Talk:Expungement

Expungement is not a word. I believe the word should be "Expunction". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.89.31.227 (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Content

Much of the U.S. content should probably be moved to Expungement in the United States 2601:401:503:62B0:E0A1:228C:C4F5:E981 (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on Wikipedia policy on the reporting of expunged criminal records

Most US jurisdictions, including the state of Virginia where most Wikipedia servers are, permit the expungement of certain criminal records. Most democratic countries have similar arrangements, for example the UK and Australia allow for many offences to become 'spent'. The purpose of expungement, or 'spent' status, is to allow offenders a "second chance" (see article), particularly in respect of employment and other opportunities. The effect is to permit offenders to deny their expunged offences in many circumstances, and to constrain reporting on them without good reason (the fact of their existence is by definition not of itself sufficient reason). In the US, it is a misdemeanour in some states to report without good reason (acceptable reasons are laid out in relevant legislation); in the US and UK it is a tort to report without good reason. Should Wikipedia permit the reporting of expunged/spent convictions in our articles, and if so what criteria for such inclusion should apply?Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 08:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Campbell 28, this RfC is inappropriate in several ways, so I have removed it. Firstly, this is the talk page for improvements to the article on expungement, not a forum for discussion in general of the topic. It appears that your dispute was over the article Eric Joyce, so any question about that article specifically would be resolved at Talk:Eric Joyce. If you want to make a policy change proposal in general, jumping straight to an RfC would generally be inappropriate; you would first raise that (as a discussion topic; again, not straight to RfC) either at an appropriate village pump or at the talk page of the relevant policy (in this case, probably WT:BLP). An RfC should only take place after substantial discussion on the matter has already happened; see WP:RFCBEFORE. Finally, the statement leading into an RfC must be neutral, and yours pushes one side. An appropriately phrased RfC question for this would be something like "How should Wikipedia articles handle expunged or spent convictions?", without all the extra stuff thrown in. You can, of course, put forth your own position in a comment on the RfC, but not on its main statement. Given your clear inexperience, I think you would do well to gain a lot more experience before you wade into difficult areas like trying to change BLP. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you are incorrect to remove the RFC? Your reasons seem entirely wrong too. 1. I followed the WP:RFC instructions to the letter. For example, it says; "Open a new section at the bottom of the talk page of the article or project page that you are interested in. The section heading should begin with 'RfC'. This is that page. 2. I have no dispute whatever about the article Eric Joyce. I agree entirely with the more experienced editor who reverted my changes there, which I make clear that Talkpage discussion. 3. The RFC is not specifically about that article - it is clearly about a wider matter of Wikipedia policy. 4. The question is entirely neutral. Which aspect do you feel is not? I can certainly reduce its length but the context does seem relevant (i.e. surely people giving an opinion need to know the present state of US and UK law?). 5. Finally, surely the matter is one of some importance and relevance. Why would you want to prevent an RFC raising it? All that said, I'll try to raise it at BTP.

No-one is forcing you to comment on the RFC, but it seems far too heavy handed to prevent its discussion. Could you let me have your thoughts, please? Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote The RFC is not specifically about that article - it is clearly about a wider matter of Wikipedia policy. If so, this is definitely the wrong page. This page (Talk:Expungement) is specifically for discussing improvements to the page Expungement. To change an existing policy or guideline, use the talk page for that particular policy or guideline. To create a new policy or guideline, start off at WP:VPR. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See my other notes below. I see what you mean now! Thanks. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Summoned by bot) Agree with Seraphimblade. Wrong place, wrong everything. Coretheapple (talk) 13:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See my note above. The WP:RFC instructions say explicitly to make an entry here. Look at the instructions. Surely the question is a legitimate one which manifestly does not extend from any dispute between editors. In what way is it constructive to remove it from the WP:RFC list? Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which WP:RFC instructions say explicitly to make an entry here? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Redrose64. Two things. First, I see what you mean. And also what the others mean. I'm not sure if I should delete my comments above but I think it's best not to. The quote is from the WP:RFC page I link to in my comments above. However, I think my mistake was to refer to the Expungement article and not the page of the relevant project. I also think I shouldn't have gone direct to an RfC, as @seraphimblade says. I would say, there's no dispute of any sort involved here. I think it's an interesting and legitimate question about Wikipedia policy which might or might not require action. I'll keep reading the replies here, then follow on as folk suggest. Thanks very much, by the way. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See my other note! Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, for this page, I have started a discussion at what I think is probably the best place for it - at the Village Pump idea lab, much further down the tree from an actual WP:RFC. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 07:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]