but I am certain that you are already aware of that. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You jest but coming up with a list of countries where Wikipedia does business and countries where Wikipedia does not do business is exactly what must be done, and what has already been done. We don't have any offices in North Korea AFAIK. We do in the EU. We've already made that choice, and must continually make these choices. The question here is: which group should India be in? I say in the "yes, do business" group. Levivich (talk) 15:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That depends whether they try to impose censorship. The US has very robust protections of free speech and press. Many other countries, not so much. If any other country tries to censor our content, they put themself immediately in the "No business" group. People there can still read and edit the encyclopedia (even if they block it; it's not like Tor, VPNs, proxies, etc., are some shocking new technology), we'd just have to remove any offices, equipment, etc., from that country. And if they try to censor any content, we should almost certainly do so. If they demand giving up data on editors, we should 100%, no questions asked, do so. That applies to India, the EU, or anywhere else. If we need to stick to the US to avoid censorship and protect our editors' privacy, that is exactly what we should do. SeraphimbladeTalk to me20:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Seraphimblade: To be clear, when you say And if they try to censor any content, we should almost certainly do so. If they demand giving up data on editors, we should 100%, no questions asked, do so., you mean "do so" as in "stop doing business", right? jlwoodwa (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So now the Foundation is going to disclose editor's personal data to EU, India... Why not PRC? It's another "sixth of humanity" just like India, and I am more than certain the WMF would be happy to return to China if it is given a chance. Why not Russia, or Iran, or Türkiye? Each one of these has huge populations and the WMF would not want to be blocked there and "give up those readers" for such a trifle as editors' privacy, right? Deinocheirus (talk) 14:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we should try to keep PRC readership because it is about a fifth of humanity, which is a huge proportion. But China isn't India, there are other considerations, like that China isn't even ostensibly a democracy.
But what privacy rights are you talking about? You don't have unlimited privacy rights in your IP address. Even in the US, that can be disclosed. And all other websites follow the same laws--why should Wikipedia be immune to laws that apply to every other company or website: Apple, Google, Microsoft... Twitter, Facebook, etc., all of them are going to turn over your IP address if they're ordered to do so by the US, or the EU. Why should Wikipedia editors be exempt? Keep in mind we voluntarily give our IP address, user agent, and other information, to literally every single website we visit, so it's not really private.
"Wikipedia editors should be absolutely immune from any legal consequence of their editing" is not a value that I hold. My values are: "we are subject to the same laws as any other user on any other website." We don't have any more privacy rights at en.wikipedia.org than we have at www.google.com. And it would be better for Wikipedia to be a global website than a US website. That means subjecting Wikipedia to as many legal jurisdictions as possible. Russia, Iran, and Turkey are dictatorships. I think it's OK not to do business in dictatorships. India is not a dictatorship, even if its democracy is flawed, so is the US. I mean, I don't think Modi is really any worse than Trump, but YMMV. Levivich (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And how do you arrive at the fact that Turkey is more of a dictatorship than Modi's India — vibes? VDem (EDI) ranks India at 110 and Turkey at 127; not much of a margin. Of course, I feel that none of them are dictatorships (as indeed do scholars) but flawed democracies undergoing rapid democratic backsliding.
This is what I pointed out above. Your argument boils down to nothing but "I feel India is good enough to do business and hence, WMF must comply." TrangaBellam (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
:-) Ironically, in today's edition of NYT, I came across this but yeah, "Modi isn't really worse than Trump". Anyway, we aren't really convincing each other; so, no point in continuing this. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(ec re Levivich) Gråbergs Gråa Sång was it you who linked the article where an editor commented that they were scared? I keep trying to find it again and can't, Bar and Bench? Anyway i would like this editor to not be scared, or a hypothetical editor in such a situation not to be scared. I am in the U.S. and would not be scared in this situation. I thought having the content and PII stored in the U.S. was a practical if not very global way to help. My values conflict with yours but that's ok, for me at least. fiveby(zero) 15:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, a sixth of humanity lives in China, too. There is not a snowball's chance in Hell that we ought be giving them all the user data that they request, nor obeying censorship orders that they hand down.
If a state is unfree, and is trying to exert editorial control over this project, then the best thing to do is simply to:
Refuse to comply with censorship orders; and
Refuse to hand over user data to countries who would use it to violate our contributors' rights and freedoms.
There is no other way to maintain project integrity.
I think that sacrificing some of our editors in the name of "global encyclopaedia" is wrong. What WMF did has created a chilling effects for non-US editors - that at any given time WMF could gave up their information. The United States is a flawed democracy, but it has way better freedom of speech protection that many other countries. It is not the best, but it is not a bad one either! We have articles on numerous scandals of US administration. We have articles on scandals of powerful people - from presidents to movie stars to religious leaders. We have covered scandals on big companies as well. And none ever did what ANI had done - trying to sue the editors. If this case is brought before a judge in the US it would be thrown out in a heartbeat - not so in many other countries.
The question remained - why would WMF agreed to share the PII of the editors? What is their motivation? Is "winning" on Indian court worth sending some of our editors to Indian prison? Or the viewership and the revenue of India is too good to be passed? What if the country is not India, but smaller like Belarus. Will we do the same thing? Or how if these things happened in the US? Will Wikipedia surrendered meekly like what happened in India or fought tooth and nail up to the Supreme Court? I previously believe the latter but now I believe WMF would surrender quickly citing "our legal team forced us to do it, the aforementioned editors better get some good lawyer." ✠ SunDawn ✠(contact)03:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo, I find it extremely concerning that the lawyers would be willing to disclose identifying information to the court. IANAL, but giving this info to a foreign government doesn't seem like a wise move at all. LilianaUwU(talk / contributions)02:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is probably a smart move to take the article down until we are legally able to put it back up, but I would like to make it clear that under no circumstances can I support giving editors' private information to the government of a country like India, especially considering what has been happening in Canada recently. IANAL, but I believe it would be better to have the site blocked in India than to reveal the private information of our editors without their consent. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo, I respectfully understand that the hope is that the WMF will appeal and ultimately win. And I very much hope that the WMF does win here.
But what if the WMF loses this case? Is the WMF then going to restore the page (or permit the page to be restored), and flagrantly be in contempt of the Indian courts? Or are we going to allow this global project's content to be subject to a de facto veto by the laws and courts of India? And, if we accept that the Indian government has that de facto veto, doesn't that place this whole project at a real risk of censorship down the line? — Red-tailed hawk(nest)18:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a lawyer, but as I understood it, the (perhaps) main reason the judges got pissed off was that the case is "Sub judice", but that can probably be the case for years to come. I also read today that there are currently two ongoing cases, ANI-defamation and WMF appealing order to release user-info. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, but if the WMF loses the case, the case is over, so no longer under subjudice and no longer in contempt of court, so there'd be no need to suppress the article, even from the court's point of view? Valereee (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the same dilemma, as the reasons the action is being requested would be different. This will weight the decision differently. CMD (talk) 12:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We would run into the same dilemma, inasmuch as the WMF would have to make a decision as to whether or not they would comply with India's court order that requires that a particular page's content be edited in some way or removed in some other way. I understand that this decision by WMF legal is tactical in nature so as to try to preserve the opportunity to win on the broader point at the end of the day. But there are big questions here, and I hope the board really does take to heart that we are talking about freedom when we talk about a free encyclopedia, not merely taking about a gratis one. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)02:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's only the same dilemma if you consider all court orders to be identical, which I'm sure WMF does not and I hope we would not as well. CMD (talk) 06:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request journalistic help with The Signpost
The Signpost is Wikipedia editors' own newsletter. Like everything else with Wikipedia, anyone can edit it, and it invites volunteer contributors. I am writing to request assistance from anyone who would like to draft the story about this legal issue. I have some notes started at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/News and notes. Here, a brief objective summary of the events is needed. If anyone would like to contribute other journalism, such as a personal opinion piece on the situation, then please express your interest at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom. Thanks! Bluerasberry (talk)15:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This feels like a bad idea. If covering the court case is what got us in trouble the first time, I doubt the court would look kindly on us doing it again, even if in a different format. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if you are talking about an actual incident or just vaguely expressing disdain (?) but if there's a particular thing you have in mind I am always open to criticism. jp×g🗯️05:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am disturbed when free speech is under legal threat. That does not mean we should take a poor legal strategy, such as ignoring court orders while a case is ongoing. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you a WMF employee? Because if not the "us" there isn't under court order and has no legal strategy. We are not the WMF. Also note that you are currently ignoring such a court order if it does apply, you are literally discussing the court order right now on wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not a WMF employee, but I do view us as in this fight together given that they're fighting for our rights here. Doing things on Wikipedia that are likely to interfere with their strategy and piss off the court is, in my view, a bad idea if you want the WMF to win this case. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So why are you commenting in a discussion which will almost certainly piss off the court? If you're taking the court seriously you aren't supposed to be having this conversation... You aren't supposed to even mention the case on wiki. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't refute anything I've said. An internal discussion vs something intentionally presented as a news report is very different and it's not unrealistic to think that the court would see it as such. And yes, I do think it would probably be better if we keep the discussion about the case itself to a minimum here, but since the discussion is already happening, it's not like my comments in particular are going to be the tipping point for the court being unhappy with us. Not interested in arguing about this with you. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have a long tradition of covering controversies which involve ourselves confidently, even handedly, and promplty, it is one of our best features and something that even our most ardent opponents will mention as a positive, its a peculiar badge of honor that anti-wikipedia people will refer to Criticism of Wikipedia or List of Wikipedia controversies for evidence of why Wikipedia sucks. I don't see a compelling reason to abandon that tradition, if you want to engage with me in that sense I would be very open to it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The principle shouldn't be abandoned; just put on pause until we get a final result in this court case. Unlike previous cases, the judge here doesn't seem to be able or willing to distinguish between actions of Wikipedia editors and of the Foundation (that's how this whole thing became a problem in the first place). Given that, us editors doing stuff that the judge wouldn't like has the potential to cause problems for the Foundation's legal strategy.
After the court case is resolved, whatever the result, I expect that we will fully cover this, and that we will restore the page on this case (even if we lose the case and get blocked in India for it). However, doing so now would make it far more difficult for us to win the case. That's why we shouldn't. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the problem is that we aren't seen as separate wouldn't doing the same thing be the problematic one by that logic? And is an argument to do or not do something in order to seek advantage in a court case the foundation is involved in an WP:IAR argument or is there another policy or guideline basis for it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's an IAR thing. In my opinion we should try to make the Foundation's job easier here, because doing so will benefit us in the long-run. (Of course, it wouldn't be IAR if they force us to shut this discussion down or removing coverage of the case elsewhere on the site... but I'd rather avoid things even getting to that point.) Elli (talk | contribs) 17:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you honestly cannot understand the difference between "violating NPOV to promote the Foundation" and "not posting things that will harm their chances in ongoing litigation" then I do not think there is any point to discussing this further. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't fabricate quotes, thats just not what I said... I said temporarily put aside in the context of IAR, which unless I misunderstand is the only policy or guideline on which your argument is based. Doing something to help a group's chances in a court case is a WP:NOT problem, that doesn't change when the party in question is the Wikimedia Foundation and not the The Coca-Cola Company. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Signpost isn't part of the encyclopedia. Content policies don't apply to it. Not that any content policy requires us to write about a topic anyways. This is a very silly thread. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)17:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just as editors shouldn't worry about performance, I disagree with the notion we should adjust our behaviours to assist the WMF's active legal affairs, especially our own syntheses of what would help (with a clear distinction here in regards to settled policies, e.g. fair use). The Foundation has a legal team and contractors who are professionally poised to handle these situations. Once a hammer comes down, if it does at all, then those directions should be followed. DatGuyTalkContribs17:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are all fine here, our speech isn't under legal threat. Bluerasberry can write elsewhere and we'll all be able to read about things elsewhere. It is annoying and shocking to see happen is all. I'd like to hear from those whose speech is under threat in the Signpost article. I thought that Wikipedia gave them the best protection they could to do so. From what i'm reading and how it appears that is not so strong a protection as I thought (but most importantly what they thought). Based on Jimbo's statement above and taking it as more reliable, it appears that this is not so great a concern in this case. fiveby(zero) 17:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a big difference between a general discussion about how the community should react to the issue between the WMF and the Indian courts, and publishing an article in something which identifies as a newspaper, covering apparently the same sorts of things as the recently redacted article covered. I know that it's ultimately the WMF's decision what flies and what doesn't fly, and no doubt they'll take the Signpost article down themselves if they deem it appropriate to do so... but personally I do agree with Elli that it would be prudent and WP:COMMONSENSE not to inflame this situation any further by publishing a Signpost article on it now, given the Office Action decision to redact the article itself. Once it all blows over, the Signpost can cover it at will. — Amakuru (talk) 18:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the Signpost used its own web server instead of piggybacking a free ride on WMF's servers, this wouldn't be an issue. And they'd be closer to an actual independent newspaper instead of being this website's newsletter. I agree they shouldn't pour fuel on the fire by posting about the case on the WMF's servers. Levivich (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you'd just have to buy a domain, set up a webserver, then write an application for passing through URLs to retrieve, format and display Signpost articles, and also make it capable of overriding this default behavior for specified titles to fetch the content from its own database rather than from enwiki_p... jp×g🗯️11:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
lol it's not the 90s anymore, you don't need to set up a web server to have a website, nor do you need a domain (which btw cost less than $1/yr now). Signpost could post its articles on wordpress or substack for free. Takes like five minutes to set up. They have lots of nice templates that do the formatting for you. If boomers can do it then so can anyone. You could even have your own message boards, event calendar, email newsletter. Levivich (talk) 11:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know any TLD that costs less than $1 a year, unless you mean some kind of introductory/bundle offer. At any rate, if I were going to sit down and do this I'd want it to be something decent and presentable like, say, signpost.news. jp×g🗯️12:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the one example at hand, the process seemed to be: ANI lawyers notice whatever > They tell judges > Judges get annoyed > Judges order WMF. It won't necessarily become a habit, and the previous article was in mainspace + linked on the ANI WP-article, and so more visible to the lawyers involved.
It will be hard to convince all Wikipedians not to discuss this possibly first-time-ever issue on-WP, but prudent people can always join the discussion on Wikipediocracy instead. I don't think writing in The Signpost is more not prudent than this thread. We as a community don't handle gag-orders well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of us would rather have the discussion via messages left in gas station bathrooms than on Wikipediocracy. That aside, I think we handle gag orders well, in that we refuse to shut up, which is a good way of handling them. We just don't handle them the way those who would hold the gags wish we would. SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely an appropriate quote, but not in the way you think. If someone's trying to keep me from speaking either my opinion, or any true fact, and I have not voluntarily agreed to that situation (e.g., an NDA in exchange for access to sensitive data in employment), they are trying to steal my right to speak. And I won't take too kindly to that. SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the editor-in-chief exists to post in situations like this.
Well: I don't think it's possible for a thing to fit fit more clearly in the Signpost than this (what could possibly matter more? the crossword?) At the same time, I would personally prefer to do so in a way that avoids hosing the entire project and everybody on it for no clear benefit. The obvious journalistic response to open direct censorship is somewhere between "NUTS!" and "Aux armes citoyens", which is altogether good and proper.
I would consider directly causing the death of the website we're hosted on something of an anathema to our ability to exercise journalistic integrity; I would consider e.g. having entire articles summarily oversighted with no appeal something of a pointless exercise in boneheadedness and organizational dysfunction for its own sake. Anything which results in these things happening, then, is no good. So what actions result in which outcomes? Well, I don't know. I don't think anybody really has a complete picture of what is going on, hence this vacuous if-by-whiskey post. All I can say for sure is that some emails are going to be sent. jp×g🗯️18:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might sound radical. But hear me out. Since signpost is a newspaper, you report 2 facts. 1) The article xyz was taken down. 2) Jimjams quote verbatim. That's it. No bylines. No explanation/analysis (not that most of the editors here are competent in legal analysis anyways). — hako9 (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In 2024, WMF also took two content-related OAs for two articles at fr.wiki. It is perhaps pertinent to note that in the period from 01-01-2015 to today — which is about a decade —, there have probably been only five OFFICE ACTIONs concerning content per this discussion: the article on the ANI litigation (2024), Lois Lee (2015), two fr.wiki articles (2024), and a Zh.wiki article (2018).
In any case, WMF issued a long statement to the fr.wiki community. I found it interesting because it seemed like an unprecedentedly detailed intervention (not attributing any negative motives, though; it's perhaps helpful) by WMF into content, going to the extent of suggesting how the community ought to write articles, deal with COI requests, etc. They also note that French courts are becoming increasingly sympathetic to the subjects of Wikipedia articles and probably hints that there could be more litigations (and similar OAs?) in the future. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As is often the case, we have used automatic translation tools here in order to communicate with you in France – which explains the lack of inclusive writing/turns of phrase, for which we apologize. Bet the French loved that lol... Valereee (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I bet the non-French members of the French-speaking Wikipedia community loved it even more... Like starting of a letter to the ewiki community with "we have used automatic translation tools here in order to communicate with you in America" (although to be fair they do use the much more accurate "French-speaking Wikipedia community" further in) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair the court only seems to care about enwiki, there are pages for ANI on eleven other language wikis (including other languages widely spoken in India) which say more or less the same thing enwiki does but they don't seem to be at issue for the court... Just the stuff on enwiki. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth pointing out that creating that page is Blessentmoncoeur's only edit across the entire wiki farm. Probably some LTA making a point, not a legitimate expression of the views of the French Wikipedia community. * Pppery *it has begun...03:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not an LTA but someone who thought it prudent to use an alt account. Can someone give me a correct translation of the username, I don't think "bless my heart" is quite right? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a line from Chanson d'automne, by Paul Verlaine. Whoever chose that name probably intended to recall its use as a secret message for the French Resistance during World War II. – Swa cwæð Ælfgar (talk) 12:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. On the one hand, I think this is on the "just to stir the stew" side on Jimbo's comment here. On the other hand, it made me smile. While the en-WP article was live, I certainly hoped it would be translated into Hindi and other languages. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
09:31, 22 October 2024 JohnNewton8 talk contribs deleted page Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation (Page supprimée de en-WP par WMF à la suite d'une procédure judiciaire + notoriété non démontrée (sources sur un mois seulement) + création par un WP:FN +) (thank) Is this an office action or a normal CSD? Neither I nor the machine translator parlez-vous well enough to tell. jp×g🗯️11:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"notoriété non démontrée (sources sur un mois seulement)" indicates it was deleted on notability grounds as it didn't contain sources older than one month. I don't see such a clause in fr:WP:N, but that might be how they operate there. Nardog (talk) 14:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
La notoriété, telle que définie ici, ne peut pas résulter d'une notoriété ponctuelle ou d'un engouement temporaire. C'est pourquoi il est demandé en principe que le sujet puisse s'appuyer au minimum sur deux sources secondaires considérées comme fiables qui lui aient consacré un article ou un chapitre, espacées d'au moins deux ans.
Page supprimée de en-WP par WMF à la suite d'une procédure judiciaire: Page deleted from English Wikipedia by WMF following a legal procedure notoriété non démontrée (sources sur un mois seulement): Notability isn't demonstrated across time (sources only across one month) création par un WP:FN: Created by a sockpuppet ("faux-nez") Appears to be a regular deletion, but informed by the office action on English Wikipedia. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now this is a good subject for a The Signpost article, @JPxG. Office actions in history or something like that. I read some of a discussion linked in the long statemant [22], and the WMF lawyer there seems to be saying that it generally helps the legal department when the encyclopedic content is good quality, so they don't have to defend crap in court. I'll try to keep that in mind if I do more edits in the general area. And I think the deleted article was pretty ok from the WP-perspective. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The specific database query used to start this thread looks only for logged actions (in the sense the community defines that term). It missed the 2021 action as a result of that, since the only logged actions it involved are oversights. I skimmed through WMFOffice's global contributions, and didn't find anything else of note. * Pppery *it has begun...23:43, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I mixed up my frwiki things. The 2021 itwiki & dewiki actions were about a French individual, but had already been handled by the community at fr:Dorcel (and, it seems, also at Special:PageHistory/Marc Dorcel). But then more recently the same statement was reïntroduced on frwiki and led to an OA there, unrelated to the two linked by TrangaBellam. So that makes six total, if we count the it/de/fr Dorcel actions as one. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 00:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not correct. The WMF took down Damon Dash and DD172 temporarily and Andrew Stewart Jamieson permanently in 2011, for example. I think this is the first takedown since those, though I haven't looked exhaustively. Office actions were much more common in the early days. Those do show up in that query, by the way. And to answer the implied comment in the query you linked to: "but did staff have WMF accounts, then" - the current policy of official actions being required to be staff account dates only back to 2014 (although most staff followed it anyway), and the WMF didn't even exist in 2002. * Pppery *it has begun...05:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, it's of course not as old as any of us who were here from the early days. I know I felt it when a high school student asked me "What was it like to actually see 9/11 happening?", and realize they wouldn't have. SeraphimbladeTalk to me21:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Might be good to ask someone from T&S or Comms (@JSutherland (WMF), @RAdimer-WMF?) whether it's something the WMF would like to take responsibility for. If not, I don't see any reason it couldn't be done by the community. Most of it could even be automated: Have a bot list any local edit/action from WMFOffice, plus any metawiki edit/action affecting an account or IP with >0 edits/actions here. Then allow humans to collate related entries so it's not like 10 entries for a single rename. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 17:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How would they know that it's "Wikipedia editors" who did that? Article content is freely licensed, so those news outlets could just as easily have decided to do that on their own. I know I certainly don't have any control over what any Indian news outlet chooses to put on their website. SeraphimbladeTalk to me21:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They're right that it's dangerous though! That's why we have numerous policies and tools to help define and manage the risks. Grappling from first principles with Wikipedia's system. CMD (talk) 08:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mehta submitted ANI has a very wrong understanding of Wikipedia's architecture. He added that a note would be submitted on how Wikipedia functions. Looks like this is a step in an encouraging direction in which the court is learning how Wikipedia works. – robertsky (talk) 08:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have a new lawyer it seems. And he didn't seem to know that the ANI page is locked from "anybody can edit". Indian right wingers often complain about precisely this locking because they can't change the pages to their taste. In any case, I am glad that the court is finally trying to understand the architecture of Wikipedia. But it is important that our lawyer understand it first. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right-wingers (who are ideologically diverse depending on the country and community) often complaint more—mainly because they are systematically silenced or blocked to a greater extent. Most right-leaning sources are either depreciated or, at the very least, extensively defamed (a trend you may have also noticed). In contrast, left-wingers (who share a relatively consistent ideology globally) and their situational allies typically receive a free pass on Wikipedia, provided they aren’t overtly disrupting the platform. Many senior editors (with support from admins) feel no hesitation in doubling or even tripling down on defaming right-leaning pages and sources when questioned about their intentions, fully aware that they contribute to Wikipedia’s declining reliability.
The prevailing left-wing view often assumes that "truth is left-wing," leading to the belief that they are always right. When one sees themselves as the "fact," there's little motivation to consider opposing perspectives. This imbalance has made Wikipedia extremely one-sided and unreliable for political, historical, and certain religious pages, especially those that aren’t assets to the left.
Source? I don’t need a source to assert this; I was just using it as an example. Besides, the person I was replying to can think for themselves, I suppose. DangalOh (talk) 13:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DangalOh I'm not particularly invested in the right versus left propaganda debate, but I’ve noticed that any media outlet that even slightly supports a government tends to receive more citations labeling it as biased. Conversely, there are often few to no references asserting that it is not biased, making it challenging to counter those claims effectively. This imbalance is a consistent issue: when right-wing parties are in power, left-leaning voices tend to be more active in criticizing and highlighting their errors, and vice versa. This back-and-forth dynamic creates a cycle where each side focuses on pointing out the other's flaws, distorting the overall representation of viewpoints. I.Mahesh (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree with the idea that when the left wing is in power, Wikipedia becomes full of right-wing perspectives. There are more left-wing governments in power in G7 countries, yet Wikipedia still bashes the right wing of those countries day and night. Additionally, it seems that the anti-India bias on Wikipedia is free of any foreign political leaning, which has become very intense recently—perhaps due to the recent developments in India-Canada relations. All I can say is that as long as the USA and Canada continue to be left-wing, there is little hope for good relations with India. Even left-wing Indian governments won't be able to salvage this damage. And don’t forget, whether left-wing or right-wing, Wikipedia will almost always prioritize America first, considering it has to adhere to American laws and rules. DangalOh (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, if the Indian government is considered right-leaning, it follows that many major Indian media outlets are either right-leaning or neutral. This is evident from their Wikipedia pages, which often face vandalism and scrutiny. The references used on these pages typically come from a limited number of sources, which tend to be either left-leaning (citation needed) or neutral or out of country whatsoever.
The issue seems to stem from the fact that when one media outlet accuses another of being right-wing, the right-leaning outlets rarely support their counterparts or other news channels. This lack of mutual support makes it difficult to find sources that can substantiate claims of bias in a balanced way. As a result, we struggle to find reliable references to counter the prevailing narratives. This is purely my observation and may not be factual. I.Mahesh (talk) 14:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DangalOh That's wrong about the G7 countries. Italy is right wing, France neither left wing nor right wing, the UK Labour party is not actually left wing at least as it stand now. etc. Check them. Doug Wellertalk14:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doug, we can debate whether UK labor is left or right, etc., and how Wikipedia still targets the traditional right, but let's discard all this and delve a bit deeper. To be honest, the only country whose political ideology at the center is relevant is the top boss: the USA. If the USA is left, the G7 is left; if the USA is right, then the boss is always "right." The same goes for NATO's ideology, as well as any other major organization in which the USA has had an unfortunate stake. Wikipedia also can never go completely against the top boss, no matter how much it bashes the USA's right wing. Think about it. regards, DangalOh (talk) 15:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention that the majority of left-wingers often see them as centrists. If by "actual" you mean "extreme," then the "actual" left wing is anarchism (which is the same for every country), and the "actual" right wing is cultural fascism (which depends a lot on a culture's tendency toward fascism and varies for each culture and country). On the other hand, some forms of left-wing ideologies are much more prone to dictatorship; for example, various communist regimes. Even the Nazi Party, officially known as the National Socialist German Workers' Party, labeled itself as a socialist party. However, despite some early socialist rhetoric aimed at attracting workers' support, the party fundamentally rejected core socialist principles and aligned more closely with fascism. So, "actual" doesn’t mean anything here. If you think the Democratic Party is not left-leaning/aligned (which was the word I originally used), then I don’t know what to say anymore. I can say a lot about that party, but that wouldn’t be appropriate for a Wikipedia talk page, and people will come asking for evidence when they are the ones who disqualified that evidence. So, yeah, "actual" doesn’t mean anything here. Anyway, it’s best for me to skedaddle out of here. DangalOh (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In case I was not clear: you asked, “When was the last time?” and I answered that it’s right now and how “actual” doesn’t mean anything here. I also said that if you fail to see this, then what’s the point? By asking such a question, you showcased your firm belief that the current government is not left-aligned. Centrist was my assumption. I don't know what you consider it to be. Good day! DangalOh (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I am outspoken, Valeree, but you just need fair observational power and the "right" intent, and you will discover that evidence is all over Wikipedia. From the sources depreciated or considered marginally reliable to the frequency with which the same editors target the same types of pages with the same POV, and the pages that have recently been attacked again, etc. Those with proper intent and good observational skills will definitely see through it. I am not going to fight for this lost cause; I have seen how this unfolds. I have presented my views, and now I will leave. DangalOh (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the same editors target the same types of pages with the same POV and
Many senior editors (with support from admins) feel no hesitation in doubling or even tripling down on defaming right-leaning pages and sources when questioned about their intentions, fully aware that they contribute to Wikipedia’s declining reliability
Some good intent editors have already noticed this, and some are currently acting on it. I don’t feel the need to reveal the names of editors or admins I consider problematic and totally biased. I still intend to be on Wikipedia rather than make direct enemies because I truly believe that with the right approach, even enemies can become friends. We all are human after all. And as i said earlier, I have seen how it goes if you directly challenge authority. Vague or not, I am not fighting a case here to win. My job was to make one or two people aware, no matter the outcome. My job is done. Now I leave. Farewell, Valereee! i like this name for some reason. DangalOh (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Wikipedia collects news articles and presents them in a particular space, then how is it any different from Google, the judge asked.“Google does not add its own version to the index,” answered Kumar “It will not characterize what the statement is.” He also planned to show that some of the offending statements were not borne out by the source material.
The Judge needs to be informed that the correct procedure is for ANI to come and raise such issues on the article's talk page and convince the involved editors that there is a genuine problem. It is not the court's business to butt in and start making editorial judgements for us. And the court should also be made aware that ANI has not made use of the available grievance redressal mechanisms. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not foregrounding the public standing of editors brings a kind of egalitarian rigour to Wikipedia that even academic publishing does not have. To expose editors by court order would disturb a delicate balance. And when editors play safe, powerful interests get away with murder.
Honestly this is outrageous. People should not have to worry about being sued for adding information to an article and the WMF should not be aiding in India’s backsliding freedom of speech. Galobtter (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the Foundation has terribly failed the volunteer editors. The case could have been dismissed as useless if the Foundation had consulted a better councel who knew how the Wikipedia works - and how ANI's suing Wikipedia was technically/logically/practically wrong. Hugely outrageous. Regards, Aafi (talk)16:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this - the judge doesn't understand or care about how editing here works and is totally ignoring that this is from other sources. This is purely an intimidation tactic from ANI, trying to silence critics they can because they know that the news sources we're citing can't be silenced. Despicable behavior from them and I'm profoundly disappointed in the judges involved for allowing blatant lawfare like this to continue. Ravensfire (talk) 17:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Participating in the court proceedings itself meant that Wikipedia was going to submit to their outrageous demands. Should have never bothered, honestly. Ratnahastin(talk)17:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Refusing to participate in the proceedings would have left the Foundation in contempt of court, which would probably lead to a worse outcome for the Foundation and all editors in India, than would trying to fight the charges in court by legal means. Donald Albury18:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll disagree in part with your comment - people should not have to worry about being sued for adding information in good faith that is backed by reputable reliable sources. These edits were absolutely made in good faith and there are highly reputable sources making the acusations. ANI isn't going after them though, but going after what appears to be an easier target. WP is in an unpleasant situation where they can't win right now. Ravensfire (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to see WP countersue ANI for defamation and drag them through discovery hell for the mis-statements, deceptions and lies they'd made in this process. Turnabout is fair play, right? Ravensfire (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not surprising, per this (PDF warning) — The three editors(Defendants 2,3 & 4 ) in question are also defendants in the lawsuit, Defendant 1 (WMF)'s senior counsel submitted that they no connection to the three other defendants, therefore court ordered disclosure of their subscriber details to issue summons/notices to them. Ratnahastin(talk)17:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, check the page 2, 10. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that defendant nos.2 to 4 are claimed to be the ‘Administrators’ of defendant no.1. sounds familiar? Ratnahastin(talk)17:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The names mentioned in the order all turn up as advocates when I did a google search, several for the same firm. Absent a self-declaration from an editor here, about all that Wikimedia can provide for a given user name would be the associated email address and a list of IP's used for certain edits. ANI could then ask the court to force the relevant ISP's to take the IP information and convert it into subscriber information. And then it gets interesting - let's say I'm very determined for my security, I use a throwaway email from a provider that doesn't log anything, and I use a public wifi signal from a nearby McDonalds. It could be extremely difficult for ANI to determine anything past that if I really was good about isolating what I used to edit vs anything else. (That's not an approach that I follow, I'm not worried about something like this happening to me as I don't make edits that would trigger legal liability for me in my home country, and if a court in India tried to get me to do anything, it would be a good laugh.) Ravensfire (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By agreeing to identify editors of the page, no matter that it's under cover, the WMF has caved in shamefully. They have done a massive disservice to our readers and endangered editors who happen to work on any article someone litigious disapproves of. There is no excuse. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is very true. If editors are self-censoring their edits it would be very bad for their project. American and European editors have better protection, but many other countries have "less than dependable" courts where if you go against the "big guys" you can automatically lose no matter how good your arguments were. I honestly didn't understand why WMF caves in - is it because Indian traffic and revenue is very good? ✠ SunDawn ✠(contact)03:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is depressing. It would have been better to just be blocked here than to do this. We all know what happens to those editors now; they are cooked; ANI or the government's other minions will go after them. Such an awful thing to do to comply with this order in Mudiji's India, where the press freedom index stoops at an all-time low, where convicted rapists share stage with the ruling party and are garlanded, opposition sits in jail denied bail in corruption case while the money trail leads to that of the incumbent government, Wangchuk is detained for peaceful protest while a murderer and rapist is yet again granted bail before elections, and this is barely just scratching the surface. Definitely not Nehru's India anymore. I have nothing more to say. My condolences to those 3 editors. Lunar-akaunto／talk10:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You assume that the three editors in question are from India. But how would you or ANI know where the editors are from? What if the three editors in question are from the United States or Europe? What can ANI or the Indian court possibly do to them? Nakonana (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They can still be sued and can take part or ignore the proceedings as they wish. If the Indian courts award damages against them, ANI can seek to enforce that in the defendant's home country. "Under U.S. law, an individual seeking to enforce a foreign judgment, decree or order in this country must file suit before a competent court. The court will determine whether to recognize and enforce the foreign judgment." [34]. Similar arrangements apply in most other countries. Nthep (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nthep, while that's generally correct, there's specific legislation pertaining to foreign defamation judgments. [35] Basically, US courts may not enforce foreign defamation judgments unless the foreign judgment would have also passed muster under US First Amendment jurisprudence. So, the chance of a US court enforcing such a judgment from India is quite remote. SeraphimbladeTalk to me21:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But how much would that person have to pay in legal costs, time, and stress, in order to obtain that dismissal in federal court? I'm confident the WMF won't be footing the bill. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The act provides that if the foreign party loses, they pay attorney's fees for the person they're suing. So, they thought of that too. It was passed in response to "libel tourism", where people would sue US citizens or entities in some other jurisdiction with much looser libel/defamation laws, and then try to bring that judgment to the US. So, they still can try—but if they lose, they're paying both sides' attorneys, so they better be very sure they've really got a winner before they go forward with it. SeraphimbladeTalk to me00:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that it falls under Raise significant freedom of expression questions that affect the Project's ability to be a neutral source of information, such as true and verifiable statements that are censored under local law in the Legal Policies but it's up to the Foundation to make that determination so they should really prepare a statement to that effect it if looks like it might be required. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WMF is offering financial assistance for legal issues under some circumstances as was mentioned in the update the other day. The question is also whether a defendant would need a lawyer immediately when ANI would initiate such procedures or whether the defendant would only need a lawyer once the court has checked that ANI really has a case according to local law. Who knows, a local court might dismiss a filed suit for lacking a legal basis in local law even before the case is opened. For example, I once reported some damage to my property to the police. Several months later I got a letter from the court wherein they informed me that the police had found the culprit but no legal case will be opened because the culprit was too young (a child) to legally pursue any compensation charges against them, so there's nothing that can be done against the kid from a legal point of view. (The kid was below the age threshold for legal liability.) I didn't need a lawyer at any point of this procedure (and neither did the kid, most likely, as they were not legally liable anyway). Nakonana (talk) 13:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If these three editors are in the US/EU or some Western countries like Canada or good Asian countries like Singapore or Japan they are lucky. But what happens if they are in India? Or Nepal? Or Egypt? Or some other country that have questionable court system? They are toast and WMF should be blamed for that. ✠ SunDawn ✠(contact)03:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
good Asian countries like Singapore or Japan The judiciary in Singapore is no doubt robust, but the laws that Singapore is derived and adapted from its British colonial days, aka from the colonial Indian set of laws. Yes, there have been changes to the laws here, but my vague recollection is that it is not too far off from India's. – robertsky (talk) 07:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would Egypt bother enforcing Indian law? If the legal system over there is corrupt, ANI would probably first need to bribe every local civil servant through whose hands the papers need to go to reach a court or judge. Might get pricey. Once the issues reaches a court/judge, it might also reach the attention of some politicians, who might then make it some geopolitical considerations: are they friends with India or not? Do they want to be friends with India or not? Do they want to score some good reputation points with Western press or politicians or not? Is there an upcoming local election and do they want to score some points with local voters or not? Are there some important international negotiations upcoming soon where they need to score some points for good behavior or not? Etc. Based on such considerations they might either accept the case and enforce it draconically, or just throw the case in the next trash can, or present themselves as mighty defenders of freedom of speech by counter-suing ANI for daring to press charges against Egypt's "beloved and highly respected" citizens. It would be a lottery game for ANI. Nakonana (talk) 13:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eh... they were putting a scenario up. What if this happens elsewhere. Not other countries enforcing the Indian court's decisions, whatever the outcome it may be. – robertsky (talk) 13:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about the possibility that the three editors in question are not from India and what ANI's options would be in such a case because everyone seems to assume that the editors in question are from India, and the other person was replying to my suggestion of this possibility? Or maybe I just got the wrong thread and they were replying to someone else. Then that's my bad, I got it wrong, feel free to ignore my statement then. Nakonana (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many people who have made edits in sensitive topics around the world (Belarus, Russia, Ukraine, China, Iran, etc.) believed they personal data was protected by U.S. law and the judicial system, but the Foundation misled them. In my opinion, the enwiki community should discuss a strike (blackout). Iluvatar (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Betrayal by WMF? Shocker. Jimbo needs to drop his big stick on the table and impose his will from above to save this encyclopedia or let it become a tool of propagandist, government agents and others with less than pure motives(more than it already has become) because the good people will be risking imprisonment and worse. Europe has already seen laws constraining free speech and most of the worlds population lives in places openly hostile to full freedoms of speech and expression. Slywriter (talk) 15:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo is just talking emptily about the empty article. The removed article is not the main concern - the main real concern is how WMF agreed to hand out PII of its editors. Articles can be restored, three editors that are caught with Indian justice system is more dangerous. The fact that Jimbo and WMF failed to recognize the danger for three editors showed how out of touch they are. ✠ SunDawn ✠(contact)03:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia told the Delhi High Court on Monday that it is willing to disclose to the Court in a sealed cover the basic subscriber information (BSI) details about users who wrote/ edited the page about news agency ANI [Wikimedia Foundation Inc v. ANI Media Private Limited & Ors. - taken verbatim from the article. While the information wouldn't be given in public domain, ANI would get "some" information on the editors themselves.
Can someone explain to me what kind of data will be shared? As I pointed out in the talk page, I am disappointed at WMF for choosing to disclose user data to the Indian court where they can be subject to punishments or other legal problems. Wikipedia forbids VPN in their quest to prevent vandals, while at the same time failing to protect the privacy of its editors. Can someone in the WMF provide more details on this case? Should other editors be worried about their safety? ✠ SunDawn ✠(contact)15:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has consented to provide the Indian Court with the basic subscriber information (BSI) of users who created or modified the page regarding the news agency ANI in a sealed cover. This might imply that Wikipedia will probably reveal the IP addresses of the editors who contributed to this article.
To be honest, Wikipedia's failure to secure the identities of its editors disappoints me. In addition to refusing to safeguard editors, Wikipedia prohibits access to VPNs that can do so.
What about the editors who are in India, even if the majority may not fall under the purview of Indian courts? I hope WMF has the answers to that query. The "tough things" will no longer be edited by editors if this doesn't happen.
In addition to refusing to safeguard editors, Wikipedia prohibits access to VPNs that can do so. inappropriately conflates two separate actors. The Wikpedia community has prohibited VPN use (in most but not all cases). The Wikimedia Foundation is disclosing user data. * Pppery *it has begun...16:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that it is not VPNs, as such, that are prohibited. It is open proxies that may be blocked. For users subject to government interference with their ability to edit Wikipedia, there is a process for gaining access though secure proxies. Donald Albury16:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is that we assume that WMF will safeguard our PII, which it turned out that they didn't. The process to be allowed to use VPN is for editors that have problems on where they live - but the situation is more complex than that right now. India is not one of the "closed countries" and yet the companies there are using the law to censor free speech. This problem is not unique in India. Freedom of speech isn't a guaranteed right on many countries, and many countries have questionable court system. Despite their problems the US and the EU still have the best justice system.
How is there in a budget of 9.3 mil no money for something as elementary as a liaison function that does something as simple as reacting here or wherever saying "We are in contact with the affected editors and they have agreed with our course of action. Also, while we can't share details we have a plan that ensures no editor is ever thrown under the bus." In other words, someone who ensures editors that WMF is working for them and that we can risk editing, no matter what topic and what country we are in. EVERY time the foundation intervenes in some way it's the same shitshow of inept or no communication. --SchallundRauch (talk) 02:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it seems to be that again indeed. I certainly hoped they learned their lesson about that last time, but it seems they did not. We may need to force the issue again. I really hope not; that was a really awful and painful process for all involved, but it seems that's the only way we get anything out of the WMF besides corporatese say-nothing bullshit. SeraphimbladeTalk to me02:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WMF disclosing editor identities to a non-US court fundamentally changes the amount of risk involved in being a Wikipedian. I'd support strikes/blackouts/targeted breaking of things to ensure that WMF understands this. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not 100% certain that any type of PII has been or will be released even under 'sealed cover'. The information in the article is very limited and We can file an affidavit (to show steps have been taken to serve notice) does not mean necessarily that the redacted information will be PII. They may be simply redacting how service was effected. Bar & Bench seems to think so however, and they probably have access to the full transcript. fiveby(zero) 02:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can support such actions as well. If we are truly a "global community" the community of editors should be responding harder than WP:FRAM simply because three of our fellow editors are in risk of facing Indian court of law, which is not known for being unbiased or valuing freedom of speech. And WMF way of handling this is typical of large companies that wanted to protect itself instead of handling it like community of editors. It's hard to act on good faith towards WMF after what they had done. ✠ SunDawn ✠(contact)06:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also very much support drafting a community response. Taking the article down, I disagreed with it but I can understand them wanting to fight the bigger fight. But endangering editors is blatantly unacceptable. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which may have been enforceable under U.S. law. Treaties have full force and effect of law. Here's a paper discussing the French MLAT and electronic evidence[36]. Looks like it may only concern criminal matters? Not fun reading. Probably worth asking if the privacy policy is still valid. fiveby(zero) 12:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes i'm looking at the box to the left of that section as an explanation of what WMF consider's "legally valid" which is "Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and applicable US law." All the while wishing i did not have to read any of it. fiveby(zero) 14:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So would this mean that WMF doesn't even have the IPs of anyone who hasn't edited in however long, ditto the email addresses of anyone who removed them however long ago? Valereee (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which it looks like is the same 90 days checkusers have access to for IPs, and for emails, immediate deletion. The exception would be an active order to retain information currently in the system. Valereee (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see where you are coming from, but I find it unlikely that provided e-mail is "thrown away" (mine has never been afaict) even if people stop editing for years. If I actively delete the mail from my user-profile, perhaps it's forgotten/deleted from internal logs, but if they throw away my e-mail I can't reset my password, for example. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you wouldn't be able to reset your password if you delete your email from the site, unless you add it back in, in which case they have it again until you delete it again? Valereee (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like the BBC said, "The hearing is still on, but Wikipedia has since agreed to share basic information about the users in a sealed cover to the court, though it's not clear what that would be." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, the information ANI has access to -- the user names and their edit history -- would be the information WMF has, if the editor hadn't edited in the three months previous to whenever the case was filed (July, I think) and had deleted their email before then. Valereee (talk) 15:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt the lawyers were untruthful in saying "Based on information available to us, we can effect service." But ya never know with lawyers. Does not necessarily mean that information is available to them through stored data covered under the privacy policy. fiveby(zero) 15:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimbo Wales, any chance you or a WMF-representative will tell us at some point (soon if possible) "The user info turned over to the DHC was as follows: x IP-adresses, y mail-addresses and z personal names."? I don't know if this has actually happened yet, but per what we read it seems it will soon. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In short, we still don't know. I hope the WMF realizes the enormity of this unknown factor from our perspective, and that they're going to need to provide a response very, very quickly. I would not blame any editors based in India if they were to stop contributing for their own safety until then, and I would not be surprised if editors from other countries were soon to follow. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are in contact with the affected editors and they have agreed with our course of action. By doing so publicly, if they did, they can't deny in the court that they have no contact with the three editors or not representing the editors by association. – robertsky (talk) 02:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't they need to contact the editors in question to be able to serve them in the first place, which they're promising to do? Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know that ANI has requested that Wikipedia serve the editors, I don't know if that was agreed to or not. Even then, good luck to Wikipedia. They *might* have an email address, definitely some of the IP's used by the editors and would then require a subpoena of the ISP to get subscriber information. I think that generally it's up to the plaintiffs to do all of that legwork. And on a strongly security concious editor using public wifi or VPN to edit, good luck with that. Ravensfire (talk) 03:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Subpoenaing ISP is trivial for a company as large as ANI. The problem is that editors (me included) feels like I didn't need an VPN/public wifi to edit anything, trusting that WMF will provide some degree of protection. If WMF suggested that VPN/public wifi may be necessary for "tough" edits they should make it known. ✠ SunDawn ✠(contact)02:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, going by news reports, WMF has expressed its willingness to service the editors ANI sued; by "service", I understand (from Google) notifying the real life person(s) behind the account of the legal proceedings against them.Now, the best-case scenario is that WMF has IP address data for the 90 days preceding ~September and email-IDs for all the editors. If I further assume that all the IP addresses trace back to Indian ISPs, will WMF's lawyers be able to compel (1) the ISP to disclose subscriber details and/or (2) the email service provider (which can be based outside of India, too!) to disclose their logs, followed by (1)?Also, what if the IPs are not from India? As far as I have been given to understand, European ISPs cannot be compelled to give up subscriber details just by citing an order from a foreign court and one needs to go through a lot of hoops. So, is WMF indirectly disclosing — by accepting to service without any additional disclaimer — that the editors in question have edited from India?I am not acquainted with how Indian law works; so, please feel free to point out inaccuracies in the post. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
13 June 2022, a statement from WMF stated,
In addition to arguing that the Russian government’s request to remove information from Wikimedia projects constitutes a violation of human rights, the Wikimedia Foundation appeal contends that Russia does not have jurisdiction over the Wikimedia Foundation. Describing Wikipedia as operating inside of Russian territory mischaracterizes the global nature of its model. Wikipedia is a global resource available in over 300 languages. All of its language editions, including Russian Wikipedia, are available to anyone in any country around the world. — https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2022/06/13/wikimedia-foundation-appeals-russian-court-decision-on-removal-of-wikipedia-information-related-to-the-russian-invasion-of-ukraine/
Wikipedia is blocked in many regions, but following such orders contradicts its core values. If an editor follows all Wikipedia guidelines to create or edit a page, yet the page is deleted or their identity is disclosed, it raises concerns. Today it may be one authority demanding control, but soon others could follow, aiming to influence Wikipedia’s content and compromise its principles. —MdsShakil (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Giving in to these threats does not make them go away. It gives every organization and government more leverage to make similar threats in the future. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In response to multiple editors, including Tazerdadog and Thebiguglyalien, the WMF caved unnecessarily—en.wiki, or even all Wikimedia wikis, being banned in India would have been a salutary demonstration of the principle that the encyclopaedia is written independently of the WMF and reflects published sources without regard to the preferences of either official or political bodies. It would have occasioned outrage in defence of Wikipedia, respect for the WMF, and probably a wave of protest editing by the Indian diaspora and by the internet-savvy within India. By instead giving up and thereby sinking to a level below that of the most venal newspaper owner, it has endangered all its volunteers who work on even remotely contentious topics, even to fix typos and template errors. The organisation has demonstrated yet again that it does more harm than good; the only thing that can be said in its defence is that it has only implied it works for us, the volunteers, when asking for money in its advertising banners. I suggest we run a banner of our own under all those advertising banners, something to the effect of: We, the editors of English Wikipedia, disavow the above ad by the Wikimedia Foundation, which offers no support to its editors. Your donation is not needed to keep Wikipedia running and would be better made elsewhere. with "no support" linking to an archived report of the WMF's decision to identify editors; and "not needed" possibly linking to WMF's latest financial statement, showing their more than healthy financial state. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to give the WMF a few days to explain precisely what they have decided to disclose and why. If they have disclosed personally identifying information in a way that is not required under United States law, or if they fail to comment on this at all, then all bets are off as far as I'm concerned. The WMF had a positive track record on community safety and support for the principles of the free knowledge movement, and it was on this one point where I still had confidence in the organization. That confidence is quickly eroding. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've contacted by email JSutherland (WMF) to tell him that we need more information than we've gotten, and that the current "But legal reasons!" stuff is not sufficient to involve the community in the conversation. (And to make clear that we know that attorney-client privilege binds only the attorney, and that WMF, as the client, may talk about it all they like and may also authorize their attorneys to do so if they want to, so the lack of communication is by their choice and not legally mandated.) I think we should wait until next week to see if there's any further response from WMF, and if there is not or that response is unsatisfactory, we'll need to discuss next steps at an RfC. SeraphimbladeTalk to me23:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of communication may not be legally mandated, but it may be legally wise to not communicate things. You don't play poker with your cards all open and visible to everyone, right? There's good reason to not disclose things. Nakonana (talk) 00:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion it had eroded completely. Beforehand I saw WMF (with $170+ million donation and almost zero labor cost for its main work) as an organization that will do its utmost to defend freedom of speech, but now I saw WMF is just looking to protect themselves. Letting three of our fellow editors to be attacked by a large news organization because of their edits (which is not vandalism!) showed WMF isn't the beacon of free speech. Today we gave up three of our fellow editors for ANI vs Wikipedia, what about next month if we got Trump Organization vs Wikipedia? What about next two months when we got Russian Today vs Wikipedia? Or the next three months when it is The Guardian vs Wikipedia? Will Wikipedia concede again? As I outlined before, the outrage from the community SHOULD be greater than WP:FRAM. ✠ SunDawn ✠(contact)03:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yngvadottir: I know you have some axe to grind with the WMF but you're totally wrong here. You should read the transparency reports; WMF is one of the best organizations when it comes to protecting user privacy, both by convincing people to not sue Wikipedians and then also standing up for them in court (I still remember when someone tried to subpoena my data; they didn't get it). Your read of the situation ("a wave of protest editing by the Indian diaspora and by the internet-savvy within India") seems entirely out of touch with what's actually happening in India.
Whatever may have been true in the past and whatever organisations you are comparing WMF with, this is kind of Exhibit A for its not being true that WMF protects editors' privacy. I admit the decision to cave in surprised me. I hadn't thought even the WMF would be so craven. While I'm editing here, it occurs to me that we need warning templates, immediately. Placed by a bot on all articles pertaining to India. Something like: Warning. Indian topic. The topic of this article pertains to India. Editors should be aware that editing this page in any way may lead to the Wikimedia Foundation disclosing your IP and other personally identifying information in response to a lawsuit in an Indian court. Readers should be aware that this article may be outdated or otherwise inaccurate, or in need of copyediting, because of good faith editors' reluctance to have their personal information revealed.—with a link on "disclosing your IP and other personally identifying information". If someone else has made a similar suggestion, I apologise. This whole thing makes me sick; I only came back to this discussion because I was pinged. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A warning banner for Indian topics is the bare minimum here - Wikipedia (the community) has a duty of care to its users and editors - if WMF has failed to protect its users and editors then it falls on the community here to provide that warning.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be located in the United States - outside Wikipedia we still got the First Amendment backing us up. Even if Wikipedia handed over your IP they will have to go to your ISP which may not honor such request. Even if both honor that request you can sue Wikipedia and your own ISP for infringing on your First Amendment. There are people like ACLU or EFF that may take your case pro-bono. The media will take your case - billions of dollars of Wikipedia donation will go away once your case went viral. And even if the case went to trial, the barrier of First Amendment is very hard to overcome. Any sane judge will threw the case out of the court and award you money. Bottom line - WMF will lose even if they handed out your data in US court. Not so in other country's court.
The question is why WMF acted correctly on your case but not on these three (possibly Indian) editors? I hate to "wonder" but the cost of handing over the data in India might be smaller than the cost of getting out of India. ✠ SunDawn ✠(contact)16:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe yes, maybe no. Someone's attempt to uncover your identity on Wikipedia to sue you (and Wikipedia chose to go along with them) because of something you write will be a First Amendment issue. Bottom line is that American courts is more likely to side with you in such cases, and the public opinion will be on your side as well. ✠ SunDawn ✠(contact)02:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The media will take your case - billions of dollars of Wikipedia donation will go away once your case went viral. Wow. Good thing I never donated. — hako9 (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More detailed coverage
In ANI vs Wikimedia, Round 1 goes to India’s tech law. The US firm has taken a beating twice. During the trial, Wikimedia did something that it reportedly hasn’t done anywhere else in the world. It took down an English article after the Delhi High Court ordered. And now, it has even agreed to disclose the basic subscriber information about the users who wrote or edited ANI’s Wikipedia page in a sealed cover to the court.
Too early for something more elaborate as there is a lot we don't know, but maybe it's worth signing on to a really basic statement of principles on behalf of the English Wikipedia community. Perhaps something like this:
In response to the ongoing case Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation in India, during which the Wikimedia Foundation agreed to the release of Wikipedia contributors' personally identifying information under a "sealed cover" and removed a Wikipedia article about the case itself, the community sets forth the following principle: In cases where defamation or non-criminal lawsuits are filed concerning the content of Wikipedia's articles, the Wikimedia Foundation should refrain from releasing any personally identifying information about users whose edits were in line with Wikipedia's policies, under a "sealed cover" or otherwise. The community expresses deep concerns about the precedent doing so would set, allowing governments, companies, and individuals to use legal mechanisms to intimidate or penalize good-faith contributors engaged in advancing free access to knowledge. Preserving the safety and privacy of the volunteers who make Wikipedia possible is of existential importance, and no cost is too great to uphold this commitment.
I'm not sure what you're asking for, is it that the WMF should just not follow the law and court orders? "no cost is too great to uphold this commitment" sounds really nice, but I don't think that's actually true. I say that as someone who is as pro-free speech as they get, but Wikipedia is not somehow above the laws of countries, and saying you've complied with "Wikipedia's policies" isn't really a substitute for actual defamation law.
It's worth pointing out that Wikipedians have already made it clear that privacy is not the absolute most important thing given our de facto ban on VPNs that was mentioned above. Fixing that seems like a better stand to take first. Legoktm (talk) 04:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the WMF should just not follow the law and court orders? – If the WMF's headquarters is outside the jurisdiction of that law, and the court order would involve divulging the personally identifying information of editors? Then yes, that's exactly what we want. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what the proposed statement says though, it says nothing about jurisdiction. Moreover, pretending that the WMF or even Wikipedians only have legal exposure in the US is ridiculous, we've already seen Wikipedians get arrested in France and Saudi Arabia. Why is the WMF spending time complying with the EU's Digital Services Act? And so on.
I won't pretend that I know what's the right course of action here, I do think y'all are jumping down the WMF's throat without realizing that this is part of a bigger picture and the answer isn't as simple as "just ignore the Indian government". Legoktm (talk) 04:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The WMF cannot control whether some governments want to arrest editors. But they can certainly refuse to help those governments do it. And since WMF is not an Indian organization, it really is as simple as "Pull any WMF assets out of India, and then ignore the Indian government." SeraphimbladeTalk to me10:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saying it's as simple as pulling "WMF assets out of India" really takes the humanity out of it. We're not just talking about some physical hardware, it's also people, including WMF staff, chapter staff, and volunteers too. Legoktm (talk) 06:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The WMF staff, yes, that would certainly be unfortunate—but if necessary, then necessary nonetheless. WMF would not be pulling chapter staff or volunteers out of India; those people have neither control over article takedowns nor any personal information about editors, so they could carry on exactly as normal. Even if the Indian government were to tell those people "We want you to remove this article and give us private information about these editors", they could truthfully respond "I can't do that and don't have that." SeraphimbladeTalk to me17:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide what "bigger picture" you think WMF is pursuing by sacrificing three of our fellow editors to Indian court of law? If WMF sacrificed three of our editors today, what will keep them from sacrificing Chinese or Russian editors next? What will keep them from sacrificing editors from Belarus, Georgia, or Moldova? Or what will keep them from sacrificing American editors? I am quite sure those three editors that are scared for their lives today will prefer WMF to be blocked in India rather than facing the biggest media company on some trial. ✠ SunDawn ✠(contact)16:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Legoktm: I had a bit about jurisdiction/countries in there, because yes at the end of the day they'd be in a very different position in the US, but I removed it to aim for a general principle. The intended subtext is basically: "We would prefer you risk being blocked in a country that demands you betray volunteers' privacy for actions in accordance with our mission and policies." — Rhododendritestalk \\ 12:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And to whom. I assume "in a sealed cover" means only the judges can see it for the moment, but I wonder under what circumstances they could disclose it to the plaintiff and how likely that is. Nardog (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rhododendrites: The Wikimedia Foundation agreed to the release of Wikipedia contributors' personally identifying information under a "sealed cover". I would not be confident in saying that based on the information available to us. There are also statements above which would tend to contradict. fiveby(zero) 15:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the phrase 'whose edits were in line with Wikipedia's policies'. If someone violates Wikipedia policies, they can be blocked or banned, but they do not forfeit their expectation of privacy. PRicoNMI (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I accept that, but I think that's related to the WMF Universal Code of Conduct (or whatever preceded it), not Wikipedia policies. PRicoNMI (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that some violations of Wikipedia policy make releasing […] personally identifying information about users an appropriate response. Removing the phrase whose edits were in line with Wikipedia's policies would prohibit those responses. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's say a suspected terrorist had also been editing Wikipedia, without violating any of Wikipedia's policies. In this case, it would be appropriate for the WMF to report this person's personal information to the authorities to help with investigation. So I think whether or not a person follows Wikipedia policies is entirely unrelated to whether their information should be given to the authorities. PRicoNMI (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That scenario is...farfetched, to say the least. If the person were advocating terrorism on Wikipedia, that most certainly does violate our policies. If they weren't—then either whoever says they're a "suspected terrorist" already knows who that editor is, meaning it doesn't matter if we release their information, or does not and is just fishing, meaning we shouldn't release their information. SeraphimbladeTalk to me18:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that there's nothing magical about violating Wikipedia policies that should give the WMF special permission to share personal information. Others can respond here, but this is all I have to say about this matter. PRicoNMI (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point is interesting though. Let's say the authorities discover that a prominent Wikipedia editor is a terrorist. The editor never violated Wikipedia principles, but the editor recently did some terrorist attack where people got killed. The authorities knew his Wikipedia username but didn't know where he has been - which can be known if Wikipedia gave up his IP address. This scenario is far fetched - but this showed that there are some "lines" where the common interests beats the privacy interest of one editor. For ANI case it's pretty clear (for me, at least) that the privacy of the three editors trumped the need for ANI to know it to "wrongly" sue them. But who will adjudicate whether the "line" has been crossed or not? ✠ SunDawn ✠(contact)05:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PRicoNMI:Remove the phrase 'whose edits were in line with Wikipedia's policies'. If someone violates Wikipedia policies, they can be blocked or banned, but they do not forfeit their expectation of privacy. - It's in there because I see this case as fundamentally challenging the basis of Wikipedia. If someone creates an account just to vandalize an article with e.g. "my teacher at Springfield Elementary School, John Doe, is a serial killer" and makes no other edits, that's a completely different story from if someone summarizes reliable sources in an article about a notable subject. It's about preserving the project by protecting the people who contribute to it, not ensuring that creating a Wikipedia account protects you from liability. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 18:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this statement ignores the ways that failing to comply would have jeopardized WMF employees in India and perhaps volunteers since I do not trust that the court would have understood the distinction of Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia India. It also ignores the way the Wikimedia foundation already complies with court orders to turn over information - something I know from first hand experience when a subpoena effected me. I also think it ignores the fact that Wikipedia turns over far less information, on a rate basis, than other companies that publish transparency reports. I also would want the Foundation to fight back against the deletion of the article page, knowing that we have won in legal systems far more hostile and with far less rule of law than India's and turn this information over under seal strikes me as a reasonable balance. I do not think it possible to both fulfill our mission of spreading free knowledge and to never turn over volunteer information. As we have seen repeatedly in recent years, spreading free knowledge carries risks and dangers and I blame no editor who decides that risk isn't worth it for them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it ignores any of that. Those just aren't relevant to a statement of principle. But, to respond, AFAIK Wikimedia India doesn't have access to the data the court wants, which is something pretty easily explained. We should not be ok with giving up user data just in case powerful people are incompetent. It doesn't ignore that the WMF already complies with court orders; it simply applies to those, too (granted, court orders in the US are more complicated). It doesn't ignore that Wikipedia turns over less information because it's not a statement or judgment about past actions or about WMF as a whole. You may be confusing me with one of the "WMF sux" regulars here. We don't have to weigh in on specific WMF policies or its track record to simply say that we do not want the WMF to share personally identifying information about good faith contributors to aid in a defamation or non-criminal case. I think the objections are largely going to come down to I do not think it possible to both fulfill our mission of spreading free knowledge and to never turn over volunteer information. I'm arguing that our volunteers are the only reason we have free knowledge to be spread, and that if a country decides it's willing to block access because the WMF will not comply with an order that challenges the basis of our project (that volunteers summarize reliable sources to write about notable subjects), "that's on them", so to speak. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 18:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those just aren't relevant to a statement of principle. They just aren't relevant to the statement of principles you have, but they are relevant to the principles I bring to this matter because I want our editors to be able to make informed decisions about the risks they are taking by being editors. We don't have to weigh in on specific WMF policies or its track record to simply say that we do not want the WMF to share personally identifying information about good faith contributors to aid in a defamation or non-criminal case. I don't think anyone, including the WMF, wants to share personally identifying information so in that sense it's a reasonable principle, except for the part where it makes it sound like some unprecedented action where as it's not. But yes ultimately perhaps you are right. Your only principle is editor privacy where as I don't think we should let ourselves be closed down because we refuse to comply with US legal requests and because it is my principle that Indian readers and editors are worthy of the same respect as US ones. So if we're not willing to let ourselves be closed or have employees subjected to contempt hearings in the US we should not do so in other countries with a rule of law (which I presume are the only ones the WMF is willing to employee people in), which despite its issues includes India. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I take it as a given that WMF always has to comply with US courts, due to being based in USA and the ability of USA courts to impose penalties that could bankrupt or shut down WMF. However the situation is different with regards to foreign courts, since foreign courts have much less leverage. I think the only leverage foreign courts have is threatening to block us, which isn't an existential threat and can be circumvented with a VPN.
With that difference in mind, I think a strategy of "always comply with USA courts, never comply with foreign courts" is worth consideration, at least on the issue of protecting our editor's PII from defamation lawsuits. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-US courts certainly have less leverage but the WMF is an international organization, employing or willing to employ in a number of countries (including India) so there can be leverage beyond just being blocked. And maybe it's just me, but the idea of "write an encyclopedia for and by Americans" is much less fulfilling than trying to spread knowledge globally in the way we do today. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one is forcing the WMF to continue operating in a country if its government is asking for something nonnegotiable. And I don't believe that the majority of countries are going to demand PII on the threat of blocking Wikipedia, let alone every country outside of the United States. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be some conflation here. I doubt, for example, that the WMF has operations in Liechtenstein, but editors there can still edit Wikipedia. So there's a big difference between "WMF shouldn't operate in countries that try to censor us" and "Editors in those countries can't edit the encyclopedia." Indian editors edited Wikipedia long before WMF established any operations there, and if WMF stopped, they'd edit it after too. SeraphimbladeTalk to me02:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Following this logic, the WMF should not operate in the following countries where there has been, since the start of 2023, requests for editor information:
Armenia, Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Portugal, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and of course the United States of America. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That depends a lot on why the information was requested. If, for example, I edit Wikipedia to make a threat to kill the president of Examplia, then the Examplian government will probably want to know who's threatening to do that. And indeed, the WMF often releases information to law enforcement in the case of threats of violence, so that is not an unreasonable request for such information, and that would not be any reason to cease our operations in Examplia. If, on the other hand, it's "Acme Corp. doesn't like that the article about them contains well-sourced negative information, so we want data about all the editors who put it there so Acme can harass them"? That's a big, big no. So, it's not just that they made a request for information—in many cases, that may have been for an entirely valid reason, such as to track down a person who has threatened violence. We'd need to determine why those governments asked for it, and if the request was unreasonable, whether that country's legal system was sufficient to get the request quashed. SeraphimbladeTalk to me03:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And maybe it's just me, but the idea of "write an encyclopedia for and by Americans" is much less fulfilling - This is hyperbole, as though what's happening in India could/would happen anywhere. We're talking about a country where the ruling party is frequently accused of using the legal system in general (including defamation suits) to target journalists, activists, and critics, and suppress dissent. e.g. [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], UAPA, and so on. If we learn in this case that all it takes is a defamation case to out pseudonymous critics, that would be a disaster for local editors. So yes, we'd have some Indian editors based in India, but living knowing they could be arrested just for making good faith edits. Personally, I'm skeptical this would lead to a total ban. From the [admittedly incomplete] picture we have of this case, the headline would be "India bans popular educational resource for refusing to disclose identities of ANI/BJP critics", and I suspect that wouldn't be worth it. Total speculation, though. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 12:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel pretty confident that you could write the exact sentence, "the ruling party is frequently accused of using the legal system in general (including defamation suits) to target journalists, activists, and critics, and suppress dissent" about the United States!
Happy to discuss my perception of India's perception of Wikipedia sometime in-person, unfortunately I don't think it's as rosy as that :( Legoktm (talk) 06:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, you're putting words in my mouth, I never said anything like that. I literally said I'd share what my perception was, which, spoiler alert, is not that "the Indian population is a monolith". Legoktm (talk) 07:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Legoktm, you said that you'd like to share your perception. While it's unlikely I could literally meet you in person (unless you're in Denver, or plan to be soon), I would like to hear that from you, so if you'd like to set up a time that you and I could talk over Zoom or the like, I really would like to hear what you think. SeraphimbladeTalk to me07:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Legoktm, you wrote (emphasis mine) — "my perception of India's [Indians'] perception of Wikipedia" The second usage of perception is what I focused upon as it implies the existence of a monolith or something approximating it. In short, unless you are restricting yourself to the views of the incumbent government, I reject that there exists any "Indian perception" of Wikipedia; to say otherwise is as nonsensical (and demagogic) as saying that there is a "Jewish / BiPOC / ... perception of Wikipedia". TrangaBellam (talk) 09:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the link between a perception being a single, monolithic, point of view. E.g. New York's perception of the weather is that it's too cold and at the same time also too hot (possibly people in India might say the same!). Maybe I committed a grammar crime there, but I think (certainly now), the intent of what I meant to convey is clear. Legoktm (talk) 03:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel pretty confident that you could write the exact sentence ... about the United States. There are events in history, sure, typically related to wars or the Cold War/Red Scare (COINTELPRO, McCarthyism, Alien and Sedition Acts, Habeas Corpus Suspension Act (1863), etc.), but as far as I know the modern US government isn't exactly known for arresting social media users and journalists who criticize the president/his party. Who knows what'll happen next week... we might all have to go back and scrub our Wikipedia contribs ahaha [uncomfortable nervous laugh]. sometime in-person I accept. unfortunately I don't think it's as rosy as that - "That" is a reference to my hypothetical headline, right? I only meant that while Modi might not care much about foreign press, it seems like a pretty unexciting case to spin into a good narrative to justify banning a popular website. I'm sure, given his popularity, and given the way enwiki is written, that there are a lot of people who see it as biased -- maybe that's what you're getting it, and maybe that's the narrative right there. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 12:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can browse the list of journalists arrested in the US (disclosure: my employer) over the past few years, including those detained without any charges. Not to mention the joint Trump+Biden prosecution of Assange, or what's happened to Tim Burke and so on.
The point I wanted to make (which I didn't really do well earlier, my bad), is that I do fundamentally disagree that this wouldn't happen outside of India. Freedom of expression, including the right to private speech, is under attack globally, and despite this case happening in India, given a decade of this erosion of rights continuing, it could happen in a major European country or even the U.S. (see Trump's rhetoric around wanting to expand defamation law). Once we reach that point, would you still say no cost is too great to uphold editor privacy?
Good work. Did you look through #fr.wiki OAs above? Pressures and erosions widespread, our failure seems to be mostly an inability to hold people accountable for their actions, so once again good work. fiveby(zero) 14:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update from Wikimedia Legal team
Hi all - I wanted to provide you with an update from the WMF legal team in response to some of the conversation happening here and across different channels, as well as reports in the media. Within the limitations of what we can say about this kind of ongoing litigation, we wanted to provide some facts about this case and our privacy practices.
We can confirm that the Wikimedia Foundation is before the Delhi High Court in the ongoing lawsuit involving Asian News International (ANI). Currently, the case is focused on the content of Wikipedia articles, and an order related to user data. There are hearings on two of these matters next week.
In August, the Delhi High Court ordered the Foundation to disclose data related to three users who contributed to the Asian News International article on Wikipedia. We notified the users at the start of the litigation, and have been challenging this order for several months. We have not shared any user data, and remain in an active appeals process arguing for every protection available under the law.
Here is some important additional context on our privacy practices.
To start, when presented with a demand for user data, the Foundation strives to narrow any disclosure demands and to challenge it where there are grounds to do so. A core principle underlying our Privacy Policy is that we collect minimal data, far less than any other major platform. What we do not have we cannot be forced to disclose. The policy also outlines circumstances where we must disclose data to comply with the law.
The intent of the legal team is to work in the open as much as is possible. Our Transparency Reports, published every six months, provide aggregate information about cases like this where we may be facing requests to remove content or disclose user data. A legal requirement to disclose data in a case outside the United States is uncommon, but not unprecedented. Over the past 12 years, these transparency reports document 417 requests for user data from outside the US. From these requests, we have complied seven times in four countries.
To protect users, we also have the Legal Fees Assistance Program, a program put in place over a decade ago to support volunteers who are threatened because of their activities on Wikipedia, consistent with the site’s policies.
These policies are how we fight for and protect core values—including the accuracy of Wikipedia content and the privacy of contributors.
Commentary outside of court about ongoing litigation in India is limited under sub judice rules. We will continue to share as much information as we can under the circumstances. If you have any further concerns please contact legal@wikimedia.org and if you or someone you know has concerns about immediate individual safety please contact emergency@wikimedia.org right away. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm largely satisfied by this. I'd like to be assured that if it came down to either compromising the identities of editors and putting them in legal jeopardy or to closing shop in a country, that the WMF would opt for the latter. But for the time being, the fact that no user data has been shared puts my mind at ease. I'm also glad to see there's a dedicated Legal Fees Assistance Program, even if it may or may not be applicable here (and I don't want to know whether it's applicable, given the privacy issue). As I said above, this is the area where I have the most confidence in the WMF, and I'm cautiously optimistic with this update. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a helpful update. I tend to AGF when it comes to the WMF, but this was (and is) a worrying case for Wikipedia's future in India. Good luck and I hope this will be resolved with a court victory for freedom of expression. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's very good to hear that no user data has been released. That's an even bigger concern than the takedown of the article (though that's not insignificant either), but I'm very glad to hear that hasn't happened. I'd still rather hear a reassurance that it won't happen, but it's good that it hasn't to date. SeraphimbladeTalk to me22:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this is reassuring, and I think it's reasonable for the WMF to cooperate with the courts to try to win on appeal and also protect user data. Andre🚐22:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks but do you suggest that multiple reliable sources — BBC, Print, etc. — have fabricated the claim about WMF's lawyer having declared in the Court about his willingness to share PII but in a sealed cover (and even effect service)? If so, I presume stating it outright won't be a violation of sub judice rules. TrangaBellam (talk) 03:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can read it something like "WMF has not shared any user data, but the case/discussion on this is ongoing. We have agreed to share something (whatever the WMF has on hand at this point I don't know, but since they were able to notify the editors in question in July, at a guess it involves e-mail) if x, y and z, but the discussion has not concluded." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if "We notified the users at the start of the litigation" necessarily means that WMF knows that the users saw the notifications (I'm guessing the mean by e-mail). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the update. But as BilledMammal and TrangaBellam have stated, your information contradicted what has been stated before by reliable sources. BBC stated The hearing is still on, but Wikipedia has since agreed to share basic information about the users in a sealed cover to the court, though it's not clear what that would be. The question remained - what PII Wikipedia HAD agreed to disclose? While it is true that WMF haven't shared anything for now, the fact remained that WMF HAD agreed to disclose something before. ✠ SunDawn ✠(contact)04:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, "basic information" can be defined as ["User name", "Date of account creation"] but I fail to see why WMF will insist on producing such (publicly available) details in a sealed cover or why the Court (and ANI) will agree to it! TrangaBellam (talk) 05:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IANAL and definitely not familiar with the Indian court system, but I think why they'd agree to it is conceivable. Those individuals being sued for defamation in India presumably are being served the equivalent of a subpoena. So "basic information" could be their email so they can have documents e-faxed to them. I'm not saying the WMF should give over user information, but that's probably the reason. Andre🚐05:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems plausible. However, that contradicts Joe, right? Email, after all, is part of "user data" and not disclosed to anybody except to those the user have sent a wiki-email. Further, litigants can plead to subpoena the email service provider (Google/Microsoft/...) — who usually preserves logs for a longer span of time than Wikimedia — in order to have their hands on PII. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't seem to present new information, as far as I can tell, so I'm surprised by the ~"this puts my mind at ease" responses. In line with what some others have said, I do hope boldtexting "We have not shared any user data" isn't a spin on "we offered to share user data, but they said what we offered wouldn't cut it so we're still talking". I will say this, however: it is entirely possible that WMF lawyers made the offer of a "sealed cover" strategically, betting on it being rejected in order to characterize the request as overreaching. Getting above my paygrade with that speculation (I have no information or involvement beyond this very thread and the links it contains) -- just looking for the goodest-faith interpretation. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 12:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User data has not been disclosed as per the Wikimedia Legal team's update date. However, it's possible that it will eventually be shared with the Indian courts, if asked to do so by the Indian courts?
A core principle underlying our Privacy Policy is that we collect minimal data It is commonly known that the foundation has its users' MAC and IP addresses. This essentially says that Indian authorities use IP addresses and Aadhar card information to zero in on the identity and address of Indian editors.
Over the past 12 years, these transparency reports document 417 requests for user data from outside the US. From these requests, we have complied seven times in four countries. How much are the odds that the data identifying the identity of those 3 editors of the ANI are shared this time?
It seems Legal Fees Assistance Program is only for Admins, stewards etc Not for autoconfirmed users , not even ECU's?
That's technical, in order to perform its function WP has to be able to fight vandalism, but easily done without retaining the IP. The reason is maybe something to do with "life or limb" mentioned in the privacy policy. But if that EFF article is accurate as to how much is retained then CERT-In probably would not need an IP address to connect customers to WP edits. fiveby(zero) 18:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, suggesting that the functions of CheckUser could be implemented (and possibly even enhanced) without retaining IP addresses. fiveby(zero) 13:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think MAC addresses are transmitted over the internet there is a historical IPv6 address format which includes the MAC address in your externally visible IPv6 address (see IPv6 address#Unicast and anycast address format). But the privacy implications of that was recognized long ago and I'd be astounded if there are any modern devices which still do that.
Traffic routing on the internet is complicated, but at some point in the process your data carrier (I'm assuming wireless) has to know what IP address belongs to your phone so it can route the packets to the right transmitter and bill the data usage to the right account. Even if you're on a service where your IP address changes often, at any given point in time, your carrier knows what IP address is yours. How long they keep that information is a matter of policy. In theory, they could keep it forever if they wanted to invest in enough storage and didn't have any pesky privacy laws (or internal policies) telling them they can't do that. RoySmith(talk)22:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMO WMF should hand over the identity of those 3 editors. WMF is not responsible for editing and content. As I know they have hardly intervened anywhere in the editing process. Bajajkunior (talk) 14:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editors shall be responsible for their edits. If they use heavy words like "Propoganda", "Mouthpiece" etc in articles, they shall be knowing and be liable for what they are doing. Bajajkunior (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This does not address the fact that WMF's senior counsel has agreed to hand over the data in a sealed cover and to file an "affidavit effecting service [of notice]" just days ago. [42]. we have complied seven times in four countries. — How many of them were a non-western country with questionable track record of human rights ?[43]Ratnahastin(talk)18:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In their January-June 2024 transparency report, the WMF reports fully complying twice, once in the US, and once in Sweden. In their July to December 2023 report, they report complying 5 times, all in the United States. In their January to June 2023 report they say they complied 3 times, one each in the US, France, and Germany. They did not comply with any requests in 2022. They complied with one request in France in July-December 2021. In January to June of 2021, they complied fully with 3 requests, 2 in the United States and one in Italy. They complied with 2 requests in the US in the second half of 2020. They complied once with a French request in the first half of 2020. In total over the last 3.5 years, the WMF self-reports 17 compliances with 5 countries (US, Sweden, France, Germany, and Italy.) This appears to directly contradict the claim Over the past 12 years, these transparency reports document 417 requests for user data from outside the US. From these requests, we have complied seven times in four countries.
While it's not the immediate concern, and it's hardly the same thing as a private organization trying to silence and threaten editors, it would be a strong show of good faith to tell us what type of information is being requested and provided, and maybe even what justifies a disclosure in the eyes of the WMF if that can be said without itself getting into privacy issues. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From these requests, we have complied seven times in four countries - these requests refers to requests for user data from outside the US, so the complied requests in the US don't count toward the seven. * Pppery *it has begun...20:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indian representation on the English language Wikipedia
I was browsing Wikipedia using the app today. This reports the top read articles and I noticed that these started with Indian topics: Diwali, Singham Again, Bhool Bhulaiyaa 3, Amaran (2024 film), Mukund Varadarajan. This seems to be partly because it's Diwali but it's not unusual for Indian movies to be such popular topics.
Now one swallow doesn't make a summer but it's my general impression that Indian representation on the English Wikipedia is unbalanced in this way – that there are lots of readers but not so many power users and content creators. Perhaps that's because Wikipedia started in the US and its early adopters were in countries like Australia and the UK. This gives India correspondingly little influence on what goes on here and that may be a cause of conflicts such as this one.
A possible solution might be to create a fork for Indian English. This would tend to cover topics from an Indian perspective and might engage better with the Indian authorities. Of course, there might then be dissonance with this English Wikipedia but so it goes. I'm not sure what the search engines would make of it though...
What hits the mark is the lack of power users from Asia, who are interested in the Main Page content. I don't think a fork would work though. – robertsky (talk) 15:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't really have anything to do with the WMF, but I agree that finding "power users" in Asia is a problem. For the past couple of years, there has been a push to get more CU and OS coverage of Asia, mostly driven by a desire to have better time-zone coverage, but also to have better understanding of languages and cultures. Back in August, I clicked through every user page in Wikipedia:List of administrators/Active looking for people who (based on their userboxes and/or timecards) appeared to live in Asia. I'm sure I missed some people, but it's certainly a short list:
I am named, haha. I have tried asking those I know in the area to request for adminship, but they are generally uninterested or have tried running but was put off by the entire process. – robertsky (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Diwali started on Oct 30 this year. I've checked the main pages for Oct 30, 31, Nov 1 and 2. That picture seems to be the only Indian topic on the main page in that period. Compare with the coverage of Halloween on Oct 31, which seems to have gotten attention in every section except ITN. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think its a secret to anyone that we have a problem with representation... IMO the biggest one is that we in general demand an absolute mastery of the English language from admins and "power" users (and even belittle those with such mastery for minor errors or regional dialect use), I think that shunting Indian English off into its own corner would make that problem worse not better. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Nvvchar ("My name is Narasipur Vijayaraghavachar Venkatanarasimhachar" he tells us) is #3 on the Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs, with 1548, mostly on Asian subjects, but he hasn't been active for a year. User:Soman (#11, with 748) also does many Asian topics. There are others. A fork would be a terrible idea; I suspect it would be thought insulting by most South Asian editors. Of course there are the 20+? wps in Indian languages. Johnbod (talk) 04:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The South Asian enWiki representation has been all over the place because of lack of power users, like others have said. There are some solid contributors though, just most of us are often juggling multiple things.
Some editors I personally know have been put off by the difficulty of contributing to enwiki, and that we are trying to change directly by direct interactions and guidance. There currently does not exist a sense of community between the English Wikipedians who live in South Asia, and so one of the first steps we are doing is to connect to each other, both in terms of resources and community.
Based on recent events, I am more hesitant to name any active contributors publicly. But if anyone else would like to connect to other South Asian wikipedians, my email a user is open. Soni (talk) 05:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this subthread would be relevant to the specific issue of the Delhi High Court case nor the broader issue of ethical-legal considerations regarding sharing user data with government agencies. Wikipedia has issues with systemic bias in general, but there is not really any specific problems in regards to India and South Asia. --Soman (talk) 13:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki for Human Rights is organizing a call for South Asia, East, Southeast Asia and the Pacific communities to discuss the Future of WikiForHumanRights on October 24 at 10 UTC.
Campaign Events tool: a call with the Indonesian communities will be hosted on October 25.
Tech News: In issue 2024/42, read about the removal of the Structured Discussion extension (also known as Flow), work on making text searches easier, and more. In issue 2024/43, read about improvements to mobile app navigation, temporary accounts pilot details, the Content Discovery Experiments, and more updates.
MediaWiki: The latest monthly MediaWiki Product Insights newsletter is available and include updates on Wikimedia’s authentication system, research to simplify feature development in the MediaWiki platform, and more.
CampaignEvents extension: The CampaignEvents extension provides tools to create, manage, and promote collaborative activities on the wikis, such as edit-a-thons, meetups, and more. You can visit the Deployment page to learn how to get the extension on your wiki.
New Content Translation feature: Translators using Content Translation on wikis with mobile support can now customize their article suggestions with 41 filtering options. This feature helps translators find relevant articles based on their interests for translation.
Temporary Accounts: Temporary accounts will begin rolling out on October 29 to production wikis with an aim to do a complete deployment by May 2025. You can see the deployment plan and timeline on the project page. As we rollout this change, it is likely that some tools (gadgets, user scripts, templates and bots) will be impacted by it. We have a developer FAQto help developers with making necessary changes to their maintained tool(s). Please let us know on our talk page if you have any tool in mind that may need updating or if you need help with updating your maintained tools.
For information about the Bulletin and to read previous editions, see the project page on Meta-Wiki. Let askcacwikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!
The above section has gotten so long (and has started to go off on tangents) so I'll start this new.
I was emailed by one of the editors, who asked me to please post for them so they could remain anonymous. This is an editor with thousands of edits over multiple projects.
"Hello, I apologize for troubling you. As an admin, I trust you with this sensitive matter. Yesterday, I was notified that I'm one of three editors implicated in the ANI vs. Wikipedia defamation suit. As an Indian, I'm deeply distressed that the Wikipedia Foundation plans to disclose my personal details. With India being a significant market for the Foundation (receiving a billion views daily), I feel betrayed by their actions, which seem to prioritize their interests over our well-being.
I've done nothing but revert IP users' edits attempting to remove stable content without proper summaries. I haven't added any original content to the page.
Also, I'm worried about the Delhi High Court's jurisdiction outside India and its authority compared to India's Supreme Court.
"India's Supreme Court has overturned Delhi High Court rulings several times, with opposition parties labeling it a pro-government court. However, if Wikipedia were banned in India by the Delhi High Court and the Foundation appealed to the Supreme Court, WMF would likely prevail. Such a victory would not only benefit Wikipedia but also uphold free speech in India."
Perhaps those IPs belonged to ANI? Afterall ANI admitted that they tried to get the content removed until the page was placed under extended confirmed protection. [44]Ratnahastin(talk)15:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that at least one of the editors is in India changes things - it goes from concerning to a major issue.
I think it is time to start preparing our response, and I propose that we do it in two stages:
First, we write a letter to the WMF similar to what Rhododendrites proposed above, expressing our stance that in circumstances like this we expect the WMF to protect editors, both as a matter of principle and because the chilling effect of not protecting editors will be significant.
Second, we prepare a contingency for what we will do if the WMF does disclose the information. I propose, similar to Yngvadottir's proposal, we target WMF's fundraising if they do proceed with it, as based on past precedent they only respond when their money is under threat. Specifically, I propose we run our own banners above the WMF's banners during the next major fundraising event, informing our readers that the WMF has sufficient funds to not need their donations, and that editing community requests that they boycott donating this year, to send a message to the WMF about the importance of protecting editors and preventing censorship.
@Valereee: Above, Joe claims that they (WMF) had notified the users at the start of the litigation but here, we have the user claiming that they were only notified yesterday. Can you reconcile the two statements? Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 11:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Despite following news on the defamation suit, I was unaware that I'm one of the editors involved. I've been in contact with the WMF over the past three days. They informed me that my name may be disclosed by November 8th and offered to recommend lawyers to assist me tomorrow. The foundation also assured me that they will cover all my legal fees.
For all the criticism we're sending their way in this thread, just noting for the record that I very much appreciate The foundation also assured me that they will cover all my legal fees. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 14:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If court summons the editor in their personal capacity, and if it finds the editor guilty, they'll ask for apology, which will make wmf's appeal weaker. Also, there is a real fear of reprisals once the name is outed like here. — hako9 (talk) 14:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The possible knock-on effects of any disclosure in a cases such as this are two numerous to even summarize. Providing access to a legal defense fund is not an act anywhere in the same universe of effectively negating the consequences of sharing this PII in the first place. We are talking about nothing less than the stone cold betrayal of these volunteers, and an offensive denial of the community's place in deciding if this is the Wikipedia we want, and what our priorities should be in this case. Whether the encyclopedia being more easily available in India is worth 1) obviating principle protections to our volunteers working and 2) allowing the kind of suppression of content as is involved here--or indeed, whether either is even a functional possibility for us without doing immense organizational and value damage to the whole endeavour--are questions we should all be answering together. SnowRise let's rap06:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To the person concerned about the suit. Don't be. Unless and until a court issues a summons against you, nothing will happen. And court cannot summon you until wmf gives out your info. — hako9 (talk) 12:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two things: Valereee, have you verified what the user says is an accurate summary of their edits (ignore this if it's impossible to answer without outing this user, of course)? Also, BilledMammal, while I've been clear that I'm down for a statement of principle of some sort, I think we need more information before concluding the WMF is handling this incorrectly (and before embarking on some form of protest). If/when it comes to a protest, IMO the perennial WMF protesters who have gone after WMF fundraising/banners for all sorts of reasons in the past, down to and including the wording that appears on the banners, do not send a sufficiently strong message about this issue, especially with the same plays. I don't know what form of protest would be most appropriate. Worth talking about options sometime, but I don't think we're quite there yet. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 12:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure what would be stronger than going after their money, with the added benefit that this would be a very visible protest.
The issue is we’ve only got two tools at our disposal; a strongly worded letter, and going after their money. I suggest we try the letter first, and then the money if that fails. BilledMammal (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BilledMammal, does that mean you don't agree with Rhododendrites' comment that we need more information before concluding the WMF is handling this incorrectly? Or just that you think some form of protest is appropriate now, regardless of whether the WMF is handling it incorrectly? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we already have enough information to know the WMF is handling this incorrectly - disclosing editor PII in this case means they are handling it incorrectly, and they are now days away from doing so. This means we need to act now. BilledMammal (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree. When the disclosing happened it would already been too late. It's better to nip this on the bud before it happened rather than just protesting when it had happened. Protest against a government bill happened before the bill is passed, not when it had passed. The action is needed NOW to dissuade WMF from doing such actions. If WMF decided to not disclose, we can close up the campaign. If WMF decided to disclose, we can continue the campaign. ✠ SunDawn ✠(contact)02:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the whole discussion here made it already more than clear to WMF that editors are not happy with the prospects of data being disclosed. Continuing to repeat the same things over and over again just distracts them from focusing on handling the legal case properly. Is there really anything that still needs to be said but hasn't been said by now in this whole discussion and that WMF really needs to know but doesn't know yet...? Nakonana (talk) 04:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the WMF, who would be spending quite a lot to deal with these demands (and, it turns out, the legal fees of the users involved) has any philosophical or financial interest in setting a harmful precedent here. I also think we have a dearth of relevant legal expertise in this thread. I'm open to the possibility that the sealed cover offer was strategic, or that there's something else going on which would complicate the "WMF is selling us out" view. There's no way I'm going to support a protest action that's intended to interfere in those legal proceedings. We should make our stance clear, but decide what comes next only when we have the information. That mighty mean after the case, but if we make a clear statement in advance, it won't be a surprise. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 15:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that the WMF is choosing to prioritize... something... over protecting the PII of editors acting in accordance with our policies and guidelines. There is nothing I can imagine that can justify that - can you? BilledMammal (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only things I can imagine are the real-life safety of an individual. I cannot imagine that that's true here, so I'd support the RFC for both the letter right now and the banner if PII is disclosed. Tazerdadog (talk) 15:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rhodo, there is a minor inaccuracy in their description of their edits that in my view is both meaningless and understandable -- in fact I won't go further because it may make the editor identifiable -- and which I believe most other editors would also find meaningless and understandable. Valereee (talk) 13:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But you do know the username, right? It's not just some random unidentifiable editor who claims to be affected — you can exclude that possibility, right? Nakonana (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New questions have been raised, and I believe it's time to talk about a response. The goal is to tell the WMF that they should not do so, rather than wait and say they should not have done so. The affected editor says They informed me that my name may be disclosed by November 8th. The WMF must be aware that if they capitulate to a private organization's attempts to censor Wikipedia through a foreign court and compromise the safety of our peers, then they will be crossing a point of no return. As someone who's strongly criticized the wording of the donation banners in the past, that is very low on my list of priorities right now and I don't particularly care whether the banners specifically are a subject of our response. At a minimum, I'd like a formal statement signed by the community, whether it be an RfC, a list of signatures, or anything else. The next step is a more public, reader-facing response. And if neither of those are sufficient? Snow Rise, let us know when you've drafted the notice of departure you mentioned above. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree with drafting a pair of formal statements, directed at the WMF itself and the public respectively. Compromising the safety of Indian editors in this way is unacceptable. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Am I the only one who, looking at what few communications we have received to date from the WMF on this matter now have the feeling of being accurate more to the technical letter of the truth than the spirit? I am not prone to this kind of cynical disposition when it comes to this movement, but there is just a feeling of being managed that hovers over the Foundation's approach to the community on this one. Mind you, I think the talk of fundraiser banners issue needs to exit this conversation, like immediately. Please don't bring any preconceptions about the WMF into this dialogue. Many of us find many of those arguments to involve a lot of conspiratorial thinking and absurd exaggerations--as have many habitual complaints about the WMF. More to the point, there is is no need for it here: it's quite easy to be someone who has generally had full faith and confidence in the WMF up to the present day (that's me, more or less), to still be horrified and adamantly opposed to the strategy being contemplated by the Foundation's leadership in this instance. Miring and tying concerns to older, different issues will not help bring clarity to this matter. And there's more than enough to be concerned about in relation to the immediate concerns. To the extent that the WMF's response to date seems to have mollified an outburst from the community initially, I hope some are starting to re-assess the wisdom of forgoing a strong and unified demand for deeper engagement to be made immediately. SnowRise let's rap06:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately TBUA, even in the circumstances I didn't think to believe I might need it so soon. I am so discouraged. I've never anticipated ever feeling so inclined to believe the senior WMF leadership could lose the plot so completely on such important issues. This is really a sea change for me. SnowRise let's rap06:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My deepest sympathy for the emailer notwithstanding, I doubt WMF is "prioritiz[ing] their interests" by trying to maintain its presence in India. The billions of pageviews incur nothing but cost for WMF, and donations from North America and Europe dwarf those from Asia. I assume it chose to fight the case rather than close up shop out of inertia and not being nimble enough to do so. Nardog (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does "my name may be disclosed" mean? Surely all the WMF can do is disclose the IP address of a specified user? I know that is serious and could easily lead to full identification, but some clear wording would be helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WMF could disclose the email of the editor, and in most cases it will "out" the editors anyway. And for a company ANI-size it is trivial to subpoena the ISP to give out the name as well. ✠ SunDawn ✠(contact)02:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee, I have some questions about the message you have received.
Is the editor who sent you the message one of the editors who had worked on the ANI article?
Did they share with you any correspondence with WMF with regards to this matter?
There is an article here that somehow details what kind of edit that ANI have a problem with. Seeing what kind of edit they are trying to introduce we can see that a lot of innocent edits can be classified as "defamation" by ANI. We can also see how they wrongly identify "Wikimedia" and "Wikipedia administrators" as the one trying to remove their statement. To be honest, such edits that ANI tried to make will be removed promptly by anyone running an anti-vandalism tool. ✠ SunDawn ✠(contact)02:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I previously speculated after reviewing the revision history and their own admission regarding their involvement on this article that they could have filed lawsuit against the editors who reverted their attempts at whitewashing, rather than the actual authors. Ratnahastin(talk)03:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per my reading of this, the disclosure of identities is one of the main issues being pressed right now, and the WMF is putting up a fight. That's good to hear, and I can completely understand why they don't want to lay out their full thought process while the appeal is still being considered. My concern right now remains with the anonymous email, particularly whether we can reconcile the WMF's statements and actions with I was unaware that I'm one of the editors involved and They informed me that my name may be disclosed by November 8th. Valereee I'm glad that you're leaning toward privacy and ask that you keep doing so, but more information is really needed here. Could you ask the editor in question for a rough timeline, namely when they were first made aware and when they were given the November 8 estimate (or if they're reading this, would you consider sending it to Valereee). Yesterday, I was notified and in contact with the WMF over the past three days suggests we don't know the true timeline right now. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
tbua, I'm trying to be supportive rather than trying to investigate. This is undoubtedly very stressful for this person, and I'm not going to add to that. Valereee (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can respect that you didn't want to push further; I wouldn't have asked if this weren't critically important. Based on the reply below, it looks like the timeline adds up and the WMF has done its due diligence in this regard. It remains to be seen what they do with the information, and what the consequences end up being, for the victims, the community, and the WMF's operations in India. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update:
"I received an email from WMF on July 24, but unfortunately, I didn't notice it. Had someone notified me on my talk page, I would have taken action sooner. WMF sent a follow-up email on October 28, which I didn't notice until November 1. Seeking clarification, I asked WMF if the email targeted all Indian editors or specifically those in ongoing defamation suits. They clarified on November 2, revealing my involvement and the initial email sent in late July.
Since November 1, I've been in touch with WMF. They've consistently stated (as recently as today) that they may disclose editor details in a sealed cover by November 8. Additionally, WMF is arranging Indian lawyers to assist me, covering fees under their Legal Fees Assistance Program."
Although the foundation may provide legal assistance, I'm uncertain about navigating the broader implications:
"I received a new email from the WMF a few hours ago. They updated me that they are still arranging for Indian lawyers to assist me, covering their fees under the Legal Fees Assistance Program. I can expect contact information for the lawyer later today.
The Foundation clarified that they have not disclosed, nor do they intend to disclose, any co-defendant's personal information to ANI directly. This follows the Delhi High Court's August order to disclose data about Wikipedia users.
As mentioned in their email on November 1, 2024, the Foundation may need to provide limited user account data confidentially to the Court."
"I believe the Wikimedia Foundation's email indicates their intention to disclose editor details to the court in a sealed cover, potentially on November 8th. I consulted a lawyer friend practicing in a nearby session court, and they advised that given the current political climate, this development could be detrimental to me.
According to my friend, I risk:
Device seizure (used for editing)
Traveling to Delhi High Court, which is expensive or time-consuming
Facing online and offline backlash
My friend's assessment heightens my concerns."
"I would appreciate it if you could share these new developments and my concerns related to this lawsuit with other editors."
Regarding #2, advocate can appear on your behalf. You won't need to be physically present for every hearing.
Regarding #3, from wmf's comments above, I don't think they will agree to disclose your info. It looks like the most they are willing to do is give it to the judge in a sealed cover, so it won't be in the public domain. — hako9 (talk) 05:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hako, let's please be careful about giving assurances to this editor that we can't possibly guarantee. Once the court has the information in question, it can, and in all likelihood at some point will, give to plaintiff. We also have absolutely no certainty that they will not be named a form, and potentially liable party to the case (and again, in fact, probably will), nor can we begin to predict the scope of liability or potential size of awarded damages. So it's no really appropriate to try to soothe this party in this manner, however good the intention. Rather than attempting to manage this volunteer's entirely reasonable anxiety, we should be discussing next steps to make make a powerful statement to the WMF about how unacceptable this course of action is. What they are about to do to this individual is, in my opinion anyway, an unconscionable violation of trust and profound breach of movement values. And all to temporarily safeguard availability of the encyclopedia in a country with a current political and legal landscape with regard to human and personal rights that will probably force the WMF and community into a corner that will require us to call the same bluff sooner rather than later, regardless of any capitulation in this particular case. We have mere days to act now to keep this threshold from being crossed, to the detriment of this project's culture and feasability forever after. It is time to wake up the rest of the community to this situation. SnowRise let's rap08:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Snow Rise I think the time is now to create the move. Outside certain small circles I am not sure the readers of Wikipedia are aware of the situation. I am quite active on Wikipedia but if not for the random thread on /r/wikipedia I won't know about this case. ✠ SunDawn ✠(contact)10:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently, I was correct with calling this court a kangaroo court[46] and criticizing the situation of India. This battle is not just about the problematic outlet ANI, but every Wikipedia page that does not align with the pro-government propaganda. Ratnahastin(talk)07:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been following this case in the press over the past few months. I agree with Snow Rise that it is now important to press upon WMF that any steps which may reveal the personal identity of the editors involved should be avoided at all costs. In my opinion, it would be preferable to see Wikipedia completely banned in India rather than risking action by the Indian authorities against any of the editors involved. I therefore suggest, Valereee, that action should be taken along these lines without further delay.--Ipigott (talk) 14:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it's recent (May 2024) and it has suggestions directed at Wikimedia Foundation, I was just wondering if Wikimedia Foundation is aware of this article. And I am not asking with respect to editor conduct, but with respect to any potential initiatives (such as partnerships with potential volunteer experts to audit few articles). Bogazicili (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Miscellaneous
I want all my edits reverted.
I know this will be completely ignored especially considering corporations who don’t care at all about user’s privacy like Google but I will say this anyway. I want all the edits I have made reverted. I want everything I have added onto Wikipedia removed.
I believe it is my right to privacy and just as people are allowed to add content to Wikipedia they should also be allowed to remove content they have added. 92.9.187.249 (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever you edited Wikipedia in the past, you were informed in writing with each individual edit that you agree to our Terms of Use and agree to irrevocably release your text under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and GFDL. That was a legally binding agreement that you accepted with each edit. Accordingly, you have no such right and no basis for making this request. Cullen328 (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes. The good old terms and services trick. Well, I am not surprised. Well then, you continue editing Wikipedia if it makes you feel good but as for me well I am getting out of what I consider a digital rubbish can set on fire. With that being said safe travels fellow internet surfers. This is me finally signing off from this site once and for all! 92.9.187.249 (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a "trick". It is a legal agreement that you voluntarily entered into every time you made an edit, and it is essential to the success of the #7 website on earth, with page views exceeding ten billion per month. I hope that you find a hobby that will be more satisfying to you. Cullen328 (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to minimize the licensing issue, but there's also a practical side to this. Let's say you created an article some time ago and over the ensuing years, multiple people continued to edit it. A good example from my own editing might be The Lincoln Project. I created it four years ago but at this point only 7% of the text is mine. Even assuming we wanted to revert everything I wrote, how could we possibly unravel that and leave anything coherent? RoySmith(talk)23:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This being an IP address, we have no way of knowing who was editing from it when past edits were made. For all we know, the person making this request only just gained access to this IP address today, and is actually asking us to remove someone else's work. BD2412T01:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the IP regrets not the edits, but the fact of not logging in (and thus exposing the IP address). I clicked through a handful of edits, and they seem to be quite ordinary, with no obvious privacy implications (e.g., punctuation fix). If hiding the IP address is what's actually wanted here, then it is conceivably possible that this could be accomplished somehow (e.g., Wikipedia:Revision deletion) without actually removing the content itself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the IP was upset because of this filter action; OhNoitsJamie almost immediately implemented the IP's changes, but perhaps the IP did not notice this? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇04:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is an interesting problem in that the inability to apply the 'right to disappear' might be a problem for EU editors. Reverting 360 edits is trivial compared to some 'right to disappear' actions needed; for instance, a person participating in a Clinical Trial asking that all information about them be removed from all databases - completely non-trivial, and completely doable via approved procedures at pharma companies. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also believe that you agreed to this. If you want everything reverted, why did you add it in the first place? I am agreeing to the following terms by sending this message:
By clicking "Reply", you agree to our Terms of Use and agree to irrevocably release your text under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Which means that once it is put, you can't take it back, the word irrevocably in the legal terms is what is stopping you. Also, you have an IP address instead of an account, which means that again, you may be removing hundreds of people's work, and they might actually want that. Hellow Hellow i am here16:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even when people agree to something, they sometimes come to regret it later. That's okay. They're stuck with (most of) it in this case, but it's okay for them to be sorry about their past decisions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. If "irrevocably" wasn't in the legally binding contract, I would be on their side. However, it is, and so once you have added it it is too late to remove. Hellow Hellow i am here17:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And while if a company has your personal information they must delete it at your request, you gave the Wikimedia Foundation no personal information, and instead research, or fixed typos. To follow up, it is ridiculously hard to undo your edits if someone already edited over your edits. Hellow Hellow i am here16:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, this IP address has created several articles, which would be deleted (the creation of an article is an edit) which means that every created article by this IP address would be deleted, which is something us Wikipedians won't accept. Hellow Hellow i am here17:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The OP's request as originally worded violates Wikipedia's Terms of Use and would be pragmatically impossible to implement in general for reasons others have pointed out. But it is interesting to explore how far their request could accomplished, especially in light of the GDPR. There's a page at Mediawiki:GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) and MediaWiki software that discusses some of the issues related to deleting a user's contributions and their IP addresses. A hyper-liberal interpretation of the GDPR and what private data means would make using Wikipedia impossible. For example, the OP's interpretation where all content they've added somehow involves their privacy is absurd: a typo fix in an article, for example, does not have anything to do with privacy and is not private data. WhatamIdoing's suggestion that their IP address be hidden in histories, etc., is reasonable and doable. But this redaction cannot reasonably for practical purposes extend to mere mentions of your IP address everywhere, for example, in comments by others. And the comments that we don't know if the same person made all the IP edits is a good one. Imagine if a handful of our most active editors decided to do what the OP wants, it would eviscerate Wikipedia. I am not versed in EU law but would surely hope the nature of collaborative websites are factored in to how the GDPR is interpreted by the courts and some technical common sense would prevail. Plus, I don't see how a GDPR right to disappear would overrule the legal agreement you made every time you made an edit. Without further clarification, we don't know what the OP wanted or why but it is an interesting topic to see how a "right to disappear" could actually be implemented and to what extent. Jason Quinn (talk) 13:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So it looks like the wiki software does consider and would treat this name as a non-existent and thus legitimate possible name of/for an account.
I do see two problems:
If now some one else/new would create a (second) account with this name, provided the wiki software would allow it, there would exist, via certain links, an old version with the same name.
In the history of all pages which were created or edited by this original account the original name of this account is existent, therefore this name must not be allowed a second time as an account name.
So, as I see this, something should be changed, probaly only on the technical ( not the rule ) side.
I remember, on advice from another admin, creating a doppelganger account on my old user name to prevent usurpation. My account was renamed in July 2008 (at least, that is when my user page was moved), but the current account with my old name was created in November 2009. That was a while ago. Donald Albury18:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That used to be common advice, before antispoof. It is still useful to at least have a redirect from pages in old signatures/lists to current pages. — xaosfluxTalk13:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Check the notablity of this article and after approval then delete the speedy delete template
Hello dear Wikipedians. This article (Najmeddin Shariati) was created once before in an unprincipled manner and without citing reliable references. For this reason, it was deleted under the title of not notablity and fame with the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. But this time I created it with basic editing and citing more than 20 reliable references from official Iranian news agencies (Because this person is Iranian) that independently covered the news of this person. Please review this article and its references and after approval, delete the speedy deletion template. This person's article is available in Persian Wikipedia, and its notablity and fame was confirmed by the administrators and editors of Persian Wikipedia according to the reliable sources mentioned in it. If you think this is a stub article. Add the stub template to it and let it stay. The final decision is yours. very thanks 4ipid (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SafariScribe, Have you considered the value of a custom reason in these cases? The draft now has two identical messages at the top, neither of which says anything about interviews. (Interviews are usually reliable; the point of WP:Interviews is that when the subject is being interviewed about himself, his answers – but not the introduction, questions, or other content that came out of someone else's mouth – isn't independent. If you are interested in this subject, then feel free to join the conversation at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Can we please settle on some guidance for interviews?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question regarding copyright, spoiler, summary
In Japan, police in Miyagi prefecture recently arrested members of a company which post spoiler of copyrighted shows onto the company's website, and try to earn ad revenue.
Copyright holders and interest groups claim they permissionlessly transcribed character names, dialogue, actions, scenes, and plot which reveal the whole view of the story to an extent beyond quotation and is obvious copyright violation, damaging rhe right of copyright holders as it will lower the desore of people paying proper price for the content and lead to people not actually watching the movie itself.
Given that while Wikipedia is a nonprofit site, and sunmaries of fictional works on Wikipedia usually wouldn't include direct quotation of dialogue of characters inside performance, many such articles still include very extensive summary on full plots of the fictional works they are describing, and all content published on Wikipedia unless otherwise specific should be reusable for profit, is there any risks that summary section of articles currently included in Wikipedia could be deemed copyright violation? C933103 (talk) 12:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The law is quite clear in making a distinction between plot summaries (even including spoilers) and the like, and actual copyright violations such as extensive transcriptions of dialogue. We are at no risk. --Orange Mike | Talk12:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@C933103, I would prefer that articles included "full plots of the fictional works" but not "very extensive summaries". When I run across them, I try to take a minute or two to remove overly detailed content.
That said, what I really dislike, and what might actually be a copyvio problem, is a "plot summary" that is just a word-for-word copy of the publisher's marketing blurb. They're unlikely to complain (free advertising!), but it's IMO a disservice to the reader, and would be IMO undesirable even if the publisher had formally dedicated that text to the public domain. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on the first point, often a more concise plot summary that succintly outlines the work's story is a lot more useful than something that is painful to read since it's weighed down with details only superfans are interested in.
That is what I would like to believe that the law is clear enough, but screenshot provided by relevant party (which is censored so text cannot be read) seems to indicate the website they arrest the operator this time do not actually publish dialogues of the original work line by line, instead look like a prose style description of the original work. So I am not sure about the degree of violation on that website that lead to the conclusion of that website is considered a transcription of original work and thus copyvio. C933103 (talk) 01:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In most countries, ordinary copyright violations are a matter of civil law (i.e., not criminal), so the police aren't involved and nobody gets arrested. However, it is sometimes more complicated than that; for example, if someone breaks into a computer system to copy the author's original files (=a crime) and then posts them on the internet in violation of copyright law (=a civil tort), then the police could arrest the person for breaking into the computer system, but not for the copyright violation. Also, a creative lawyer could suggest others: perhaps the circumstances suggest fraud, or perhaps it's computer piracy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Japan made copyright violation a criminal offense since year 2018 after the signing of TTP (Now known as CP-TTP) trade pact, according to my understanding. C933103 (talk) 00:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are invited to join the discussion at WP:HD § Red Links are All blue now. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
icon next to redirects (similar to the icon next to external links). --Ahecht (TALK
White
Silver
Blue
Pink
Gold
Red
Green
Skyblue
Purple
Turquoise
Black
Agree, but only slightly. If you added the letters, it would be better. Also, a solution to your region-basing could be to do a Language-based (like "O" for "Office" would become "S" for "Schoolhouse" in a theoretical "Reversed English") The Master of Hedgehogs (converse) (hedgehogs) 14:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Needs wider discussion but until then, {{EFR}}. The basis for this request is on one accidential removal of a colon. This seems more like something that might be raised at Phab if nothing else, but I don't think we need a filter to warn people to use 
Liechtenstein flag template (it only detects the relevant wikitext)) Aaron Liu (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Moved from WP:VPT
wikimedia.org know if you have any feedback or suggestions for improvement!
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
