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]
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.
Should a new pending changes protection level - extended confirmed pending changes (hereby abbreviated as PCECP) - be added to Wikipedia? AwesomeAasim19:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ARBECR (from my understanding) encourages liberal use of EC protection in topic areas authorized by the community or the arbitration committee. However, some administrators refuse to protect pages unless if there is recent disruption. Extended confirmed pending changes would allow non-XCON users to propose changes for them to be approved by someone extended confirmed, and can be applied preemptively to these topic areas.
It is assumed that it is technically possible to have PCECP. That is, we can have PCECP as "[auto-accept=extended confirmed users] [review=extended confirmed users]" Right now it might not be possible to have extended confirmed users review pending changes with this protection with the current iteration of FlaggedRevs, but maybe in the future.
Support for multiple reasons: WP:ARBECR only applies to contentious topics. Correcting typos is not a contentious topic. Second, WP:ARBECR encourages the use of pending changes when protection is not used. Third, pending changes effectively serves to allow uncontroversial edit requests without needing to create a new talk page discussion. And lastly, this is within line of our protection policy, which states that protection should not be applied preemptively in most cases. AwesomeAasim19:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's better than EC, which already restricts being the free encyclopedia more. As I've said below, the VisualEditor allows much more editing from new people than edit requesting, which forces people to use the source editor. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not somehow less or more restrictive as ECR. It's exactly the same level of protection, just implemented in a different way. I do not get the !votes from either side who either claim that this will be more restriction or more bureaucracy. I understand neither, and urge them to explain their rationales. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By creating a difference between what non logged-in readers (that is, the vast majority of them) see versus logged-in users, there is an extra layer of difficulty for non-confirmed and non-autoconfirmed editors, who won't see the actual page they're editing until they start the editing process. Confirmed and autoconfirmed editors may also be confused that their edits are not being seen by non-logged in readers. Because pending changes are already submitted into the linear history of the article, unwinding a rejected edit is potentially more complicated than applying successive edit requests made on the talk page. (This isn't a significant issue when there aren't many pending changes queued, which is part of the reason why one of the recommended criteria for applying pending changes protection is that the page be infrequently edited.) For better or worse, there is no deadline to process edit requests, which helps mitigate issues with merging multiple requests, but there is pressure to deal with all pending changes expediently, to reduce complications in editing. isaacl (talk) 19:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think this would be fixed with "branching" (similar to GitHub branches)? In other words, instead of PC giving the latest edit, PC just gives the edit of the stable revision and when "Publish changes" is clicked it does something like put the revision in a separate namespace (something like Review:PAGENAME/#######) where ####### is the revision ID. If the edit is accepted, then that page is merged and the review deleted. If the edit is rejected the review is deleted, but can always be restored by a Pending Changes Reviewer or administrator. AwesomeAasim21:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of programmers who struggle with branching; I'm not certain it's a great idea to make it an integral part of Wikipedia editing, at least not in a hidden, implicit manner. If an edit to an article always proceeded from the last reviewed version, editors wouldn't be able to build changes on top of their previous edits. I think at a minimum, an editor would have to be able to do the equivalent of creating a personal working branch. For example, this could be done by working on the change as a subpage of the user's page (or possibly somewhere else (perhaps in the Draft namespace?), using some standard naming hierarchy), and then submitting an edit request. That would be more like how git was designed to enable de-centralized collaboration: everyone works in their own repository, rebasing from a central repository (*), and asks an integrator to pull changes that they publish in their public repository.
(*) Anyone's public repository can act as a central repository. It just has to be one that all the collaborators agree upon using, and thus agree with the decisions made by the integrator(s) merging changes into that repository. isaacl (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. This has influenced me to amend my Q2 answer slightly, but I still support the existence of this protection and the preemptive PC protecting of low-traffic pages. (Plus, it's still not more restriction.) Aaron Liu (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, functionally a more efficient form of edit requests. The volume of pending changes is still low enough for this to be dealt with, and it could encourage the pending changes reviewer right to be given to more people currently reviewing edit requests, especially in contentious topics. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support having this as an option. I particularly value the effect it has on attribution (because the change gets directly attributed to the individual who wanted it, not to the editor who processed the edit request). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: better and more direct system than preemptive extended-confirmed protection followed by edit requests on the talk page. Cremastra (u — c) 20:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Pending Changes has the capacity to take on this new task. PC is much better than the edit request system for both new editors and reviewers. It also removes the downsides of slapping ECP on everything within contentious topic areas. Toadspike[Talk]20:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with JPxG's principle that it is better to "have drama on a living project than peace on a dead one," but this is far less restrictive than preemptively setting EC protection for all WP:ARBECR pages. From a new editor's perspective, they experience a delay in the positive experience of seeing their edit implemented, but as long as pending changes reviewers are equipped to minimize this delay, then this oversight seems like a net benefit. New users will get feedback from experienced editors on how to operate in Wikipedia's toughest content areas, rather than stumbling through. ViridianPenguin 🐧 ( 💬 ) 08:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Idk what it's like in other areas but in mine, of edit requests that I see, a lot, maybe even most of them are POV/not actionable/nonsense/insults so if it is already ECR only, then yea, more filtering is a good thing.Selfstudier (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support assuming this is technically possible (which I'm not entirely sure it is), it seems like a good idea, and would definitely make pending changes more useful from my eyes. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 20:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per @JPxG:'s reasoning—I think it's wild that we're willing to close off so many articles to so many potential editors, and even incremental liberalization of editing restrictions on these articles should be welcomed. This change would substantially expand the number of potential editors by letting non-EC contributors easily suggest edits to controversial topic areas. It would be a huge win for contributions if we managed to replace most ECP locks with this new PCECP.– Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There's a lot of history here, and I've opposed WP:FPPR/FlaggedRevs consistently since ~2011. Without reopening the old wounds over how the initial trial was implemented/ended, nothing that's happened since has changed my position. I believe that proceeding with an expansion of FlaggedRevs would be a further step away from our commitment to being the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit without actually solving any critical problems that our existing tools aren't already handling. While the proposal includes However, some administrators refuse to protect pages unless if there is recent disruption as a problem, I see that as a positive. In fact that's the entire point; protection should be preventative and there should be evidence of recent disruption. If a page is experiencing disruption, protection can handle it. If not, there's no need to limit anyone's ability to edit. The WordsmithTalk to me03:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Wordsmith, regarding "However, some administrators refuse to protect pages unless if there is recent disruption as a problem, I see that as a positive.", for interest, I see it as a negative for a number of reasons, at least in the WP:PIA topic area, mostly because it is subjective/non-deterministic.
The WP:ARBECR rules have no dependency on subjective assessments of the quality of edits. Non-EC editors are only allowed to make edit requests. That is what we tell them.
If it is the case that non-EC editors are only allowed to make edit requests, there is no reason to leave pages unprotected.
If it is not the case that non-EC editors can only allowed to make edit requests, then we should not be telling them that via talk page headers and standard notification messages.
There appears to be culture based on an optimistic faith-based belief that the community can see ARBECR violations, make reliable subjective judgements based on some value system and deal with them appropriately through action or inaction. This is inconsistent with my observations.
Many disruptive violations are missed when there are hundreds of thousands of revisions by tens of thousands of actors.
The population size of editors/admins who try to address ARBECR violations is very small, and their sampling of the space is inevitably an example of the streetlight effect.
The PIA topic area is largely unprotected and there are thousands of articles, templates, categories, talk pages etc. Randomness plays a large part in ARBECR enforcement for all sorts of reasons (and maybe that is good to some extent, hard to tell).
Wikipedia's lack of tools to effectively address ban evasion in contentious topic areas means that it is not currently possible to tell whether a revision by a non-EC registered account or IP violating WP:ARBECR that resembles an okay edit (to me personally with all of my biases and unreliable subjectivity) is the product of a helpful person or a ban evading recidivist/member of an off-site activist group exploiting a backdoor.
Oppose, I hate pending changes. Using them widely will break the wiki. We need to be as welcoming as possible to new editors, and the instant gratification of wiki editing should be there on as many pages as possible. —Kusma (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We already have a similar and larger backlog at CAT:EEP. All this does is move the backlog into an interface handled by server software that allows newcomers to use VE for their "edit requests", where currently they must use the source editor due to being confined to talk pages. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... if the number of protected pages does not increase. I expect an increase in protected pages from the proposal, even if the terrifying proposal to protect large classes of articles preemptively does not pass. —Kusma (talk) 13:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most PCECP pages should be ECP pages (downgraded?) as they have lesser traffic/disruption. So, the number of pages that will be increase should not be that much. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping>13:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma Isn't the loss of instant gratification of editing better than creating a request on the talk page of an ECP page, and having no idea by when will it be reviewed and implemented. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping>11:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Feels unnecessary and will only prevent other good faith editors from editing, not to mention the community effort required to monitor and review pending changes requests given that some areas like ARBIPA apply to hundreds of thousands of pages. Ratnahastin(talk)01:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a very good reason I reference Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums in my preferred name for the protection scheme, and the answer is generally no since the topic area we are primarily talking about is an ethno-political contentious topic, which tend to draw partisans interested only in "winning the war" on Wikipedia. This is not limited to just new users coming in, but also established editors who have strong opinions on the topic and who may be put into the position of reviewing these edits, as a read of any random Eastern Europe- or Palestine-Israel-focused Arbitration case would make clear just from a quick skim. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques18:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except that is how pull requests work on GitHub. You make the edit, and someone with reviewer permissions approves it to complete the merge. Here, the "commit" happens, but the revision is not visible until reviewed and approved. Edit requests are not pull requests, they are the equivalent of "issues" on GitHub. AwesomeAasim19:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It may come as a surprise, but Wikipedia is not GitHub. While they are both collaborative projects, they are very different in most other respects. Thryduulf (talk) 19:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With Git, submitters make a change in their own branch (which can even be in their own repository), and then request that an integrator pull that change into the main branch. So the main branch history remains clean: it only has changes that were merged in. (It's one of the guiding principles of Git: allow the history tree of any branch to be simplified to improve clarity and performance.) isaacl (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edit requests are supposed to be pull requests.
Clearly indicate which sections or phrases should be replaced or added to, and what they should be replaced with or have added. — WP:ChangeXY
Yeah that is what they are supposed to be but in practice they are not. As anyone who has answered edit requests before, there are often messages that look like this:
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{EEp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.
Oppose, per what JSS has said. I am a little uncomfortable at the extent to which we've seemingly accepted preemptive protection of articles in contentious areas. It may be a convenient way of reducing the drama us admins and power users have to deal with... but only at the cost of giving up on the core principle that anybody can edit. I would rather have drama on a living project than peace on a dead one. jp×g🗯️18:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as unnecessary, seems like a solution in search of a problem. Furthermore, this *is* Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit; preemptively protecting pages discourages contributions from new editors. -Fastily22:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I do understand where this protection would be helpful. But I just think something is EC-protectable or not. Don't necessarily think adding another level of bureaucracy is particularly helpful. --Takipoint123 (talk) 05:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm inclined to agree that the scenarios where this tool would work a benefit as technical solution would be exceedingly niche, and that such slim benefit would probably be outweighed by the impact of having yet one more tool to further nibble away at the edges of the open spaces of the project which are available to new editors. Frankly, in the last few years we have already had an absurdly aggressive trend towards community (and ArbCom fiat) decisions which have increasingly insulated anything remotely in the vain of controversy from new editors--with predictable consequences for editor recruitment and retention past the period of early involvement, further exacerbating our workloads and other systemic issues. We honestly need to be rolling back some of these changes, not adding yet one more layer (however thin and contextual) to the bureaucratic fabric/new user obstacle course. SnowRise let's rap11:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The more I read this discussion, the more it seems like this wouldn't solve the majority of what it sets out to solve but would create more problems while doing so, making it on balance a net negative to the project. Thryduulf (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and Point of Order Oppose because pending changes is already too complicated and not very useful. I'm a pending changes reviewer and I've never rejected one on PC grounds (basically vandalism). But I often revert on normal editor grounds after accepting on PC grounds. (I suspect that many PC rejections are done for non-PC reasons instead of doing this) "Point of Order" is because the RFC is unclear on what exactly is being opposed. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure that what happens is that when vandals realize they will have to submit their edit for review before it goes live, that takes all the fun out of it for them because it will obviously be rejected, and they don't bother. That's pretty much how it was supposed to work. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today22:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very good point, and I ask for @Awesome Aasim's clarification on whether reviewers will be able to reject edits on grounds for normal reverts combined with the EC restriction. I think there's enough rationale to apply this here beyond the initial rationale for PC as explained by JSS above. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewers are given specific reasons for accepting edits (see Wikipedia:Pending changes § Reviewing pending edits) to avoid overloading them with work while processing pending changes expeditiously. If the reasons are opened up to greater evaluation of the quality of edits, then expectations may shift towards this being a norm. Thus some users are concerned this will create a hierarchy of editors, where edits by non-reviewers are gated by reviewers. isaacl (talk) 23:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that and wonder how the reviewer proposes to address this. I would still support this proposal if having reviewers reject according to whether they'd revert and "ostensibly" to enforce EC is to be the norm, albeit to a lesser extent for the reasons you mentioned (though I'd replaced "non-reviewers" with "all non–auto-accepted"). Aaron Liu (talk) 00:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure to whom you are referring when you say "the reviewer" – you're the one suggesting there's a rationale to support more reasons for rejecting a pending change beyond the current set. Since any pending change in the queue will prevent subsequent changes by non-reviewers from being visible to most readers, their edits too will get evaluated by a single reviewer before being generally visible. isaacl (talk) 00:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant Aasim, the nominator. I made a thinko. Currently, reviewers can undo just the edits that aren't good and then approve the revision of their own revert. I thought that was what we were supposed to do. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Anything that is obvious vandalism or a violation of existing Wikipedia's policies can still be rejected. However, for edits where there is no other problem, the edit can still be accepted. In other words, a user not being extended confirmed shall not be sufficient grounds for rejecting an edit under PCECP, since the extended confirmed user takes responsibility for the edit. If the extended confirmed user accepts a bad edit, it is on them, not whoever made it. That is the whole idea.
Of course obviously helpful changes such as fixing typos and adding up-to-date information should be accepted sooner, while more controversial changes should be discussed first. AwesomeAasim17:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but also edits made in violation of an already well-established consensus. Edits that enforce a clearly-established consensus (proven by previous talk page discussion), are, from my understanding, exempt from all WP:EW restrictions. AwesomeAasim18:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Thryduulf and SnowRose. Also regardless of whether this is a good idea as a policy, FlaggedRevs has a large amount of technical debt, to the extent that deployment to any additional WMF wikis is prohibited, so it seems unwise to expand its usage. novovtalkedits19:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who is an expert at configuring mw:Extension:FlaggedRevs will need to confirm that it is possible to simultaneously have our current type of pending changes protection plus this new type of pending changes protection. The current enwiki FlaggedRevs config looks something like the below and may not be easy to configure. You may want to ping Ladsgroup or post at WP:VPT for assistance.
Extended content
// enwiki// InitializeSettings.php$wgFlaggedRevsOverride=false;$wgFlaggedRevsProtection=true;$wgSimpleFlaggedRevsUI=true;$wgFlaggedRevsHandleIncludes=0;$wgFlaggedRevsAutoReview=3;$wgFlaggedRevsLowProfile=true;// CommonSettings.php$wgAvailableRights[]='autoreview';$wgAvailableRights[]='autoreviewrestore';$wgAvailableRights[]='movestable';$wgAvailableRights[]='review';$wgAvailableRights[]='stablesettings';$wgAvailableRights[]='unreviewedpages';$wgAvailableRights[]='validate';$wgGrantPermissions['editprotected']['movestable']=true;// flaggedrevs.phpwfLoadExtension('FlaggedRevs');$wgFlaggedRevsAutopromote=false;$wgHooks['MediaWikiServices'][]=staticfunction(){global$wgAddGroups,$wgDBname,$wgDefaultUserOptions,$wgFlaggedRevsNamespaces,$wgFlaggedRevsRestrictionLevels,$wgFlaggedRevsTags,$wgFlaggedRevsTagsRestrictions,$wgGroupPermissions,$wgRemoveGroups;$wgFlaggedRevsNamespaces[]=828;// NS_MODULE$wgFlaggedRevsTags=['accuracy'=>['levels'=>2]];$wgFlaggedRevsTagsRestrictions=['accuracy'=>['review'=>1,'autoreview'=>1],];$wgGroupPermissions['autoconfirmed']['movestable']=true;// T16166$wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['stablesettings']=false;// -aaron 3/20/10$allowSysopsAssignEditor=true;$wgFlaggedRevsNamespaces=[NS_MAIN,NS_PROJECT];# We have only one tag with one level$wgFlaggedRevsTags=['status'=>['levels'=>1]];# Restrict autoconfirmed to flagging semi-protected$wgFlaggedRevsTagsRestrictions=['status'=>['review'=>1,'autoreview'=>1],];# Restriction levels for auto-review/review rights$wgFlaggedRevsRestrictionLevels=['autoconfirmed'];# Group permissions for autoconfirmed$wgGroupPermissions['autoconfirmed']['autoreview']=true;# Group permissions for sysops$wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['review']=true;$wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['stablesettings']=true;# Use 'reviewer' group$wgAddGroups['sysop'][]='reviewer';$wgRemoveGroups['sysop'][]='reviewer';# Remove 'editor' and 'autoreview' (T91934) user groupsunset($wgGroupPermissions['editor'],$wgGroupPermissions['autoreview']);# Rights for Bureaucrats (b/c)if(isset($wgGroupPermissions['reviewer'])){if(!in_array('reviewer',$wgAddGroups['bureaucrat']??[])){// promote to full reviewers$wgAddGroups['bureaucrat'][]='reviewer';}if(!in_array('reviewer',$wgRemoveGroups['bureaucrat']??[])){// demote from full reviewers$wgRemoveGroups['bureaucrat'][]='reviewer';}}# Rights for Sysopsif(isset($wgGroupPermissions['editor'])&&$allowSysopsAssignEditor){if(!in_array('editor',$wgAddGroups['sysop'])){// promote to basic reviewer (established editors)$wgAddGroups['sysop'][]='editor';}if(!in_array('editor',$wgRemoveGroups['sysop'])){// demote from basic reviewer (established editors)$wgRemoveGroups['sysop'][]='editor';}}if(isset($wgGroupPermissions['autoreview'])){if(!in_array('autoreview',$wgAddGroups['sysop'])){// promote to basic auto-reviewer (semi-trusted users)$wgAddGroups['sysop'][]='autoreview';}if(!in_array('autoreview',$wgRemoveGroups['sysop'])){// demote from basic auto-reviewer (semi-trusted users)$wgRemoveGroups['sysop'][]='autoreview';}}};
I basically came here to ask if this is even possible or if it would need WMMF devs involvement or whatever.
For those unfamiliar, pending changes is not the same thing as the flagged revisions used on de.wp. PC was developed by the foundation specifically for this project after we asked for it. We also used to have WP:PC2 but nobody really knew what that was supposed to be and how to use it and it was discontinued. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today21:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on what exactly is meant by "implementation". A configuration where edits by non-extendedconfirmed users need review by reviewers would probably be similar to what was removed in gerrit:/r/334511 to implement T156448 (removal of PC2). I don't know whether a configuration where edits by non-extendedconfirmed users can be reviewed by any extendedconfirmed user while normal PC still can only be reviewed by reviewers is possible or not. Anomie⚔13:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the MediaWiki documentation, it is not possible atm. That said, currently the proposal assumes that it is possible and we should work with that (though I would also support allowing all extended-confirmed to review all pending changes). Aaron Liu (talk) 13:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the RfC summary statement is a bit incomplete. My understanding is that the pending changes feature introduces a set of rights which can be assigned to corresponding user groups. I believe all the logic is based on the user rights, so there's no way to designate that one article can be autoreviewed by one user group while another article can be autoreviewed by a different user group. Thus unless the proposal is to replace autoconfirmed pending changes with extended confirmed pending changes, I don't think saying "enabled" in the summary is an adequate description. And if the proposal is to replace autoconfirmed pending changes, I think that should be explicitly stated. isaacl (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal did not specify if it assumed co-existence is possible, or enabling it is possible, which could mean replacement. Thus I feel the summary statement (before the timestamp, which is what shows up in the central RfC list) is incomplete. isaacl (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While on a re-read, It is assumed that it is technically possible to have PCECP does not explicitly imply co-existence, that is how I interpreted it. Anyways, it would be wonderful to hear from @Awesome Aasim about this. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The key question that ought to be clarified is if the proposal is to have both, or to replace the current one with a new version. (That ties back to the question of whether or not the arbitration committee's involvement is required.) Additionally, it would be more accurate not to use a word in the summary that implies the only cost is turning on a switch. isaacl (talk) 22:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is assuming that we can have PC1 where only reviewers can approve edits and PCECP where only extended confirmed users can approve edits AND make edits without requiring approval. With the current iteration I don't know if it is technically possible. If it requires an extension rewrite or replacement, that is fine. If something is still unclear, please let me know. AwesomeAasim23:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest changing the summary statement to something like, "Should a new pending changes protection level be added to Wikipedia – extended confirmed pending changes (hereby abbreviated as PCECP)?". The subsequent paragraph can provide the further explanation on who would be autoreviewed and who would serve as reviewers with the new proposed level. isaacl (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think inclusion of the preemptive-protection part in the background statement is causing confusion. AFAIK preemptive protection and whether we should use PCECP over ECP are separate questions. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Q2: If this proposal passes, should PCECP be applied preemptively to WP:ARBECR topics?
Also to add on there needs to be some enforcement measure for WP:ARBECR. No technical enforcement measures on WP:ARBECR is akin to site-banning an editor and then refusing to block them because "blocks should be preventative". AwesomeAasim19:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocking a site-banned user is preventative, because if we didn't need to prevent them from editing they wouldn't have been site banned. Thryduulf (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, including on talk pages. With edit requests mostly dealt with through pending changes, protecting the talk pages too should limit the disruption and unconstructive comments that are often commonplace there. (Changing my mind, I don't think applying PCECP on all pages would be a constructive solution. The rules of ARBECR limit participation to extended-confirmed editors, but the spirit of the rules has been to only enforce that on pages with actual disruption, not preemptively. 20:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm going to disagree with the "no" argument entirely - we should be preemptively ECPing (even without pending changes). It's a perversion of logic to say "you can't (per policy) do push this button", and then refuse to actually technically stop you from pushing the button even though we know you could. * Pppery *it has begun...20:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support (Summoned by bot): While I disagree with ECR in general, this is a better way of enforcing it as long as it exists. Constructive "edit requests" can be accepted, and edits that people disagree with can be easily reverted. I'm slightly concerned with how this could affect the pending changes backlog (which has a fairly small number of active reviewers at the moment), but I'm sure that can be figured out. CFA💬23:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think this is necessary at this time. I think it should be usable there, but I don't feel like this is a necessary step at this time. We could revisit it later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, we still shouldn't be protecting preemptively. Wait until there's disruption, and then choose between PCXC or regular XC protection (I would strongly favour the former for the reasons I gave above). Cremastra (u — c) 20:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I feel this would be a bad idea. Critics of Wikipedia already use the idea that it's controlled by a select group, this would only make that misconception more common. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°14:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. No need for protection if there is no disruption. The number of protected pages should be kept low, and the number of pages that cry out "look at me!" on your watchlist (anything under pending changes) should be as close to zero as possible. —Kusma (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need for protection if there is no disruption. Trouble is, the ECR restriction is enacted in response to widespread disruption, this time to the entire topic area as a whole. Disregard for POV, blatant inclusion of unverifiable or false (unreliable) information, and more all pose serious threats of disruption to the project. If WP:ARBECR was applied broadly without any protection I would agree, but WP:ARBECR is applied in response to disruption (or a serious threat of), not preemptively. Take this one for example, which is a long winded ANI discussion that ended in the WP:GS for the Russo-Ukranian War (and the ECR restrictions). And as for Arbitration Committee, ArbCom is a last resort when all other attempts to resolve disruption fail. See WP:ARBPIAWP:ARBPIA2WP:ARBPIA3WP:ARBPIA4. The earliest reference to the precursor to ARBECR in this case is on the third ArbCom case. Not protecting within a topic area that has a high risk of disruption is akin to having a high-risk template unprotected. The only difference is that carelessly editing a high-risk template creates technical problems, while carelessly editing a high-risk topic area creates content problems.
Either the page is protected technically (which enforces a community or ArbCom decision that only specific editors are allowed in topic areas) or the page is not protected technically but protected socially (which then gives a chance of evasion). I see this situation no different from banning an editor sitewide and then refusing to block them on the grounds that "blocks should only be used to prevent disruption" while ignoring the circumstances leading up to the site ban.
What PCECP would do is allow for better enforcement of the community aspect. New editors won't be bitten, if they find something that needs fixing like a typo, they can make an edit and it can get approved. More controversial edits will get relegated to the talk page where editors not banned from that topic area can discuss that topic. And blatant POV pushing and whatnot would get reverted and would never even be seen by readers.
The workflow would look like this: new/anon user make an edit → edit gets held for review → extended confirmed user approves the edit. Rather than the current workflow (and the reason why preemptive ECP is unpopular): new/anon user makes an edit → user is greeted with a "this page is protected" message → user describes what they would like to be changed but in a badly formulated way → edit request gets closed as "unclear" or something similar. AwesomeAasim14:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. We should be quicker to apply protection in these topics than we would elsewhere, but not preemptively except on highly visible pages (which, in these topics, are probably ECP-protected anyway). Animal lover|666|17:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying such a discussion exists, but changes to Arbitration remedies/discretionary sanctions are something they would want to weigh in on. Arbitration policy (which includes WP:Contentious topics) is in their wheelhouse and this would have serious implications for WP:CT/A-I and any further instances where ArbCom (rather than individual editors, as a discretionary sanction) would need to resort to a 500/30 rule as an explicit remedy. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques04:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not my reading of WP:ARBECR. Specifically, On any page where the restriction is not enforced through extended confirmed protection, this restriction may be enforced by...the use of pending changes... (bold added by me for emphasis). But if there is consensus not to use this preemptively so be it. AwesomeAasim05:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate the forward thinking that PCECP may want to be used in Arb areas, this feels like a considerable muddying of the delineation between the Committee's role and the community's role. Traditionally, Contentious Topics have been the realm of ArbCom, and General Sanctions have been the realm of the Community. Part of the logic comes down to who takes the blame when things go wrong. The Community shouldn't take the blame when ArbCom makes a decision, and vice versa. Part of the logic is separation of powers. If the community wants to say "ArbCom, you will enforce this so help you God," then that should be done by amending ArbPol. Part of the logic is practical. If the community creates a process that adds to an existing Arb process, what happens when the Arbs want to change that process? Or even end it altogether? Bottomline: Adopting PCECP for ARBECR is certainly something ArbCom could do. But I'd ask the community to consider the broader structural problems that would arise if the community adopted it on behalf of ArbCom. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓05:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I'd say ArbCom should be able to override the community if they truly see such action fit and worthy of potential backlash. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a terminology note, although I appreciate many think of general sanctions in that way, it's defined on the Wikipedia:General sanctions page as ... a type of Wikipedia sanctions that apply to all editors working in a particular topic area. ... General sanctions are measures used by the community or the Arbitration Committee ("ArbCom") to improve the editing atmosphere of an article or topic area.. Thus the contentious topics framework is a form of general sanctions. isaacl (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the general point: I agree that it is cumbersome for the community to impose a general sanction that is added on top of a specific arbitration remedy. I would prefer that the community work with the arbitration committee to amend its remedy, which would facilitate keeping the description of the sanction and logging of its enforcement together, instead of split. (I appreciate that for this specific proposal, logging of enforcement is not an issue.) isaacl (talk) 15:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended confirmed started off as an arbcom concept - 500 edits/30 days - which the community then choose to adopt. ArbCom then decided to make its remedy match the community's version - such that if the community were to decide extended confirmed were 1000 edits/90 days all ArbCom restrictions would update. I find this a healthy feedback loop between ArbCom and the community. The community could clearly choose (at least on a policy level, given some technical concerns) to enact PCECP. It could choose to apply this to some/all pages. If it is comfortable saying that it wants to delegate some of which pages this applies to the Arbitration Committee I think it can do so without amending ArbPol. However, I think ArbCom could could decide that PCECP would not apply in some/all CTOP areas given that the Committee is exempt from consensus for areas with-in its scope. And so it might ultimately make more sense to do what isaacl suggests. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "contentious topics" procedure does seem like something that the community should absolutely mirror and that ultimately both the community and ArbCom should work out of. If one diverges, there is probably a good reason why it diverged.
As for the broader structural problems that would arise if the community adopted it on behalf of ArbCom, there are already structural problems with general sanctions because of the community's failure to adopt the new CTOP procedure for new contentious topics. Although the community has adopted the contents of WP:ARBECR for other topic areas like WP:RUSUKR, they don't adopt it by reference but by copying the whole text verbatim. AwesomeAasim17:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the same structural problem. The community hasn't had a lot of discussion about adopting the contentious topic framework for its own use (in my opinion, because it's a very process-wonky discussion that doesn't interest enough editors to generate a consensus), but that doesn't interfere with how the arbitration committee uses the contentious topic framework. This proposal is suggesting that the community automatically layer on its own general sanction on top of any time the arbitration committee decides to enact a specific sanction. Thus the committee would have to consider each time whether or not to override the community add-on, and amendment requests might have to be made both to the committee and the community. isaacl (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prior to contentious topics there were discretionary sanctions. Those became very muddled and so the committee created Contentious topics to help clarify the line between community and committee (disclosure: I help draft much of that work). As part of that the committee also established ways for the community to tie-in to contentious topics if it wanted. So for the community hasn't made that choice which is fine. But I do this is an area that, in general, ArbCom does better than the community because there is more attention paid to having consistency across areas and when a problem arises I have found (in basically this one area only) ArbCom to be more agile at addressing it. But the community is also more willing to pass a GS than ArbCom is to designate something a CT (which I think is a good hting all around) and so having the community come to consensus about how, if at all, it wants to tie in to CT (and its evolutions) or if it would prefer to do its own thing (including just mirroring whatever happens to be in CT at the time but not subsequent changes) would probably be a good meta discussion to have. But it also doesn't seem necessary for this particular proposal. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Q3: If this proposal does not pass, should ECP be applied preemptively to articles under WP:ARBECR topics?
Support as a second option, but only to articles. Talk pages can be enforced solely through reverts and short protections so I see little reason why those should be protected. AwesomeAasim19:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support for articles per Aasim. Talk pages still need to be open for edit requests. (Also changing my mind, per above. If anything, we should clarify ARBECR so that the 500-30 limit is only applied in cases where it is needed, not automatically, to resolve the ambiguity. 20:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Chaotic Enby and Pppery above and think all CT articles should be protected. I am generally not a fan of protecting Talk pages, but it's true that many CT Talk pages are cesspools of hate, so I am not sure where I sit on protecting Talk pages. Toadspike[Talk]20:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because I think this is a bad idea. For one thing, just making a list of all the covered articles could produce disputes that we don't need. (This article might be covered, but is it truly covered? Reasonable people could easily disagree about whether some articles are "mostly" about the restricted area vs "partly", and therefore about whether the rule applies.) Second, where a serious and obvious problem, such as blatant vandalism, is concerned, it would be better to have an IP revert it than to mindlessly follow the rules. It is important to remember that our rules exist as a means to an end. We follow them because, and to the extent that, they help overall. We expect admins and other editors to exercise discretion. It is our policy that Wikipedia:If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. This is a proposal to declare that the IAR policy never applies to the rule about who should normally be editing these articles, and that exercising discretion is not allowed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While there's already precedent for preemptive protection at e.g. RFPP, I do not like this. For one, as talk pages (and, by extension, edit requests) cannot use the visual editor, this makes it much harder for newcomers to contribute edits, often unnecessarily on articles where there are no disruption. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mu - This is basically my reading of the 500/30 rule as writ. Anything that would fall into the 500/30'd topic should be XCP'd on discovery. It's worth noting I don't view this as anywhere close to ideal but then neither did ArbCom, and given the circumstances of the real-world ethnopolitical conflict only escalating as of late (which in turn feeds the disruption) the only other - even worse - option would be full-protection across the board everywhere in the area. So why am I not arguing Support? Because just like the question above, this is putting the cart before the horse and this is better off being discussed after this RfC ends, not same time as. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques02:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not, pages that do not experience disruption should be open to edit. Pending changes should never become widely used to avoid situations like dewiki's utterly absurd 53-day backlog. —Kusma (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong oppose, again Kusma puts it excellently. Protection should always be the exception, not the norm. Even in the Israel-Palestine topic area most articles do not experience disruption. Thryduulf (talk) 13:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RUNAWAY sums up some of the tactics used by disruptive editors: namely Their edits are limited to a small number of pages that very few people watch and Conversely, their edits may be distributed over a wide range of articles to make it less likely that any given user watches a sufficient number of affected articles to notice the disruptions. If a user is really insistent on pushing their agenda, they might not be able to push it on the big pages, they may push it on some of the smaller pages where their edits may get unwatched for months if not years. Then, researchers digging up information will come across the POV article and blindly cite it. Although Wikipedia should never be cited as a source, it still happens. AwesomeAasim14:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since we're assuming that PCECP is possible and the last two questions definitely deal with policy, I feel like maybe this should go to VPP instead, with the header edited to something like "Extended-confirmed pending changes and preemptive protection in contentious topics" to reflect the slightly−larger-than-advertised scope? Aaron Liu (talk) 23:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think policy proposals are also okay here, though I see your point. There is definitely overlap, though. This is both a request for a technical change as well as establishing policy/guidelines around that technical change (or lack thereof). AwesomeAasim00:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this proposal is accepted, my assumption is that we'd bring back the ORANGELOCK which was used for the original incarnation of Pending Changes Level 2. There's a proposed lock already at File:Pending_Changes_Protected_Level_2.svg, though it needs fixes in terms of name (should probably be something like Pending-level-2-protection-shackle.png or Extended-pending-protection-shackle.png), SVG code (the top curve is a bit cut off), and color (should probably be darker but still clearly distinguishable from REDLOCK). —pythoncoder (talk | contribs)21:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think light blue is a better color for this. But in any case we will probably need a lock with a checkmark and the letter "E" for extended confirmed. AwesomeAasim22:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am actually starting to wonder if "protection" is a bit of a misnomer, because technically pages under pending changes are not really "protected". Yeah the edits are subject to review, but there are no technical measures to prevent a user from editing. It is just like recent changes on many wikis; those hold edits for review until they are approved, but they do not "protect" the entire wiki. AwesomeAasim23:40, 11 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.
Okay, to make this clear, The content should NOT be taken down. NSFW and NSFl content needs to be shown because Wikipedia is a censor free website. No content should be treated over the other and NSFW and NSFL content needs to be treated the same as all the others. Now the proposal I will make is that since a lot of kids use Wikipedia to learn stuff and they may come across these things. For the sake of safety, gory, offensive and sexual content should have a blur or a black screen, and in order to view the image, they have to click the image and click I am over 18 or something like for example, they come across the Russo-Ukrainian war. In this article there is a gory picture. What there should be instead is a blur or a black box, the description of the picture still stays, and in order to view the content they have to press the picture, and it will ask for verification, like when you press the picture it says, this picture has gore in it or something like that, then it says you have to be 18 to view the image or something like that, then there is a button saying I am over 18 or something like that, then to view the content just press the button. If this somehow doesn’t work at least have a disclaimer at the top saying there is bad stuff in it. So yeah, here is my suggestion. Datawikiperson (talk) 11:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has been proposed many times previously. It has failed for multiple reasons, including what should be censored being highly context and culturally (and even subculturally) dependent - for example person A might wish to blur a photograph of a woman breastfeeding but not a photograph of a gunshot wound, while person B might wish the exact opposite. If you take the view that anything anybody wants to be blurred should be blurred, even if others do not, but that would lead to extremes like all images of people being blurred.
A second reason is that there is no practical reason to apply the setting en-masse. At first glance, images in Commons:Category:Sex and subcategories would seem to be fairly uncontroversial, but that falls apart very quickly when you see what sort of images that would catch, for example:
So it would have be to set for at least each category, without subcategories, and there are at least thousands of them on Commons. At the individual image level you are looking at over 110 million. And that's assuming you can get agreement (per above). Thryduulf (talk) 11:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what Lectonar and Thryduulf have said above. If this was implemented it would (since most of our editors are American) be as a very Americo-centric view of what is not safe - it would be Thryduulf's person A's view, not mine. The only way to guarantee safety is to block all images using one of the approaches on the page mentioned by Lectonar, Phil Bridger (talk) 13:17, 6 November 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.
Add AI translation option for translating from English to non-English article.
AI certainly improved a lot by now. It can translate to many non-english language better than traditional translators . My suggestion is to add AI translation option for translating from English to non-English article. User will review the AI translation to see if its correct. It will increase the translation quality. I dont suggest using AI for English article, that could have a devastating impact. Dark1618 (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's out of scope here, and would need to be asked on each and every individual language-edition of Wikipedia, as those would be the ones dictating policy for translations into their respective languages. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques19:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would a translation into English be devastating, but a translation from English into any other language be acceptable? English just happens to be that most used language in the world by some measures: beyond that it has no special status. Anyway, we can not decide here what is appropriate for other language Wikipedias. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good Idea! That’s actually what I was going to propose but you took it. To add to your amazing proposal, I suggest that every wiki translation must be approved by a speaker. Like If someone translated an article from English to Arabic, the translated article goes to an Arab speaker, by algorithm when the person would press a button that says “send for approval” or something like that, and the Arab person who gets the translated article will read the Wikipedia page and look for any errors, then the Arab corrects it and it gets published to the world. And why can’t the opposite happen, when an article gets translated to say french To English the same thing happens the French person machine translates the article, it gets sent to approval, a fluent English speaker goes and corrects it, then it gets published. If it is an extinct language, a person who is a professional in the language will correct it, and as for rates, I mean Wikipedia has at least 1 person who knows the language. Anyway have a good day! Cheers! Datawikiperson (talk) 10:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure of the technical backend for that tool, but I do see at English Wikipedia a constant inflow of articles translated from sister projects, usually without proper attribution, sometimes with broken templates.Some of these translations are pretty good, up to idiomatic phrasing; others have the appearance of raw machine translation, with errors no one fluent in the target language would leave in.As to the original proposal / idea, a flow of machine translations from this project to sister Wikipediae, that is indeed out of scope here, and would have to be brought up individually at each language project. Except maybe Cebuano Wikipedia. Folly Mox (talk) 14:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I occasionally translate from English to Chinese and vice versa, and take on some bits from Japanese and Korea projects to be translated on to here if the information and sources can be used on here. And I strongly discourage automated AI translations from English to other languages, which you are proposing, without further inputs from the targeted language projects. AI translations to other languages from English are not perfect and can have the same devastating impact you don't want to see on English Wikipedia. – robertsky (talk) 14:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A sandbox for testing redirects, which redirects to Wikipedia:Sandbox and has a sandbox notice when you click for more information about that sandbox. It can be redirected anywhere and is automatically reverted like all other sandboxes.
What is there to test that this would be good for? If you make a mistake while creating a redirect, you can just fix it. Remsense ‥ 论08:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The cliche is “Size doesn’t matter," but it does in many things — paintings, sculptures, jewelry, crystals, anything larger or small than usual and even if it’s the usual size if readers don’t know what that it. It makes a difference if a painting is 2” by 3” or 2’ by 3’. Especially in TPOD, because more people will see it, but really everywhere. I suggest that writers be encouraged to provide the relevant size in the text or caption of every photo where it’s necessary and that the editors working on TPOD be strongly encouraged to give the size whenever possible. If the size is not given in the text being referenced, that information is often in the photo's "details," in addition to the editing history. Wis2fan (talk) 04:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, excuse my ignorance, but what is TPOD? Secondly, I don't see any clear proposal here. Yes, size is often important, but what do you think we should do about it? We can cajole editors into providing size, but we shouldn't reject images without it. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I got the abbreviation wrong — POTD. Today’s (11/10/2024) POTD is an example of what I’m talking about. The reader knows a bark beetle is tiny, but why not give the actual size? It’s not that the information isn’t available. I clicked on the photo, then on "details." The description of the photo says the adult male is 4.0 mm to 5.5 mm long. I came back to the post and clicked on the name. The linked article includes the same information. The information is there this time. I agree, it’s not always either place. But when it is, it should be provided to be complete. Wis2fan (talk) 04:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A picture caption is finite, it does not need to (and indeed in most cases cannot) include every detail about an image and its subject. Therefore it should only include information that is most relevant, and that will not always include the size. For example the POTD for 8 November was an 1860 photograph of John Tarleton (Royal Navy officer), is the size of the print really the most relevant information or is it the size of the subject what you want to know? It's fine to encourage people to put the size of the image and/or subject in the caption where that is relevant, but it is not always going to be, so a one-size-fits all rule is not going to be appropriate. If you want to know, just look at the extra details. Thryduulf (talk) 14:37, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thryduulf is absolutely correct, the size of the object in a photo is unimportant when it is a human. The size isn’t necessary for today’s POTD (11/11/2024). But I still think it is important when it is a bark beatle. And many other things. I also think that a writer should anticipate a reader’s questions and provide the answers. Suggesting that if a reader wants the size of an object they should look at the extra details is not helpful. I’d bet most readers don’t know how to find them. Wis2fan (talk) 04:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I vaguely remember I suggested something similar at commons once, requesting that more people who post photos consider including a scale-bar if it's the sort of subject that would benefit from one (biological specimens, museum artefacts whose size is likely to be unclear to a general reader). I think I got shot down in flames for general naivete. My opinion is: In any situation where a reference book would use a scale bar, or indicate prominently by caption or other means, the size of an illustrated object, we should do the same, so far as we can. This would probably include articles about most species (birds, insects etc.) and articles about things where the size is central to the article (an article on miniaturisation of transistors, for example, should show the size of the transistors in its photos). Elemimele (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I have made an infobox for artist collectives (inspired by my own frustration trying to use the regular artist one for graffiti crews) and would like feedback from the community before publishing it. The old infobox proposal page is now defunct and suggests posting here instead.
Personally, I'd much rather not see this, or anything like it, used. Almost everything in it will be disputable or disputed, or is really vague. It seems a classic example of where an infobox is just unhelpful clutter, and will displace or make too small an image that would be more helpful. Are you asking at the VA project, & if not, why not? It's not really for here. Johnbod (talk) 05:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Heya, I noticed a couple of weeks ago that while interface administrators and central notice administrators need 2FA, bureaucrats, who can grant interface admin don't need 2FA. To me this seems a bit weird, because if you wanted to compromise an account with access to interface admin tools, bureaucrats may not all have 2FA. Hence, I'm proposing requiring all enwiki bureaucrats to enable 2FA as a precaution. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 09:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see non-restricted adjacent bugs T242553 and T242556 were both created on 12 Jan 2020. Would it be accurate to describe this as an evaluation which has been unresolved for about 5 years? -- zzuuzz(talk)13:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per pppery and zippybonzo - should be a requirement locally. Waiting for phab tickets could take years while I imagine a RFC would pass pretty quickly. BugGhost🦗👻19:44, 12 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.
As part of the ongoing court case Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation, the WMF has received orders from the Delhi High Court to disclose personally identifying information of editors in a sealed cover letter and is considering complying.
Should the English Wikipedia blackout all of the site for 2-3 days in protest of this?
Clarifications were asked regarding the specifics of the blackout below. It is a worldwide blackout of the Article and Article talk namespaces (including the Main Page), for 48 hours. The blackout is in protest of the Wikimedia Foundation's choice to comply with the court order and divulge the personal information of editors under a sealed cover. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I don't have anything else to add that I haven't already said elsewhere. We need to provide a strong show of force against our colleagues' safety being endangered. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option A: Yes Taken in isolation, the WMF actions with regards to ANI might not seem severe. Taken as precedent, amid ongoing serious Internet safety issues, the WMF action is deeply troubling. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. A site-wide blackout is an option that should only be used in the most severe situations. This is one of those situations. The disclosure of editors' private information is an irreversible step that will severely damage our editorial independence. We must not let even the suggestion of such a disclosure stand unopposed. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the opposers have brought up valid concerns with this proposal. I am not convinced to oppose, but I am now neutral on the blackout. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes In an age of rising fascism, threats to the flow of open knowledge are a direct attack on what we do. The sacrosanct handling of private editor information is a safeguard against authoritarianism and harassment, preventing widespread chillings effects at least, and imprisonment of good faith editors at the worst. We must alert the public that the project they love is at stake. Ocaasit | c17:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Disclosing editors' personal information for performing normal editorial actions is an irrevocable step that has the potential to threaten the safety of those editors, and will only lead to an escalation of requests for such disclosure in future. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes however I personally feel it should ONLY cover mainspace and talk. Userpages and project space should be left alone. If only to allow for communication, lest it ends up off-project. As that's not an option here tho. I am a EXTREMELY strong yes. I have also posted a link to this page in the discord as I believe this needs as many eyes as possible. May the 12 help us. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me!17:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a well-reasoned caveat, and worthy a parallel subthread to authorize those carveouts once we have a good sense of which way the community is leading on the core issue. SnowRise let's rap17:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The implications for the future of this project and movement are weighty, and there are non-trivial risks to the persons whose identities will be disclosed. There has been clear community will expressed over recent weeks that almost every (if not in fact every) editor who has weighed in on whether the WMF should disclose this situation has said that they are at least in principle opposed to that choice of action. Nevertheless, it appears that the WMF is determined to forge ahead rather than run the risk of losing their rights to appeal the case or lose their intermediary status in India. Well, bluntly, neither of those outcomes is to be avoided as strenously as the one the WMF would elect for here, with it's many risks to our volunteers and the project itself. And all for a case they stand a strong chance of losing in any event, given the court's amenability to receiving questionable statements from ANI as if they are established truth, even be it under a prima facie analysis. And win or lose, once other parties realize they can intimidate and cajole editors with SLAP suits, and that the WMF will hand them PII on those editors, all controversial India-related subject matter articles will become unmanageable messes and black holes that invite litigation and drive away neutral volunteer editors. Bluntly, I am mystified by the WMFs strategic reasoning on this one, and deeply concerned that if they were considering such disclosures in such circumstances, they never approached the community to get a broader survey of the movement's labourers on the advisability of such actions, before the cases became live. SnowRise let's rap17:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The court's order, if successful, will have a chilling effect on movement-wide participation, especially from editors who come from areas of the world where editing actually carries risks. See List of people imprisoned for editing Wikipedia. I would most support this if there were a message on the blacked-out screen saying why it was blacked out, which would prevent readers from assuming that it was because of technical issues.JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 17:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I've previously opposed action but as the case has progressed, I've become ever more acutely aware of what's at risk due to the precedent this sets. To disclose this info, even if just to the court, is a gross violation of the trust many editors place in the WMF. Sincerely, Dilettante18:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The WMF has before stood up to countries whose courts pander to locals complaining about “defamation” where it’s simply reporting facts that are true, or are sourced to other reliable sources. It is appalling that they are choosing to allow three editors to face personal legal liability for simply adding/readding cited information. The site should be blacked out until the foundation reverses course or clearly explains why they think the users facing personal liability is okay in this case. And no, “we will pay your legal fees to defend yourself” is not a valid excuse to force them to do so. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me!18:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, with sadness. I certainly hoped a step like this could be avoided, but it seems it can't be. WMF's actions have even emboldened others to threaten not only legal action but physical violence. [1] They will certainly encourage more of these SLAPP lawsuits, now that people know they can get what they want from them and intimidate editors through them. If WMF discloses to the court, "sealed cover" or otherwise, that means it's out of their hands and the court could release that information to anyone they want, any time they want. WMF should have drawn a red line from the beginning, and it's damn well time they do it right now, before the identities of the editors in question are placed at risk. If that means WMF pulls out of India, WMF needs to pull out of India. If that means India blocks Wikipedia, India blocks Wikipedia. WMF helping someone to harass editors for editing articles with well-sourced information must never happen. SeraphimbladeTalk to me18:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Would love to replace the Mainpage with the original text of the office-suppressed article, but I guess that won't fly... Fram (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, with reluctance and disappointment. I'm pretty pro-Foundation comparatively, but I cannot countenance the disclosure apparently acquiesced to by Legal. Yall saw the violent extremist on one of the admin boards concurrent with the period when the Indian editor whose information is set to be disclosed was communicating to us fearfully at VPI, right? This editor – our colleague – may face serious legal and physical harm for essentially reverting bad COI edits. In this circumstance, I'm willing to support any measure necessary to convince Legal not to comply with the court order. Folly Mox (talk) 19:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. This threatens and will edge US child privacy laws if this sets a dark precedent. If wikimedia gives out any personal information of any users what will the courts do if said users were out of their jurisdiction. Extradition. Jail time. Fines. Don’t let them control us also what about Wikipedia:We are not as dumb as you think we are that says “we only are governed by California state laws and us federal law’ •Cyberwolf•talk?19:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I`m an active user of Russian Wikipedia and don`t know have I right to vote here. As I understand. Today we give information about users to Indian court, tomorrow -- to putin`s regime, day after tomorrow -- to any regime, even if it makes cannibalism like Bocassa. Community has to say "we disagree with such way of Wikipedia`s evolution or degradation". --Ibidem (talk) 19:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes The actions of the foundation puts all editors at danger, and editors in some country in serious risk of government harassment and imprisonment. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. We are number one in free information, and blacking ourselves out should give everyone a chance to see for themselves a world without that free information, a scenario that we are highly concerned could become permanent in the world's largest country with internet freedom. Also, it's just two to three days, we all can wait. ミラP@Miraclepine19:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Agree with above comments on concerns about the precedent this sets especially as more nations slip towards authoritarianism and against free speech. Don't obey in advance. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes The moral measure of a community is how it treats its most vulnerable. While it is outside of our power, as editors, to protect our own in India, we can at least get into good trouble for them. Bowler the Carmine | talk19:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support/yes - I don't know how we're even going to agree on "we're closed" text but I've always thought we should do more to raise awareness of the situation with those guys in prison in Saudi Arabia. It's gonna be a good couple of days for WikiWand. Also since we don't have a PR department we better have a pretty comprehensive "why we are doing this" message somewhere bc the media will want to cover and there will be inchoate screaming from the rest of the interwebs. jengod (talk) 19:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, although I would much prefer if the messaging was more against ANI than WMF's legal team. WMF are not run by idiots, they are trying to deal with a scumbag organisation seeking to at the very least turf them out of India. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, tentatively. I don't know how much impact this will have on the safety of the editors in the current situation, but I believe that if this gets enough media coverage we will set a precedent for the WMF to not let this happen again. My primary concern is the technical implementation, especially considering that an office action could take place to prevent this. Either way, we need to make our voices heard. I really don't want to set a precedent that Wikipedia will tolerate having our editors put at risk in this way. /home/gracen/ (yell at me here) 19:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am from Russia and I understand very well: if we do not resist, then we will cease to be respected; if I do not resist, then I will not respect myself. We must support our colleagues and protect them from danger. --VladimirPF (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm writing not for myself, but for an editor who doesn't feel safe contributing to this thread onwiki. They say the RfC should resolve with a consensus to blackout only if the WMF complies, which would in effect discourage the Foundation from complying but not directly interfere with the case. (It's not that the blacking out would be the deterrent, it would be the threat of one.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Yes. We need to bring this to the public eye if it occurs, this could destroy the project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingsmasher678 (talk • contribs) 19:59, November 14, 2024 (UTC)
Yes: if the choice really is between disclosing editors' data to an oppressive regime and pulling out of the country ruled by such regime, the Foundation should do the latter. Otherwise we cannot pretend being an objective and full encyclopedia. --Deinocheirus (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes This current case is a threat to the freedom of editing Wikipedia, and the ramifications long-term could be devastating. I understand that many editors may not consider this case to be that serious, but it could well be the start of deterring editors from editing certain pages if there are legal ramifications for doing so. A blackout would help draw critical attention to the case that has received very limited coverage by reliable sources, and could help draw support for the benefit of all editors as well as those concerned. CNC (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Fascism has to be fought at every place possible. Allowing any sort of corporation at all to stick their foot in the door leads to a huge "slippery slope"- if the WMF goes through with this- where does it end after that? most likely nowhere. Sandcat555 (talk) 20:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting now on my own terms and per Levivich. If this is the consequence of doing business in India, than the WMF should not do business in India and Wikipedia should be blocked there. Let the world know—that is what you can do if you're a global encyclopedia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support That WMF will provide counsel for the outed editors is not enough to avoid a chilling effect, not even close. We need to be as loud as possible about corporate censorship. Paradoctor (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is a poorly thought out expression of rage. What geographies is this in? What namespaces? (resolved. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)) Will the Indian court view this as aggressive contempt? Will an office action veto this? There are no answers to these questions. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The answers to those questions are either baked into the proposal or the consensus making process that will unfold here, or have somewhat concrete answers. The localities to be covered are anywhere that receives en.wikipedia. The namespaces to be covered will probably end up being all forward facing content (article and article talk space), but not project space. The Indian court may very well consider this a contempt-worthy action, given their apparently deep confusion about the manner in which this project operates and the distinction between and relative roles of the WMF and the community. We must acknowledge going in that this course of action may have substantial impacts upon the classification of Wikipedia as an entity in India and maybe even the availability of the site in India in general (and that may be short-term or decidedly not: much of that may hinge on the Indian publics response to these events). Regardless, the support for this course of action is not ignorance or denial of those possible outcomes, but from the belief that they are, sadly, much the lesser of two evils. This is not an expression of rage, but of concern. And if the community authorizes this action and the WMF blocks it with an office action, the crisis of trust between us will intensify, but that to is a situation where a lot of us feel there is no way past but through. SnowRise let's rap18:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until we at least have a timeframe for this, else we'll need another RfC. For the record, I absolutely oppose disclosing personal information in any way that would make an editor publicly identifiable. Valereee (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict × 5) Far too little information What exactly is being protested here? The court order? The WMF considering complying with the court order? The WMF working with a court to try and get it to rescind the order rather than response given in the case of Arkell vs Pressdram? The WMF not giving editors all the information they want, despite the matter being sub judice? What exactly is being proposed? What is it hoped will be achieved? For example, has a lawyer determined this wont be contempt of court? What would be the implications if it is contempt of court? What have layers stated will be the impact on the case even if it isn't contempt of court (e.g. will it hinder the WMF's position)? What will be the impact on any future legal actions in India - e.g. will it impact the WMF's ability to take action against people paid to spread disinformation on Wikipedia? I'm not seeing any evidence that most of these questions have been asked, let alone answered. Thryduulf (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These questions and issues actually have been largely discussed at some length in the previous threads, which we should maybe link above. I will give you my best impressions of some of the core questions: the issue the blackout is meant to expressly protest is the WMF's decision to disclose PII, not the ancillary issues. The refusal of the WMF to discuss the matter while claiming it is entirely or primarily due to sub judice principles is not the issue being expressly targeted, but a number of editors have opined in related discussions that if a part of the price tag of staying in the court's good graces throghout litigation is to effectively implement a gag order preventing the WMF from communicating with the community on this matter, that alone is cause for serious complaint and maybe reason enough to refuse to elect to engage with the court in a country where the WMF is not domiciled and does not have offices. What is hoped to be achieved is to get the WMF to refuse to disclose the PII of editors who have done nothing but comport with this project's rules and do the business of encyclopedia building, reporting on the views of reliable sources. To answer your questions about consequences, yes it is very possible, even likely, that the WMF will not only face a contempt ruling if it refuses to the disclose the information, it may even have to default this case. The consequences of that default may be monetary damages against the WMF (which will very likely not be enforceable in the US due to principles of US jurisprudence on international comity which are too lengthy to get into here, but which I am happy to give a basic breakdown on, on your talk page, if you like). It is also possible-to-probable that the court may order a domain block of Wikipedia in part or all of India, or that Wikipedia may lose it "intermediary" media organization status in India, making it more liable to future suits (though, these too will probably be unenforceable if the WMF does not stipulate to the judgments. We should have no illusions about any of these consequences, and every editor should !vote according to what they think the lesser of the evils are. SnowRise let's rap18:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. My understanding is that WMF is doing two things: (1) providing the email/IP addresses under covered seal to the court and (2) serving the summons on the editors. I also remember seeing that WMF has said that they will pay for counsel for the editors using their legal assistance fund. WMF has already explained that they are doing #1 to preserve their right to appeal and to prevent the court from ordering Wikipedia taken down in India. #2 is not consequential in my view: the plaintiff (ANI) could easily have asked the court to serve the editors via their talk page since they don't have contact information. I'm also opposed to framing this as a protest action against WMF. They're doing everything they can do within the bounds of the law to ensure that Wikipedia is not taken down in India. If we want to protest anyone, it should litigants bringing cases against Wikipedia editors. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with everything here except the sentiment behind They're doing everything they can do within the bounds of the law to ensure that Wikipedia is not taken down in India. If that "everything" includes letting a corporation use the legal system to threaten editors and invite further lawsuits, then the WMF is just as culpable. Being taken down in India is preferable to creating an existential threat to Wikipedia's editing model and a danger to its contributors. It remains to be seen where they'll land on that, which is why this is so chaotic. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what the WMF lawyers are thinking, but there's a possibility they've concluded that they can win this in India's Supreme Court. If I were the WMF's lawyer and had reached a similar conclusion, I'd likely advise WMF to do what they're doing here: share with the court with the assurance that the information remains sealed and pursue an appeal. They're also not letting a corporation do anything. The corporation has already sued the editors and will continue to do so notwithstanding what WMF does. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That win, which I can tell you certainly cannot be counted on, will at a minimum require that we sacrifice the interests, well-being, and possibly even the safety of volunteers, just to test such a legal theory. At the same time, there will be substantial risk of all India-related articles will devolve into unmanageable time sinks and legal threats. That is bad cost-benefit exchange imo, and an amoral choice to put our volunteers at risk to preserve the WMF's legal options. SnowRise let's rap18:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who is at risk? Their IPs and emails are going to the court under sealed cover, not to the plaintiffs. And of course nothing is certain; lawyers advise their clients based on their knowledge of the law and analysis of the likelihood of success. It appears to me that the WMF and its lawyers are acting deliberately and cautiously in this case (which is evidenced by the fact that they reached a stipulation to prvoide the info under covered seal, rather than letting the court issue a potentially worse order). voorts (talk/contributions) 18:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The WMF's legal options are our legal options. We as a community can disagree with their moral math. But part of why they exist in the first place is precisely because we have a need for a legal entity to represent us. -- asilvering (talk) 19:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear that supporters do not understand the potential consequences of this particular action, just as I don't. As such, I oppose. Izno (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That argument ignores key legal realities and the extended history of the project: Wikipedia has refused (and currently does refuse). The legal rulings of a number of countries when comporting with those rulings would irretrievably undermine the work of project and our movement's values. China, Turkey, and Russia, to name the other major global population centers whose domestic laws, regulations, policies, and court or tribunal rulings have been ignored, with blocks of the site in those countries always resulting. This is in principle no different. The WMF is not located in and does not maintain offices in India. The only question is, are the issues and actions arising out of India severe enough for us--and more importantly, the WMF--to opt instead for non-compliance there as well.The majority of the community seems to feel so. The WMF's precise position is uncertain at this juncture, but that are agreeing to at least disclose information in this instance, and the community largely objects to that. If you have a more particularized argument for why we should adopt a separate tact for India, that is one thing. But the "law is the law, period" argument clearly is not consistent with the legal reality or movement precedent. SnowRise let's rap18:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can answer inquiries in the discussion section, too. Please, @Snow Rise, you're badgering. Seriously. I know you really feel strongly about this, but this is badgering. Valereee (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Val, I disagree with the characterization, but I've already said I will follow the recommendation. If for no other reason than to avoid further bloat in the survey section. SnowRise let's rap18:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And to say that the blackout wouldn't also harm the project's work because we have decided to clamour like monkeys over an issue that would easily be resolved by looking at the privacy policy? You can't have your cake and eat it too. Kline • talk • contribs18:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. My kneejerk response is, of course, "yes, support anything that might help". But my more reasoned response is: in order to support this, I would need to be convinced that taking this action would not cause harm to the editors in question and to the ultimate success of the case. There is nothing here that convinces me of that. -- asilvering (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Voorts and Kline. Throttle the free flow of information to "punish" the WF for doing something it has told all editors it may? D'oh! Gog the Mild (talk) 19:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my and others' comments at the IANB thread. This RfC is wildly premature without an actual technical implementation plan, and furthermore, I don't believe there is any technical implementation would be feasible without WMF developer support. Writ Keeper⚇♔19:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I weakly oppose this because we don't know how it might impact WMF's efforts, which while we may be critical of them, are likely still directed towards the protection of the community write large; we are largely not experts in Indian law and don't know how this may be perceived in the Indian legal system; and we don't know how this might impact the legal cause of the editors in question should they be further enmeshed in the legal proceedings. I very much agree with User:Asilvering's point above that we need to be sure it may not ultimately harm the editors or the potential success of the case. I understand, but do not agree with arguments that a blackout should be avoided due to the harm that it may cause to readers. That is the nature of collective action. Nurses do not harm patients by striking for more sustainable and just working conditions, rather they protect them in the long run. Editors "striking" protect readers by refusing to participate silently in the creation of a world where information and information users are less free. — penultimate_supper 🚀 (talk • contribs)19:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strikes me as premature. This might be justified in a few days, but for now, I'd like to hear again from the WMF and see greater consideration from the community of exactly what a blackout would consist of. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think not publishing information is a good response to the original issue: a government doesn't want us publishing certain information. — xaosfluxTalk19:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Like many others, I share the concern about disclosing personal information. However, making a decision in 24 hours is too rushed for almost any decision of this type. Add to this that the decision involves an extreme measure: a worldwide blackout for 2-3 days. This type of decision should not be taken lightly without proper consideration of its possible consequences. I would be more favorable if there was more time to decide and if the blackout was limited to Wikipedia in India. Additionally, there are concerns about the target of the protest. Should we protest against WMF, against the Delhi High Court, or against people who use legal actions to threaten free speech?
As a side note: Given the very limited time available, it's unlikely that enough editors will respond to this RFC to be anywhere close to being representative of the editors of English Wikipedia, all of whom would be affected. So even if the supports win by numbers in this limited timeframe, I don't think this RFC is enforceable. Phlsph7 (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't think any of the edits to that ANI article were defamatory, but that's not really the point. This may not be a popular opinion on Wikipedia, but I think the notion that the WMF should not comply with court orders is ridiculous. Sorry, I believe in the rule of law, I believe in courts, I believe nobody should be above or outside the reach of the law, including myself and other editors. If a court orders a company that runs a website to turn over its IP logs, the company is going to comply, as it should. There is no reason the WMF should be an exception. I think the WMF negotiating a disclosure under seal, to the court and not to the plaintiff, was a reasonable step that the WMF took to protect its users' privacy. I can find no fault with the WMF's actions in this case.
Some editors say: but it's India, it has repressive or undemocratic courts or government, and that's why the WMF shouldn't comply with its court orders. I agree with what the judges said about this: "If you don't like India, don't do business in India." The WMF does business in India: see Wikipedia in India. It fundraises in India [2], it gets money from India [3], it has an affiliate in India [4]... it's going to have to follow the orders of Indian courts. Can't have it both ways.
So if the community wants to have the WMF not comply with Indian court orders, it needs to have the WMF pull out of India and cease operations there. But even if that happened, editors should realize that their IP addresses, registered email addresses, etc., are still likely going to be within the reach of Indian courts, because India is a signatory to the Hague Service Convention (and even if your country isn't, there is the letters rogatory process). The bottom line is: the websites we post stuff on are going to turn over our IP addresses etc. in response to court orders, and there is nothing we can really do about that, nor should we try to evade it, because we should be responsible for what we publish online, even if it's on Wikipedia. It's not just the WMF: your email provider, your ISP, they will comply with court orders, too.
If we don't want the WMF to submit itself to the jurisdiction of certain countries, then we need to tell the WMF to cease operations (especially fundraising!) in those countries, and we need to accept that Wikipedia may be blocked in those countries. But if we want to be a global encyclopedia, then we have to be global citizens, and that means submitting ourselves to global jurisdictions. But let's not be unreasonable by demanding that the WMF refuse to comply with court orders in countries where it does business. Levivich (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich, I am sorry, but you are massively and fundamentally confused about the principles of law you are referencing. The Hague Services Convention merely provides a route for service of documentation and requests (summons, interrogatories and such)--it's in the name; it does not in any way put evidence anymore "within the reach" of the courts of a signatory nation than they would otherwise be under the normal rules of comity of the court from which aid in collecting the evidence is being sought. In short, you can send the request, but the Hague Services Convention will not compel a a court to render aid in collecting that evidence. And US courts will only entertain letters rogatory from courts in other nations under extremely demanding and complicated comity analysis. For example, there is a vast array of reasons why an ANI interrogatory or order from an Indian court seeking to compel the turn-over of evidence in the present situation would be almost certain to be denied by the US court asked to compel delivery of that information. Subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and incompatibility with first and fourth amendment protections, primarily, but plenty of other hurdles. US courts are not in the habit of giving lower levels of protection to the personal privacy rights of US citizens with respect to foreign parties and courts than they would receive with regard to domestic parties and courts demanding that same information. Quite the very opposite: the US is not a signatory to many of the broad conventions on comity in this areas precisely because its protections are so robust, and also because many other countries are loath to enter into such compacts with the US because of certain idiosyncrasies of the US court system, such as its unusually high judgment amounts and large array of causes of action. Not only are the chances of an Indian party just being able to demand your information through a letter rogatory or an Indian court order unlikely to be successful, but in the extremely rare case that they might have a chance, even trying would typically involve immense litigation cost and protracted court battles. It would be a much more onerous affair than suing for libel under relatively friendly domestic courts in India, changing the SLAPP calculus immensely. SnowRise let's rap20:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Llammakey. Protesting a court case that threatens the freedom of information by shutting down the largest free information repository in the world seems counter-intuitive, and if anything, something ANI's lawyers would love. TheKip(contribs)20:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a blackout. We have already made our position emphatically clear with the now-800-something-signature petition. This isn't going to do much to strengthen that, and regardless of whether it does or not I don't think anyone at the WMF is in doubt that we care, and intensely so. Blackouts make sense (to the extent that they ever do) when they're used to exert pressure on something where pressure might be able to change course, e.g. political things, like SOPA. We are not going to strong-arm the justice system of the most populous country in the world into doing what we want by blacking out a website they seem to be willing to ban anyway. Are we trying to get the WMF to do something? Because as much as people talk about the WMF giving over editor data doing damage to the entire editing community, the defence the WMF puts up against that is also defending the entire editing community—defending us—and publicly taking a stand against them just sows chaos and is completely counterproductive to achieving what we all want. We should not jump to treat the WMF as an opponent just because they haven't done exactly what we want. The rationale behind blacking out the site is principled, but it not going to help us, the WMF, or the court case, not to mention the irony of taking down all of our content in response to a lawsuit about a tiny piece of it. Giraffer (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I just don't think this is practical. We're almost certainly going to need WMF to cooperate with any attempts to blackout the site, and whether the WMF is passively or actively involved in such a blackout, it would likely negatively affect the WMF's ability to handle the legal case regardless of what it decides. This isn't practical and is likely to cause more harm than it does good. Hog FarmTalk20:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The WMF has a lot of money. People with a lot of money have good lawyers. The WMF is doing what their lawyers want them to do, which is exactly what they should be doing. I understand that people want to do something, but an open letter to tell someone something they already know, and are actively working on, doesn't make much sense to me. And why black out Wikipedia? There are far far more effective strategies to ensure this backfires on ANI. Polygnotus (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all of the concerns about the ANI case articulated among the supporters, and would support this if I felt confident it would be constructive. We're operating on the basis of woefully incomplete information, with no relevant legal expertise, interfering with an active case where we don't know what legal strategies are in play or how our actions might affect them. I see an attempt to force the Wikimedia Foundation's hand, but no demonstrated understanding of how this will be perceived by anyone other than the Foundation. We know well that the world does not understand the difference between the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia, and volunteers, so how will this act be different? In the SOPA/PIPA blackout, it didn't really matter if the line between the foundation and editors was blurry; here it does. What reason is there to believe this won't be seen as an act of judicial interference? Even if not interference, why are we so confident this won't influence judicial attitudes in counterproductive ways? One judge expressed a "meh" attitude at our open letter, but a blackout could well be a different animal. What advice do we have for the Foundation's lawyers when they have to answer for it in court? In what way does it derail their plans? What advice do we have in future cases, anywhere in the world, when lawyers are asked to account for interference by the anonymous editors the foundation is tasked with defending? At the end of the day, I hope the WMF understands the existential threat posed by politically motivated litigation (SLAPPs, unmasking suits, judicial harassment, etc.), and understands the degree of harm cowing to strategic litigation would have on our ability to pursue our mission. These are threats that need significant investment -- not just shoring up legal strategies for cases abroad, but devoting some real brain power to contingency planning should the legal reality on the ground change in the US. I'm just not convinced that our interests or the interests of the defendants are served by trying to force the WMF's hand and undercutting the judgment of their lawyers. Over the years, amid all the things the WMF has done to get pushback from the community, I don't think selling out our editors in court is among them. If that faith turns out to be misplaced, count me in for a protest action. Until then, I want to let the people who have all the information, experience, and expertise do their job rather than make it harder. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 20:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose protesting the Wikimedia Foundation. I think it's absolutely ludicrous to compare SOPA/PIPA to the actions of a single trial court judge, not to mention a blackout twice as long as the SOPA/PIPA one. The SOPA/PIPA blackout was a call to action to every American reader to write to Congress to oppose these laws. What's the call to action here? An insular complaint with a foundation 99% of readers have never heard of? Maybe if coming after editors became the official policy of a government we could consider a blackout, but this is simply a misguided lower court judge issuing an order that the Foundation's lawyers have been able to negotiate to a fairly limited harm, and which they intend to appeal. At the prior centralized discussion, I was most convinced by Valereee's opinion 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. I trust that the Foundation's goals are to protect free speech and that the attorneys familiar with the Indian court system have found a strategy optimal to protect the community and Wikipedia. If this strategy fails and brings these editors to harm with no benefit to free speech then we should discuss opposing the Foundation, but right now we have far too limited information. Even still, I agree with Levivich above who makes the point that opposing court orders is frankly silly: editors and the Foundation are people who still exist in their societies and are bound by the rule of law. Establishing the Wikimedia Foundation as a group that doesn't play ball with court systems is shooting ourselves in the foot. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs)20:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Makes no sense. Make Wikipeda and the whole world suffer to try to pressure one judge who doesn't care about that? North8000 (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going neutral on this. Not because I don't think disclosing personal information is something WMF shouldn't do, but because I don't feel I understand well enough what the actual plan is, and I don't know what the unintended effects of this could be. For the record, I absolutely oppose disclosing personal information in any way that would make an editor publicly identifiable. Also FTR, I have zero question that those proposing/supporting this are well-intentioned. Valereee (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC) Moving to oppose, at least until we have a definite timeframe and namespaces. Valereee (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't bring myself to oppose, as that would imply there isn't a need for drastic action (not to mention that more than half of the opposes have not-so-great arguments and I don't want to imply that I'm endorsing them). But I also can't support a sitewide condemnation of the WMF. It's still possible they've been on our side the whole time, in which case they literally cannot tell us so. In regard to the WMF, the best action is to make them know that we resoundingly oppose any disclosure, and we've done that. Directing the blackout at ANI and/or the Indian court would be much more effective. It would make it clear who's responsible for creating this situation, and it would create a strong disincentive for other organizations that would otherwise try to cause trouble. And to address the inevitable "but that might make them angry" and "it will give them what they want" arguments: I really don't give a damn. Protecting Wikipedia's independence and safety is more important than protecting its operations in India. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't care. The fact that WMF complied with this lawsuit and provided the requested information means editors who valued their anonymity on here (with certain exceptions, such as the need to use Checkuser for Wikipedia to protect itself) no longer have any guarantee that will happen. With how the Internet has been evolving over the past couple of decades or so, especially with social media exploding in popularity, being allowed some form of privacy and having a way to contribute to something I perceived to benefit all was what attracted me to start editing Wikipedia in the first place. There is now evidence that privilege of privacy could be taken away for anything WMF may be sued for. I'm not willing to find out what I consider to be a productive edit an entity suing WMF will consider slander, and then goodbye account privacy. I'm out. Steel1943 (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m pretty sympathetic to this idea but would appreciate a more detailed summary of the backstory (asking folks to sift through voluminous threads for context is not gonna cut it here), and I also think 48 hours is way too long. Suggest starting with one hour. It’ll make clear enough the message that we can do it, still get the press we hope for, and leave open the door for escalating to a longer strike. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm not against the blackout (as I believe sharing personal information of Wikipedia users is unacceptable and the blackout would give me more time to do something else), I can't support it per Hog Farm. The proposal is pointless if it depends on WMF to actually execute it (or not shut it down; they are controlling the servers, remember?). Hey WMF, we want to protest against you, would you please help us? AstonishingTunesAdmirer連絡20:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, firstly, most of the technical approaches suggested don't require WMF to execute them (they could easily block them, for sure), but I think it's pretty unlikely they'd block a protest against themselves, and possible that they'd even help the community implement one if needed. Now, doing so would muddy the liens between the WMF and the community, which would probably be a bad legal idea. — penultimate_supper 🚀 (talk • contribs)20:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the issue is that while we know that the WMF and the wikipedia editor community are not the same, and actions by one do not equate to actions by the other, I have doubts that the relevant court system here is going to see it that clearly. There's a good chance that such asnaction by the community is going to be seen as an action by and through the WMF by a court that doesn't distinguish between the two. We should be careful not to undermine whatever legal recourse the WMF does have here, although I do strongly oppose the WMF's consideration to release personal information regarding editors. Hog FarmTalk21:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Skynexnex that it would be helpful to provide more details on what "blackout" entails. Is access to all content to be blocked, or will it be available by selecting an appropriate link on a blackout screen? isaacl (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't wish to take a position on this but instead of a "blackout" that would hide content perhaps an editing strike of some form would be better. Is a "blackout" the only way to accomplish that? 331dot (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
331dot Organising a strike that is actually visible to outsiders is not easy, particularly sufficiently quickly to have any effect here. Another thing that has been suggested is a mass resignation of advanced permissions. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Walsh90210: To answer; All. All. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me since we're not part of the case we can't be in contempt of that court. Further, they have no jurisdiction outside of their borders. As to office action to veto? Maybe. To the overall concept; given the rapidly impending release, we don't have weeks to hash out details of this and consider all possible ramifications. I agree there are risks. There are considerably bigger risks in failing to act. --Hammersoft (talk)
Hammersoft, my worry is that ANI will argue that wikipedia and WMF are the same, for the purposes of holding us/them/whoever in contempt of court. We know there is a difference. They have much to gain by pretending there isn't one. -- asilvering (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very real concern, and we already can see instances in the record where ANI has done just that, and found a receptive audience in the court. We should not be under any allusions here: the WMF refusing to disclose the identities of these editors will not only be almost certain to result in a ruling of contempt, it will probably ultimately force the WMF to default the case eventually, if it continues to refuse the court's order. I still think it is by far the lesser of evils here. SnowRise let's rap20:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sympathetic to the sentiment here and signed the earlier petition, but I share concerns that this is poorly thought out vis-a-vis the larger context of responding to ANI's challenge. I'm also a bit concerned that (based on my subjective recollections of editors' activity and what they state on their user pages) relatively few of our editors who live in and/or write about India extensively have participated here yet. signed, Rosguilltalk18:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consider that this could be because editors from India are extremely worried because the WMF is about to not only allow, but directly take part in, allowing three editors to be personally summoned to court with a defamation lawsuit against them personally. The definition of SLAPP. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me!18:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Rise you sayThe localities to be covered are anywhere that receives en.wikipedia. The namespaces to be covered will probably end up being all forward facing content (article and article talk space), but not project space but that is NOT in the proposal. None of that is in the proposal. Not the time, not the namespaces, not the localities. Valereee (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct, and to be clear, if I wasn't enough in that post: these are details that are open to ongoing consensus, and which may or may not require parallel discussions, but the perspectives that have been advanced so far (and which I agree seem to make the most sense) are that article and article talk spaces should be the blacked-out namespaces. And the blackout applies to en.Wikipedia in its entirety as I understand the proposal: ergo anywhere that this site would normally be viewable at will be impacted. SnowRise let's rap19:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree, but it is what it is. Only recommendation I can make is that we start those side discussions simultaneous to the main proposal so we don't introduce further delay. SnowRise let's rap19:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A kneejerk "I don't know so I oppose" is immensely unhelpful and shortsighted, but there are several things that would need to be worked out:
What is the blackout a response to? Telling the WMF not to disclose? I feel that would be unhelpful since we don't know what their plan is and for all intents and purposes they cannot tell us yet. They could be fully on our side, or on the brink of giving in; we don't know. So are we protesting ANI for the existential threat it's putting on Wikipedia, the Delhi High Court for entertaining it, or both?
How long will it last? Until the case ends and/or the WMF walks away? What if the WMF does disclose—will we protest for a few days and then go back to business as usual?
This will immediately become one of the top news stories in the English-speaking world (and possibly other places if other language editions join in). The crux of the issue needs to be communicated to the public very effectively in very few words.
What will be blacked out? I personally agree with LakesideMiners that it should be all of mainspace and talkspace while back-end discussion spaces are left open so we can continue addressing this.
And the elephant in the room: the WMF has veto power over much of this. Unless we're hoping they take "doesn't dictate what's on Wikipedia" to its logical extreme, they'll need to be at the table here.
I just added a clarification to most of these points. The 48 hour timeframe is to match the court order's four-day limit while having a round number – assuming this RfC runs for at least 24 hours, it will last until the last day of the court order. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chaotic Enby, maybe an explanation of what "under a sealed cover" means? Sorry again for the nitpicking, but this is stuff people opining in an RfC need to know. And I'm not sure I completely understand it, myself. Even though, yes, I've kept up. Valereee (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sealed cover is pretty unimportant. The important thing is whether the WMF will allow editors who were complying with WP policies and using reliable sources to be served with a *personal* defamation lawsuit against them. Whether others ever learn the editors identities or not, this should not be condoned. If Indian courts don’t want to support free information, the WMF shouldn’t pander to them trying to silence it, even if the site gets blocked in India. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me!18:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to provide a cogent but brief explanation: to submit a document or exhibit under seal means that is given to the court ex parte, by one party, with no automatic presumption that the information will be shared with all parties, which is otherwise the default for most evidence entered into the record. The court is then entitled to draw factual conclusions and legal rulings based on what it discovers therein, and if the information is conclusory to outstanding legal determination, the court will typically unseal the information and distribute it to the parties.If the court determines the information is immaterial to any legal or factual conclusion, it may instead keep the information sealed in the record. Which sounds great, but in this case, it highly, highly likely (almost certain) to find the information of the identity of the parties to be material information which has to be distributed to all parties. The identity of parties in a civil litigation action is pretty much always considered basic information which all parties are entitled to as a matter of due process and other fundamental legal rights. So the impact of the seal is negligible in this scenario. Indeed, in the most recent written order, the court already expressly anticipates and authorizes ANI to request this information, and I can think of no credible grounds on which the WMF could object, once it has released the information. SnowRise let's rap19:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a lawyer. I know what it means to file something under seal and I have done so myself. I imagine WMF considered all of what you wrote when they decided to sign a stipulation and that their counsel thought that, on balance, it was the best way forward in this case. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above, beyond just the namespaces involved, I think it will be helpful to state if the blackout intends to block all access, or allow click-through access. (I suspect the latter will gain more support.) isaacl (talk) 18:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the WMF would veto this, we and they are in much bigger trouble than we are already. Such a veto would not end well, just like the previous times they tried to flex their muscles here. Fram (talk) 18:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's reasonable for you to oppose this proposal then, and make the 'main page only' proposal in a different thread or subthread. If the original proposal fails, the more limited option could then be implemented if it did receive consensus support. Personally I don't have much confidence that blacking out just the main page would accomplish much of anything. SnowRise let's rap19:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quick question: will it still be possible to edit the site during the blackout? My concern is that vandalism occurring just before it begins will in some sense get locked in and go infixed. BD2412T18:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it absolutely matters. Imagine if the police pressed pause on responding to (your country's emergency number here) calls for even just an hour. There would be a very large backlog. Yes, they would eventually get through said backlog, but it would take them some time. Now apply the same logic to vandalism on Wikipedia. owuh (talk | she/her) 19:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the vandals can't keep vandalizing, we come out of the blackout with the same exact amount of vandalism that needs to be dealt with, and no one has seen it because it's been blacked out. How do we end up with a larger backlog? Valereee (talk) 19:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it was more clear in my head. Say the site goes read-only and the last 5 changes were vandalism. People are going to try (and fail) to revert the vandalism, and then may forget about it by the time the site is no longer read-only, thus it has slipped under our radar. As a solution to this problem, we could consider only allowing extended confirmed users to make edits. owuh (talk | she/her) 19:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When the blackout ends, recent changes will still include edits from before the blackout for the next minute or so (provide one uses the right settings). We should be able to catch everything. Sincerely, Dilettante19:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am still not assuaged as to an answer. Suppose there is a blackout. If I have this link open before the blackout begins, and I make a change there and click save after the blackout has begun, does that change get saved, or would I (or anyone else doing the same thing) get some kind of error message? BD2412T20:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to your question is "yes, it would get saved", as would any other edit that gets submitted during the blackout. Again, it is not technically possible for the community to actually disable editing without developer intervention. Writ Keeper⚇♔20:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find it very hard to believe personally that ANI will not at least learn the editors' identities once they're served with a suit, much less that the editors' identities will not become public eventually, especially if the suit proceeds. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me!20:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to expand on my reason for supporting here for people to consider. While I agree with the ideal of being a free information source for all, unfortunately some countries around the world have political situations (whether through democracy/the actual will of the people, or through force) that do not enable such a goal to be achieved. I second the concerns that this may be a one off rogue court that will have its ruling overturned on a successful appeal - but to me that does not matter, because in the WMF's lawyers' view to even proceed to appeal they have to put three individuals in their own personal defense of a defamation suit against them, personally. Whether the WMF holds to its current stance of paying those editors' legal fees or not is immaterial - the monetary cost of defending oneself against a lawsuit is not the only cost that has to be considered. And it is extremely likely that even if the information is given under sealed order, that their identities as defamation defendants will become public - potentially impacting their personal and professional lives as well. It shouldn't matter whether it's one editor or three editors or a thousand editors or everyone from a country - the WMF exists to protect everyone - which does not mean sacrificing three editors for some greater good.If this results in a financial penalty? Doesn't matter - WMF can pull out of India and it is virtually impossible that such a ruling will be enforced in US courts. If it results in Wikipedia being blocked in India? That's something for the local population and politicians to decide to rectify by reversing this court's decisions and publicly denouncing them. But putting three editors at personal risk for the "greater good" without their consent is absolutely abhorrent and should not be condoned. The WMF seems to think they are operating in the community's best interest by trying to "keep their options open". But it's time they cut their losses, pull out of India if necessary, and stop entertaining this kangaroo court's permission for a company to SLAPP editors of this site - and under no circumstance other than the editor's explicit consent to release their information to the courts in India should they allow such to be done.This is not a case where there's a valid legal claim that should be entertained. If this were an Indian court asking for the information of an editor who had posted a threat of assassination against someone, then there would not be community backlash whatsoever for the WMF choosing to comply. What this actually is, however, is the WMF acquiescing to SLAPP - which should scare every single editor here and goes against all of what Wikipedia stands for. The lawsuit ANI has filed against the WMF and the editors is baseless from what we know - the edits in question were cited to reliable sources (in line with our policies) and would've been rectified through normal policies if those sources changed their reporting. There is no defamation case in the US from this - and the WMF should not entertain Indian courts allowing local companies to claim there is in any way - especially when it puts three editors at great personal risk (even if that risk is not financial) with no guarantee of success. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me!20:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Over more than two decades, millions of people have helped make it into a global repository of knowledge. To protect our editors and maintain the encyclopedia's neutrality, privacy is a fundamental right accorded to all editors. As part of an ongoing court case, the Wikimedia Foundation, the organization responsible for hosting Wikipedia, has received orders to disclose personal information of editors. For 48/72 hours, we, the editors of the English Wikipedia, are blacking out the site in protest of this.
WP:SOPA is the closest precedent I'm aware of. I encourage other editors to write their own short messages and/or wordsmith mine (feel free to directly edit the quote instead of copy-pasting it every time). We can combine them and finalize the wording in 24–48 hours if the RfC is successful or looks like it will be. Sincerely, Dilettante18:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We'll also need to add some kind of "click through" to actually get to Wikipedia, and I think maybe consider something that the person reading it can do. (Contact WMF? I don't know, but something to think about.) I would not support anything which completely blocks access to Wikipedia; even the SOPA/PIPA blackout didn't do that. You could still click through and use the site afterward, and just saying "This sucks" without some kind of call to action is rather useless. SeraphimbladeTalk to me18:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)The SOPA/PIPA blackout was done that way. I certainly can't see why we'd do this one differently. The banner certainly got "in your face" upon visiting the site, but you could click through it and get to the site. (That said, I've no problem placing the click-through at the bottom.) SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did the SOPA blackout allow a click-through? Our own article, Protests against SOPA and PIPA#Wikimedia community, says The blocking action was purposely not complete; users could access Wikipedia content from the mobile interface or mirror sites, or if they disabled JavaScript or other web browser functions. Within hours of the start of the blackout, many websites posted instructions for disabling the banner, by altering URLs, using browser add-ons such as Adblock Plus or Greasemonkey, or interrupting the page from loading completely.
Which, honestly, seems like a pretty poor solution given many disruptive editors are probably pretty willing to do extra work to continue editing content while regular editors who patrol such things are less likely to intentionally work-around, in order to support the cause.
So I am still a bit (if not in the black) in the gray over what supporting this would result and I'm not keen on supporting something like this when much is vague since the details do matter. Skynxnex (talk) 19:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible I remember wrong; I'd have to dig back through, but I'm pretty sure it did. Then again, it would be pretty trivial for me to GreaseMonkey around it, so maybe I did that and forgot? In any case, I certainly know it wasn't a hard database lock, you can't GreaseMonkey your way around that. SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't be useless, as the major effect of attracting worldwide media attention would still be attained, but it would be a lost opportunity. isaacl (talk) 19:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I considered linking to the Open Letter and encourage signing. Of course, asking people to create an account when we've just talked about the risks of doing so is a bit tone-deaf. Encouraging IP signing when we're talking about supporting privacy is equally poor form. Sincerely, Dilettante19:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about
Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Over more than two decades, millions of people have helped make it into a global repository of knowledge. To protect our editors and maintain the encyclopedia's neutrality, privacy is a fundamental right accorded to all editors. As part of an ongoing court case, the Wikimedia Foundation, the organization responsible for hosting Wikipedia, has received orders to disclose personal information of editors. Though the Wikimedia Foundation provides infrastructure, they are not responsible for content and curation. Despite this, they have blocked access to a page related to the case without the community's agreement. For 48/72 hours, we, the editors of the English Wikipedia, are blacking out the site in protest of this the court's request for personal information and the foundation's decision to interfere with content.
I'd leave out discussion of blocking access to the page. I feel the primary issue is disclosing editor information, and so the messaging should remain focused on this. isaacl (talk) 19:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's another major issue at play here as well. If this ends up setting the precedent that individuals or entities that dislike the content that wikipedia has reliably sourced about them can just sue and get a court to mandate a takedown or change of the content, then we've already lost no matter what happens with editor privacy. And I really am worried that this case is going to set the precedent for any number of entities that don't like how they are covered. Hog FarmTalk19:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The messaging needs to be simple, and have an achievable goal. If trying to influence what laws are passed, then a message more like "This is what Wikipedia would look like if repressive governments had their way" would be more apt. But... frankly, a blackout is unlikely to have much effect with most of the governments in question. isaacl (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A much sharper take that I don't expect to see aired, but maybe it's a good guide:
Over two decades, millions of people around the world have collaborated to make Wikipedia the world's largest reference work, a global repository of knowledge. That work is only made possible by a fundamental promise: That every volunteer who sacrifices their time and energy for this project will always be protected from retaliation when they speak truth to power. That they will never need to censor themselves for fear of persecution.
That promise is under threat from the Delhi High Court, which, amidst a lawsuit from Asian News International, has ordered the Wikimedia Foundation to reveal the personal information of its volunteers to the law. Disclosing those volunteers' identities would not only jeopardize their privacy and wellbeing, but compromise the ability of the entire project to fulfill its mission of spreading knowledge as widely as possible, for free, for everyone.
In protest of the court's order, the volunteers of English Wikipedia are blacking out the site. We strongly urge the Wikimedia Foundation, the organization that supports and hosts our project, to protect the privacy of its community members from government intrusion and guarantee their right to contribute safely.
This is definitely better put. A slightly toned-down wording along those lines would be
Over two decades, millions of people around the world have collaborated to make Wikipedia the world's largest reference work, a global repository of knowledge. That work is only made possible by a fundamental promise: that every volunteer who sacrifices their time and energy for this project will be protected from retaliation for contributions that improve the encyclopedia.
I don't love that, if only because things like petty vandalism and incivility don't improve the encyclopedia, but they still shouldn't be illegal by default. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the best approach for any message is to buttress a position of protecting privacy and supporting organizations that uphold this position. The immediate achievable end goal is to gain the WMF enough public support to be bold in its actions to protect privacy. isaacl (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Insofar as I would support a blackout (and I am undecided), I really like this. If I could make one suggestion, I would maybe refocus the end of the second paragraph onto volunteers rather than the project? Something like "...privacy and wellbeing, but compromise the ability of all editors to feel safe from retalitation when contributing to Wikipedia." Giraffer (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily disagree, but I think that in the current social environment, I want to stress to readers that censoring us affects them more than I want to try and persuade them to feel empathy for us. But maybe there's a middle ground? "... privacy and wellbeing, but compromise the ability of every volunteer to further the mission of spreading knowledge as widely as possible, for free, for everyone". theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can get behind this. Perhaps we need to direct this more at ANI rather than the court though. I dislike the prospect of giving a middle finger at the court, who are doing there job (let's be good faith). Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i would normally show you the Wikipedia page on the lawsuit to prove that the Delhi High Court has absolutely not been neutral towards the WMF, but the Delhi High Court forced the WMF to take that page down, so... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really able to invest time in wordsmithing but I agree with this sentiment. The eventual wording should focus on the court's permitting of a SLAPP lawsuit to be filed and continue, and the fact they are attempting to pressure the WMF into revealing editors' personal identities to be sued personally with a SLAPP lawsuit. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me!20:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This has gotten chaotic and needs time to settle so we can assess where we're really at. Though time is not something we have much of, so hopefully this settling takes place sooner rather than later. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not ideal, I agree, but with the WMF set to take action at any time, even 24 hours runs the risk of the WMF acting before the protest action stands a chance of accomplishing its desired ends. The court's deadline is under three days away now, and there's no way WMF's counsel will wait unil the last minute, nor even much chance at that they will wait until the last day; we have to assume disclosure could happen as early as this coming morning. For that matter, they may submit to the clerk of court at just about any hour these days. SnowRise let's rap19:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That wouldn't necesarily have exactly zero value to the community, but the primary objective here is to protect the volunteers from this disclosures in the first place. SnowRise let's rap19:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The wording used for the 24-hour close in the proposal makes it seem significantly more authoritative than it is. In actual fact the "as discussed prior" is an agreement among ~5 editors. WP:CONLEVEL is strongly at play here, and 24 hours is definitely not enough time to gain sufficient support for a measure that would affect every visitor of this site (let alone the editors not following the ANI stuff, as CONLEVEL refers to). Giraffer (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is very much not a matter of firm consensus as I see it, and if there are competing notions, we should discuss (and eventually have an !vote if it becomes necessary). That said, I can tell you with a significant degree of confidence that these attroneys are not going to wait until the last minute of their >3 remaining days. Even 24 hours is uncertain to beat the clock here, and I highly recommend that anyone wanting the blackout to have a chance of accomplishing its main goal (protecting the PII of those volunteers), err on the side of caution. Anything past 36 hours and we arguably shouldn't even waste our time. SnowRise let's rap19:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, we don't even know if they've already done it, they plan to do it, they're considering doing it, or they've no intent to do it. So, there's a very real chance that no matter what, this will end up being an "after the fact" protest rather than anything that can stop it, if it's going to happen. I don't think, then, that we have any need to rush. WMF almost certainly knows that we're considering doing this, and there's a very real chance we will. Maybe given that, they'll even choose to deign to give us some more information, though I wouldn't hold out hope indefinitely for that, or it might give them pause in whatever they were planning previously. But getting in a huge rush risks this being ineffective, and this is something we only get to do once. It's important to get it right. If we do this in an ineffective way, we won't help anything or anyone. SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in my oppose above, it seems to me that this RfC is wildly premature, given that there is no technical implementation plan. What are the actual technical steps that people who are supporting this expect to be taken? Are those technical steps even possible, much less desirable? I understand people's haste, but it doesn't seem like there's anything to !vote on at this point. Writ Keeper⚇♔19:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The most straightforward approach to locally implement a blackout screen with a click-through to the content is to use Javascript. Although it can be worked around, the point would still be made, with the event covered by worldwide media. isaacl (talk) 19:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Options may greatly depend on what the desired effect will be, and how bulletproof it needs to be. Adding a large sitebanner to every page is easy, and if a dev supports us locking the database is also easy. Actually preventing all pages from being read takes extra work. — xaosfluxTalk19:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the idea is to determine at this stage if people in principle support the idea (after all, if the answer to that is "No, we wouldn't want to do this at all", there's no use wasting time with any further consideration). If the answer is "yes", then we can move on to what the desired implementation would be, and whether or not that is technically feasible. SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to blackout everything except ANI? Or even better, just redirect everything to there until the blackout ends (joke). I do worry that even a support on this could be prevented by the WMF. What's to say they can't just veto it? Conyo14 (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hypothetically, the WMF could, yes. In practical reality, though, the WMF depends on the volunteer community to maintain the projects that pay their salaries, so they can't just ban all of us. If at the end of the day we say "We're doing this whether you like it or not", they can't so easily say "Oh no you're not". They can, in a technical sense, but the last time they tried that, it didn't end so well. SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think Fram's comment above (If the WMF would veto this, we and they are in much bigger trouble than we are already. Such a veto would not end well, just like the previous times they tried to flex their muscles here. is valid. If anyone would know, it's them. Sincerely, Dilettante19:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It think an unprecedented 48+ hour black out would benefit WMF even if they got some bad credit from being on the cover message, since is would mean that ANI would be subject to a fairly unbalanced court of public opinion. I don't see a veto on the bingo card for this. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should have infoboxes for rituals and cultural practices, as studied in anthropology and religious studies. Parameters like associated culture, associated religion, purpose, origin, place, whether or not it is extinct, and when it is observed could be included. Examples of articles that could benefit are Akazehe, Savika, Sikidy, Haka, Bar Mitzvah, Quinceañera, Nggàm, and Hajj. ꧁Zanahary꧂19:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)
.jpg)
.jpg)
