Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

"WP:VPP" redirects here. For proposals, see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss already proposed policies and guidelines and to discuss changes to existing policies and guidelines.

• If you want to propose something new that is not a policy or guideline, use Village pump (proposals).
• If you have a question about how to apply an existing policy or guideline, try one of the many Wikipedia:Noticeboards.
• If you want to ask what the policy is on something, try the Help desk or the Teahouse.
• This is not the place to resolve disputes over how a policy should be implemented. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for how to proceed in such cases.
• If you want to propose a new or amended speedy deletion criterion, use Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion.

Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequently rejected or ignored proposals. Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for two weeks.

« Archives, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192

Admins and being paid to advise on editing

I have recently learned about an admin who is offering their services on Upwork. This admin (who I'm not naming because of WP:OUTING but who I will inform of this discussion) is quite clear that they will not edit or use their admin toolset. This admin further makes clear that they will follow all Wikipedia rules about paid editing and expect their clients to do the same. The service that they do offer is helping their clients "every step of the way" with editing on Wikipedia.

I feel pretty confident, for a number of reasons, that there is no paid editing violation happening based on the conduct of this admin and the way the Terms of Use and enwiki policies and guidelines are written. However, I am pretty troubled by this all the same in the way I wouldn't be with a non-admin. Again I do not suspect this current admin of doing anything wrong so it's not about them; it's about this as a principle. Do others see this as an issue as well? If so what should we do in response? Ideas that we could do:

• Change the requirement for RfA candidates to something like required to disclose whether they have ever edited Wikipedia, or advised others on editing Wikipedia, for pay (though this doesn't impact people after they become admins or current admins)
• Add some kind of transparency requirement for paid advising not just paid editing (but wording this in a workable way strikes me as hard)

Barkeep49 (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Can you expound on what your concerns are, and why it is different for an admin as opposed to a non-admin? Wehwalt (talk) 22:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the question. My concern is that we have to take people at their word that all they're doing is advising - I would much prefer a trust but verify (through transparency) system. And it's because of the tools that admins have that others don't to help clients, ranging from the not really a problem (viewing deleted content) to full on sanctioning someone who edits against their clients interests, that it strikes me as more of a problem for admin than other users. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

If an admin blocks someone on behalf of a client, then they are making a paid contribution and would have to conform to the paid-contribution disclosure requirements. Perhaps any use of administrative privileges should be considered to be a contribution for purposes of the terms of use? There is a financial conflict of interest with being paid for advice; I agree that figuring out how to compel disclosure in this case is difficult.

I'm having difficulty, though, trying to work out if there a distinction, other than type of client, with the role you are describing versus a Wikipedian-in-residence. In theory this is mutually beneficial, as the client will know from the start how to engage productively with the Wikipedia community, but this depends on the diligence of the advisor. isaacl (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Add some kind of transparency requirement for paid advising not just paid editing (but wording this in a workable way strikes me as hard) Does anyone see issues with something like Editors are required to disclose any payment for or related to activity on the English Wikipedia? It's broader than just paid advising, but in general I think transparency is a good thing so I don't see an issue with that. BilledMammal (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not convinced of the need, but if some policy were put in place, we'd need to cement what counts as "advising". Sure, being a consultant for EvilCorp would, but would teaching Wikipedia Editing 201 at EvilU (and in that case, who needs to be reported, EvilU who paid directly, or the students who were advised and funded it with their tuition?) Would writing a How Edit Wikipedia book for EvilPub count? If in the course of her regular workday in the EvilCorp communications dept, Brenda Admin is asked "how do we change our Wikipedia page to say we make solutions?" and Brenda tells them "you don't", does Brenda now have to make such an announcement? There is much fuzziness here. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I've had to be Brenda. It sucked. It wasn't even me who let management know I was an editor; I'm not sure whether they knew I was an admin. I just wish I'd been brave enough to push the A7 button myself. —Cryptic 23:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I've been aware of this admin for some time. My main concern has been that this creates a problem for them - having been paid in regard to Wikipedia advice, they have an ongoing undisclosed COI with those topics. This is workable, but it gets tricky when their clients have hired paid editors in the past and may do so in the future after seeking their advice when they are aware of this, but now they are in a difficult position. I know of other cases where editors have advised clients on Upwork and as a result of that advise the clients have hired banned editors to edit on their behalf, and I am aware that at least one of the clients who have hired this admin has also hired multiple paid editors in the past. - Bilby (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Like all COIs, it only needs announcement if they are editing (or administering) in their COI areas, which are already covered by existing policy. We all have COIs for some area, so the idea that these people will now have COIs for other ones doesn't strike me as a change of general status. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see a need to disclose a COI unless you are editing articles related to that COI, but effectively creating COIs with articles where there has been violations of policy in the past is creating a difficult position for yourself as an admin. Especially when through consulting you will be made aware of paid editing that has happened on articles where you now have a COI, and you will likely become aware of paid editing that happens on those articles after you consult. - Bilby (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I feel like you put yourself in a position where you are 100% fine or you are deyssopped and possibly banned. Those are pretty extreme outcomes and it's why I'm wondering if some additional transparency helps create middle ground. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be some guidance that editors providing advice remain ethically bound to raise attention to any improper contributions they encounter on wiki, and are thus unable to agree to any terms that would restrict this duty. The editors must inform their clients of this responsibility. isaacl (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Bilby is touching on the most likely and troubling scenario if said Admin is advising MegaCompany, AspiringCeleb or whoever. The likely next step will involve paid article editing by a paid editor account; this will happen in the Admin's line of sight, but without their hands on the keyboard. Clearly, if another editor challenged/reverted the paid editor's changes, defensive action by the Admin may be sought by their sponsor, and must be resisted (or they must be de-sysopped). But if the paid edits remain unnoticed by others, what then? No COI action has touched their keyboard, but doesn't the Admin bear some responsibility for their inaction to defend the overall integrity? This is a swamp, best avoided. AllyD (talk) 06:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

In this case it isn't theoretical. One of the clients that the admin worked for had previously hired paid editors to create an article. After the admin provided advice, an editor has subsequently recreated the article. That editor might be a paid editor in which case we have UPE. I do not hold this against the admin - this is an admin whom I have considerable respect for and whom I trust, and I do not belive that they would ever willingly do the wrong thing by Wikipedia - plus they have been transparent about what they do even if they haven't been transparent about this article in particular. So that is not what I'm suggesting. But it is a difficult line to walk, knowing that a client you recently worked for is now breaking the ToU, and had hired people to break the ToU before you agreed to work for them. I'd recommend admins not put themselves in this position just because of the problems this could potentially lead to. - Bilby (talk) 11:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

My suggestion for advisors to make their clients aware of their community responsibility is intended to ensure the line is made clear to clients from the onset. isaacl (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

What is "advising"? If someone buys a copy of my hypothetical new book How to Edit Wikipedia, is that a declarable COI? Admins certainly shouldn't be revealing deleted articles for cash (even if obtainable for free from your favourite archive site) but that seems like mop abuse rather than "advising". Certes (talk) 23:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Do others see this as an issue as well? - Yes, this strikes me as a self-evidently bad thing.

If so what should we do in response? - I do not think admins have any business making money off of their adminship. Period. Paid editing, or marketing oneself as a Wikipedia expert for financial gain, should be strictly prohibited for administrators. That is my two cents. Pecopteris (talk) 23:17, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree. If an admin wishes to make money from paid editing, they should divest themselves of their mop before doing so. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Pecopteris is on the right track but I would go further. Admins should be role-modelling the highest standards of conduct. It's not good enough merely to not break rules - they should be morally beyond reproach. Adminship is a privileged position, and using that position for financial gain has the potential to bring the project into disrepute, even if done in good faith, and even if no edits are made. This is not a million miles away from cash for access, which is widely regarded as scandalous. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

+1 -- GreenC 04:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• I pretty much agree with Pecopteris. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 23:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you see this as including getting an honorarium for speaking? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

• This has been discussed a bit with the functionaries, so I know a little more than barkeep49 has said, although I'm not privy to all of the details. Promotional editing is a big business, and those who run those sorts of businesses are always looking for an edge. Having an admin on your team is certainly a coveted asset for these people. I've been solicited off-wiki for my admin services, and I would imagine most admins could tell similar stories.

For sure, experts in all fields hire themselves out as consultants. Pharmaceutical companies hire retired FDA people to help them with regulatory issues. Likewise aircraft manufacturers hire FAA people to help with regulatory issues, and so on. This is all completely legit. These people come with knowledge and experience (not to mention contacts) which can only be gained by having been on the inside. But the common aspect here is that these people only go into private industry after they leave their government jobs. What's happening here is a sitting admin is offering their services for hire. Even if they're not providing direct tools-for-hire services, part of what they're selling is that they do have the tools (i.e. the ad on upwork directly states that they are an admin, even if it also states that they won't use those tools for hire).

I'd be much more comfortable if an admin decided they wanted to go into private consulting and resigned their bit to do so. They could still advertise that they're selling their experience and knowledge, but there would be a bright line in the sand that they're not selling their admin services. At the very least, they should publicly disclose that they're doing so. WMF:Policy:Terms of Use (under "Paid Contributions Without Disclosure") says You must disclose each and any employer, client, intended beneficiary and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. We could wiki-lawyer about whether providing consulting services that don't include on-wiki editing is covered by this, but I think it is certainly within the spirit of what was intended. RoySmith (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Ideally, there would be no paid editing. Returning to the real world, we should not allow editors to accept payment for using any significant privilege. What is "significant"? Certainly, anything that requires the sysop bit. Probably not autoconfirmed, which anyone can obtain easily. Probably most other hats such as new page reviewer or template editor. Extended-confirmed and autopatrolled may be borderline. Certes (talk) 00:14, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Just as a general principle, I don't think autopatrolled should be used for paid editing; such articles need the extra scrutiny provided by NPP. BilledMammal (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I thought for a while after seeing this that APAT only had effect if the AFC reviewer moving the article had the perm but reading the page again it does seem it's both (either one of original page creator or AFC reviewer with APAT will cause the article to be marked as reviewed). In which case, yes, I'd agree in general PAID articles should be unpatrolled when moved to mainspace so that the are reviewed by both sets of eyes. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Just a note on the last few replies, this is not about paid editing. This is about advising people on how to edit. We are not discussing admins who might take money for edits. Primefac (talk) 07:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, this is about parlaying the community's former confidence (an RfA with as high a percentage of supports as Eostrix's) into a quality guarantee in order to charge US$75/hour for paid advising. I had a look at the admin-in-question's user page. They do not indicate their "for hire" status or their hourly rate anywhere. Perhaps it could be suggested that they do so? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

• S Marshall's thoughts:
  • Advising people about how to make appropriate, policy-compliant edits to Wikipedia is a good thing.
  • It's also appropriate behaviour for a sysop. We expect sysops to do this on people's talk pages.
  • It's not for us to police someone's earnings. Our only proper concern is inappropriate on-wiki behaviour.
  • There are good reasons why we need people to disclose on-wiki when they're getting paid for Wikipedia-related work.
  • Therefore this sysop should disclose (1) the fact that they're consulting and (2) which articles and topic areas are involved.
• And that should be sufficient.—S Marshall T/C 08:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

  We did stray onto activities which require privileges but are not edits, such as viewing deleted pages. That's an example of "using any significant privilege" for which we may wish to prohibit payment. Certes (talk) 09:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

  In general I agree with S Marshall, but I feel we need to be clear about how this impacts things like Wikimedians in residence, editathons, etc. There are also many other questions, such as what about $corp paying an someone to teach someone how to edit in accordance with all the relevant policies? Does it make a difference if it's just expenses? Is doing something like viewing a deleted article to advise what sources it used "inappropriate on-wiki behaviour"? If this admin is advising someone about editing in a given subject area is it inappropriate if they use their admin tools to revert obvious vandalism in that topic area? What about if they are giving advice about editing generally rather than in a specific topic area? What if an article in their client's field is (semi-)protected due to vandalism and the admin edits through that protection to fix a typo on behalf of their client? Or to add a requested citation? How long after the relationship with the client ends does the COI last? Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with all of these points Thryduulf, though I will note that some of them also apply to traditional paid editing and even just COI - for instance how long does it last for. In other words if someone works for a company for a year at age 23, when they're 25 they still have a COI. Do they still at 30? 50? 70? Barkeep49 (talk) 14:35, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with S Marshall. Additionally, I don't think we should treat admins and non-admins all that differently -- there are experienced non-admin NPP/AfC experts that could be much more of an asset to company PR than many admins. —Kusma (talk) 10:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Admins and being paid to advise on editing (break)

There are at least four questions here:

1. What counts as paid advising, and how do our policies on transparency/disclosure regarding paid editing apply to it?

   This is complicated, but if pressed for a simple answer I'd say our policies on paid editing simply don't apply. If you're not editing, you can't be paid editing.

2. Does a COI need to be disclosed even if someone never edits a related topic?

   No. You only need to disclose a COI as it relates to your on-wiki editing. The policy is the "conflict of interest editing" policy, after all. Do we all need to disclose our employers because we might someday write about them? Do you need a list of my family and friends in case I write about them? No. Disclosure needs to happen as soon as you start making edits that change or otherwise influence the subject.

3. Is it ever ok to use admin tools in the service of paid editing or paid advising?

   No. I'd carve out an exception for "obviously uncontroversial" things like maybe responding to a revdel request of doxing, but doing this would be dancing on the edge of a razor given the amount of discomfort such an act would cause in principle. Get a different admin to do it, and disclose your COI when you do.

4. Should the trust inherent in adminship and the specter of a conflict of interest bar an admin from paid advising?

   No. This all feels yucky because everything at the intersection of money and Wikipedia feels yucky. At the end of the day, companies and individuals are going to try to influence Wikipedia, so let them do it in the best possible way: advised by an experienced user telling them how to go about it properly and stopping short of paid editing. We should want that to be the pipeline so that they don't go and hire some blackhat operation or otherwise make a mess and waste people's time. Whether it's an admin or not doesn't really change anything except in the community's perception. We put a lot of trust in admins, so hold them to a higher standard. But we need admins and we need experienced users and we need people who can tell a company how to properly engage with Wikipedia. As long as someone is doing all that without actually paid editing and discloses any COI if they do edit those topics, I say go for it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree our policies don't currently apply to paid advising. I am suggesting that we need some new policies or guidelines, at least for admins, when it comes to paid advising. And right now, because our policies don't apply, there is no mandate towards transparency/disclosure which is also what I think should be desire. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd disagree. We cannot and should not try to control what people do outside of Wikipedia. If someone's providing advice, for pay or for free, and never ever edits with a COI, they should not have to disclose that just like they shouldn't have to disclose all of the many other hypothetical COIs they have on topics they don't edit. This is a principled but impractical intervention for the sake of feeling safe. It will discourage interactions that get companies to do things properly for fear of being tainted by the scarlet PE or COI, even when no PE or COI is taking place. We do not need more impediments to adminship, and we do not need more motivation for companies to do the wrong thing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with all of this comment. I can see why the concern came up but I see no need for new guidelines or disclosure requirements. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I think I agree, at least without evidence that something is being done in a problematic matter. Making money from being able to advise on Wikipedia is not wrong without some abuse of tools or other misconduct, as far as I can see. Wehwalt (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Regarding points 1 and 2, note that the terms of use specify the need to disclose paid contributions, which can encompass actions altering the Wikipedia database beyond editing. With that caveat, I agree the paid-contribution disclosure policy doesn't cover advice, and the conflict of interest guideline doesn't require disclosure unless the editor is involved in trying to change the content of a related article. isaacl (talk) 15:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

• We've seen a fair amount of text on talk pages, noticeboards, and the like, about paid editing and COI. I'll let others try to figure that out. But where I think we likely all agree is that no one should be using any granted tool/user-right ability as a result of being paid for the action. At best, it's WP:MEAT. I don't want to try to think about "at worst". - jc37 14:50, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

  True, but this is more or less covered by WP:TOOLMISUSE already. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

  Sure, but I think it was worth (re-)saying, in the context of this discussion. That regardless of where things fall concerning paid-editing/COI, that there's still a bright line to not be crossed. - jc37 19:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that it's money x WP that makes it yucky for me. It's soliciting as an admin that's the yucky part for me. It implies to the client that an admin can help them get what they want better than an equally-experienced and expert editor, which is a deliberate misrepresentation (that admins have some special authority over content, which takes advantage of general public confusion) plus the fact that misrepresentation takes advantage of the ignorant. Multiple ignorants, actually. Valereee (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Throwing an idea out there: a list of people that the English Wikipedia endorses as capable of advising in this capacity, and a set of requirements to be included in such a list. Some of those requirements could deal with transparency. So, you can go off and advise for pay, and you're not required to disclose unless your on-wiki editing intersects with your clients, but you won't be included in the list of preferred consultants if you don't disclose. I feel like this has been floated with regard to paid editing in the past, though I can't recall what came of it... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

There is a list of paid editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Integrity/Editor Registry, but it is updated very infrequently. isaacl (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I would suspect that if we were to go down that road, either there would be no consensus on the qualifications, or those who are greatly concerned about this issue would make the requirements so arduous and fraught with possible penalties that no one would care to use it. None of which would stop whatever is going on from going on, of course, whether harmful or innocuous. Wehwalt (talk) 15:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

This was a thought that I had, too. Probably the sort of thing that would be best written collaboratively among a few and then voted on rather than put together piecemeal. I don't think it's impossible that something useful could come of it, though, since it's inevitably less fraught than paid editing. It's an unfortunate reality that the hardliners who naively think money and Wikipedia should never intersect (and thus must never intersect) ruin so many attempts to create pathways to do it responsibly, and thus push people into the darkness. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

• Is this functionally different from the behaviour discussed in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:50, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

  Yes. There is zero evidence that the admin has pressed any buttons which was not true of the admin in that case.. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

• If there's a middle ground here its for *retired* admins, there is no good way to make a system in which an active admin is giving paid advice (in the same way that a retired senior civil service bureaucrat can consult/advise those with business before the government, but an active one can't). Unpaid advice is fine given the provision that free advice is worth the price you paid and banning it would seem to be unduly onerous to the social lives of Wikipedians. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

  Admins must not advise for pay while they are administrators. Resign first.

  Very simple bright line.

  I’m surprised we’re discussing any alternatives.

  —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  Any editor being paid to advise others on Wikipedia editing must disclose their conflict of interest and the name of their clients.

  This is another simple bright line.

  —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  Barkeep49, you’re on the Arbitration Committee. You all need to confront this admin. Give them these 3 choices from which to pick:

  1. Stop this work and disclose who they’ve worked for to date. They can stay an admin.
  2. Resign their adminship and they can continue advising clients for pay. They must publicly disclose current and former clients
  3. ArbCom takes matters into its hands and desysops this person. ArbCom publicizes the COI.

  If this feels awkward and embarrassing for this admin, so be it. I see the choices above as generous; other community members might argue for desysopping no matter whether they stop. Still others might say ban them outright.

  The community must be able to trust all its administrations … as well as ArbCom.

  —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Another Believer there is no policy or guideline this admin has broken. Mandatory disclosure under our current rules is required only if there has been paid editing. This admin says (and there is zero evidence to suggest otherwise) that they have not edited, used the tools, etc. They have instead offered advise and suggestions off-wiki. It's precisely because there is this gap between what we allow and what I think we should allow that I started this conversation. Best Barkeep49 (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Barkeep49 Did you mean to ping me? I have not participated in this discussion thus far. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  Nope meant to ping @A. B.. Sorry about that. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  I agree. I don't think the editor has broken our rules but I do think it's time for them to make a choice.

  Others such as Mike Christie have provided good examples below that my take on our rules going forward may be too simplistic.

  --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  If want to force them to make a choice we need to change the rules to say the current choice is not OK. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with the 3 choices @A. B. laid out, and with the sentiment "very simple bright line - I'm surprised we're discussing any alternatives." I am also surprised, and discouraged that so many editors seem to be adopting a permissive stance on administrators advertising their credentials to unknown entities for financial gain.

  This is inappropriate conduct for an admin. If this is permitted, I guarantee that other admins will start making money by advertising their admin-ship, and new prospective admins will definitely plan on cashing in ASAP upon being given the mop. Who wouldn't? If I were an admin, and I saw this mealy-mouthed conversation taking place, I'd immediately start looking for ways to financially profit of my adminship. This practice will grow exponentially if it is not prohibited.

  I don't want Wikipedia to be a place where admins can use their credentials to cash in off-Wiki. There are too many nefarious actors who would like to manipulate Wikipedia. I find it highly doubtful that a random good-faith person is out there looking to hire a Wikipedia adviser to help them understand NPOV, or anything of the sort. The defense I've seen, which is basically "just trust the admins bro", is inadequate. Pecopteris (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  The problem with that is that in the real world there are no bright lines and that it is entirely possible to receive payment and be acting in good faith. Thryduulf (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  I see your point, but disagree. For example, it's also possible to be a disruptive and tendentious editor who is acting in good faith. Nevertheless, disruptive and tendentious editing is still a potentially sanctionable offense. "I was acting in good faith" is not a defense against inappropriate behavior. I submit that touting your admin credentials to receive unknown sums of money from unknown entities is vastly more inappropriate than good-faith tendentious editing. At the end of the day, there are only two ways forward here: either we prohibit this behavior, or we do not. If we do not prohibit it, we are permitting it. What you permit, you promote. Are we sure that we want to promote this sort of conduct among sysops? Pecopteris (talk) 00:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  (ec) This sounds good, but I think the principles you're invoking -- payment vs. transparency -- don't actually break down in the way you're implying. I work for a company whose founder has an article on Wikipedia, and there's a controversy about the founder that has made it into national papers multiple times. I'm paid by that company. If the CEO asks me how to edit the article to reflect his view of the founder, and I tell him about the COI rules, I've advised him (that is, I've told him he should do no such thing). Are you saying I should then post a COI note on my user page? (I've not posted any such note to date because I have no intention of ever editing that or any article with which I might have a COI.). If I told him how to subvert the rules, sure, I'm a bad person. But the problem with that is not that it's advice, it's that it's advice that goes against the Wikipedia ethos. I suppose you could argue that one should disclose a COI if one plans to advise one's clients how to get around Wikipedia rules but that's unlikely to be useful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:41, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  • If you’re asked to give advice, do what you’re told and send ArbCom a note. Disclose on your user page that you are an employee of the XYZ Corp.
  • Disclosing your employment before you’re asked to make any actual edits may head off your boss later asking you to edit. You can just say, “everybody already knows I work for XYZ - they’ll immediately revert my edits.”
  • If your boss still coerces you into making actual edits, resign as an administrator.

  —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not an administrator, by the way; I was responding to the part of your post where you argued that your points applied to non-admins too, though I would make the same case for admins. Your suggested actions go beyond what is in the COI guideline. I'd have no problem following your advice if it were in that guideline, and I might even do so without that being so, but as it stands I see no basis for arguing that editors must do as you outline. I think you'd have to propose and pass changes to the COI guideline to address this situation before you could fairly make the categorical statements you make above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  Disclosing that youre an employee of a specific company, in many cases is equivalent to outing yourself. We don't require that nor should we. (t · c) buidhe 05:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  ????? emphasis mine: Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. ltbdl (talk) 06:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Ltbdl emphasis mine: Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships.. Giving advice is not editing and it is not contributing. I strongly agree with buidhe that we do not and should not require an editor to out themselves. Especially just because someone else asked them to do something that did not involve being paid. Thryduulf (talk) 08:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  As another example, I was asked whether I could write an article about a person we both knew who had recently died. I explained the notability policy and my belief that subject would be unlikely to pass it. The person understood that and nothing more was said. Under your rules, if the person asking and/or the subject was my employer I would be required to out myself, declare I'd been giving paid advice and possibly resign my adminship. That is grossly disproportionate. Thryduulf (talk) 08:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  I do not think there is a single Wikipedia policy which would require a user to disclose who their employer is. What policies require is to disclose a COI without specifying the nature of the COI. (And I would certainly not advise of listing an employer at the user page; for a while I was saying on my user page that I am a full professor at one of the top universities in the Netherlands; this was enough for some persistent users to find my professional e-mail and send some mails using it, to which I never respond as a matter of principle, and resulted in at least one case of serious harassment). Ymblanter (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  This seems to be a red herring... You guys are conflating giving normal life experience advice in the course of your day jobs with your day job being to provide information about how to promote yourself on wikipedia. Those are not the same thing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  My point is that the rules proposed by A.B. would remove any such distinction - giving any advice about Wikipedia that relates to your paid employment in any way would be treated the same as paid editing. I think this would be grossly disproportionate. Thryduulf (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  I read A.B. as being a bit more nuanced than that, IMO in the description provided you would not be "Any editor being paid to advise others on Wikipedia editing must disclose their conflict of interest and the name of their clients." because you aren't actually being paid to advise on wikipedia you're being paid for something else and the question is unrelated to your core duties... Its a question about a hobby and as long as you don't step over the line into WP:PROMOTION you're good. Where it would be questionable would be if you were employed in a public relations or similar position. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• So. I'm an admin, and have been for years. I'm also a functionary, a member of the WMF Communications Committee, and a bunch of other things. Over the course of many years, I've been asked to speak at various conferences, including ones that aren't directly related to the Wikimedia movement, although my topic was specific to some aspect of the movement. In some of those cases, I have received an honorarium; not always, and it's never been that significant. If it is an online matter, or I didn't have expenses, I've usually had the honorarium donated to the WMF. But when I do have expenses, I am more inclined to keep it (or at least as much of it as covers my personal costs). At every single place where I have spoken, I have been asked plenty of questions about how to do things on Wikipedia: create an article, what kinds of things are needed, how we deal with COI, how we deal with disinformation, who does the editing, what is our structure...the list could be infinite. In most of these cases, I don't think there's much of a different answer to these questions if I'm answering them at an official Wikimedia event than if it's in another forum. So...would this constitute paid advising? Should I stop answering questions that could potentially bring us new editors with new expertise? There are many other people who are or have been in that position; not answering questions about Wikipedia seems to defeat the purpose of this outreach. This is a real question.

  I think that we need to be a little more cautious in how we think about these things, and accept that there are grey areas. There are those who believe that scholarships paid with movement money turn people into paid editors. There are those who think anything less than the level of abuse exhibited by Orangemoody-type editors (i.e., claiming to be specific admins and/or editors, demanding money to keep articles, etc.) is probably okay. I think it's probably somewhere in the middle, but the middle can get awfully muddy. Risker (talk) 05:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• Most of the problems here are in the area Thryduulf has pointed out. But really the core issue is with the admin policy and it being out of date with how COI's effectively work. If we want to eliminate COI impacts on admin tool use, then the requirements for having advanced tools (in the admin policy) need to be tightened up to explicitly say "You cant accept money or other considerations in return for wikipedia-related work in any form. If you wish to do so, you cannot have advanced tools". It would eliminate any and all COI issues with admin's who may *potentially* have issues, because they wont be admins. It would also eliminate our issue with employees of the WMF and their unresolvable COI. The alternative is dicking around with the COI guideline playing whack-a-mole while people find new ways to grift. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  You cant accept money or other considerations in return for wikipedia-related work in any form would prohibit any admins from working for the WMF, Wikimedia chapters or thematic organisations. It would also prohibit them from receiving scholarships grants, scholarships, expenses or even prizes (from the WMF, chapters, etc). Taken literally it would also prohibit them from eating food at any Wikimedia-related event they didn't pay for directly. That is not the goal of the rules regarding conflicts of interest and is much broader than the last consensus I am aware of believed should be prohibited. Thryduulf (talk) 08:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  And it would also disincentivize or even bar good strong editors who may already be giving Wikipedia classes, giving sound and proper advice at work, and so forth, from becoming admins, a process that is already too fraught. The assumption that someone who has become an admin is going to do evil if they accept money for giving advice (and let us be clear, giving advice is a good thing and should be encouraged) is strange and bleak; the assumption that an admin who intends to do evil for money is going to announce it is, in contrast, oddly utopian. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 12:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  "You cant accept money or other considerations in return for wikipedia-related work in any form would prohibit any admins from working for the WMF, Wikimedia chapters or thematic organisations." Yes thats exactly right. They can volunteer for them, but they cant work for them. The point of a COI is that a conflict of interest arises when you can be forced to put one interest over another. As soon as money (or other renumeration) enters the equation, the threat of withdrawing it also does. If you wanted to narrow it down, you could limit it to employees, contractors or those offering paid services in relation to wikipedia. But it would eventually just devolve into arguments over what is pay or not, or disguising obvious fees. We should have already banned employees of the WMF from holding advanced tools on a non-staff account as soon as the UCoC reared its head because that COI is just not resolveable. Almost zero of the activities offered to third party organisations require the admin suite of tools, and of our current admin corps, (outside of those directly employed by the WMF) how many regularly do any sort of renumerated wikipedia related work? I bet its dwarfed by the amount of people who do actually perform wikipedia-related paid work who would never pass RFA (or have even had their tools removed previously). RE Nat: The assumption isnt that someone who accepts money is intending to do evil, the point of a COI is that people with otherwise good intentions can be forced to perform actions under threat - because of the money changing hands. "Do this or I dont pay you" works perfectly well on otherwise good people with good intentions when they have bills to pay. Its a risk assessment, when someone is given advanced tools it is based on the risk of them abusing them. Their past editing history, their actions, personality etc. As soon as there is a COI, that risk jumps exponentially because that assessment is now completely invalid, it doesnt matter if they are a good and decent person with only the best interests of the encypedia at heart, if they work for an organisastion that only has contempt and sees it as a trough to snuffle their snouts in. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  My employment contract doesn't say I can be fired for explaining to a competitor how to hack our systems and get our confidential data; it doesn't need to. If I did that and was found out, I'd be fired. Until then, my company assumes I will behave appropriately, but retains the right to fire for cause if it decides to do so. In the same way if we find out that someone is doing something inappropriate we discuss banning or blocking them. Creating policies that legislate what our editors and admins can do off-wiki is unnecessary, and for those who don't want their real identities known is another disincentive as it means part of one's offline life would be relevant to discussions about one's behaviour online. We don't give the admin bit to editors we think will behave in the ways we're discussing here, and for regular editors the rule is AGF anyway. Adding offwiki elements to the COI guideline would be intrusive and wouldn't actually give us any more power or provide any more behaviour guidance than we have now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  Agree with this. Several in this thread are basically assuming our admins are just waiting for an opportunity to be corrupt and betray everyone's trust. That's a bad basis for writing policy. If there's evidence of violating policy, do something; if not, don't. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  But that conflict of interest doesn't exist when what is being offered is actually advice, because the client wants the advice and we want everyone to be well advised about Wikipedia, to whatever extent they'll accept. If someone is paying for something other than advice, then yes, conflict of interest arises. If the admin is administering over things with a visible relationship to who he is getting paid by, then yes, that's a conflict of interest, but it is no more true than if they were getting paid by those folks for something unrelated to Wikipedia. Presumably most of our admins have an income of some sort from some source. Are we to make every admin declare their sources of income? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  @NatGertler: But why does the client want the advice? If the answer is so that they can better promote themselves on wikipedia thats a problem and its hard to come up with other reasons why someone would pay for advice about wikipedia. Its settled community consensus that you can't engage in promotion or assist others in engaging in promotion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  its hard to come up with other reasons [than promotion] why someone would pay for advice about wikipedia. It really, really isn't. Many people want advice about how to contribute in accordance with the rules, they want advice about what the rules are, they want advice about how to learn editing, they want advice about how the whole thing works, they want advice about how a specific thing works, they want advice about whether Wikipedia as a whole/a given article is reliable, they want advice about how to spot scams they've heard about, etc. I've been asked all these things and more over the years. For many people offering to pay someone for their time and/or expertise isn't because they are a bad actor it's because they simply wouldn't think not to do otherwise, because they pay other people for their time and expertise and they get paid for theirs. Thryduulf (talk) 22:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  For what purpose? Their own pursuit of wikipedia as a hobby? Would you agree with the statement if people was replaced by companies? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  I have given requested advice to many people about Wikipedia (none for money, yet), and while yes, there have been those who wanted to use Wikipedia for promotion (in which case my advice is "ya don't"), there have been at least as many who wanted to figure out how to get factual misinformation off of their page, or are concerned that their page has been turned into an attack page, or here's someone who has been replacing the name of their CFO with "Duckface McGee". I.e., they want factual correct information, they don't want some POV material, and they want vandalism addressed. All of these things are in accord with what Wikipedia wants. And most or all of the advice I give is advice that could be found somewhere on Wikipedia, if they just knew how to navigate the eleventeen policies, guidelines and essays. "Here's how you state your conflict of interest, here is how you request an edit, you'll want to state your request in terms of policies and guidelines and here are the three of those that seem relevant to your situation." Very not evil. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  If you've never accepted payment what is the point of the long unrelated anecdote? We're talking about paid consulting here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  You stated "its hard to come up with other reasons why someone would pay for advice about wikipedia", and I was merely showing that it wasn't, that there are other reasons why folks might want advice, and all of it is reasons that some might be willing to pay for (speaking both as someone who has been asked for Wikipedia advice and paid for non-Wikipedia advice repeatedly, so I have the sense that people are willing to pay for advice.) I'm not sure why you feel your inability to come up with reasons why shouldn't be responded to. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  "Harmless wealthy eccentric" was on my list along with academics and non-profits. Those seems to be tiny niches compared to what the vast majority of the people willing to pay for wikipedia consulting want which is promotion... For profit enterprises don't spent money on things which don't have a profit potential. I think disclosure is also merited in the second and third cases, all three in fact if the eccentric is notable. It would be fine for a sitting admin to do consulting work for the Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation but they would need to disclose it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  Do you have any evidence for your assertions that people acting in good faith are "tiny niches" and that "for profit enterprises don't spend money on things which don't have a profit potential"? You also seem to completely disregard the possibly that something a for-profit entity wants might be exactly the same thing Wikipedia wants - something Nat Gertler's experience, and my experience, proves does happen. Your entire approach to this issue seems to be assuming that everybody is acting in bad faith and/or with a motive of somehow undermining Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 23:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  So I do consulting (that doesn't touch on wiki in any way)... That is primarily why people hire consultants just as a class of occupation. Neither of you have any experience in paid consulting with regards to wikipedia unless I'm missing something. Do you have any relevant examples or experiences to share? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  I have experience of advising regarding Wikipedia and teaching Wikipedia editing, all unpaid but in some cases I did receive expenses. I also have experience of working for Wikimedia UK and of dealing with the general public as a high profile Wikipedia person at Wikimania 2014 and as one of many ordinary attendees at the 2005 and 2016 Wikimanias. I also frequently wear Wikipedia t-shirts which sometimes leads to being asked questions about Wikipedia when I'm out and about. I also have some experience of paid and unpaid consulting regarding matters unrelated to Wikipedia. This means I have very extensive experience of the types of questions people ask and the types of things they want advice about, spanning over a decade of interactions. So, I do know what I'm talking about. Now would you like to answer my question? Thryduulf (talk) 23:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  I don't have any evidence that that people acting in good faith are "tiny niches" but I did not make that claim so thats not surprising... As for "for profit enterprises don't spend money on things which don't have a profit potential..." I wasn't aware that there was an exception to WP:COI and WP:PROMOTION based on interest alignment. I'd be interested to hear more about that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  So you're saying that you don't have any particularly more relevant experience than us, but you're putting down our views for lack of relevant experience and promoting your own? And you apparently think that a company will not see such things as having the Wikipedia page about them not be an attack page as being advantageous to their efforts without directly being promotion? Got it. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how that doesn't fall under WP:PROMOTION can you explain where you're coming from? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  Addressing an attack page is very much in line with what WP:PROMOTION says a Wikipedia page should be: "Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style". If the page about CorpityCorp says primarily "they make really crappy products and everyone hates them, they stink and the Feds have outlawed half of them and should outlaw the other half", the CorpityCorp CEO wanting to know how to get that non-objective, biased material off of their page is not seeking to add puffery, advertising, promotion but merely removing inaccurate and biased POV statements, in line with our goals. Paying someone for some time discussing how one gets such a page deleted or have the attack material removed is not asking them to edit in promotion. It's not seeking to edit out negative but potentially appropriate material. It would be asking how to achieve edits that should be non-controversial. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  And in that scenario we would absolutely require the COI to be disclosed... There is no "fixing an attack page" exemption to disclosing a COI. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  So if someone advised the person from corpitycorp that they need to disclose their COI, make an edit request, and make neutral posts at coin/npovn explaining their COI and the article issues, the person giving advice would have to disclose a COI on-wiki? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  In context both the CorpityCorp CEO and the person they paid have a COI, if either intends to edit the page CorpityCorp of course they're going to have to disclose that COI. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, the person who makes the edits should absolutely disclose their COI. But if the hired admin is telling them "here's how you declare a COI, here's where the template it request an edit is, here's a list of deletion processes", none of that is the admin actually doing anything on Wikipedia. There's nothing there that requires the admin to declare a COI. If the admin were to be the one who, say, closes the deletion discussion, then yes, there's a COI problem there. But not at the advise level. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  You're conflating two discussions, in the current hypothetical the editor is no an admin. If editor X is paid one million dollars by CorpityCorp they most definitely need to declare that COI if they intend to edit CorpityCorp... If not then the COI exists but doesn't need to be disclosed. What we appear to have community consensus for is that admins are to be held to higher standards than regular editors, hence the suggestion that admins should be required to disclose the COI regardless of whether they intend to edit a related page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  This is just common sense from my POV. Again: we either permit this sort of behavior, or we do not. What you permit, you promote. The question is, do we want to promote this type of conduct among sysops? I think the answer is obviously "no". So it should not be permitted. If it is permitted, we are setting a horrible precedent. We cannot tolerate admins collecting undisclosed sums of money from unknown entities for "Wikipedia advising". That's extremely sus, and I hope we can all agree on that, regardless of our differing opinions as to what, exactly, should be done about it.

  I also think it's naïve to suggest, as some have, that the entities paying for "Wikipedia advising" are probably just nice, friendly, innocent folks who want to learn how to be a good Wikipedian. Come on. Pecopteris (talk) 01:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure you're actually reading what other people are writing. We are not talking about "paying for Wikipedia advertising", and despite your assumption of bad faith there are people willing to pay to learn how to do things in accordance with Wikipedia's rules. Thryduulf (talk) 08:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Pecopteris: NatGertler has pointed out on my talk page that I misread your comment (you wrote "advising" I read "advertising") so I redact my previous statement, however my principle point stands - there very much are people who will (offer to) pay to learn how to do things properly. Several of the people I've interacted with in Wikipedia training sessions would have paid if we weren't offering it for free. These are people who either share Wikipedia's goal or have a goal that is entirely compatible with Wikipedia's, i.e. we want a well-written article (i.e. comprehensive and neutral) about every notable subject, they want a well-written Wikipedia article (i.e. one that is comprehensive and which meets all our polices, whatever those policies are) about a notable topic with which they are associated. If we prohibit these people getting the advice they seek from white-hat editors then they will have no choice but to get the advice from black-hat editors, which does not benefit anybody. Thryduulf (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  Nothing anyone has proposed would preclude people from paying to learn wikipedia from white hat editors, they just wouldn't be able to pay a current admin to teach them. What of value does a current admin bring to the table that another experienced editor or a retired admin doesn't? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  Nothing anyone has proposed would preclude people from paying to learn wikipedia from white hat editors that might not be your proposal, but at least two proposals in this thread seek to prohibit everybody from receiving any payment for any Wikipedia activity. The effect of at least one of them would also prohibit things like receiving grants of books to improve articles.

  Why does it matter whether a good faith actor giving correct advice is an admin or not? Thryduulf (talk) 18:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  I don't actually see anyone making that argument, I see other people characterizing their argument as that which isn't really the same thing. Is receiving grants of books to improve an article a common thing? I've never come across that and I can't find it in the discussion here. It matters because admins have special privileges both official and unofficial within our system, we rely on them to be trustworthy and there's no possible way that the trust would remain if they were making a living on consulting for notable people and organizations without the community being able to know what notable people and organizations were paying them (and even then it would likely be the source of endless friction). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  I do not see this supposed second discussion here, nor do I see any relevance to the general topic at hand if it did, which is admins offering to be advisors. I have not seen anyone suggesting we should do away with our paid editing policies. And I am not seeing that supposed community consensus in this discussion, I am seeing an array of views. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  I thought the topic was about admins being paid to be advisors, not offering advice (something nobody seems to have a problem with). That community consensus is not in this discussion, it is longstanding... Admins are held to a higher standard than regular admins, thats how it works. Do you agree that under our current rules an admin who was paid one million dollars to advise CorpityCorp would have to disclose a COI if they wanted to edit CorpityCorp or a related article? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not going to jump through hoops answering obvious questions that are not at hand. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  If it was obvious I wouldn't have asked, you appear to be arguing that providing paid advice has no COI impact on the person giving the advice. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  Wow. You are just acting cartoonishly desperate in your efforts to have what I say not count... and in this case, claiming that I "appear to be arguing" the exact opposite of something i have specifically repeatedly said ("If the admin is administering over things with a visible relationship to who he is getting paid by, then yes, that's a conflict of interest", "If the admin were to be the one who, say, closes the deletion discussion, then yes, there's a COI problem there." "Like all COIs, it only needs announcement if they are editing (or administering) in their COI areas, which are already covered by existing policy.") If you're just here to troll me, feel free to use my talk page instead. -- Nat Gertler (talk) Nat Gertler (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  Then I guess it wasn't obvious was it... Of course what you say counts, WP:CIVIL please. Would you care to reframe your disagreement with my position if you feel that I am ignoring what you say? Do you actually disagree with it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  Kindly find someone else to ask to jump through your hoops... or better yet no one. I am not in the mood for sea lion games. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  You were just warned about being CIVIL, do I now have to link WP:NPA before you interact with your fellow editors with respect and camaraderie? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Only in death I completely disagree with this and agree with Christie, Rhododendrites and Nat Gertler. Nobody should be editing or admining in a way that is non-neutral, but simply being employed by someone does not generate a conflict of interest with everything even tangentially related to everything that organisation does. I used to work for Wikimedia UK, this did not affect my ability to edit and admin in a neutral manner regarding things unrelated to the Wikimedia movement. My receiving expenses to teach people how to edit Wikipedia did not result in my doing anything to undermine the neutrality of the encyclopaedia - indeed by teaching subject matter experts how to edit in accordance with policy it strengthened it. Advising people, whether they are your employers or not, how to follow policy is something everybody should do when the circumstances arise. Thryduulf (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  I was once asked by an employer for advice on something they wanted to add to Wikipedia about the company. My advice was along the lines of "Don't do that like that, because..." and I explained the relevant policy. What a surprise it is now to discover what an evil and corrupt admin I was at the time - I guess it's just as well I resigned the bit before I was caught. People ask me how to do things on Wikipedia all the time, and it helps both those people and the project if I advise them - but if I'm an admin, I mustn't do that for an employer, or for someone who makes me a cup of tea that they don't charge me for? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  There is a big difference between an editor being asked for advice by their employer (who was going to pay them anyway), and an editor proactively soliciting payment for advice, and trading specifically on their admin status. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  If you think one is acceptable and the other is not, what is it about the unacceptable one that makes it unacceptable? Where is the line between them? Thryduulf (talk) 20:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  The latter is intentionally and proactively marketing themself as an admin-for-hire. Their admin status is an intrinsic part of the deal. They are accessing a revenue stream that would be unavailable to them if they were not an admin. Whereas the former is employed primarily for other purposes, and the giving of advice doesn’t influence their remuneration. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  If the paid activity is limited to advice then there is no difference between admins and non-admins. There's no way to "trade on their admin status". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  Sure there is. As I mentioned above, the specific ad we're talking about states that they're an admin. What purpose is there in making that statement if not to make you more attractive to hire than all the other people advertising their wiki services for hire? RoySmith (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  A fair point, so I'll rephrase: if they're limited to giving advice, the admin bit makes no difference to the advice they can give. I suppose in this case mentioning it in the ad is intended to signal that they are a competent and experienced editor, which is probably the case. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  I would be more comfortable if they demonstrated their skill by listing the number of WP:FA or WP:GA nominations they've had approved. Or how many of those reviews they've done. Or their work at WP:GOCE, WP:AFC, WP:NPP, or some other area of the pedia that involves writing and/or evaluating content. If you were looking to hire a pen, would you be happy to see a candidate walk into the interview carrying a mop?

  My admin work has mostly taught me how to identify sockpuppets. Surely that's not something that would be valuable to a potential client looking for advice on how to write articles. What would be valuable to a potential client is that I could show them how to make their sockpuppets undetectable. But I assume that's not what most people here would be happy with me doing. RoySmith (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  What is valuable to a potential client depends on what they are looking to hire someone to do/advise on. If you were looking for someone to advise you about writing Good or featured articles, then yes you want someone experienced in those areas (who may or may not be an admin), but many (maybe most) people looking for advice about Wikipedia will not understand what those terms mean if they've even heard of them - they'll be looking for someone who is generally clueful and someone like that will likely think "administrator" means just that. If you are looking for someone to advise you about how to comply with policies regarding COI or image licenses or notability or something else then you want someone who knows the relevant policies. Not everybody who is looking for help regarding things other than content is doing so for nefarious reasons, not everybody who is offering to advise regarding Wikipedia is doing so for nefarious reasons. Thryduulf (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  If a potential client is conversant enough with Wikipedia that they know what WP:NPP means, they probably don't need advice. "Administrator" is a word that conveys "I have a reasonable degree of knowledge about the matter"... and in the case of an administrator, that's at least mostly true. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  It conveys power but it only implies knowledge. As you say not all admins are equally knowledgable, but they are more or less equally powerful. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  Actually "admin" implies to the average person "in charge of deciding what does and doesn't go into an article" and "has special skills and abilities that non-admins don't have". If the reason you can sell your services is because you're taking advantage of that generalized misunderstanding by even many registered users, you are taking advantage of people's ignorance, misrepresenting yourself, and just generally being...well, again, I know that people who are aware of this editor's identity believe they are someone who would never do anything to harm the project. But, yeah. Valereee (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• I'd just like to take a moment to remind everyone about Levivich Advisor Group's price-matching guarantee: if you find cheaper advice anywhere, just let us know and we will match or beat that price -- guaranteed. Levivich Advisor Group: the Cheapest Advice, Guaranteed!™ Levivich (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  I could put my two cents in here ... but never mind. Wehwalt (talk) 17:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  I think for two cents I can write a script that emails people "no" (and possibly on occasions "maybe"). Then I can upsell on more specific advice, like why not. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

• IMO it it shouldn't and isn't going to happen that we'd implement tougher rules for off-wiki advising for admins than for editors. COI is already defined too broadly and vaguely and this would be a massive expansion into more broadness and vagueness. And the COI disclosure rules amount to near-self-outing and so are really only workable for SPA's and other similar narrower role accounts and a typical admin is likely to be the opposite of that. North8000 (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
• From what I can tell it is just not against the rules, and I am kind of fine with that. They are not editing or using tools, just talking. Now the moment they do edit or use admin tools then we have WP:PAID & WP:UPE to cover it. I do not see the purposed changes to be particularly helpful. PackMecEng (talk) 00:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
• I know opinions are a dime a dozen and I'm sure someone's already echoed my thoughts, but my gut reaction is

• if they're being paid to do anything that an unregistered user couldn't do themselves--create pages, delete pages, directly edit protected/semi-protected articles, give opinions in discussions solely because the company hopes their admin status will confer more weight to their thoughts, etc.--or if they don't disclose what they were paid for, that's not okay.
• Otherwise is an admin's being paid to just give advice, or to do ordinary uncontroversial edits ("this company asked me to convert their draft into proper Wiki-markup"), etc., and they disclose exactly which edits they were paid for, that doesn't seem so bad to me. 2603:8001:4542:28FB:D4B6:F2D4:E313:524B (talk) 00:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

• Well...my first reaction, upon learning that an admin is waving around their mop to make money, is certainly "Yuck". But "yuck" is not a basis for rational thought. As some others have stated above, I've been approached by people with offers to do various things for pay, and my response is a somewhat more polite but no less firm "HELL no". And don't think simple "advising" couldn't cause problems—right off the top of my head, I can think of some truly nasty black-hat practices I could teach someone to do, because I've seen them done, and seen how the black hats ultimately screwed up and got caught. (I will not, for obvious reasons, be sharing specifics here.) But of course, a lot of experienced non-admins could do that too. I just see a big difference between an admin advertising their services as such, and an admin happening to be asked for advice by someone, even if it's an employer or the like, and realistically, admins are probably some of the best people in that type of instance to tell someone how to get it right and not cause disruption. (In a lot of cases, of course, the answer to that "How do I...?" question will be "You don't", but well, admins will generally be used to telling people news they don't want to hear, too.) I also see a major difference between an admin receiving something like an honorarium for speaking to a general audience about their experiences on Wikipedia, or some complimentary food at an event, and an admin seeking to be hired by a specific client to act as their advisor. So, I don't know whether we would have a consensus that admins should be forbidden from doing that, but if I found out one was doing it my regard for them would drop by quite a lot, and I think from this discussion, I'm not by any means the only one. I'm definitely in the "should not" camp here—I'm just not sure if I'd take that final step into "may not". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  Seraphim I think you bring up a crucial point. I think there is a difference between marketing ones services and some of the other scenarios discussed - e.g. an employer asking for advice. The element of solicitation does seem like part of what has caused me unease. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  Agree with Barkeep49; there is a palpable difference between being asked for advice and actively soliciting a service to provide advice. It seems to me, from reading this thread, that it's the solicitation that causes most concern, not the actual provision of advice/support/assistance to others. Risker (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  This is where I am, too. I see that there are multiple people here who know and trust this admin and believe them to be unlikely to do anything to harm the project, but I can't help but think parlaying your mop into a paid gig, no matter how you do it, is a bit...well, icky. Resign the mop and hire out to give advice as an experienced editor, but if the mop is what gets you the bigger bucks or makes you more attractive as a consultant, that's really problematic. I feel like there's a clear choice to be made, and it shouldn't be difficult. Keep the mop, OR get paid. Not both. Valereee (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• This is very simple… if you are paid to edit WP, disclose it. If you are paid to advise someone else about editing WP, disclose it. If you are paid to do anything related to WP, disclose it.

What happens next depends on the nature of the edit. Blueboar (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

What is lost in a lot of the comments above is that there is no clear goal for what we want to achieve or why:

• If an editor is acting in bad faith everything we say here is irrelevant - they have no incentive to follow the rules (indeed they have an incentive not to). When discovered, editors acting in bad faith should be sanctioned (up to and including bans) regardless of the way they are acting in bad faith. We thus do not need to consider them further here.
• If an editor is acting in good faith then there are a few possible outcomes:
  1. The advice is good and results in an improvement to the encyclopaedia. We should be encouraging this, not making it more difficult let alone prohibiting it.
  2. The advice is good, but there is no change to the encyclopaedia. This could be neutral (in which case why should we care about it?) or it could be a benefit to the encyclopaedia (e.g. someone chooses not to do something that is against policy) - again this is something we should be encouraging.
  3. The advice is good, but there is a negative change to the encyclopaedia. This is by definition not the fault of the person giving the advice, most likely the advice has been ignored - in which case it's likely that the action would have been done anyway so the net effect on the project is neutral.
  4. The advice was bad. This is something we should care about, but what we should do about it will depend on the nature of the advice. For example there may be a CIR issue, it may be that there is a misunderstanding about policy (in which case we should consider whether the policy is at fault), etc
• In none of these scenarios am I seeing anything that suggests banning the giving of advice, whether for pay or otherwise, will be a positive to the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
• Exploiting (because that's really what it is) a privilege granted by the community for personal gain is, if nothing else, unethical. A significant portion of projectspace guidance is dedicated to putting personal desires and opinions aside to put the wiki first, e.g. WP:INVOLVED, WP:COI, WP:3RR, and leveraging community trust for money is violates the spirit of that. WP:TOOLMISUSE says Administrator tools may not be used as part of any paid editing activity. It does not specify that the activity must be editing itself, but regardless I have a pretty hard time believing that any admin would seriously think advertising their adminship to solicit payment for advice is 100% in line with what is written. There's also a notable difference between soliciting payment and being approached; I don't at all think there's a problem with sysops giving advice if asked – I think there is an issue if they seek personal reward from it. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 10:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

If someone writes on a job board website, "I am User:[whatever] on Wikipedia," then User:whatever should either confirm or deny that link on-wiki, so everyone (both on-wiki and off-wiki) knows whether the person on the job board website really is the same as the Wikipedia editor. Just a few months ago, we saw an example where someone off-wiki was pretending to be a wiki admin in order to get a job. At the very least, policy should require Wikipedia editors to disclose on their userpage any off-wiki accounts on job boards (or similar) if those off-wiki accounts claim to be a specific Wikipedia editor. This is to prevent fraud and impersonation.

Let's talk about the real issue, though, which is monetizing Wikipedia editing. I'm rather amused to see all the people who are outraged that an admin would advertise Wikipedia consulting services and trade on their adminship ("Hire me, I have been a Wikipedia admin for X years...") or editing experience ("I have been a Wikipedia editor for X years," "I have made X new articles"). This is amusing because it's so very common that people monetize their Wikipedia editing (that is, use their volunteer editing to get money in one way or another), and the community's reaction varies from a shrug to outrage based on... I'm not sure what. Here's a list of just some of the many Wikipedia editors who have monetized their editing experience:

• Jimbo, who sold an NFT of his first edit for $750,000, among many other monetizations
• Every editor who ever worked for the WMF
• Every Wikipedian-in-Residence
• Every editor who gets paid by a Wikimedia affiliate
• Every WikiEd instructor who gets paid to edit or supervise/coordinate others' editing
• Every editor who's ever gotten paid by a Wikimedia grant to edit or supervise/coordinate others' editing
• Every editor who has sold a book about Wikipedia editing (or tried to)
• That one editor who famously got tenure at his university based on his Wikipedia editing, and anyone else who's put their Wikipedia editing experience on a resume or otherwise used it to get paying work (or a promotion)

There are a ton of admins and non-admins who fall into one of those above categories. (I think mostly admins, in fact, though I'm not sure.) What is the difference between an admin being paid as a Wikipedian-in-Residence and an admin posting an ad on a job board website? I don't see a meaningful difference there.

The other day we had GTAV as the TFA on the front page because it was the 10th anniversary of the game's release. That work well for the game's 10th-anniversary internet advertising campaign. Is there anything a paid editor could have done to have Wikipedia advertise GTAV that volunteer editors didn't already do for free? And when it's not GTAV, it's Taylor Swift or some other product we're often advertising on the main page. Wikipedia editors promote businesses and products for free all the time. Whether they get paid for it or not, I don't think even makes a difference. Levivich (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Note that many are of the opinion that Admins should not hold WMF or wikipedian-in-residence positions, there seems to be a pretty diverse collection of views from the community on this and you're right that consensus ranges from "a shrug to outrage" depending on the context. I would caution both the contingent that wants to treat admins as Roman Senators and ban them from any commercial activity even marginally related to their roles and the contingent that wants to see no restrictions put on the commercial activities of Admins at all that neither of those extremes is sustainable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Levivich regarding If someone writes on a job board website, "I am User:[whatever] on Wikipedia," then User:whatever should either confirm or deny that link on-wiki... we've got that already. See foundation:Policy:Terms of Use under Paid Contributions Without Disclosure. I'd be surprised if you could find anybody who has ever complied with that, but it's there. RoySmith (talk) 17:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I feel like there are levels, here. Too lazy to look into the Jimbo thing, but working at WMF, being a WiR, getting paid by an affiliate, being a WikiEd instructior, and getting a grant all to me seem fairly innocuous, although IMO they all should be disclosed. Selling a book about WP editing...meh. I don't actually object to someone doing that if they aren't giving themselves false authority by using their adminship. The tenure, well that's on the Uni, IMO. Who does that? Valereee (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd also add the reward board, where some have offered cash awards, as a place where the community looks the other way on paid editing. Though I think it is challenging to put into practice, I think it may be more in line with community expectations to set a standard for ethical conduct for all editors, rather than just a subset.

Note that disclosing external accounts on Wikipedia is already a mandatory policy that was passed on Meta-wiki. isaacl (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I suspect "Every editor who ever worked for the WMF" is too broad. Community liaisons and such, sure. But I doubt editing experience carries much weight for things like software engineering jobs for over a decade now beyond indicating that someone might be more intrinsically motivated. I've even known WMF managers who might well have seen editing experience as a negative, since it could lead to employees pushing for things "the community" wants rather than what the manager wants or publicly disagreeing with WMF actions. Anomie⚔ 12:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

This is not addressed by existing policies and guidelines

The discussions above are about whether the behaviour in question is ethical or unethical; or harmful or harmless. What most people seem to agree on is that it's not banned by the existing policies and guidelines, since WP:COI's language is very clear about its application to edits. Can I suggest that those who think a change to COI (or elsewhere) is desirable work on wording? Nothing new is getting said above. I think getting a consensus just among those who want a change would force resolution of some of the issues raised above, which might shortcut some debate when the wording is proposed. The conversation above is becoming a sinkhole and seems unlikely to go anywhere. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion: change WP:ADMINACCT from:

Conduct elsewhere incompatible with adminship (off-site attacking, etc.)

to:

Conduct elsewhere incompatible with adminship (off-site attacking, seeking financial gain from adminship, etc.).

The context of this passage is a list of things that may lead to sanctions or desysopping. It isn’t an outright prohibition, but is strongly suggestive that this conduct is unbecoming of an administrator.

Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I hadn't been ready to propose a change which is why I didn't start this conversation with any. But Seraphimblade's point did crystalize something for me and is making me think of possible wording. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Pretty well established this isn't against the rules, but in the interest of finding the smallest policy change which would satisfy the greatest number of people, I wonder how many people in this discussion who have expressed objections would have those at least somewhat assuaged by saying "admins can advise just like anyone else, subject to the limitations at WP:TOOLMISUSE and WP:COI, but they should not use their adminship to advertise their services (i.e. when you post an ad for services, omit 'I'm an admin')"? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

That, as a practical matter, very likely will make it much more difficult to get hired, especially if you are not allowed to mention it at any stage of the engagement process. I don't see this as a small change. Wehwalt (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think "you are not allowed to mention [you are an admin] at any stage of the engagement process" would be at all practical, let alone enforceable. Some people considering when considering whether to hire a given user will look at their userpage, if they see that says the user is an admin they may ask about it. It's also a key part of an editor's experience and is going to be difficult to avoid mentioning. Personally I would rather not restrict what neutral and factual information about themselves and their experience, the project will not benefit from that in any way. It may also make it harder for good faith editors to get hired than bad faith ones, which something that would harm the project. Thryduulf (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

If you

1. wouldn't get hired if you weren't an admin, you're taking advantage of your "special" status
2. are allowing your client to continue to misunderstand that admins don't actually have any special control over content and that the fact you're an admin makes you absolutely no more valuable to them than if you were an equally experienced non-admin advisor

...well, honestly this is looking more and more slimy to me. Valereee (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• I don't think that someone should be using their status as an admin to increase the profitability of their advising or paid editing gig in the first place. Adminship involves responsibilities and trusts that go beyond just what you do with the tools; while obviously it's not possible to demand that every single mention or reference to their status as an admin serve the goals of Wikipedia, I think it's fair to say that using it as an advertising point for a business is completely inappropriate. If it would be harder for them to get hired without advertising that they're an admin, then they shouldn't be getting hired. And if, as a practical matter, not mentioning that they're an admin would make it harder for them to be hired, this does imply that as a practical matter, at least some of the people hiring them probably expect to get some sort of special inside influence or information in a way that creates, for Wikipedia as a whole, the appearance of impropriety. And there is precedent for binding admins against even the appearance of impropriety -- it is part of the rationale for WP:INVOLVED, for instance. --Aquillion (talk) 09:39, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

  My point was manly that forbidding someone from mentioning they were and admin at any time (rather than just in an advert) would be impractical and unenforceable. However, if good faith advisors are not allowed to say they are an admin but bad faith advisers are because they by definition aren't following our rules (and as we see with paid editing scams, there are many claims of adminship by people who are not) then the unsuspecting client is more likely to hire a bad faith adviser than a good faith one - this will make things worse for enwp. Thryduulf (talk) 09:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I think there should be guidance that consultants/advisors inform their clients that they remain ethically bound to follow Wikipedia's policy, guidance, and best practices, and that they cannot agree to any terms that would limit their ability to do so. Thus consultants would be free to take the same steps as they would ordinarily if they suspected their clients of any non-policy conforming behaviour. isaacl (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this. Perhaps also we could set up an information page that those engaging in paid editing and paid advising are required to inform their clients of. That page would explain in plain English (i.e. without Wikipedia jargon) what paid editors and advisers and their clients must do and what they may not do, along with a link to send an email to (probably) the paid queue, if they wish to let us know about people not doing as they should. Thryduulf (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

That could also be handed out by advanced rights holders who list such on their resumes and gain employment. Wehwalt (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation page covers some of this, though it's not maintained. Full disclosure: I hate typing the names of WikiProject Integrity and WikiProject Cooperation. The concepts are so much broader than how they apply to paid editing. isaacl (talk) 00:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Maybe amend WP:TOOLMISUSE to Administrator tools may not be used as part of any paid editing activity Administrators may not solicit payment for any Wikipedia-related activities, except as a Wikipedian-in-Residence, or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF. Emphasis on soilicit -- this wouldn't completely ban COI/PAID editing for sysops, but it would prohibit them from proactively seeking payment for their activities as appears to be the case here. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 16:24, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

An admin who receives payment from any company (regarding the Foundation, let it make the rules in this context) has a COI for that company and should never use the admin bit in it's favor. This is even merely peeking at deleted content. This applies even to a janitor who the company doesn't even know he ever touched a computer. Animal lover |666| 18:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

That's a shout. Extending the sentence rather than replacing part of it might be better, so: Administrators may not solicit payment for any Wikipedia-related activities, nor may they use their tools as part of any conflict-of-interest activity, except as a Wikipedian-in-Residence, or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 19:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm still not understanding what is trying to be achieved here? How will these changes benefit the encyclopaedia? Thryduulf (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd forbid it. (I'm not sure I wouldn't, either, I'm still considering that.) I am sure, though, that if it's allowed, anyone who is "advising" clients on Wikipedia-related matters should be required to disclose that, even if not directly making edits. Basically—if you make money from Wikipedia-related activities, you disclose. Period, end of story. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

• If you make money from Wikipedia-related activities, you disclose.
• "advising" clients on Wikipedia-related matters should be required to disclose that, even if not directly making edits.

These two issues to me are distinct. Disclosure is a tick box exercise. It probably allows the inviting of scrutiny for sure, and yes being paid is a compounding issue. Ultimately our paid editing policies are merely extensions of a lot of existing COI policy. But indirect impacts to the projects only being mitigated through WP:PAID would leave some glaring holes because there is little precedent or policy in this space.

The root issue is we don't want someone repeatedly giving bad advice off-wiki either deliberately, accidently through bias, or accidentally through incompetence; that results in damage to the projects or an erosion of its values. Paid or otherwise.

Outside of the extremely broad ranging and all encompassing aspects of WP:ADMINACCT and WP:ADMINCOND do we actually have any solid explicit policy basis that could be acted upon for any account? If you put the admin tools aside do we have any onsite policy that forbids any contributor from advising a client from taking actions on site that run in opposition to furthering the interests of the encyclopedia? WP:EXTERNALREL falls short; the terms of use doesn't explicitly require a disclosure for the the provision of advice, nor does it exclude non-editing activities which might result in on wiki disruption. WP:MEAT you'd think would cover it, but the policy as written doesn't. many instances can get plugged with WP:CANVASSING but if there isn't collusion to disrupt consensus processes it doesn't apply.

The easiest way to plug this gap for non-admins and admins alike would be think of it in a similar way to disallowing proxying edits for banned editors. In my mind it would be something fairly broad. Something along the lines of advice or guidance that leads to edits which are in contravention of policy, could make you accountable for those actions. Particularly if the advice itself is egregiously and/or consistently incorrect or out of alignment in policy, or that the outcomes of advice are in more than one instance resulting in egregious and/or consistent breaches of policy. You could apply that in a lot of settings. Seddon ^talk 23:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

advice or guidance that leads to edits which are in contravention of policy, could make you accountable for those actions. If we tell user:Example at the teahouse or on their talk page not to do X because it's against policy, but then they go and do it anyway, we don't hold the person giving advice as responsible for Example's actions. What makes it any different if the advice is given somewhere off Wikipedia?

If you give advice that is egregiously and/or consistently incorrect or out of alignment in policy then you should be dealt with identically regardless of where you give that advice. Unless there is some fundamental difference between venues I'm not aware of? Thryduulf (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

What about advice on how to avoid scrutiny of COI edits? I can think of several ways to do that. Valereee (talk) 10:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Why the automatic assumption of bad faith? But regardless, advice of how to avoid scrutiny of COI edits, like all advice about how to evade policy, be out of alignment with that policy which is explicitly addressed in the comment you replied to.Thryduulf (talk) 11:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Because it's harder to assume good faith when someone is not being transparent about what they're doing. Valereee (talk) 14:49, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

The majority of our policies assume that sanctionable activities are based on actions taken on wiki. Its easy to sanction someone for repeatedly giving out bad advice at the teahouse, there are multiple justifications you could use. Now have the individual give the same advice off-wiki. There seems to be little precedent to handle this without Arbcom setting caselaw. Seddon ^talk 19:15, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I've elaborated above on why I think this behavior is unacceptable (see my comment at 10:02, 17 September 2023) but frankly, the idea that you can pay a Wikipedia admin to help you gives the illusion of bribery. I know the arbs have said that in this instance the admin hasn't acted improperly, but merely the optics of this scenario are a consideration themselves, and I think they pose a threat to Wikipedia's integrity. Not to mention the disrespect soliciting payment shows to the Teahouse, Help Desk, IRC, and mentoring program helpers who continually do this sort of thing for free – an admin leveraging their community-appointed status to make a quick buck is a far cry from the volunteer nature of this project. While I would prefer to forbid this practice entirely, I recognize that I'm on the more critical side here, and I would support something along the lines of what Seraphimblade has said above me. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 21:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

@How will these changes benefit the encyclopaedia?...I think something like Giraffer's suggestion benefits the encyclopedia in the same way any COI disclosure benefits the encyclopedia: it gets increased scrutiny on possible COI edits so they don't slip under the radar. In the case of any experienced editor who is "advising" a client, that advice could easily include -- in fact, almost certainly would include, if you're of any use to your client at all -- how to avoid attracting hostile scrutiny. In fact the reason a client is likely seeking out advice is because they've attracted hostile scrutiny with past edits -- maybe to the point some admin has protected the article about them or blocked their PR rep -- and the first question they'll be asking is how to avoid that in future.

Oh, and the reason they're paying an admin more? Because they believe an admin will be able to help more. Which is why it's kind of icky to even mention you're an admin. Even if you tell them til you're blue in the fact that the fact you're an admin doesn't actually help them any more than the fact you're an experienced editor, they won't believe you. Wink-wink, right? Because why would you even mention it if it didn't mean anything? Icky. Valereee (talk) 10:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

In the case of any experienced editor who is "advising" a client, that advice could easily include -- in fact, almost certainly would include, if you're of any use to your client at all -- how to avoid attracting hostile scrutiny. once again with the assumption of bad faith on all parts. A good adviser would advise that the best way to avoid hostile scrutiny is to scrupulously follow policy. If the client's goals are compatible with Wikipedia's goals this benefits everybody by getting increased eyes on the content which is the most likely way it will be improved. If the client's goals are incompatible with Wikipedia then the advice to follow policy will be not to make the edits, etc. and so everybody benefits - Wikipedia doesn't get content it doesn't want and the client doesn't get hostile scrutiny. Thryduulf (talk) 11:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Again with the insistence that AGF is a suicide pact. :) I actually am probably more guilty than most of assuming good faith with a paid or COI editor who has disclosed. I have a much harder time AGFing when the person isn't disclosing, which this person apparently isn't doing. Valereee (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the absolute bare minimum is a very transparent and prominent disclosure on their user that this is something they do, but I'm still unhappy that they're making money off of having permissions that aren't available to everyone. It doesn't matter if they don't actually use the buttons. It's reminding me very strongly of Hunter Biden getting his dad to conference in on business calls just to shoot the shit with the people Hunter wanted to do business with. Did either of them do anything illegal? No. Is it slimy? Yep. Valereee (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

+1 to your first point. Going even further, I would argue we should extend policy to require admins to disclose all payments they have taken related to Wikipedia that haven't originated from the WMF/affiliates. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 19:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed and its my understanding that payments from the WMF/affiliates are all disclosed by the WMF/affiliates (at least in general). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

That might make interesting reading. Where? Wehwalt (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Giraffer, wouldn't your suggestion require an editor to out themselves now if they had done something in the past that was not then the subject of a policy or guideline? That sort of retroactivity doesn't seem fair, though I understand the motivation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

That's sloppy wording on my part, apologies. The idea is that admins shouldn't (in future) be taking undisclosed non-WMF payment for Wikipedia-related activities. I agree that it's not fair to hold yesterday's activities to tomorrow's standards. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 21:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The way that my workplace addresses outside activities and financial gain is through a full disclosure of activities to a committee, who then determines whether or not there is a conflict of interest. So I think some type of disclosure is necessary, but I'm feeling a bit irked by people who say the admin needs to immediately resign because they inherently violated policy by advising on how to properly edit Wikipedia -- how? If that's the case, then we need to actually amend the policy to make that clear. I think I align with Boing! said Zebedee and Thryduulf on this one otherwise. It should be easy to detect and resolve a bright-line ethics violation when it comes to paid editing. Beyond that, let people make whatever living they have to do. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

[An] admin needs to immediately resign because they inherently violated policy by advising on how to properly edit Wikipedia -- how? this is the key thing that I still don't understand - why is anybody, admin or otherwise, advising people how to follow our policy a bad thing? Why does being paid or not paid make difference? Why does who pays you (WMF/affiliate/anybody else) make a difference? We surely want more people to edit? And we definitely want everybody who edits to follow the rules. Surely we should be encouraging activities that achieve these goals? Telling people they must choose between being an admin and advising people how to edit seems to run directly counter to those aims? Thryduulf (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify my comments way upthread about government employees resigning before taking industry consulting jobs, that was meant as an example of how things are done in the real world. While I do feel that is a good model to emulate, I don't feel it is strictly necessary for an admin to resign their bit before doing consulting work. I however do feel quite strongly that they should disclose their activities, in the same manner that meta:Policy:Terms of Use requires for paid editing. RoySmith (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

The difference of course is that admins are not paid for being an admin. Your agreement with an employer who pays you may bar outside work related to what you are employed for, and refraining from such work is perhaps part of what you are being paid for. That is not the case with Wikipedia. Out of disclosure, the only thing I've ever gotten from the Foundation or anyone else is a T shirt which was the wrong size, and which I do not wear. I think I saw my wife wearing it some weeks ago but she does not edit Wikipedia. Wehwalt (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

... about government employees resigning before taking industry consulting jobs, that was meant as an example of how things are done in the real world. I think that's not a bad analogy except that we need to also remember that, depending on the institution, there are degrees to which an industry consulting job require disclosure and we also need to judge how this analogizes to our scenario where we have an admin advising customers on how to properly edit Wikipedia. If you are a mechanical engineer working for the D.O.E. specializing in developing iridescent gizmos, and you take a side job providing advice to other engineers on how to keep your workplace desk neat and organized, that's much different from serving as co-chair of the Iridescent Gizmo Enterprise, LLC, and receiving a salary while also being paid by the same government who buys gizmos from said company.

As Wehwalt said, the admin in question is not being paid specifically for their administrative duties or even necessarily their administration-specific expertise. Claims that any sort of compensation for any Wikipedia-related activity presents bad optics which we must prevent is, frankly, just not taking a realistic look at how people operate in the real world. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 19:40, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

That's as may be, but at the very least transparency should be required. If you think it's not a problem to act as a neat-desk consultant, then disclose that you're doing it, since that shouldn't be a problem. If you're right, no one will care. If you're wrong, well then, maybe you shouldn't have both positions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

If it's not a problem, then why the rush to exclude compensation from WMF and affiliates? Do those carry some purity with them? Certainly the WMF has an interest in keeping the English Wikipedia onside, and has money. One would think they might use it. Disclosure, as you say, shouldn't be a problem. Wehwalt (talk) 22:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Because Wikimedians in Residence would object if they aren't excluded. My understanding is they believe the money would dry up if it means there'd be COI notices on talk pages. Valereee (talk) 10:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

There are multiple paid editors at Brigham Young University. The work they do benefits Wikipedia because they have unique access to the history of the Mormon church. But they're also LDS church members themselves, and church historians have presented Mormon history in a way that shows the church and its leaders in a friendly light. I think they have a COI. When I suggested they should disclose, Wikimedians in Residence objected. Valereee (talk) 11:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

If we are requesting a disclosure of paid editing for advising for the sake of consistency, then consistency demands that we apply that same standard across the board, otherwise this very much reeks of "rules for thee but not for me". Another thing that came to mind for me are professors who are also administrators but whose curriculum may include, incidentally or not, teaching their students how to create or edit articles in Wikipedia. I think you mentioned something like this earlier (WikiEd instructors?) but as I scroll up and see someone's suggestion that we amend the policy to read: Administrators may not solicit payment for any Wikipedia-related activities, to me that wording would require said admin-professor to turn in their mop in disgrace, with the likelihood being very low that they will ever get through RfA again. After all, they did the evil thing and took money.

Now I don't necessarily agree that we should have to go that far, but if we are going to change the policy on disclosures, then it needs to be done in a surgical way that makes logical sense and is in response to an actual problem, rather than as the result of a visceral disgust towards accepting money for Wikipedia-related activities. It's a simple and frank truth that most businesses or government entities generally don't go out of their way to create additional onerous regulations except in response to actual damages (fines, imprisonment, embarrassing news coverage, etc.), and I don't think we should act any differently here. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Consistency is a fine ideal, but I don't want the perfect to be the enemy of the good. Wikimedians in Residence and WikiEd instructors aren't advertising admin advice on Upworks, and really they've disclosed their 'paid' status, even if not at the level of article talk. Valereee (talk) 16:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

The BYU editors are at the bleeding edge of what is OK and note they often go over the edge into doing bad things like promoting BYU and the LDS church in general. If you want a clear example of positive and productive COI editing look elsewhere, its a complete shitshow over there. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't using them as a clear example. I was saying that while they do good things, they should disclose, but unfortunately asking them to disclose brought the WiR into the discussion, and they object to the entire idea. Valereee (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank god WiR doesn't make the rules then. Of course a WiR has a disclosable COI with their host institution, it baffles me that anyone would argue otherwise. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

What folks who have been WiR were saying, IIRC, was that having to disclose 'paid editing' at article talk would make the museums etc. reluctant to hire a WiR, as it might be seen as cast doubt on ethics of the article subject. And in any other case -- firms and celebs hiring someone to edit the article about them -- it would tend to do exactly that. I would think that we could come up with something that wouldn't frighten off institutions but would signal to experienced editors that there has been editing someone expert and hopefully ethical was paid to do. Valereee (talk) 17:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure there would be more demand for WiR if we gutted most of COI. Thats not a reason to gut COI. Why is reducing demand to what it should be a problem? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Hey, not defending the argument. Just reporting what reliable sources have said. :D Valereee (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Uh, just for clarity since I've clearly been unclear in this discussion multiple times: calling WiR a "reliable source" was sardonic, as of course the opinions of people who are WiR are their opinions alone unless otherwise specified. For further clarity, I'm not implying WiR is not a source we should rely on in discussions such as these. People who are WiR provide a perfectly reasonable source for the opinions of people who are WiR. Valereee (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Valereee, do you recall where and when this discussion took place? If we have people editing for pay and thinking they don't need to disclose because it's through WiR, that's a substantial problem. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

But Thryduulf, but then why not simply disclose the paid "advising"? If they're only advising rather than simply making edit requests, as any ethical paid editor would, there's a reason, and the only one I can really come up with is they don't want people to know. They're gaming the requirement to disclose. Valereee (talk) 10:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Why the scare quotes? Is this more assumption of bad faith? You need to remember that not everybody is out to harm the encyclopaedia, and the goals can be compatible. Someone advising is very different to a paid editor, whether ethical or not. A paid editor is making changes to the encyclopaedia on behalf of someone else. An adviser is explaining or teaching someone else how and when to make changes themself, which for an ethical adviser will include how and when they should not be making changes. Sure I've got no problem with disclosing, but it's not going to make much difference - good faith advisers will disclose but if they aren't making edits there isn't anything to check; bad faith advisers won't disclose whether we make it a requirement or not. Thryduulf (talk) 11:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

What's the difference between advising, proxying, and meatpuppetry? Levivich (talk) 13:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Thryduulf gives an example of advising in the section below that is clearly not a proxy for editing in any way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

In theory, it's a good thing for editors to be teaching anybody and everybody about our policies. What I fear, however, is that all engagements will start from the premise that the end goal is to have an article and it's the job of the consultant to show the client how to navigate our policies to reach that goal.

I'm dubious any engagement could possibly end with, "In my opinion, looking at all the available WP:SIRS, your company does not qualify for an article. Here's my bill for $1000." Or, equally unlikely, "That statement in your article about your company being sleazy con artists who ripped off their customers and got convicted of fraud in court is sourced to multiple high-quality WP:RS and presented in a WP:NPOV compliant way. It belongs in the article. Here's my bill for $1000." RoySmith (talk) 14:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Actually I think all those scenarios are possible. It is also however the case that not all advising, paid or otherwise, is on behalf of a commercial organisation whose goal is to have a non-neutral article about themselves. Indeed I would suggest that this will be the minority of clients. See the section below for a real life example of advising that is completely unrelated to anything in your comment. Any policies regarding paid advising need to be applicable to all types of advising to which they apply, and those clients who do have a goal that is incompatible with Wikipedia's goals are significantly more likely to hire a bad-faith adviser (or even more likely, paid editor) who will not comply with any rules that they don't like, regardless of what those rules are. Thryduulf (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, @Thryduulf, see below where? Convo is just too long, and sometimes below means physically above. :) Valereee (talk) 15:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh, you mean the driving gig? But you hadn't advertised for a gig "giving advice about Wikipedia from a WP admin while driving", had you? Unless you were being paid for the advice, the fact you were being paid at the time for doing something completely else, no worries. Advise away. Valereee (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

RoySmith You are dubious any engagement between an advisor and a client could end with "In my expert opinion, having looked at all the available evidence, you are not able to do what you are trying to do and are totally and completely F**k**. Here's by bill for $1,000."? You obviously have never had the pleasure of either providing or receiving legal advice. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@Levivich: Advising is giving advice, answering questions, teaching people how to edit and things of that nature. It may or may not result in any edits being made. This can be good or bad, depending on the intent of the person advising, the intent of the person being advised, and whether the advice is followed.

Proxying is making edits at the direction of someone else who is unable or unwilling to make the edit themselves. This can be good or bad, depending on the intent of the person giving the direction, how much judgement the person making the edit exercises and how good that judgement is. Answering edit requests is a form of proxying that is normally good, for example.

Meatpuppetry is making an edit at the direction of and in support of (the goal of) someone who is also making edits with the same goal. I cannot think of any circumstance which this is a good thing.

As you can see, all three are different. Thryduulf (talk) 14:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

What's the difference between:

1. Person A advising Person B to make an edit and B makes the edit, and
2. A directing B to make the edit and B makes the edit?

Does it matter if B asked A for advice or if A offered to give B advice? Does it matter if A believes B's edit is a good edit? Does it matter if B pays A or A pays B or neither one pays the other? Levivich (talk) 03:13, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

You appear to have so fundamentally misunderstood what advising is that I'm not sure I can help you understand, but I'll try one more time. Advising people is at its heart about teaching. Teaching people what edits are good and bad, how to make good edits, what policies need to be followed and how to follow them. Person B is fully in control of whether to write something and if so what to write, where to write, etc. There will be some direction involved in this, e.g. "you need to declare any conflicts of interest you have.", "if you want to flag a statement as missing a citation you need to type {{citation needed|date=September 2023}} after it", but fundamentally person B is the controlling mind.

In the case of proxying, person A is the controlling mind and functionally the author. Person B is editing on behalf of person A not on behalf of themselves. Thryduulf (talk) 09:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Drop the pompous condescension, I'm not misunderstanding anything. You can stop repeatedly defining these terms, I'm not asking you what they are, I'm asking you what the difference is between them, and whether those differences matter. Hence the "does it matter if" questions that you did not answer. I'm trying to push your analysis past the surface level of definitions and into the deeper level of looking at effects.

So, what difference does it make whether A is the controlling mind or B is the controlling mind? I also asked you, what difference does it make if A pays B, or if B pays A, or neither? No matter who the controlling mind is, no matter who pays whom, no matter if the advice/direction was solicited or offered... B's edit gets made. So why does it make a difference to the reader whether B's edit was made upon A's advice or upon A's direction, whether A was paid or not, whether B was paid or not, and who solicited whom, and so forth. In any event, no matter what the details of the A-B relationship, B's edit gets made. If advising has the same result as proxying for the reader (B's edit gets made), then why differentiate between the two? Or in other words, if you're going to allow advising why not allow proxying, too? What's the difference?

(The difference in effect, not in definition.) Levivich (talk) 12:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The difference is that when advising, B's edits get made by B (and/or the edits don't get made). When Proxying, A's edits get made by B.

We allow proxying in the form of edit requests. We allow proxying for even banned editors when the person making the edit takes responsibility for ensuring they benefit the project.

Whether someone is or is not paid is irrelevant. Whether the edit was solicited or not is irrelevant (again, edit requests are solicitation for someone to make an edit for you).

I see no benefit and lots of harm to the project from disallowing advising.

I see no benefit and lots of harm to the project from disallowing proxying. Thryduulf (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Because if someone is not disclosing that they're giving advice, I doubt "advising" is all they're doing. If they were being transparent about it, I'd assume good faith. But if they're hiding it, I don't really feel like it's ABFing to assume they've got something to hide. Valereee (talk) 14:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

What kind of disclosure would you be looking for? COI tags in article and talk space are there to help others watch out for NPOV violations. This is useful if a paid editor has been involved in writing the article. With paid advice, the advisor may have no idea which articles and edits will in the future be influenced by their advice, so this disclosure can't be expected in article space. Should it be on the user page? Would it have to stay there forever and prevent clean starts or other privacy related activities? If I go and give a "how to edit Wikipedia" workshop at my university (who pay me) will I then have to disclose who my employer is on my user page? Not everything involving money must immediately mean wrongdoing, and any policy change in this area would need to be careful not to invade users' privacy. Overall I'm very skeptical of any policy change here absent a compelling example of serious abuse that needs to be shut down. —Kusma (talk) 11:49, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, if it were me, I'd probably post to the article talk of the article about the client and let it archive as normal, and I'd certainly be disclosing the fact I did this on my own user for the period during which I was doing it. No, not everything involving money immediately means wrongdoing. But if you're hiding what you're doing, it probably involves at minimum something you'd be embarrassed to have others know. Look, would you decide NOT to give such a workshop if you had to disclose? I wouldn't. I'd just disclose: I'll be giving a workshop at my uni on how to edit Wikipedia. Or: I'm advising my employer, XYZ Company, how to edit Wikipedia. I will not be editing XYZ Company directly. Seems like an easy thing to do if you aren't trying to hide the fact. Valereee (talk) 15:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Embarrassment, or other other forms of privacy, are legitimate and the willingness to have privacy seems core to Wikipedia, where we do not require editors or even admins to reveal their true identities. If I'm being paid to give a class on How Edit Wikipedia at the Biennial Antifa Leather-Daddy BBQ or am answering questions for my superiors at Villainous Oil Co., then I am being asked to reveal things about myself that I would only have to if I was editing or admining in areas of my conflicts, which I may scrupulously avoid. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:49, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay, let's just forget the argument. I'm clearly not making it well. My point was that we don't have to protect every possible extreme example of innocent conversation or every possible reasonable example of embarrassing workshops. If you don't want to have to disclose you've done paid work for Villainous Oil, don't give them advice about Wikipedia. If you want to give them advice about Wikipedia, disclose they've paid you. Simple. Valereee (talk) 15:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

If they aren't going anything wrong what is the embarrassment risk? And if the worry is privacy then isn't the answer that the person shouldn't engage in wiki related commercial activity which they wish to remain confidential? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

He's pointing out that not every connection you don't want to disclose is necessarily problematic for Wikipedia, like the perfectly innocent workshop you gave to your B&D club, who comped your ticket in exchange for your time. Or the fact you work for the CIA. But in those cases, you also aren't advertising on Upworks. Valereee (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I think given the very real history of CIA COI editing on wikipedia an editor whose day job is at the CIA is probably in a bit of a pickle vis-a-vis whether to keep the mop. I think we've gotten pretty close to establishing two cases in which at least admins should disclose their employment on wiki: 1. when wiki is in their job description or duties (whether that means being a WiR, public relations manager, or wiki consultant). 2. when they seek to edit pages about which they have an otherwise non-disclosable COI (the same as applies to any other editor) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade, lemmesee...Special:Permalink/1001073031#Brigham Young University is probably what I was remembering? Valereee (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Pingin @Rachel Helps (BYU) as an interested party. Valereee (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

hi, do you have any questions for me? To me the core issue of that COIN discussion was applying to rules consistently to everyone. If we want to make all paid editors disclose their editing status on all of the talk pages of the pages they've worked on, that's fine, but requiring it of some editors and not others is not consistent. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

No questions, Rachel. Just wanted to make sure you knew someone was discussing. Valereee (talk) 21:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

• No one on the Wikimedia side approves someone becoming a WIR nor sanctions the institution that creates the position. Nothing requires signoff from the WMF or any affiliate. There is a lot of good work, but we should work with a full understanding of those positions.

From Meta:Wikimedian in residence:

There are no special permissions or editorial appointments available in the Wikimedia platform. Organizations that appoint Wikimedians in Residence do so from the same position as anyone else on the Internet creating a Wikipedia user account. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and a Wikimedian in Residence enters the role equal to anyone else with no special recognition or consideration of their institutional affiliation.

Seddon ^talk 19:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Disclosure of paid advising

Above, Kusma makes a good point: With paid advice, the advisor may have no idea which articles and edits will in the future be influenced by their advice. To give a real example: At the end of last month I gave advice about editing Wikipedia, including regarding notability and sourcing, to someone who expressed an interested in improving coverage related to the tourism industry. I did this as part of a wide-ranging conversation while I was driving them and their belongings from London to Somerset. They (or rather their mother) paid me to do the driving, I was not paid specifically for anything regarding Wikipedia but they did know in advance (through mutual friends) that I was a Wikipedia admin. I do not know if they have an account here. I do not know whether they have edited since our conversation and if they have what pages they have edited. They have had "a couple of temporary jobs" in the tourism sector, that mean they have possibly have a COI with regards to an employer and/or one or more tourist attractions that may or may not be notable, but I don't know which ones or to what extent. What, if anything, about this should I be required to disclose? Where? For how long? Does this mean I now have a COI - if so what with? Thryduulf (talk) 13:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

You were being paid to drive. In the course of driving, you were making conversation to pass the time. I'm pretty gung-ho when it comes to disclosure requirements, but even I can't see how that's a problem.

My next door neighbor is a college professor. We often have converstations about Wikipedia. For example, if students use wikipedia to prepare homework essays, Is it cheating? Is it a copyvio? Is it just effective use of a good resource? Our most recent topic was if a department chair assigns the office admins the task of writing wikipedia articles for each faculty member, is that socking and/or UPE? I feel no compunction to disclose those conversations, even if he's invited me over to his house and fed me dinner.

I like aviation analogies, so I'll dredge one up now. The FAA has strict rules about private pilots offering their services for hire. I cannot, for example, advertise that I have a plane and I'll fly you where you want to go if you cover my expenses. It is perfectly legal, however, for the two of us to decide we both want to attend WCNA and I offer to fly us if you'll split the expenses of the flight with me. The key difference there is commonality of purpose. In my case, our purpose was to get to Toronto to attend the conference, and flying us there was just a convenient way to go. In your case, the commonality of purpose was moving this person's belongings from one place to another, and the conversation was incidental to that. And, yes, private pilots flout this rule on a regular basis, rarely get caught, and when they do get caught try to invent some commonality of purpose which rarely holds up and end up getting the certificate revoked. RoySmith (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Something else to note is that succeeding at an RfA grants one the title of "admin" and a host of ability to perform technical actions, where you are given tools to perform administrative functions on Wikipedia such as deleting, blocking/unblocking, reviewing deleted content, apply/remove page protection, etc.. If someone chooses to trust an individual enough to hire them for advising specifically because they are an admin, and NOT for performing any actual administrative functions, that is a personal judgment that they are making based simply on their having admin status, which would be no different than trusting them because they're wearing a shiny hat. Similarly, an observer seeing an admin advising on non-admin functions and then saying "admins shouldn't do that" is also a personal judgment, because one is specifically fixating on the status of "admin" and likely wouldn't think twice if it was a non-admin doing the same thing. In my opinion, this is conferring added weight to the role of administrator than actually is there, which doesn't seem WP:NOBIGDEAL-compatible.

I'm aware this is a fairly radical viewpoint given that trust and judgment is one of the reasons why administrators are selected, but I feel everybody has varying degrees on that, and therefore this is one of the reasons why a change in policy based on a subjective judgment isn't a good idea. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

If I get a speeding ticket and then I'm approached by somebody who tells me they're a policeman in the jurisdiction where the ticket was issued and for $100 they can assist me with the ticket, it would be stretching the limits of AGF past the breaking point not to assume they're soliciting a bribe.

I once got a speeding ticket which was serious enough that I contacted a lawyer. Said lawyer referred me to another lawyer who lived in the town where the ticket was issued, had gone to high school with the town's traffic judge, still played basketball with him, and who assured me he could get the fine cut down to a much more reasonable level in exchange for his legal fees. I'm not saying I refused his services, nor that what was going on was strictly illegal, but I wasn't so oblivious as not to understand this didn't quite live up to my utopian standards of how the criminal justice system is supposed to work. RoySmith (talk) 15:13, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

And I'll ask you the same thing I asked Kusma: If you were required to disclose that "During the course of a paid gig driving from London to Somerset, I had a 2-hour conversation about editing Wikipedia", would you have refused the gig or refused to discuss Wikipedia? I wouldn't. I might roll my eyes that anyone could shoehorn that in here, but I'd comply and wouldn't feel the least bit reluctant to have everyone and their brother know. Valereee (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

If it required me to disclose that I live in the vicinity of London or Somerset and I'd scrupulously avoided doing that previously, then I certainly would have refused one or the other. —Cryptic 15:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

sigh. Fine. "During the course of a paid 3-hour driving gig, I had a 2-hour conversation about editing Wikipedia". I kind of feel like there's something going on here that I don't understand. Why are we arguing over whether anyone would ever be required to disclose a casual conversation, much less disclosing where they live, as part of this? Valereee (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

For clarification, I'm not suggesting this is what we should require. I am trying to get at the fact that even if we DID require disclosure of casual conversations or even workshops on editing in general while being paid for something else, while it would be silly, it wouldn't prevent a reasonable person from being able to have those conversations or give those workshops. Sorry for being unclear. Valereee (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

If that is the level of disclosure you require (no information about the content of the conversation), it is useless for tracking of whether any wrongdoing occurred but mostly harmless. If you require details like "explained to my neighbour who runs the only pet store in Somerton, Somerset that Wikipedia can't endorse HappyPet dog food and that they should self-revert their edit" this clears up what happened and makes it possible for others to check whether any NPOV has been introduced by your actions but gives away your real life address and the onwiki identity of your neighbour. —Kusma (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

But that isn't the level of disclosure any reasonable person would ever suggest we require. We currently require the name of the entity who paid you to edit wikipedia. Why would be any different to require the name of the entity who paid you to advise? Valereee (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

If that entity happens to be your everyday employer (and it may be impossible to refuse their request to explain the COI policy), then there is significant outing potential in such a requirement. —Kusma (talk) 16:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Unless your job description involved wikipedia how could it be legally impossible to refuse that request? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

It would likely be legally possible to refuse. But you might still feel compelled to act on such a request. The take-home line is "don't tell anyone you're a Wikipedia admin", I guess. —Kusma (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Hopefully we're electing admins with a standard moral compass, if they can't stand up for themselves why should they be admins? Wouldn't such hypothetically weak and unethical admins introduce a systemic liability? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

What you call a weak moral compass may to other people simply be pragmatism and a desire not to commit insubordination. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 20:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Depends on the country, probably. Most US job descriptions have a final line that says something like "And other tasks as required."

But I don't think giving general advice should be considered problematic unless it would typically fall into the general job description. You're the brand assistant for Pampers? Definitely consider not telling your brand manager you edit WP, it's never going to end well. You're in finance and the topic of the bm's attempts to get "World's most popular diaper brand!" inserted comes up at lunch one day? Meh. Personally I'd tell them about edit requests and Teahouse. Valereee (talk) 17:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

But I don't think giving general advice should be considered problematic unless it would typically fall into the general job description. Now I think we're getting into the meat of the issue here, which is that if giving general advice is okay, then at what point do we start cutting it off and say "this is no longer allowed for admins"? Never mind disclosure, I'm talking about just a plain cut-and-dry border between being de-sysopped or not. Is it really the taking of money for said advice that is the cutoff point? I think defining that border is where a poll or proposal would be the most useful. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 20:25, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

When you solicit clients as "an admin" without onwiki disclosure that you're doing this, I think we've passed the point of being okay. Valereee (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

The flip side of allowing paid advising but requiring disclosure is that you are then essentially asking admins who do this to advertise their services on their userpage. —Kusma (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I think unless someone has been hired to advise or edit about Wikipedia, we can AGF on explaining things in pretty much any situation, including to their full-time employer. Once they start advertising the service freelance on Upworks, that changes things. Valereee (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

• If they haven't used this COI to make any edits or use any tools in relation to it on wiki, then no violation has happened. It's as simple as that. Anyone claiming otherwise is trying to control what people do off-wiki. The only exception I'd see to this is if someone was directly organizing efforts to vandalize, POV-push, harass, or otherwise have such edits happen on-wiki. I don't consider advising on how to edit Wikipedia properly falls under any of that. Silverseren^C 21:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

  Obviously, no one can control what someone does off-wiki, but we can certainly take notice of that on-wiki. With paid editing, we already do. I can't stop you from taking money from anyone who wants to give it to you, but we can say that if we find out some of that money is in exchange for editing Wikipedia, you will be required to make the proper disclosures and comply with the COI requirements, and if you don't do those things you won't be editing at all. The same is true for off-wiki canvassing or the like. I can't stop someone from posting to Reddit or anywhere else about a particular AfD, but I can certainly ignore the crapflood of purely canvassed comments when I close the discussion. So, while we can't ultimately control what's done off-wiki, that doesn't mean we have to stick our heads in the sand and pretend it didn't happen. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

  Re:advising on how to edit Wikipedia properly. I don't think anyone is objecting to that. I think what people object to is the very blurry line between that and something less innocuous, and if there isn't disclosure, we're less likely to notice the line has been crossed. There are actually many COI and paid editors who are ethical and committed to editing within policy. I've worked with some of them. But if they don't disclose, their edits don't get the scrutiny such edits need. Valereee (talk) 23:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'm one of those who feel that more concern is being expressed than is justified, but I've been refraining from commenting too much in this section because I want to see what, if any, consensus can be reached, among those who feel the opposite, for a change in wording somewhere. I think it would be best to make concrete suggestions about wording changes -- straw men for an RfC, if you like. It's not a bad idea to try to reach common ground on the ethics, but I think that's gone as far as it can, and it's time for specific suggestions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

  +1. Let's focus on a suggestion, and my apologies for focussing too much on intangibles. Valereee (talk) 11:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  I suggest first agreeing a goal then working on wording to achieve that goal. Thryduulf (talk) 11:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  I only partly agree -- I think working on wording can often clarify where people's goals differ, and it is sometimes best done as an iterative process. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:25, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  I think we probably do need to address Thryduulf's main point, which is that if we don't agree on a goal, we can't come up with suggestions. @Thryduulf, my own goal would be some version of: "To ensure paid editing, which includes paid formal advising, receives the scrutiny it needs to protect the encyclopedia." Not sure "paid formal" is the right way to put it; what I'm trying to differentiate is between informal advising while in a "paid" position, such as answering your boss's questions on why an employee can't just go in and correct "their page", explaining policy in a convo while being paid to do something else, or giving a general editing workshop at your university or museum. Valereee (talk) 11:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  It seems to me that the original case that kicked this off was something like "soliciting of payment for advising on how to properly edit Wikipedia, using adminship as a selling point", and then opinions have varied from this in several directions: some specifically caring about the "using adminship as a selling point" part, some specifically caring about the soliciting part, some ignoring "properly" (lumping people who advise on how to get around the rules in with those who advise on how to follow them), some considering strict "payment for advising" versus "advising an employer outside of official job duties" versus "advising in watercooler chat", some considering payment in cash only versus payment in other considerations, various combinations of the previous, and even some considering "paid advising" to be identical to "paid editing via meatpuppet" and some considering payment for anything remotely involving Wikipedia (even if no editing or advising is involved) to be incompatible with adminship (or even with editing at all). Anomie⚔ 12:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  Anomie identifies the exact same problem I'm seeing. Here in this thread, there simply is too wide a dispersion of opinions for us to come to any sort of useful conclusion about how to proceed. As Thryduulf suggested, what needs to be done is we need to agree on baseline principles - what exactly are we trying to accomplish here? - that all of us can coalesce around. That may require a centralized proposal preceded by a trip to WP:VPI to hash out specifics, keeping the ethics discussion relatively separated and instead focusing on taking Wikipedia's pulse.

  Of course, this carries the inherent risk that we may not come to any sort of agreement at all. At that point, I then believe the question should turn to what our existing WP:PCD policy is saying and whether it still matches consensus on Wikipedia. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:28, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  Concur. I guess the question then becomes, is following all the processes you mention because of a single ad that, I understand, has since been withdrawn, worth all the time, fraught words, and frayed emotions that may follow, quite possibly for nothing. Wehwalt (talk) 14:40, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think it's for nothing, FWIW. I think this is something worth discussing and worth coming to a conclusion on. Valereee (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I think a fair balance would be to say that the actions a third party takes should not be taken in isolation, and that the advice given is the most important aspect. Seddon ^talk 19:17, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Required disclosure for admin paid advising

Add a sentence to Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure#Administrators which reads Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage. This expectation will only apply to administrators after the passage of the RfC. 16:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Support (Required disclosure for admin paid advising)

1. This does not prohibit any admin advising. It also only requires disclosure in a narrow cirumstance. For instance there have been a number of scenarios where an admin might end up advising their employer. Such discussions would not require disclosure under this change. Instead it is a relatively narrow sliver if an admin puts up a website to find clients or goes onto upwork, or the like. I think this minimal form of transparency is appropriate in such cases and based on the discussion above I believe there is a consensus which agrees with me. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

   Support such disclosure seems more beneficial then harmful. If there is indeed any chilling effect on commercial beneficial activities (e.g., a user solicits useful advice for pay that improves the encyclopedia), it will be more than offset by the benefit of a clear paper trail/follow the money trail for accountability and transparency. While I think the current advising isn't a big deal, I do think this would ease the path to acceptance for such activity, and consistent with other disclosures of COI and paid editing. Advising isn't the same sort of COI as paid editing, but it would be good to disclose and require disclosing. Andre🚐 17:01, 24 September 2023 (UTC) After reading the opposes including that of Cullen, I am withdrawing my support here. Andre🚐 22:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

2. Support but I consider the “soliciting” part to be the most objectionable part. I can imagine a few legitimate client-initiated scenarios where an editor who happens to be an admin is offered compensation for their advice, but to actively seek to make money from their adminship feels incompatible with the spirit of public benefit that I believe admins should be role-modelling. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC) Edit: I agree with some of the oppose votes that the specific disclosure requirement here isn’t going to be that useful. I would prefer admins didn’t solicit at all, but if this is to be allowed, then I support disclosure of the activity in general, not a specific listing of clients. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
3. I think we need to come to some conclusion on what the community thinks is the best way to approach this. I don't think it assumes bad faith any more than any COI policy assumes bad faith. IMO there's a benefit to the encyclopedia of encouraging scrutiny. Valereee (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
4. I wouldn't support a candidate in an RfA, if they said they reserve a right to solicit or be approached by clients on upwork/fiverr, for monetary compensation in exchange for services (even if they are above board activities like explaining wikipedia policies, or explaining how to edit articles/ find legitimate sourcing etc), if such an advisory service is capable of being provided freely by any other editor as well, on the teahouse or helpdesk. A community-vetted admin, advertising on third-party sites, is a whole different look than a non-admin doing it. Reflects poorly on wikipedia and lowers trust. To me the crux of the matter is, are they disclosing the fact that they are wikipedia admins on fiverr/upwork? I don't think that should be allowed because it can be construed as benefiting from a position of authority, even if all they are doing off-wiki is within the present rules. Asking for admins to observe a higher standard of conduct, isn't an unreasonable demand from current and future admins. This RfC is asking for a disclosure requirement and I agree that personally identifiable information of individuals shouldn't be necessary, but I think information on any organisation which seeks such service should be disclosed. — hako9 (talk) 00:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Support While I respect the argument that "its not a problem yet" I would counter that we don't know if its a problem yet because we don't require disclosure. Its important to make the standards and norms of the community clear and a large part of the community is apparently uncomfortable with this sort of behavior by admins (to varying degrees of course). I understand how to some admins this sounds like people are saying that they don't trust you and I want to make clear thats not what I'm saying, I trust every admin who has commented here today including Cullen328. But trusting individual admins is different than trusting that all seven or eight hundred people aren't going to succumb to the lure of money, power, and creature comforts. I trust that my local judges are all fair, competent, and just, that doesn't mean that I'm opposed to laws which ban then from doing outside consulting (which they do by the way). This is significantly less extreme than that, it doesn't ban it just requires disclosure. One change I would support would be the addition of a floor (say $100) which would trigger the notification requirement, many have raised the issue that even small honorariums and free food would trigger a strict disclosure requirement and that would exclude such cases. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
6. Support per Barkeep. None of the opposes have raised problems significant enough to convince me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
7. Support Like Caesar's wife, admins must be totally above suspicion. The opposes raise nothing of significance. Disclosure is essential. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC).
8. Support per Barkeep this needs to be disclosed .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
9. Support I tend to agree with Horse Eye's Black that some notion of ignoring trivial relationships would make sense. But I would like to see disclosure. As I've raised in the past, I'm not concerned about admins acting inappropriatly when providing advice, but I am concerned that providing such advice where potential and actual bad actors may be invovled risks compromising the administrator. By disclosing that they have a finiancial COI regarding a subject where they have provided advice this can be mitagated. - Bilby (talk) 01:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
10. Support I'm not too comfortable with this behavior at all. If I found out that an admin I was dealing with using their adminship as a side hustle, I would lose some respect for them. However, we're not going to be able to ban the behavior outright. The reasonable middle seems to be allowing it, but requiring complete public disclosure and transparency. We cannot tolerate administrators collecting unknown sums of money from unknown entities for "Wikipedia advising". If this becomes policy, I would add that any administrator found to have failed to disclose paid advising should have their mop taken away immediately. Pecopteris (talk) 02:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
11. Support, though I would revise the proposed addition to something along the lines of: Administrators offering paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services must disclose their services, and the articles that they were paid to advise about, on their userpage. Administrators must additionally disclose their list of clients (including their clients' Wikipedia usernames) to the Arbitration Committee. If admins are using their position of authority for financial gain, then disclosure (in the interest of transparency to the Wikipedia community) is the bare mininum being asked here. The arguments that this disclosure requirement somehow assumes bad faith, that admins will always do the right thing/should automatically be trusted, or that this requirement will somehow discourage editors from running for adminship, are weak. To quote Barnards.tar.gz's comment in the discussion above, Adminship is a privileged position, and using that position for financial gain has the potential to bring the project into disrepute, even if done in good faith, and even if no edits are made. Some1 (talk) 03:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
12. Support. A few weeks ago I would have opposed, saying that we can trust our admins to follow the spirit and not just the letter of our existing COI rules, and not lower themselves to this kind of politician-style weaselling. I'm disappointed that I was wrong and disappointed in the admin that has made this necessary. Taking money to 'advise' someone on how they can use Wikipedia to their advantage clearly creates a conflict of interest. Using your position of trust on this project to attract customers clearly calls into question your grounds for holding it. At the very least, the community has the right to know about it. – Joe (talk) 07:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
13. Support for all editors, not just admins. I understand the concern that admins handle deletion, and we often delete promotional articles, etc, but truthfully all editors should disclose such potential COIs including paying clients they advise on use of Wikipedia. —siroχo 08:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
14. Support, as Joe Roe says, it creates an obvious conflict of interest. We shouldn't have to explicitly tell admins to be honest, but apparently we do. DuncanHill (talk) 10:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
15. Support. Cullen328 draws a false equivalence to "the type of advice that I already provide at the Teahouse and the Help Desk". Advice given on-wiki is subject to review and comment from other editors. Advice given on-wiki is open about who is being advised. Advice given on-wiki is open about what articles are impacted. If the activity is equivalent to the Teahouse and the Help Desk then be open about it, just as you would at the Teahouse and the Help Desk.
    I'm repulsed that Cullen is cultivating the impression which exists among some of our readers that admins are for sale and that they only need to find the right admin to pay. Cabayi (talk) 10:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

    I'm repulsed that you are cultivating this impression, which exists among some of our editors, that admins are inherently unethical, that it is fine to assume bad faith and that it's fine to require editors to out themselves and others if you are morally outraged enough. Thryduulf (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

    One shouldn't assume good faith to the point of childish naivete. AGF must be coupled with common sense. Perhaps "repulsed" isn't the nicest way to talk about an editor, but collecting undisclosed sums of money from unknown entities for "Wikipedia advising" isn't optimal, either, and such behavior could reasonably be described with this and similar adjectives. Pecopteris (talk) 23:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

    If a media outlet such as Slate, for example, writes an article about this RfC/topic, I wonder what the reactions will be among the general public/casual Wikipedia readers. Some1 (talk) 03:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

16. Spiritual Support First, I have absolutely no issues with how the admin who seems to be the genesis of this RfC has been handling this and my !vote here is independent of any discussion to that point. Anyway, as far as the proposal itself goes, in principal this seems fine, however, per Seraphimblade it should really apply to everyone. I'm also inclined to agree with Cullen328 that this will drive this type of activity underground where it's impossible to manage. So, while this seems like an admirable proposal, I would prefer to see it workshopped prior to adoption in a way that substantively addressed those concerns. Specifically, I think Folly Mox's proposal (or some variation of it, including even a proactive versus reactive version) is a good one. Chetsford (talk) 10:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

    But isn't it already underground if it isn't disclosed? Valereee (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

17. Support. The point of conflict-of-interest rules is not merely to preserve the integrity of a system, but to preserve the appearance of the integrity. Requiring that admins disclose when they advertise for paid consulting or advisory services is in my view the clearest way to preserve that appearance here. /wiae /tlk 11:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
18. Support as a corollary to what should be mind-bogglingly obvious. Disagree with not backdating it too. SN54129 12:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

    If people have already made confidential advice agreements with clients, which were not against Wikipedia rules at the time, we can't force them to break those agreements now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

    Retrospectively requiring editors to out themselves and/or their clients is a great way to get into legal trouble, especially when there is no discernable benefit from this access to private information. Thryduulf (talk) 13:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

    No outing required, gentlemen. Merely RfA-style acknowledgement. But that's a worthy concern. I'm less taken with the concern that— Preceding unsigned comment added by Serial Number 54129 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

    In video game development news, Unity Technologies had made a hell of a lot of people angry by proposing a royalty fee schedule that would be backdated retroactively. I would advise not emulating them. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

19. Support The claim that this is assuming something is absurd, it is classic conflict of interest and it brings Wikipedia into disrepute. The basis for this Wikipedia Admin market is, 1) Wikipedians have created a demand for advice through our free work, here; and 2) because of 1, Wikipedians provide free advice, but 3) at least one and perhaps more below, Wikipedia admins want to pecuniarily profit from what we Wikipedians create a demand for, and to provide some pay level tier of advice not available to anyone who comes here for free.
    This is a pay-to-play scheme, and cries out to be monitored closely and transparently. The other objections just look like extended Wikilawering (or special pleading, because some think 'it's Cullen' should matter, which is absurd in a COI issue), just what one sees in a patent COI. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

    How is it a conflict of interest to advise someone off-wiki, whether or not it's for pay? WP:COI is about conflict of interest editing. That's where the assumption comes in -- we all have entanglements off-wiki that, if we edited the relevant articles, would create a COI. You're assuming that, unlike all the rest of our off-wiki entanglements, these admins are so untrustworthy that they're going to violate COI but trustworthy enough to disclose even when they've edited improperly. Re "pay-to-play scheme", it's "pay to get good advice so you don't violate wikipedia's rules" as opposed to "pay a bad actor who will hep you violate the rules". We're stigmatizing the very people we want to be the ones providing advice. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

    I'm not assuming. It's an obvious conflict of interest because admins write policy here, they formulate policy here, they openly participate in gathering consensus for policy, they are asked to openly enforce policy here, they are asked to openly interpret policy here, they are asked for completely unbiased judgment, they warn for breach of policy, they block people from being here entirely, and they delete articles -- they are central to the very system which they posit creates the demand for the services they now wish to personally profit from (and no, they were never given the position so they can make profit from it, no one here ever trusted them with that) -- by any measure that is a conflict of interest. Ethics problems often arise in a blind spot, that's why there are ethics rules, often focused in disclosure.

    We're not stigmatizing them, they are offering to sell on the basis of their position here. If anything, they are creating a further stigma for Wikipedia. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

20. Limiting this requirement to administrators is probably not ideal. However, to me that's not an argument against the proposal: Administrators are the most obvious group of people it should apply to. Contrary to highly experienced non-administrators, their ability to view deleted revisions, their role in deletion discussions, and perhaps most importantly the advertising impact of "Wikipedia administrator offers help for your business" or similar imaginable slogans makes solicitation of money for advice feel especially inappropriate. Additionally, we have WP:ADMINCOND and WP:ADMINACCT, so admins' additional responsibility is already policy and the proposal meets its spirit. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
21. Support. An entirely reasonable requirement for disclosure under limited circumstances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
22. Support This is one of the clearest, most open and shut RFCs I've ever seen. It's already questionable for admins to be turning their mop into a revenue stream. It's obvious that if doing this is allowed, it should be transparent and publicly disclosed. This is not an undue burden. If you don't want to disclose the ways in which you are using your Wikipedia account to make money, and who is paying you, that's fine - just stop. I cannot believe some admins want to have their cake and eat it too: they want to have a mop, they want to be allowed to "advise" secret benefactors for undisclosed sums of money, and you, peasant, don't need to know anything about it. I find all oppose arguments to strain credulity. Philomathes2357 (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
23. Support I don't find any of the opposing arguments persuasive. They could equally apply to our existing policy on paid editing. That policy doesn't come up very often, but it's such a big deal when it does that we still absolutely need it. That policy also outs clients and therefore editors, but it's such a big deal when it happens that this is very much an acceptable risk. If anything, I'd support this proposal being expanded to cover all editors just like that one does, but I'm supporting this one for now just to avoid the perfect being an enemy of the good. Loki (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
24. Support The "advising" loophole is too wide and needs to be closed. There is currently nothing which prohibits me from drafting a whole article off-wiki and then sending it to a client to post which makes a mockery of WP:PAID. Personally, I would prefer a blanket ban on admins advising anyone for cash, but if it is going to happen then we need to know who they are advising in order to be sure that there is no misuse of the tools or that they are not mis-using their inside knowledge in order to help people evade detection. SmartSE (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
25. Support, as a first step. Later we could discuss adding payment dates, end-dates, etc. That said, such an announcement might backfire: it might frighten people away from posting RS articles about any bad press WYZ Company has received, if they see that SupeRfAdminstrel-with-the-sharpened-cane is a contractor. I saw that Cullen says this would cause him to stop his business since his clients want secrecy. He seems to be suggesting too that it is not that lucrative all told (given that he's had to spend so much time dealing with multiple inquiries from people who didn't hire him after he made clear what he was(n't) offering). I would personally be in favor of straight-up banning paid-advising by admins (who are supposed to set an example) unless the admin had transparently announced in their RfA their intention to start a consulting business once promoted. I wouldn't be entirely surprised if the right person, running on the information-gathering, ethical advisor platform Cullen mentions below, could pass. Perhaps he could test it, in the spirit of ethical information gathering concerning the possibility for a voluntarily-recalled admin being re-promoted with the full knowledge of the community that they intended to do ethical paid advising. Until someone does pass such an RfA though, it's probably best to just ban it so people aren't becoming admins/using the community-accorded tenure to get a competitive edge in the market. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 19:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
26. Support, Good governance. Actual judges offering paid services on the side isn't allowed. I don't see why advertising admin status should happen any more than that.
    Nit: @Barkeep49 "Such discussions would not require disclosure under this change." is a misstatement, no? This would be true:
    "Such discussions may not require disclosure under this change." (Because some scenarios where an admin ends up advising their employer would require disclosure under this change.)
    -RudolfoMD (talk) 20:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
27. Support. I've thought about this and am not comfortable with admins (or others, especially new page patrollers or AfC staff) soliciting payment for specific (tailored) advice given off-wiki. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
28. Leaning support. I can't see why this would be a negative. BD2412 T 04:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
29. Support (moved from oppose), I guess I'm convinced enough by some of these arguments that we need to do something here, and this is at least a start. I'm still very much of a mind that this should apply across the board, not just to admins, but I very much do not want admins to be soliciting work based upon their status unless they're being completely transparent about it—and that doesn't just mean "I'm getting paid", it means specifying who is paying. That's very much different from someone just happening to ask an admin for advice about Wikipedia, and the admin providing some—that happens all the time, and there's nothing wrong with that, even if it's during the course of paid work unrelated to Wikipedia. As always, the issues really start when money gets involved. The question that I have to ask myself is: If someone announced during their RfA that they intend to do this type of thing, would that RfA stand any reasonable chance to pass? I'm pretty certain the answer is "no", and so that indicates this is not a practice the community really wants to see admins engaging in. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
30. Support agreeing particularly with #4 and #5 above. While I respect Cullen328's openness, I think we should seriously ask: "Why would a client choose an Admin ″adviser″ rather than a non-Admin? Alternatively, if someone is already doing paid advising, why run for an Admin position?" I can't see NPOV supported by this kind of commingling of roles. Martindo (talk) 06:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

    Most people have no idea what a Wikipedia admin actually is. It would be easy to see it as marking or certifying some sort of expertise though, so it is easy to imagine that someone seeking expert advice who finds out there are "Wikipedia administrators" would look for one with no nefariousness in mind. CMD (talk) 04:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

31. disclosure good Seriously, if you have a position of responsibility, you have an obligation to disclose potential conflicts of interest. Hobit (talk) 00:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

    But potential conflicts of interest are there for many things besides paid Wikipedia-related consulting. Are we to expect admins to announce every employer, every benefactor, every investment they hold, and every family member? Because that would be a large shift from the current standard, where COIs must be announced if and only if a person is doing on-Wiki work related to the conflicted matter. I don't think I've seen anyone here say that such paid consulting is (or should be) immune from those existing COI rules. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

    I'm not sure I'm getting the issue you are raising. I'm saying that it is reasonable to expect leaders of any organization to disclose significant conflicts of interest. As an employee, I'm required to disclose any stock I have in any company related to my work. I'm also required to disclose any consulting I do. This feels very similar and equally reasonable to ask wikipedia leadership to disclose relevant conflicts of interest. It's not for everything, just for things you get paid to do related to Wikipedia. I'm honestly unclear how this could be considered anything other than reasonable--I think we should know if folks in leadership roles at any non-profit have a COI. I can see an argument for *everyone*, but I can't see an argument for no one. And I do think it's fair to characterize the admin cadre as the defacto leadership of this place. Hobit (talk) 04:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

    I'm not seeing how the conflict of interest of being paid for advice on Wikipedia is any more of a conflict than the company that pays you for doing whatever-other-way-you-make-your-living. Both of them would be recognized as conflicts if one is editing or doing administrative functions related to that topic, just as it would if they were editing in relation to a company they hold stock in, and all of that is already covered by our COI policies... much as at your work, it doesn't sound like you have to reveal all the stock you own, but only stock that is related to your work. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

    You're not seeing how a COI arising from someone paying you specifically for help with Wikipedia, because you advertised yourself to them as an admin with special insight into its processes, is different from the COI you have with your regular employer that probably doesn't even know or care that you edit Wikipedia? – Joe (talk) 05:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

    Correct. I've advised many people on Wikipedia (not for a fee) and that advising has not created conflicts of interest on my part. Giving advice does not create a COI. If someone accepted money for that same action, but never went on to do Wikipedia work related to client (broadly construed), what are they doing that's in conflict? COI arises when one is doing on-Wiki actions related to something that's a separate source of your benefit. If someone was hiring me because they wanted to put a kibosh on my admin actions (in theory; I am not an admin and do not expect that to change), they could have the same effect by hiring me to write a comic book script or some other unrelated matter. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

    @Nat Gertler:It might not have created significant conflicts of interest but it created minor conflicts of interest, did you mean they didn't create any significant conflicts which would effect your wiki editing or no conflicts at all resulted? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

    I have a response to Joe's question/perspective here substantially similar to Nat's, but with additional thoughts that ended up running so long that I didn't feel comfortable leaving the whole response in the !vote section. Instead, you can find it below in the 'Discussion' section, diff here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

32. Support, largely per Joe Roe. While I have faith that our sysops aren't engaging in UPE, the intersection of payment and adminship is really messy territory; it makes me uncomfortable that we cannot unequivocally state that administrators are not paid. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 20:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
33. Transparency is critical in this area. Jenks24 (talk) 07:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
34. Support. If I'm gonna do some paid editing, I'm gonna disclose it. While my position is neutral on paid editing, if it does happen, it should be not only compliant with content policies but fully disclosed. I expect our administrators to be held to a higher standard. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

    This is not about paid editing. Thryduulf (talk) 08:00, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

35. Support per Joe Roe's comments. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
36. Support – I expect administrators not to have any conflicts of interest, real or perceived. This is an effective minimisation of that risk. There is no reasonable counterargument against this requirement, which is not unduly burdensome on anyone. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 06:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

    Anyone can have a conflict of interest, even high court judges and arbcom members, They are generally trusted to manage this by recusal where it applies. The requirement does not exist in policy and would be patently unreasonable, personal expectations notwithstanding. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:31, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

    I expect administrators to manage this by declaring it. The requirement does not exist in policy Obviously not Peter, we're on the policy proposal page. would be patently unreasonable Why? Because administrators wouldn't be able to profit off of Wikipedia? Or because they might be embarrassed by their work? Can't see why you would think it's unreasonable. personal expectations notwithstanding Well this is my vote and I am obviously going to vote in line with my personal expectations. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

    Support. The only plausible reason why anyone would pay a Wikipedia Administrator for advice, is for a quicker or more detailed response and/or to ensure there is a contractually binding confidence between them. Neither of these things have any place on Wikipedia. They are actually the complete opposite of what Wikipedia stands for. As such, I would explicitly ban the practice entirely, but if a disclosure requirement is all it takes to dissuade someone from paying for this service, so be it. Edson Makatar (talk) 10:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

    The only plausible reason why anyone would pay a Wikipedia Administrator for advice, is for a quicker or more detailed response and/or to ensure there is a contractually binding confidence between them. Do you have any evidence for this? Please can you explain how and why these are the complete opposite of what Wikipedia stands for as genuinely don't understand where you're coming from with that. What is the difference between someone giving the same advice contractually or non-contractually? Surely it's the advice given and actions taken as a result of that advice that are either compatible or not compatible with Wikipedia? Thryduulf (talk) 10:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

    Do you have any plausible reasons why someone would pay an Administrator for advice, other than an enhanced customer experience and/or a contractual assurance of confidence? The spirit of Wikipedia is volunteerism and transparency. The exact opposite of a commercial in confidence arrangement. Edson Makatar (talk) 13:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

    See plenty of previous examples elsewhere in this discussion for reasons why someone may pay for advice, including personal service, convenience, time, culture, etc. And you still haven't explained what is bad about an "enhanced customer experience" or a "contractual assurance of confidence". Transparency is a noble goal in the abstract, but in practical terms we need to balance transparency and privacy (which is why we do not require editors to use their real names for example) so we only require disclosure of information where the benefits outweigh the problems - and we simply do not learn anything useful from this in the majority of cases. Regarding volunteerism, the community has chosen to ban only undisclosed paid editing, not all paid editing. Thryduulf (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

    It is the combination of pay and secrecy that is both novel and disturbing here. You can do one or the other. To do both is to unambiguously violate the spirit of Wikipedia. If that needs to be codified in a rule, that's quite depressing. It isn't hard to deduce from first principles. It should certainly not be beyond the wisdom of an Administrator. Edson Makatar (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

    Who is Edson Makatar? The account was created very recently (2023-10-08 14:36) and of their 31 edits to date, 26 have been on this page. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

37. Support. I've made my opinion clear in my postings upthread but I don't think I've actually added my name to this list yet, so doing that now. RoySmith (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
38. Support I would not support an RfA which maintained that paid advising had occurred and would continue to occur. It's a messy situation, and administrators should place themselves out of that mess. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
39. Support The human capacity for self-delusion is infinite and its possible to convince yourself that you won't stray from the path even though history has show time and time again that such an intent is impossible. In every situation that question has arising, when there is an interaction taking place where one person has power and is in a position of duty and another person or group that is seeking entry into the group, there is the possiblity of conflict of interest and corruption. The question of corruption is the core aspect of this RFC. Corruption. In every situation where this has a potential to occur, some kind of oversight has been required. And this is true throughout history. Where there has been no oversight, corruption is allowed to fester. It is human nature. An example of the type of oversight, the UK parliaments member interest register, that lists exactly who they are talking and why they are talking to them. We probably need something similar, something fit for wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 10:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
40. Support every (political) economist will tell you commodifying labour fundamentally alters social relations; it's not a bad faith assumption, it's a structural reality. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
41. Support any form of paid influence here should be declared; otherwise neutrality appears compromised. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
42. Support. The crucial question here is: if a candidate for administrator disclosed that he was being paid by clients for editing or advice on editing Wikipedia, would said candidate be approved to become an administrator? The likely answer to that question is "no." Therefore, the community consensus would be that it is wrong to be paid for any editing or helping edit Wikipedia. Smallchief (talk) 11:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

    That's your supposition, not community consensus. Citation required.--v/r - TP 11:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

    Prove me wrong. Apply for becoming an administrator while saying that you provide editing and editing advice for money Smallchief (talk)

    Firstly paid editing and paid advising are not the same thing. Secondly, the burden is on the person making the claim to show that it is true not on others to prove that it is not. Thryduulf (talk) 14:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

    ....In accordance with your opinion, I've changed the verb tense of my comment to make it more hypothetical.Smallchief (talk) 14:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose (Required disclosure for admin paid advising)

1. Oppose - The primary focus of Wikipedia should be on the integrity and neutrality of its content. Unless there's a direct payment influencing article edits, the need for such disclosure doesn't meaningfully serve the community's interests, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy after all. We also already have robust policies in place addressing conflicts of interest and paid contributions. If an administrator does find themselves editing an article they were paid to advise on, these existing policies suffice.
   Introducing another layer of regulation can also have unintended consequences. Mandating the disclosure of all clients on an administrator's user page may inadvertently violate privacy norms for both the administrator and their clients. We must consider the potential risks of such disclosures against their intended benefits. There is also the benefit that more advise to non-Wiki people is a good thing and only serves to improve the project. While I do not see an improvement or benefit from the addition proposed. PackMecEng (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

   I'm not actually sure existing policies suffice. If the admin were paid to advise, and we decide that doesn't represent "paid editing"...? I mean, you get paid to advise. One of your employees comes in and makes an edit request, and the resulting edit -- made by a completely unaware third party -- is not kosher, and the advisor sees that. Can they fix it? Because if they can't fix it, they're now in a quandary. They either out their client, or they leave the edit in place. Valereee (talk) 19:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

   Yes, existing policy covers this. If the edit button is involved that is a clear cut case, if it is not then there is nothing wrong. If the person they advise makes a bad edit that is handled by the normal process. Again not actually a problem. PackMecEng (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

   Is there a line where this would become an issue despite not crossing that line for you? For example Wikipedia has a famously contentious relationship with Elon Musk and Tesla... If Tesla launched a "free Teslas for wikipedia Admins" program would we have an issue? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

   Not until they hit the edit button. I have not seen a reason why there would be an issue with anything short of that? PackMecEng (talk) 23:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

2. For four seven reasons:
   • Assumption of bad faith: First and most importantly, this is built on a fundamental assumption of bad faith. Having the most experienced and most trusted Wikipedia users provide advice on how to follow our policies and guidelines is something we should all want. The discussion above is rife with assumptions and speculation that instead, it will turn into advice on how to circumvent our guidelines or even segue into paid editing or editing with a conflict of interest. In order to become an admin, you're required to demonstrate an extraordinary level of commitment to this project and earn an extraordinary amount of trust from the community. These are not users playing some long con, waiting to get the admin bit and exhibiting great judgment just to turn around and violate fundamental principles.
   • Reaching into people's off-wiki lives: We should not be trying to create rules for what someone can and cannot do with their lives when it does not involve any (a) on-wiki activity at all, or (b) access to privileged information obtained through on-wiki rights. We likewise don't make it standard for all users or admins to have to reveal their off-wiki employers on a "just in case they might edit with a COI in the future" basis. cf. nothing to hide argument.
   • Ambiguity: Too much gray area. What does it mean to "solicit"? If an oil company writes to me and offers me a lucrative consulting gig, that wouldn't be covered but isn't it the same? What about being paid to speak at an event? What if I let someone buy me lunch to ask my advice about something? Does it hinge if I'm the one who says "you pay for lunch"?
   • Unnecessary to prevent tool misuse: The worst case scenarios are already covered by WP:TOOLMISUSE. It's already true that an admin cannot use their tools as part of any paid editing/advising gig. That could be clarified at WP:ADMIN, I suppose, but the use of the tools and other on-wiki activity is where our prerogative should end.
   • Only affects good faith actors: This assumes that admins who advise for pay cannot be trusted to act with integrity (that they must disclose because they may indeed edit with a COI) but that those untrustworthy sorts can be trusted to disclose all of their clients. In reality, if someone is untrustworthy enough to advise in bad faith or edit with an undisclosed COI (something which would likely get you desysopped based on existing rules), why wouldn't they just hide all or some of their clients? In other words, the only thing this would accomplish is create a chilling effect or otherwise stigmatize those who would otherwise be acting in good faith.
   • Pushes companies towards The Dark Path: - It's yet another move to stigmatize doing COI editing properly; yet another move to push companies who want to change their articles into the shadows; yet another move which pushes people towards bad advice and away from good advice.
   • No evidence of a problem: There is exactly zero evidence of any harm to the project, let alone any problem that this change would solve. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC) Updated to add the last three. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

   So, just to play devil's advocate: we can't know whether there's been harm because we don't know which articles to look at. So saying there's no evidence of a problem...are we going to check every article about a current org or BLP to confirm there's no evidence of a problem? I don't think we should ask for retroactive disclosure, that's not fair, especially when he did announce he was going to do this. And I assume he's checking those articles himself regularly to make sure things aren't going sideways on any of them, that should be part of the job. But since he can't edit them himself, if he does see a problem, how does he even fix it without outing a client? Valereee (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

   @Valereee If someone with a COI sees a problem with an article they can use the {{Edit COI}} template to make an edit request. This does not require (or even provide a parameter for) the reason why the editor has (or might have) a COI so there is no outing involved. Thryduulf (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

   Thinking a bit more about this, edit requests work when the issue is something precise that can be expressed in a Change X to Y format. If the issue isn't that clear, what the editor with the COI can do is to start a talk page discussion about it, framing it along the lines of "I think X but I'd like another opinion" so that the issue is highlighted, no changes are made in contravention of any policies and nobody gets outed. Thryduulf (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

   Yeah, I know. I kind of feel like if someone were in this situation, they might be reluctant to do that at an org or blp, but obviously YMMV. Valereee (talk) 10:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

   Why? This is a genuine question as I cannot understand why you think someone who has Wikipedia's interests at heart (which they must in order to be in the situation of seeing a problem but not editing it due to COI concerns) would decide not to highlight an issue on a BLP or organisation's article but instead not highlight it. Thryduulf (talk) 07:27, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

   And I hope you'll take this as a genuine answer and not accuse me of assuming bad faith. They might be reluctant to declare they have a COI with the article because by doing so, they out their client. Again, YMMV, but if I were in that situation, it might feel like a quandary to me. Valereee (talk) 12:05, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

   In the extreme situation where declaring that you have a COI with the article, but not what or why, would out the client then they can just start a discussion on the talk page as above - there is no need to mention anything about COIs. I would even say that adding the COI edit template while editing as an IP to avoid outing would be within the spirit of the rules as it is not being done to evade scrutiny, indeed it's asking for scrutiny of the proposed edit. Thryduulf (talk) 20:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

   Yeah, that's a good solution. Valereee (talk) 13:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

3. Oppose: This addresses a problem that has not yet been detected as existing (where such advertised paid advising leads to inappropriate adminning), creates another discouragement to being an admin, and any real problem is already addressed by existing COI guidelines. The admin should definitely avoid editing/doing admin functions where it's a strong COI, such as a current paid client, but should only have to reveal if they work on Wikipedia is a matter where they have a weak COI (i.e., "I advised Villainous Oil Co five years ago on matters unrelated to The Horrible Orphanage Explosion Scandal and have had no ongoing work with since".) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

   Detected being the key word there. How do we know that Cullen328 hasn't used his tools on behalf of his clients, since he refuses to tell us who they are? How do we know that there aren't more admins like him? Requiring disclosure is a necessary first step to finding out the extent of the problem, so opposing as "a solution in search of a problem" sounds like circular reasoning to me. – Joe (talk) 08:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

   This sounds like "How do we know that he has stopped beating his wife, since he refuses to tell us that he has? How do we know there aren't more people who haven't stopped beating their wives?" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

   I don't see it. Cullen has given us ample grounds for suspicion – he has told us he has been paid to help people create articles, but won't say who they are. Before this I would have called him the most respected and honourable admin we have, so I do get why others have enough faith in him to leave it at that, but I don't share it. Money has changed hands, and it's reasonable to want to verify that nothing untoward has happened because of it. – Joe (talk) 10:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

   Money has changed hands and therefore all assumption of good faith goes out the window in favour of assumption of the worst possible faith. Knowing who Cullen's clients are will not even let us verify that nothing untoward has happened or if it has it has any relation to anything Cullen has done, for the reasons explained repeatedly elsewhere on this page. Thryduulf (talk) 10:49, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

   Yeah, I can own that. I don't assume any good faith on the part of editors who have money on the line. That's not a reflection on their character, just the sad fact of the world we live in. To put things more concretely, I would like to check that Cullen (or any other editor in this situation) has not directly edited articles relating to any of their consulting clients. Is that really so unreasonable? – Joe (talk) 11:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

   Thryduulf, knowing who is willing to pay lets us know which articles to take a look at because it lets us know which article subjects are willing to pay to have some influence over articles about them. That is one of the benefits of our paid editing disclosure policy: even if the paid editors are completely ethical, the next one along might not be, so it's best to keep an eye on these articles.

   Having worked with Jim as much as I have, I don't believe he'd ever do anything to intentionally harm WP. I don't believe he'd act in bad faith, and I don't believe he'd encourage anyone else to, either. But he's educating someone who is basically an SPA -- someone who wants to influence a specific article or articles. That's fine, but it needs disclosure. Valereee (talk) 18:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

   There are multiple unsupported assumptions in this comment (once again you've opted for just about the absolute worst faith assumption possible) - someone who is paying for advice wants to learn how to do things properly, they don't want undue influence, they don't necessarily even want to do anything related to an article about anything they have a COI with. The person being educated is no more or less likely to be an SPA than anyone seeking unpaid advice about Wikipedia is. Finally, even if everything you say were true and backed by evidence, this proposal would not give us any useful information with which to prioritise our watching efforts. Thryduulf (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

   @Thryduulf:

   1. Please immediately stop accusing me of bad faith because I don't think undisclosed paid advising is okay. You have done this multiple times, and I've objected multiple times. I am not assuming bad faith. I am saying we need disclosure. You are free to disagree, but it is not ABFing to think we do.
   2. This proposal would give us the useful information that X company or Y musician was willing to pay to influence the article about them. So we can watch those articles. You may not think knowing which 8 out of 6 million need more scrutiny is helpful, and that's fine, but it is not ABF for me to think so.

   Valereee (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

   This proposal would give us the useful information that X company or Y musician was willing to pay to influence the article about them. no it would not. It would give us information that X or Y was willing to pay to receive advice on how to properly interact with Wikipedia. Assuming that the only reason someone might do this is to gain influence over their article contrary to our policies is the assumption of bad faith I'm observing here, which corresponds to your repeated assumptions that the only reason someone would engage in advising for pay is to engage in (undisclosed) paid editing by proxy or otherwise act in a manner contrary to the goals of the project. Thryduulf (talk) 18:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

   They want to pay an admin for advice and ensure he doesn't disclose he's advised them. I think that means we should keep an eye on their article. That's not assuming they're acting in bad faith. It's just assuming we may need to keep an eye on the article. Valereee (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

   Look, this is just a disagreement we're having. Yes, I assume someone is paying for advice not because they want to be good internet citizens but because they want to figure out how to influence the article about them in a way they prefer without other editors getting in their way. It's great that they want to do learn how to do it without causing disruption, and I hope they'll do that. But of course they also want to do it in a way that won't attract hostile attention so that their version is the one that sticks. That's just corporate and human nature. It's not ABF to assume in general people and corporations want what they want and don't want to have to fight over it. But please can't you just AGF about me? I'm arguing this because I think it's best for the project. Valereee (talk) 19:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

4. Oppose I also believe that this is a solution in search of a problem, and that the proposal assumes the worst of the people the community has found worthy of trust. We don't need it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
   • Could you explain this? I think it's very standard to expect folks to disclose conflicts of interest. I don't think it's a lack of trust--we're trusting them to *do* the disclosure. Rather it sets a guideline for behavior. You are welcome to consult for pay about Wikipedia, but you should disclose that to the community. With proper disclosure rules, we might not have seen some of the issues arising at the US Supreme Court these days. I honestly buy that the COI issues were thought by those involved to be legal and acceptable. But with disclosure the fact that most everyone else disagrees would have been make clear much much earlier and the problems would thereby be much lessened. Hobit (talk) 04:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

     I make it a point not to discuss my !votes, thanks. Either I have made my point or I have not. In any event, I have expressed my preference. Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

5. Oppose due to three points:
   • I wholeheartedly do not think policy changes in this space should solely target admins. If there is a problem its broader. Per Wehwalt: the proposal assumes the worst of the people the community has found worthy of trust.; and Rhododendrites The worst case scenarios are already covered by WP:TOOLMISUSE..
   • The change also is ambigious per Rhododendrites What does it mean to "solicit"?.
   • It doesn't close the various policy gaps where off-wiki activities by one individual lead to disruptive or disceptive on-wiki actions. Despite what people claim above, WP:MEAT and WP:PROXYING do not prevent this. The closest you might get a throwaway remark in Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Sharing_an_IP_address which states Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit with the same objectives.. That is the beginning of a policy, and there would be value in beefing this up to something more substantial that applied to all users.

   I agree with the spirit of Rhododendrites point that We should not be trying to create rules for what someone can and cannot do with their lives when it does not involve any (a) on-wiki activity at all but not the specificity of the context. Which is that I do think there should be accountability for individuals where off-wiki activity results in on-wiki disruption, even if they were not the one pushing the buttons. Enforcement of this probably sits with Arbcom, but unless Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Sharing_an_IP_address is considered good enough; I'd like a little more detail rather than relying on overly broad interpretations. Seddon ^talk 20:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

   Oppose, too narrow. This should apply to anyone engaged in this type of work, not just admins. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

6. Oppose as a solution in search of a problem. I am the administrator whose off-Wikipedia training and consulting work led to this discussion. Let me affirm at the outset that every bit of my off-Wikipedia activities have been in full compliance with the letter and the spirit of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and that if a policy change is made now, I will comply without hesitation going forward. On November 3, 2022, at 06:38 UTC, I posted the following disclosure on the Administrator's Noticeboard: I want to disclose that I may possibly engage in some paid off-Wikipedia consulting and training work, related to Wikipedia article creation. I will not edit Wikipedia directly for any such client but may advise potential clients about policies, guidelines and best practices. Feel free to ask me for clarification. This is the type of advice that I already provide at the Teahouse and the Help Desk. There were no objections. Had there been, I would have taken any such feedback into account. Shortly thereafter, I posted the following on my User page: I do some training and consulting about editing off-Wikipedia, but do not engage in any paid editing on Wikipedia. I thought it would have been useful if Barkeep49 had reported these relevant facts when this discussion began but that editor declined to do so despite my asking by email twice. So, for 12 days, the skimpiest of facts about my actual activities have been followed by wild speculation by various editors about get-rich-quick administrators collaborating with evil corporations scheming to bypass our content policies. Nothing could be further from the truth. To date, I have earned US $1290.00 total over nearly 11 months with possibly another $135.00 to come if a current client is not scared away by this discussion. This is a tiny percentage of my current income. I have been approached by 37 potential clients and only 8 of them hired me. This is because I am always crystal clear with potential clients that I do not edit Wikipedia for paying clients and that I provide ethical consulting and training services only. Through my interaction with the 29 potential clients that did not hire me, I have learned a lot about the undeclared paid editing marketplace which I believe makes me a more effective administrator. Despite the disbelief of some editors who have commented previously, I have actually been paid by a few clients to tell them in great detail that their topic is not notable and precisely why. Some editors have expressed the opinion that my actions express disrespect for the Teahouse and the Help Desk. The fact is that I have been among the most active contributors at those places for quite a few years, and continue helping there regularly. I also want to report that I have been approached by email by two ArbCom members about this matter, and that I replied quickly, fully and frankly. It seems that a few people are actually prepared to pay for personalized, policy compliant, in-depth help from knowledgeable people, and that is the type of service that I have tried to offer. I am opposing this specific policy language because I believe that anyone hiring a consultant or trainer has an implicit expectation of privacy, and that none of my clients has agreed to allow me disclose their personally identifying information, and that disclosing names of off-Wikipedia clients here on Wikipedia is incompatible with the type of ethical service that I had hoped to offer. So, if there is consensus among the community that this type of disclosure is required, then I will simply stop offering the services in question. Cullen328 (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

   Clearly I have been unsuccessful so far but let me try again to explain my thinking. While this discussion was sparked by you Cullen, it's not about you. My goal is to increase transparency for admins getting paid to advise people about Wikipedia. The goal is not to sanction you in some way - if it was all the mitigating context you gave would have mattered. But I don't think you've violated any rules and I don't think you have any ill intent towards the project, which is why I have said repeatedly that I don't think you have done anything The outcome of this RfC matters for all admin not just you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

   @Cullen328: in advising your clients, have you ever used the viewdeleted permission? For example, in the course of advising a client, did you ever look at a deleted article to see why it was deleted? Levivich (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

   Levivich, I do not recall looking at any deleted article on behalf of a paying client, and will be careful to never do so. I have declined two clients since this discussion began. Cullen328 (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

   Before engaging a client, what measures do you take to inform them of the free resources that exist to help newcomers navigate Wikipedia? I'm interested specifically in whether you give them a fair and accurate impression of the level of time and detail a volunteer would typically expend on what seems to be a relatively simple and common query (can I have a Wikipedia article?). Furthermore, are you aware of the CC license requirement that you shall not give clients the impression you are endorsed by or affiliated with Wikipedia in any way, if as I presume, you use Wikipedia materials in your advice and training? I am thinking specifically of your statement that clients take your status as a Wikipedia Administrator as reassurance you know what you are talking about. Last but not least, regardless of the disclosure issue, do you think a code of practice for Wikipedia consulting would be a good idea, and if so, have you given much thought as to what that notional document would contain and how it relates to the way you have conducted your business so far? Edson Makatar (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

7. Oppose. First, it is not clear that a problem exists that needs solving. Second, even if paid advice is problematic, there is no reason to assume that admins need to be observed more closely than non-admins. Third, why should it matter whether the admin is "soliciting for clients"? Fourth, if we assume all this bad faith of evil admins, should we really demand that they advertise their nefarious business on their user page? —Kusma (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

   Maybe someone can make up a "Have Mop, Will Travel" poster, Old-West style? Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

8. Oppose I agree with almost all the points above. Additionally, even after all the discussion prior to the RFC, I'm still not convinced that requiring an admin (or anyone else) to disclose this will bring any benefits to the project. If someone discloses: "I advised Joe Bloggs", "SmallTown Parish Council", "SmallTown Grocery Co", and "SmallTown Association" about Wikipedia" we learn nothing of value about what advice was given, whether the advice was followed, whether any edits were made, or indeed anything other than it is very likely that both the admin and Joe Bloggs are located in SmallTown. The prior discussion shows there will be accusations of UPE and other bad faith actions on the part of the admin, anybody they advise and unconnected editors editing any related topics, regardless of evidence. If the advice was followed then the project will have benefited from edits that were in accordance with policy and/or a lack of edits that are not. If the advice was not followed then the reputation of the disclosing admin will suffer even though they did everything right. Thryduulf (talk) 01:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
9. Advertising oneself as an admin on such websites seems bad to me and maybe we should have a rule against that. But as for this proposal, I continue to believe less advice like this would be a negative. Rhododendrites's first point explains this well and I agree with it in full. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
10. Oppose, essentially per Cullen328 and Thryduulf. If passed, this proposal will surely lead to fewer organisations seeking advice on how to edit ethically and in line with Wikipedia policy. We should want them to learn from people like Cullen328, and they should not be publicly identified for trying to do the right thing. Public identification of such clients would mean public suspicion and public shaming (because that's just the way things work around here). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

    Just to add, I'd support a requirement for the kind of disclosure that Cullen328 currently has on his user page, but not a requirement to identify clients. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

    I've been following this discussion with indifference, but this comment has alarmed me. Everything that we do here is built on transparency. Anyone can see any edit I've made in the past 13 years, and if I were to try to edit anonymously and do bad, I know that there are systems in place to analyze that as well. All of the morally admirable organizations I've worked with in the past (not with regard to Wikipedia, to be clear) advocate for transparency; these are organizations that work with NGOs and whatnot where complete transparency is essential for building trust. So when I hear fear-based arguments regarding mysterious organizations that don't want to disclose connections, I'm even more suspicious about what could be going on here. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 06:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

    This is connections that might or might not be realised, before they've even decided whether or not to try editing Wikipedia. Organisations and their representatives are still required to declare their COI if they do actually make any edits. But requiring them to self-identify when even just thinking about editing and seeking advice is taking it into the realms of thoughtcrime. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

    You forgot to explain why the exchange of money has to be a part of this notional confidential advice line. Nobody on Wikipedia should be teaching anyone that the way to ethically engage with Wikipedia is to combine money with secrecy. That's just common sense. Edson Makatar (talk) 23:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

11. Oppose per Cullen328. I agree that the wild and unhelpful speculation has led to people getting hysterical over a problem that doesn't exist, and that Cullen328 has explained himself adequately in extremely convincing detail. The failure of those to respond to his requests for clarification speaks volumes, and makes this sound like a lynch mob. Boing! said Zebedee also makes a good point that people are going to try and pay to get Wikipedia edited regardless of any policy changes here, which they don't care about, so we might as well make sure they do it the right way, otherwise they'll do it the wrong way instead. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
12. Oppose. I can see why the supporters dislike the idea of admins soliciting paid advising, but I think this proposal requires those doing so to give out information that will be useless, does nothing to protect the encyclopedia, and institionalizes an assumption of bad faith. Opposers above make other good points, which I won't repeat. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
13. Oppose - An excessive overreaction, and per BSZ, most likely it won't even solve the issue that we're trying to address by doing this or will actually worsen the problem. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
14. Solely because it does not apply to all editors. —Cryptic 12:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
15. Oppose per many above. A solution in search of a problem bordering on a moral panic. Let's stick to regulating what people actually do on this website. Those who care about the rules, like Cullen, wouldn't do anything nefarious anyway, and those who don't won't be stopped by our policies. Finally, people are going to pay for advice and edits anyway; I'd rather they got good advice from someone like Cullen than turn to someone with fewer scruples (cf Orangemoody). PS, the man has to eat! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

    PS, the man has to eat! – I'm surprised your the first person to bring this up, because I think it's actually the strongest argument against not just this proposal but our paid editing rules in general. I've worked a lot in UPE enforcement, which is to say that I've used my admin tools to remove a source of income from dozens of people. Most of those people have been from countries much poorer than the ones I've lived in, where opportunities to get the kind of job I have (which gives me enough time and money to volunteer for Wikipedia on the side) are virtually non-existent. I feel fucking awful about that, and I've thought long and hard about whether it's the right thing to do. Ultimately I think it is, because as much as I can sympathise with people needing money and seeing an opportunity to get that from the work they do for Wikipedia, it just isn't compatible with the project's continued existence and integrity. In other words, if we all started editing on behalf of paying customers, Wikipedia's reputation would be in tatters, and the money tap would be turned off for everyone.

    We get annoyed with repeat undisclosed paid editors because they are people who know that they're not allowed to make money off this project, but covertly try to do it anyway. This proposed new requirement is aimed solely at admins, to whom that logic applies a thousand times over. You cannot be invested enough in this project to pass RfA without knowing full well that there's no money it. You know it, you've accepted it, and part of your job is making sure others know it, or else. To then turn around and say "hey, I need to eat too!" is deeply hypocritical. If we say that regular paid editing, the kind that basically anyone with sufficient English literacy can do, is constrained by all these rules, but that more rarefied forms like 'consulting' or 'training' are fair game, we are quite explicitly also saying that the only people who are really allowed to profit from Wikipedia are the people with the existing social and economic means to work their way into its elite. I cannot think of a more unfair solution to the question of paid editing. – Joe (talk) 06:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

    I've seen this discussion play out with people who run scams in call centres in India. None of them want to scam old IT-illiterate ladies, but they can't get a job anywhere else and would struggle to pay the bills otherwise. However, the amount of money that Cullen328 is talking about is, to be honest, chump change. Without wishing to turn this into a bragging contest, I earned more in 6 weeks playing piano at weddings and corporate functions than Cullen328 did over 11 months advising people on how to edit Wikipedia. He's already said that he'll simply stop all consulting activities if consensus is against it, so "the man has to eat!" isn't really a suitable argument in this instance. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

    That he has to eat is not the main thrust of my argument, but really I never thought it was relevant that somebody was paid for their edits. I've blocked more spammers than most admins and I don't stop to consider whether they're being paid because a volunteer spammer is no more beneficial to the encyclopaedia than a paid one. Likewise, if someone writes a neutral, well-sourced article, I'm not really interested in whether they earnt money for it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

16. Oppose mostly per Cullen and Kusma. A solution in search of a problem, leading to further complication of rules. I do not see why a distinction between admins and non-admins is relevant here either. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
17. Oppose after reading Cullen's explanation as well as the comments from others. Andre🚐 22:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
18. Oppose. I've run a few consulting businesses, none of which have anything to do with Wikipedia. Under this proposal, almost no one would be able to run a Wikipedia consulting business unless they a.) failed to disclose or b.) didn't take any clients. I don't think it's wise to prohibit admins from doing it. It's a noble idea, but when it comes to practice, it's misguided. It would only cost us good Admins, or turn good Admins unethical. No. Jacona (talk) 22:45, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

    Why would we want to enable people to run Wikipedia consulting businesses? – Joe (talk) 05:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

    Because people will discover you get what you pay for and use them! Ideally having good paid Wikipedia consultants will drive all the crappy ones (who don't care about our rules) out of businesses and they'll realise that doing a crap job doesn't pay. As Cullen328 says, part of his paid consultancy involves saying "no" to people. That's just the sort of professional services we need. I've often said there are tasks, such as fully-referencing all BLPs and clearing the CCI backlog, that will never ever happen as long as there is not financial reward for doing it. The community has confused "paid editing" with "bad paid editing" for far too long, and thrown the baby out with the bathwater. As an analogy, nobody loses their head over Linus Torvalds being paid to hack Linux. A free operating system! The Wikipedia content is free; the editing process doesn't have to be. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

    Whether one would love to get paid, it still requires disclosure of the arrangement. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

    And it's not forbidden to get paid for your work on Wikipedia. You just have to disclose, first, that you're being paid, and second (and more critically) who is paying you. If someone wants to offer money for clearing CCIs or referencing BLPs, that's fine, but the rest of the community should know that's going on in order to watch for issues. When money gets involved, it has the potential for causing problems like almost nothing else does. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

19. Oppose per PackMecEng, Rhododendrites, and others who have worded things much better than I could (although I’ll still try). I can see a lot of potential negatives here, to what is (in my mind) not that many positives. Yes, disclosure would increase transparency, but I worry that it’d just be transparency for transparency’s sake — and not without probable harm. I worry about how this proposal goes against privacy norms, and the fact that it comes across to me as having an implied mistrust of admins/assumption of bad faith (even if it was not intended in that way). We already have our COI guideline and paid editing policy. If Admin X was paid for advice by Person Y, I think it’s fair to say that Admin X will have a conflict of interest with regard to articles connected to Person Y, and - per our current guidelines - would be expected to declare that COI if and when they wanted to make a change to such an article. This is already dependent on trust - trust that an admin will declare a COI when wishing to edit such an article. As far as I can see, the system for declaring paid advice would also be dependent on trust. So - as others have also said - I honestly don’t see what benefit such a mandated disclosure would bring that isn’t already covered by our existing policies and guidelines — but I can see potential for real-world harm. I just can’t see how this passes cost-benefit analysis. All the best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 08:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
20. Oppose Too easy to game, too difficult to prove, not strong enough. I would support a ban that would disallow admin from being paid to edit from 3rd parties. Including by using a secondary account, etc. (Not the same as editing an article or topic for their employer or their own singular business, which is already covered by COI). I think the spirit of this proposal is not so bad, but it's just too weak to be of any use, so it just becomes another weak layer of bureaucracy that can be wiki-lawyered. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
21. Oppose per WP:CREEP and unintended consequences. This is much too broadly worded - it's a reasonable interpretation that any administrator who has ever or will ever discuss Wikipedia in a workplace context will then be compelled by the policy to publicly disclose their place of work. In any other context that level of sensitive personal information about non-notable individuals would be revdeleteable (WP:RD2), and for good reason: revealing one's employer connects one's Wikipedia persona with their real-life identity rather easily, which exposes administrators to rather serious real-life harassment. There likely would be legal consequences as well depending on their employer's social media or use of technology policies. And it doesn't solve any identifiable problem - per Barkeep's original post here, the admin in question isn't doing anything of concern, we've just spent a ridiculous amount of words trying to invent a scenario where this might be objectionable, and then invented a rule that is a gross overreaction to solving this imaginary problem and also doesn't solve it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
22. Oppose. I had to think about this very carefully, and I could see myself supporting a revised version of this proposal, but I feel like the community will have to put more thought into this before a change in policy will be ready for enactment. First of all, I want to say that Cullen328 is one of my absolute favorite people around here, and is someone I happily trust to act in the project's best interests. But I do feel like advertising on Upwork that one is available to be hired to give advice about how to edit is something that the community should define some boundaries for. I think that the word "soliciting" in the proposal is a key aspect, and it needs some refining. For me, the soliciting or advertising of services is where the potential for problems begins. That distinguishes it from things like having a conversation while driving, or having been invited to give a talk, or being the instructor in a class editing project. When one puts oneself out there, to all comers, as being available for pay, that opens up a specific kind of potential conflict, that the other scenarios do not. To some extent, I think the additional message that one is an admin compounds the situation, although I also think that we should have a policy on this that applies to everyone, and not just to admins. So I'd like to see some sort of transparency about advertising this sort of thing. And I want to make clear that I don't think the problem is about making money based on Wikipedia. And I also think that giving good advice is a good thing, not a bad one. Also, I'm not convinced that we should want to make everyone who advertises in this way list all their clients. I feel like there is a subset of that, as yet undefined, where the problem really resides. If someone has gotten a client, and the client appears not to be following advice, then there starts to be something that should be revealed... to someone. But maybe not posted onsite. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
23. Oppose per Boing! said Zebedee. Ajpolino (talk) 21:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

    Also per Boing, I'd likely support a disclosure of the type Cullen currently has on his user page (i.e. a general disclosure that one consults for pay regarding Wikipedia editing). Ajpolino (talk) 21:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

    Just for the record, Cullen328 does not explicitly declare that he consults for pay on his talk page. What he writes could be reasonably (mis)understood to mean that he does so on a voluntary basis: "I do some training and consulting about editing off-Wikipedia, but do not engage in any paid editing on Wikipedia". It does appear that he's complied with the spirit of the ToS requirement that he provide a direct link to his Wikipedia account by linking to articles he's created. (Technically I can't verify that without an account, but the ad says he links to examples of his work.) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 19:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

    Side note: disclosing one's Wikipedia account isn't a terms of use requirement, but an English Wikipedia requirement passed by RfC. isaacl (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

24. Oppose per Tryptofish. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 21:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

    Oppose If someone stops advising for money, do they get to remove the disclosure? What if they quit for a week? Also, even if there is an issue to solve, asking admins to put what is effectively an ad on their talk pages just makes it easier for clients to shop around. What sort of solution would that be? Malibu Sapphire (talk) 06:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

25. Oppose. 1) Cullen's comments above have clarified that there is no urgent, immediate problem to solve here. 2) We have reasonably insisted all paid-COI editors disclose, since absent bright-line policies on that, there would be a never-ending supply of paid editing done by editors not only with a conflict of interest, but with limited interest and experience with wikipedia otherwise; that is unlikely the case with an admin with a long history on the project who is also advising someone, paid or not. 3) We tend to overindex our concern about bias on paid COI, and neglect equally pernicious bias/COI from passionate interests and ideological convictions (bias is bias whether it's due to $ or merely ardent fervour!); this proposal while well-intentioned doubles down on this overindexing. Martinp (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
26. Oppose – I think any problematic activity is covered by COI guidelines already. The only real thing that isn't is knowledge about which subjects have asked for advising, but that just isn't a strong argument to me, because they'll just do it under the table instead if they care about staying anonymous. We don't require anyone who's asked about making edits to a page in any circumstance to declare – I have been asked before by a family member to edit a person's page, which I declined because I feel I have a COI there, and I explained how they would need to go about editing it because they also have a COI; do I need to declare which page it is? If I ever become an admin, would I need to declare which page it is? I'm willing to raise the issue if a problem occurs on that page without editing further, and I think that should be what admins advised do if they see COI policy-violating paid editing on a page made by their client, but if that's all they do (raise the issue), they can declare their COI then, as opposed to beforehand. We trust our admins to have the best interest of the project in mind, and this just feels like unnecessary rules for the sake of avoiding a potential disaster that doesn't seem likely to happen to me. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
27. Oppose. This proposal would involve unworkable and problematic scrutiny of the off-project activities of our admins. Paid/COI editing is one thing: in that instance, the oversight pertains to an expressly on-project activity. Contributors, mops included, should be considered to be entitled to a staunch firewall between their on-project conduct and any opinions and perspectives shared about the encyclopedia and its processes and culture while they are off project--even if those outlooks take the form of practical advice, and irrespective of whether that advice is given for personal or professional reasons. Attempting to force disclosure of relationships which do not involve direct alteration of content would involve a significant abrogation of this project and community's existing priorities regarding user (and third party!) privacy.
    In my opinion, such a step would be cure worse than the disease even if we suspected some sort of widespread abuse related to such activity, but the fact that we are discussing this in a context which has been (quite accurately, in my opinion) described as a solution in search of a problem makes the advisability of such extreme alteration of our organizational priorities even more of a inadvisable and perplexing proposal. I mean, under this proposal as written, there are obvious scenarios of where it would potentially ask the admin to violate professional or ethical canons of their profession in a way that they are clearly not going to be able to do, putting them in very difficult circumstances here indeed, with absolutely no reason to believe their conduct is likely to result in violation of our guideline, nor any other form of bad faith or disruptive conduct. Talk about a disincentive for certain types of professionals every volunteering themselves for the bit, even if they would be capable and useful in the role.
    I'm sorry, I don't wish to hyperbolically inflate the intensity of the debate here, but this seems like a very poorly thought-out proposal, and if I am blunt, part of a pattern or similarly concerning proposals over the last year or two where certain arbs and prominent admins have repeatedly sought to vitiate the privacy barrier and distinction between on- and off-project activity that the community wisely instituted at the core of this project's identity for numerous pragmatic reasons. As here, these proposals often are advanced on the grounds of of the same sort of highly speculative, ambiguously defined, and/or simply insufficient supposed problems as justification for eroding that important divide between our on and off-project lives.
    We're not talking about COI editing here: every volunteer contributor of this project, admins included, should feel free to share their perspective about the project (and its processes, systems, community, and culture) with anyone when outside the project, regardless of context--without concern that they are going to be asked to report it. Similarly they should be able to be confident that the administrative apparatus of this community is not going to try to follow them off project to investigate them for compliance with standards that invade their wholly off-project relationships and communications. This is a terrible direction to even consider moving in. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
    • None of that is true, the proposal is for Admins on-wiki activity of disclosing real and potential conflict-of-interest. They can go consult about us for money, for say the government of Turkiya, but they need to be willing to be honest here about it. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
28. Appears to be a solution in search of a problem. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
29. Oppose - Outing and undue harrasment concerns. Existing policy should be good enough to cover these cases by a) disallowing use of admins tools for paid work b) requiring disclosure at the level of normal editors. -- Sohom (talk) 07:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
30. 'Oppose as a non-solution in search of a problem. I am in favor of making a disclosure similar to what Cullen328 has already made on his user page, although (because I find myself often in disagreement with Cullen328 so I have to find something to pick at here) his disclosure could be improved by mentioning that he has been paid for advising. Any bureaucratic requirement we add to the already ponderous bulk of them isn't going to solve anything that isn't already covered by existing policies. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
31. I am not convinced this is an actual problem in need of solving. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
32. Oppose generally per Snow Rise including their response to Joe Roe, particularly the last paragraph of their oppose (and Cullen). Frankly I don't see how advising companies on how to edit wikipedia properly is a problem. Advising could also bring the project a better reputation if it sees better quality contributions from companies that are advised (however, I think that all arguments involving Wikipedia's reputation are weak due to how hypothetical they are). —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 02:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

    The comment in your diff is from User:Snow Rise, not User:SoWhy. – Joe (talk) 13:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

    Gah! Thanks for pointing that out. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 02:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

33. Oppose as this is about controlling what people do outside of Wikipedia, and not affecting what happens in Wikipedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
34. Oppose. Solution in search of a problem. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 13:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
35. Opppose specifically because of the requirement to disclose clients. Snow Rise's comment, along with others discussion privacy, gives me a lot of pause. I understand the desire to do something for this issue, but I don't think this is it. Alyo (chat·edits) 13:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
36. Oppose What really matters is UPE, and that is already covered by policy for all users including admins including for disclosure. IMO it's not a good idea to force Admins to do the extreme measure of partially outing themselves for vaguer reasons outside of this even if that does have some benefits. North8000 (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

    In the event that one of Cullen's clients follows his advice, creates a perfectly neutral article, but doesn't declare who they are, what happens then? They have presumably broken their commercial agreement with Cullen and the Wikipedia rules against conflict of interest editing, but crucially, they didn't actually pay anyone to write their article. According to Cullen's logic in defending his manner of profiting from Wikipedia, this is a victimless crime and his client's obvious desire for privacy trumps any theoretical obligation he would feel to expose them. Does Cullen then watch this article forever, to guard against the client later turning it into more of an advertorial? After all, nobody else would have any reason to be exercising vigilance, because of his secrecy. And since that client now has in their history a legitimate looking record of creating a good article and no declared connection, they would have the advantage over some random person trying to stop them making subsequent changes. Perhaps they even inadvertently learn from Cullen's expert advice that the best way to fly under the radar of Wikipedia's eternal vigilance is to be subtle. Add news of your new wonder product, sourced only to your press release, just don't describe it as such in Wikipedia. All of a sudden, Cullen realizes he is compromised. A smart client will easily and quickly realize that they can have him over a barrel. He clearly worries about what potential clients think of his offering, one of which is confidentiality. He would obviously report a client if they flagrantly ignore his advice and drive a truck through Wikipedia's rules and conventions. But if they only skirt the rules, violate the spirit but not the letter, what does he do then? Does he risk it all for the good of Wikipedia. Does he do the right thing and lose all future work, just because one client bent the rules a little bit? Where's the crime? Who got hurt? What is there in his history of volunteer work here to even inform anyone what he might do in that scenario? The people expecting to see proof of harm before they will do a simple and standard thing like require transparency, are showing a shocking level of naivety. The harm could already be out there. Edson Makatar (talk) 13:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

37. Oppose per most of the reasons argued adequately above, and possibly for some I have not thought of yet. My gut feel here is that there would be additional undesirable unintended consequences. Also if a behavioural standard in important enough to insist on it being applied to admins outside of their use of the tools, it should be important enough to apply to everyone, and this rule would apply outside of the use of the tools, so I consider it discriminatory. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 19:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
38. Oppose Per above. Reeks of instruction creep and I'm still not convinced that this is actually solving a real problem. -FASTILY 20:50, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
39. Weak oppose, can be changed to support for the $100 mentioned in discussion below. Hiding T 17:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
40. Oppose Given the comments by various parties here, this seems more of a witch hunt than a useful proposal. As such, even if there might be a good idea in here somewhere it seems too likely to be taken to extremes in practice. Anomie⚔ 22:05, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
41. Oppose: I believe I take a hard line on COI policy and what topics I stay away from or mark as "COI edits". However, I don't see what problem is being solved here and instruction creep is a worry. It is not forbidden to monetise your Wikipedia reputation in other ways, such as starting a YouTube channel with advert revenue. A good faith actor could reasonably not realise this policy is in place. Or have privacy concerns.
    I don't see why admins should be treated differently in our COI policy. I could tell a client that I'm autopatrolled (so my creations are "automatically approved") or "in the top 3000 editors"—or lie about being a "moderator". I don't think any of them would know any different.
    Cullen328 has my full support (not that I think he needs it). — Bilorv (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

    Starting a YouTube channel is a false analogy; it is a transparent action. Everyone can see what an editor/admin/whomever has done. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 08:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

42. Oppose: Per reasoning of User:Snow Rise. --— Charles Stewart (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
43. Oppose. When the question was raised, I didn't have a strong feeling either way, so I sat back and let the discussion play out. After reading all of the support/oppose reasonings and the extensive back-and-forth below, I'm convinced that advising is not a problem that needs to be addressed. Schazjmd (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
44. Oppose. I generally am in favor of transparency for all editors, not just admins, however, the concerns raised in this section, especially by Snow Rise and Seddon, outweigh imho any potential benefits of such a rule. Regards SoWhy 13:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
45. Oppose Solution in search of a problem. --GRuban (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
46. Oppose. Poorly written mess with lots of potential unintended consequences. Also, any policy like this should apply to all users. Anyone can claim to be an editor, which is usually a prestigious position at most publications, and even common usergroups like autopatrolled, new page reviewer, extended confirmed, etc. can be spun as being useful for clients. If this was restricted to paid advising that was functionally identical to UPE (e.g. I "advise" the client to submit a draft article that I wrote), that might be worth explicitly clarifying in WP:UPE, but this is not that. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
47. Oppose I am unconvinced this is necessary. What matters is paid editing, and we already have policies covering that. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
48. Oppose. After being initially on the fence on this proposal, I've read through large portions of this discussion at various points, and increasingly find myself thinking that this proposal is a bad idea. Specifically, it represents a significant erosion of privacy for good-faith editors, and I don't see it as solving the problem it purports to solve, as anyone who would be giving malicious or bad-faith advice would likely just flout the new rule regardless. I've seen no evidence that the question of paid advising goes beyond this one case, and I don't feel convinced that our current policies are inadequate in this area or that this proposal would improve the encyclopedia. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
49. If Cullen328 is helping the project by advising clients about how to edit constructively and neutrally, then we'd be silly to put a stop to that with such bureaucracy. Acalamari 06:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
50. I also advised someone once, and I was harassed and stalked by editors on this stie for years culminating in my near-complete retirement. I only pop in here once in awhile now. Advising is different from editing. This proposal is definitely an extremist attitude and we must draw the bright line at paid edits.--v/r - TP 09:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
51. Strong oppose for privacy reasons. Wikipedia can't require volunteer editors to disclose details of their personal or professional lives, unless it is necessary to avert damage to the project. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
52. oppose - A poorly thought out proposal with no consideration for the ways in which many of us do work with Wikipedia in our professional lives, and actively promote this to others as well (scientists! museum curators! and so on and so forth) -- none of which I think is very controversial in practice. Also, Cullen is a friend, fine contributor and ethical person, and I don't like to see this extended attack-as-RfC. phoebe / (talk to me) 20:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

    So you state a personal conflict-of-interest as Cullen's friend, which can only explain your nonsensical misconstruing of being a paid consultant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

    Thanks to my long history as a conference organizer, I'm friends with literally hundreds of Wikipedians who I have had the pleasure of meeting at events over the last 20 years, and I can agree or disagree with them constructively. My point is simply that Cullen is a valuable and good-faith contributor. As for my "nonsensical misconstruing" - well, I disagree, obviously; I think that there will be a quelling effect with this rule for GLAM contributions, and many questions. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 16:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

    There is no one in the GLAM world, who does not know the difference between private paid consultant gig work, and librarian or scientist or curator. They are entirely different professional arrangements (including here as to subject matter) that are obvious to anyone. For goodness sake, Wikipedian-in-residence, are required to state the COI already. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

    Can you explain how this would have a quelling effect on GLAM contributions? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

53. Oppose per Rhododendrites, Snow Rise, and Thryduulf, among others. I share their concerns about the assumption of bad faith; a disproportionate effect on ethical editors and little, if any, on the unethical ones; as well as damage to the tradition of respect for the privacy of editors. This is showing up as no. 1, and I've no idea why; it should be 53. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 19:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (Required disclosure for admin paid advising)

• @Barnards.tar.gz: actively seek to make money from their adminship - Whether or not the client has any idea they're an admin isn't addressed here. This applies to anyone taking money for advice, but only if they happen to be an admin (regardless of whether the client knows). FWIW. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
• Why just admins? I like the idea, but really this should apply to anyone soliciting such "advising" related work. Note that this is separate from incidental advising, where someone just happens to ask them about Wikipedia, and also from giving general advice such as speaking to a general audience or assisting at an edit-a-thon; this would apply to people actively soliciting or accepting clients to regularly pay them for such "advising" activities. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:14, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
• I'm a little confused by "This expectation will only apply to administrators after the passage of the RfC". Does this mean that a) this expectation applies to only administrators who pass RfA after the RfC is over (a grandfather clause, since pre-RfC administrators aren't affected) or b) it was meant as a reiteration that only administrators are covered by the RfC, not non-administrators or c) the plain reading of the sentence, that the requirement comes into effect after the RfC is passed? If it's option B, then it's very clear that the proposed policy only applies to administrators from the wording of the green text and where it'd be placed. If it's option C, then surely that is the case with all RfCs? No RfC should come into effect before it passes ... Maybe I've completely missed the point here. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Sdrqaz I think the intent is that the policy does not apply retrospectively, i.e. an administrator who solicited paid advising who did not disclose clients they advised at the time would not in breach of this policy. It is unclear if admins who solicit before and after this policy is enacted (if it is) would need to disclose clients they advised before it comes into effect but not afterwards, but I would oppose a requirement to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  Ah, I see: so an option D. Thank you, Thryduulf. Perhaps that sentence should be altered to something like "this expectation will only apply to work undertaken after the passage of the RfC" or something similarly clearer. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  If this RfC passes I hope the closer adopts the wording offered by Sdrqaz here as it was the intent. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:01, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

• I think I could find myself agreeing with something like this if the text were altered to read ...must disclose all clients on their userpage upon request of the Arbitration Committee. Honestly, if there's ever a situation where an admin is doing advising wickedly, the next step is always going to be Arbcom. Publicly listing clients doesn't feel like it should be necessary. We're not required to disclose COIs with subjects we perform no on-wiki edits or actions regarding. I'm not sure what audience this policy change is supposed to capture. Admins honest enough to list their clients, but unethical enough to make COI actions about them?
  There's been zero indication that this practice has led to any bad edits or bad actions. If people think that a side hustle leveraging Wikipedia expertise is against the moral underpinnings of adminship, then they should have an RfC about banning the practice. Cullen has been very forthright about what he does (thank you for self-outing, by the way, so we can stop tiptoeing around it). Personally, I trust him, as an admin who is very engaged and policy literate. If Arbcom believe otherwise, I could support a policy change giving them the power to demand private disclosure of client identities, but I don't think a public listing is the right step to take. Folly Mox (talk) 01:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you, Folly Mox. I "self-outed" today, because specific policy language is on the table now, as opposed to the wild speculation that was dominating this discussion for eleven days. I thought that bringing the actual facts of my case to light now may have some value. Cullen328 (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  In reply to "what audience", I don't think we're looking for admins specifically making paid edits (if they're doing that, current policy requires them to disclose anyway, so we don't need any change for that). Rather, it's more to monitor the effects of this practice. If someone acted as a paid advisor for Acme Corp., then people can keep an eye on articles related to Acme Corp. to see what happened with them afterwards. Nothing? Okay, then maybe the advice dissuaded them from doing something they shouldn't, or convinced them it wouldn't be worth their while. Paid editing done in accordance with policy and in a reasonable way? Great, the advice had a beneficial effect. Paid editing not in accordance with policy? Well, then we know there's a problem; either the advice was bad, or it's not getting followed. Basically, the same purpose of any paid editing/COI disclosure—it just tells people "Hey, there's something going on here you might want to keep an eye on." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  If we subsequently see good or bad edits related to Acme Corp., we still have no idea whether the edits or their quality have been influenced by the admin's advice. For example, unless we require disclosure by the people who listened to the admin's advice, we have no idea whether the people editing Acme Corp. related articles even know that there was such advice. If an admin discloses their clients, a bad faith actor can easily make some socks and try to get some Acme Corp. related material on the Main Page via DYK. Will we blame this on the admin? If yes, this seems unfair. If no, what is the point of the disclosure? —Kusma (talk) 08:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

• Is there anyone currently opposed who would support it with the addition of a USD $100 floor? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  That's a lot of money in many places, and has a varying value even in the United States. Seems odd to set an arbitrary limit like that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  Arbitrary limits are often set for disclosure, ask your tax advisor for more on that one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  The amount of money received is completely irrelevant to the reasons why I oppose this. Thryduulf (talk) 01:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  Also not relevant to my oppose. Wehwalt (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'll support for USD $100, sure! My venmo is (Redacted) Folly Mox (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  Even if it were relevant, $100 is way too low a threshold. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

• I find it extremely concerning that multiple editors regard outing (of editors and clients) as being something of no significance or relevance to the project. Perhaps someone can enlighten me as to how this view is compatible with policy? Thryduulf (talk) 01:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I believe the interplay between WP:COI and WP:OUTING is well explored, but I will leave explaining it to those better versed than me but in general my understanding is that if you want to avoid outing don't edit topics which you have a COI with. The corollary here would be don't engage in significant wiki relevant economic behavior you wouldn't want disclosed or something like that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how this would out any editors. It would reveal clients, but that isn't outing, and is required in cases of paid editing. - Bilby (talk) 07:37, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

You will be outing clients, and outing of clients can out editors (search this page for "SmallTown" and read that comment). In the case of paid editing, outing has been determined to be a necessary evil to protect the encyclopaedia from harmful edits. However, as repeatedly explained, advising is not editing. If it leads to paid editing then that's already covered by policies, if it doesn't then there is nothing to protect encyclopaedia from. Thryduulf (talk) 10:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that naming clients will necessarily involve outing yourself. If that is a risk, I think it is simple to not accept such a client. Even if the "smalltown" example resulted in enough hints to guess you live in the area, that seems incredibly borderline in terms of self-outing, and is extremely easy to avoid. Just don't choose your clients from local businesses. - Bilby (talk) 11:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The point that it is not just the details of the admin that you are demanding to see, but the details of third parties whose details will (make no mistake about this) be used, individually and in combination with other people's details, by good and bad faith actors for unspecified purposes with no checks and balances on how it is used. I just do not buy that this is an acceptable trade off for a theoretical benefit to the project so small that in practice it will be zero. Thryduulf (talk) 14:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

If anything, it would even further discourage adminship, knowing that people are going to be monitoring your off-wiki activities. I can already picture the RfA questions: "Have you ever accepted a payment from anyone for any service or advice pertaining to Wikipedia in any capacity whatsoever? If so, please explain who, when, for what, and why." _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Cue then !votes of "Oppose. In 2020 they advised John Smith, the CFO of Acme Video Game Co since 2022 is called John Smith, their latest game had an article about it at AfD in 2022 that RFA-candidate closed as keep. The candidate must therefore be an undisclosed paid editor who will abuse the tools to benefit their clients" even though there is no evidence that the John Smiths in question are the same person, that the CFO had any knowledge of the article, or that RFA-candidate even knew that someone who might or might not have been a former client subsequently got a job at a company that made a game about which they closed an AfD in line with consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Just personally I would never vote positively in a RFA for a wiki consultant. I imagine that most would agree with me, that candidate isn't getting thought nor is any other candidate whose day job is wiki consultant. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

As I understand it, the proposal is for admins only. Therefore, almost no one at RfA would need to acknowledge providing paid advice as an admin, because they haven't been an admin. - Bilby (talk) 15:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I think you are pushing this beyond reasonable bounds. If, as an admin, you choose to provide advice to a client, before being engaged the first step would be to inform the client that you will need to be transparent that you are working for them. If they disagree you look for work elsewhere. If they agree, you consider whether it would be an issue for you, and if not you work for them while providing the transperancy that is being asked for. I'm not seeing this hypothetical situation in which the name of the company you work for is weaponised. I am seeing value in transperancy, though. - Bilby (talk) 15:16, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

You're missing the point again that it is about the details of the combination of clients that can be used against the admin and against the clients. Joe Bloggs might have no issues with my declaring that I'm advising them, because that doesn't identify them, however if I then subsequently work for LocalCorp and Neighbourhood Ltd and declare that, this could identify Joe Bloggs, despite Joe having no opportunity to consent or not consent to this. Transparency is a find concept in the abstract, but when the transparency has the potential for real world harm and brings no benefits, it's not "beyond reasonable bounds" to regard it as unacceptably intrusive. Thryduulf (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

No, still not seeing it. If Joe Bloggs is ok with you identifying them then you should be able to do so. If you work for other clients, how does that affect Joe Bloggs? And if it is likely to, isn't it your choice whether or not to work for the other clients? You've already acknowledged that you worked for Joe Bloggs, so if working for other clients could identify Joe Bloggs then how does that differ from your earlier acknowledgement?

Fundamentally, any paid editor (or potentially advisor) needs to select their clients in regard to policy. If working for a client puts that client at risk - although I don't see how that can happen - then it that is something to be worked out between them and the client. If future jobs put that client at some sort of hypothetical risk, then it is up to the paid editor (or advisor) to not accept those future jobs. - Bilby (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Imagine that... Mainstream compliance and ethics best practices that apply across any number of industries could be applied to wikipedia consulting, who would have thunk it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

• I am considering opposing, but I want to raise a point here first. This has been pointed out by others in the various discussions above but I haven't seen a response that seems to fully address it. As far as I can see the proposed wording won't achieve anything beneficial to the project. Disclosing paid editing helps because edits made by the disclosing editor can be scrutinized. The policy on meatpuppetry doesn't require disclosure, because we don't expect anyone engaged in it to be willing to disclose it. We have a middle ground here: disclosing gives us nothing to look at except some private information, and those who are advising others how to evade policies are never going to disclose. So we'll have a list of users (and it should be users, if we have such a policy, not admins) about whom we can say that they have received an unknown amount of money for something which is invisible on Wikipedia and the effects of which cannot be connected to them in any way without further outing (since unlike with sockpuppetry we can't ascribe any edits to the advice). Why would we want this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  If an admin discloses that they've been paid to consult with the Acme Corporation, then the community can verify whether they've refrained from making direct edits or actions related to the Acme Corporation. If they don't disclose, we only have the admin's word for it. – Joe (talk) 07:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  This assumes that there are people who are honest enough to declare that they are advising Acme Corp but dishonest enough to engage in undisclosed paid editing. I find the possibility so ridiculously small that it doesn't come close to offering any benefits let alone outweighing all the outing and other serious issues. Indeed it is much more likely that some bad actor will see User:Admin has disclosed they are advising AcmeCorp and use that as a cover to make bad edits to articles related to AcmeCorp in an attempt to obfuscate their identity and/or besmirch the reputation of the admin. Thryduulf (talk) 08:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  OK, so the proposal is a trap for admins who comply with the disclosure requirements but later forget that editing/adminning for pay is not allowed? The target demographic is people ready to break the admin/paid editing policies but at the same time complying with the disclosure rule. I can't really believe that such people exist. —Kusma (talk) 08:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  It's precisely the same logic that underlies our regular paid editing disclosure requirement, and people said the same thing about that, but somehow it works. We have hundreds of blocked accounts that prove that it does. My own theory is that when people have an extrinsic motivation to edit, they tend to read what they want to read in policies, not what's actually written there. But the why is irrelevant – the point is that with disclosure we can actually know that our admins are honest, not just trust that they are. If we never catch anyone breaking the rules then that's great, it means our admins are smarter than the average UPEr. We still benefit from the transparency and the deterrent effect. – Joe (talk) 10:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  We currently require COI disclosure only in the areas where people edit, not in all areas where they have COIs. And the proposal isn't "admins must disclose all their COIs so we can check them" but "admins who openly solicit for advisory positions must disclose those advisory positions". The proposal does nothing except deter admins from openly soliciting for such positions. I just don't see how the openness of the soliciting is a problem that needs solving. —Kusma (talk) 10:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) How? We already trust every editor not to edit in areas where they have a COI without needing to disclose it. Disclosure here will not actually tell us anything we don't already know - either the admin is honest and not editing areas where they have a COI or the admin is being dishonest and not disclosing a COI in areas they edit. Thryduulf (talk) 10:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  It won't help us detect the dishonest admin, no. It will help us retain confidence in the honest admin (because we can check that they're not editing where they have a COI). It will also help us detect the third category which might sound unlikely, but I've seen enough in regular paid editing cases to think plausible: the honest-but-misguided admin who discloses their COI but then misuses their tools anyway. – Joe (talk) 10:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  That argument only holds water if you require admins to disclose every COI they have. I'm no more or less likely to edit about AcmeCorp if they paid me to advise them about Wikipedia than if they paid me to maintain their website, or they sponsor my football team, or they employ my partner, or they sued me for libel, or I sued them for breach of contract, or they gave me a free lunch when teaching their staff first aid, or anything else. Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  I mean, I don't think it's a bad idea to disclose significant potential COIs, for any editor. Many admins already do so – here's a good if somewhat ironic example. But I can't agree that paid consulting on Wikipedia editing creates no greater a tendency bias than regular, unrelated employment. If I've been paid to advise AcmeCorp on how to get an article created, and that article goes to AfD, its fate will reflect directly on my job performance, my relationship with a customer, my reputation and future earnings, etc. The temptation to use my status as admin (whether that's the tools or just the status) to ensure that what happens on-wiki makes my advice seem worth the money must be enormous. – Joe (talk) 11:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  Then thats easy, they are using the tools or editing with a COI and existing policy takes over. PackMecEng (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  If you edit and/or use the tools in relation to a COI then we have existing policy to deal with that, so no new policies are needed. If you don't edit and/or use the tools in relation to a COI then there is no problem that needs dealing with so no new policies are needed. Thryduulf (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  Do you accept that the majority of editors do think that there's a problem that needs dealing with even if you don't? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  The outcome of this RfC may tell us that, but I also think this is one of those things that sounds worse than it is. If you had said to me in a pub, "Hey, did you know admin X is getting paid for Wikipedia advice and they haven't disclosed it" I think my immediate reaction would be "That sounds bad". Trying to identify exactly what sounds bad about it has convinced me that there is no useful way to regulate this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for including that nuance, I had not meant to disregard those who see this as a real issue but not one which we can reasonably solve through regulation/bureaucracy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  It's easy to close one's eyes and imagine a situation in which an admin is paid and gives bad advice. (I don't for a moment think Cullen328 would ever do that, just to be clear.) I don't think it's at all likely, but those who are worried about the possibility aren't crazy to wish to close it down. I don't think what is being proposed would have the effect the supporters want. Joe's argument (that it would let us check on honest admins) is the most persuasive I've seen yet, but the fact that he said "honest admins" implies to me that it won't really have that effect, since only honest admins will disclose. I'm reluctant to legislate off-wiki behaviour where it can be avoided or would have little benefit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  I see it less as letting us check on "honest admins" but as giving us greater assurance in admin honesty both in person and in general. On the honesty side its always a little disturbing when people are saying with absolute certainty that there isn't an issue here when we have no idea whether there is or isn't without mandatory disclosure. Nobody is saying they're sure something bad is happening, but people are saying that they're sure that nothing bad is happening based on the exact same amount of evidence. That doesn't make any sense to me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that "nothing bad is happening" is too definite, though I think it's possible that's correct (after all, how many admins who are getting paid for advice are there? I wouldn't be surprised if Cullen328 is the only one). And if you feel that something bad might be happening, it's reasonable to look for policy wording that might prevent it. You say it would give us "greater assurance in admin honesty both in person and in general"; it would not achieve that for me. If this wording passes I would not feel any greater confidence about that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:37, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  I appreciate you saying that, is there a policy or guideline based solution here that would effect your confidence or is your confidence based on factors outside policy/guideline or ones which aren't under discussion here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  (ec) Can I just say how pleasant it is to have a non-confrontational discussion about this before we go on? Thank you for that. Anyway, the answer is I haven't been able to come up with wording that I think would help. The case that I think would be most problematic would run something like this: admin X is hired and (a) the money is substantial enough that it would be a difficult decision for them to offend the client, and (b) they advise the client correctly that they can't add puffery (so admin X is honest), and (c) the client disregards the advice and adds puffery. If I were that admin (and I'm not an admin, by the way), I would not want to get in that client's face by reverting the edits, or posting to a noticeboard to get someone else to do so. I thought about whether that situation would be helped if the admin disclosed the relationship with the client, but eventually decided it would not. What I'd do, and what I'd expect any user to do, is to quietly let one or more other admins know about the situation so it could be addressed, and I'd do that regardless of whether I'd disclosed. And if I weren't an honest admin I wouldn't have disclosed in the first place. I tried to think of wording that would help in this case but I can't. The TL;DR is that I can't come up with a situation which is even faintly plausible in which I could have more confidence in the honesty of any or all admins as a result of any wording. To be honest, even then I might have supported as "mostly harmless" but I think we ought to have very good reasons for rules that relate to off-wiki behaviour, and for me I don't think we've reached that bar. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  Definitely agree with you on needing very good reasons for anything related to off-wiki behavior, thats why I think any restrictions should be places on just active admins following the ancient logic that great power comes with great responsibility and part of that responsibility is to keep your off-wiki life clean when it comes to wiki-related activities. I can see how this doesn't reach that bar for you though. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  Well, the purpose of disclosure is alerting others to watch what is happening with client on Wikipedia. Whether it's a question of notability or RS, or puffery, and who is involved in laying out, maintaining, and amending, the 'rules'. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  I see that. This conversation has reminded me of two situations that have happened to me, so let's use those as examples. One is Lilian Edwards, an old friend of mine. She asked me to address a couple of problems with the page. I posted a note on the talk page explaining the situation. No money changed hands (though Lilian has bought me drinks in bars in the past!) so I think we'd agree that COI or not, no disclosure was needed prior to my edits. The other is Jesse Sheidlower. I was one of the volunteers that ran the OED's Science Fiction Citations Project (see Historical Dictionary of Science Fiction), which Jesse managed (he was the OED's American Editor at the time). As part of that work the OED gave me free access to oed.com (I think about $500/year value at the time), and Jesse bought me dinner at a good restaurant in Manhattan, so you could say I was compensated, if not in cash. Some years after that project completed Jesse mentioned to me that there were inaccuracies in his article, and would it be possible to get them cleaned up. I posted a note on the talk page in case anyone thought I had a COI, and went ahead and cleaned up the article. I had certainly had conversations before that with Jesse about Wikipedia which would count as advice, but I suspect he thought that even with good advice he would rather keep his hands off the article, which is a good instinct. But before then: I'd been compensated and given advice. Should I have disclosed prior to the request to actually fix the problems? I would have regarded that as invasive. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  You said you did disclose on the particular talk page, both times. So in spirit, you fulfilled the need for others to watch what was going on, with information only you had. Also it seems you are discussing your edits, COI disclosure on the talk page for your edits already is what's called for in our COI guideline. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, agreed. My question is whether the situation before I edited called for any disclosure. At that point I'd been compensated, and had given advice about editing Wikipedia, but had no intention of editing the article myself. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  Why does it matter? We agree you needed to disclose, you did, and whether it was 'late' by some measure of late, does not deprive disclosure of value. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  It matters because that latency in disclosure, or more specifically the perceived latency, has a vital effect on whether the community can trust an individual making the disclosure. In other words, based on how much time it took for them to do so, would it be perceived as an honest effort at being transparent, or as simply reacting to cover themselves when the horse looks like it's out of the barn? That is especially the case for admins making disclosures, of which members of the community may feel is "too little, too late" and then move to have them de-sysopped (honestly, given some of the commentary here, I'm surprised someone hasn't now rushed to file an Arbcom request over Cullen's apparently vile transgression).

  For something like this in which the lines are absolutely blurred - which should be evident in the !voting above - then I absolutely think the value of the disclosure is impacted by timing, and then the issue there becomes at what threshold do we determine that a disclosure is necessary without digging into one's private life? This is not a linear process, and I think people forget that. From one moment to another, the clarity as to whether something borderline like this rises to WP:UPI-worthy disclosure can be muddy.

  As HJ Mitchell hinted at, it's extraordinarily unfair for Wikipedia users to try and dictate how someone should be earning a living when the activities concerned truly do not rise to the level of WP:COI and instead just seem to be a matter of unsavory optics. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:09, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

  HJ Mitchell's statement is preposterous relying as it does on the interest of what appears to be indulging a particular Admin by name, and the conflict-of-interest of making money off of being an admin. Also, it's just not true that issues of proper or substantial compliance would be at all unique here, such issues arise in every policy we have. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

  Do you accept that the majority of editors do think that there's a problem that needs dealing with even if you don't? I see no evidence of that. I see a mixture of:

  • Belief that there is a problem of some description (and there are at least three different interpretations of what the problem is)
  • Moral panic/moral outrage/similar at the idea of a problem, without reference to whether the problem exists or not
  • Uncritical acceptance of claims that a problem exists
  • Belief that the downsides to this proposal are sufficiently minimal that it doesn't matter whether there is a problem or not
  • Belief that there is a problem that needs solving but that this proposal will not resolve that problem
  • Belief that there is a problem but that it is a different problem
  • Belief that as this proposal will not achieve what supports want it to that it doesn't matter if there is a problem or not, and
  • Belief that the downsides to this proposal are greater than any benefits it might bring that it doesn't matter whether there is a problem or not, and
  • Belief that there is no problem that needs solving

  But none of that really matters because, even if the problem identified is a problem (and there is no evidence that it is) the proposal will not solve it. Thryduulf (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  The claim of "moral panic" is obviously without basis and just empty rhetoric. The 'compensate for my advice', when you've been placed in a volunteer and free gate-keeping roll has nothing to do with panic, moral or otherwise. It does have to do with ethics, but ethics is not a panic, either. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  The claim of "moral panic" is not mine, but some of the comments in this discussion do give that appearance. Others do give the appearance of being driven by ethical considerations, but not all comments appear to have any regard for "considerations" of any sort.

  Admins are not in a "gate-keeping roll", what is and is not included in Wikipedia is determined by consensus. That consensus is interpreted by (usually) admins and, in the case of deletion, is actioned by administrators. However that's not the same thing, and there is nothing an administrator can do that isn't subject to review and appeal. Thryduulf (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  We don't want to address ethics on appeal, admins are suppose to have that going in. And of course, it is a gate-keeping role: admins write policy, they participate in forming consensus on it, they warn others of breach of it, and they enact it, it's entirely gate keeping (from the article sentence, to its sources, to the article image, to the whole article, to the noticeboards, to the block, and the delete. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  Ooof! Well you certainly aren't pulling any punches there but when you put it like that I understand where you're coming from and why your argument is so strongly worded. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  This has been an interesting discussion. I can see that Thryduulf feels genuinely that those of us in favour of this proposal are not treating our colleagues fairly (assuming bad faith) and/or not paying sufficient attention to the potential for outing, so I don't begrudge him the strong words. I would say that dismissing others' concerns as "hysterical", a "moral panic", or a "witch hunt", can easily come across as gaslighting and so should probably be avoided. (I realise it wasn't you that said this Thryduulf, but that you were quoting others). – Joe (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

  IMO it isn't gaslighting, but it is hyperbole that skates at the very bleeding edge of WP:COMPETENCE and WP:CIVIL (but stays on this side as far as I can tell, the hyperbole doesn't drift into outright lies and malfeasance and most can be explained away by Thryduulf not being a careful reader). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

• Jim, I respect you as a great admin, and I have never doubted your ethics. I do have a pretty big problem with the idea that client companies can escape scrutiny by refusing to allow you to disclose their identity. That's for me really problematic; to me it means we don't get the scrutiny we need to protect the encyclopedia. Still trying to wrap my head around this, which is something I didn't think I'd ever see, especially from someone I respect as much as I do you.

I don't recall seeing your post to AN, and I sympathize with your conclusion that since there'd been no objection, no one would object. But I wonder if you'd written "I intend to solicit this service on Upwork, noting my status as an admin" maybe there would have been an objection? But that's something we can never know. Valereee (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I just don't understand what any increased scrutiny on Cullen's clients will achieve, other than squelching a modest side hustle. The causal chain is too tenuous. Any misbehavior on the clients' articles can be attributed to clients not heeding the advice they paid for. And any other attribution boils down to not actually trusting Cullen even though we say we do, which I think is something that should be owned and expressed if genuinely felt.

Maybe I'm feeling less concern than others in this conversation because I do remember the post at AN, and remember seeing the disclosure on Cullen's userpage, so this doesn't feel like a blindside, and I'm considering the single known actual case rather than diving deep into hypotheticals. Folly Mox (talk) 00:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Because we always do have to consider the hypotheticals. Sure, it may not be a problem this time, just like some paid editors may do things well even if no one was scrutinizing their edits. But considering the hypotheticals is exactly what we should do when we ask "Should this be allowed?". What if, for example, an admin were doing this who had been just barely active enough over the past ten years to avoid an inactivity desysop? Would you be as ready to trust them not to cross any lines, and would you be bothered by them using the "admin" status as essentially a cash grab? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

To answer this question: if this were a barely active admin gaming desysop by making token actions to meet minimums, no, I would not trust them to do paid advising appropriately. I'm not certain whether or not it would bother me in my heart. Maybe. My relationship with money is not normal.

Anyway though, I'm not planning on bolding a not-vote above, and feel like I understand both sides of this discussion now, so I'll probably be bowing out to avoid creating any more work for the closer, bless them. Folly Mox (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

This idea of "trusting" admins seems like it's being stretched to be unlimited, but it's never been unlimited, it is from the start limited and situational, and it has never been that we trust Admins having conflicts of interest, quite the opposite, not without detailed disclosure. (And we have certainly never trusted Admins with always being right, and always doing right -- rather, what is 'trusted', is that admins are, and always will be, fallible - and that's why we generally insist it all be double and triple checkable, here). Also, Wikipedia's purpose is not to protect anyone's "side-hustle", protecting their side-hustle is a conflict of interest.

Should there ever be a conflict about the results of what the Admin told a client about editing Wikipedia, chances are just as good that the client was following the advice or thought they were, and Admins, who are often asked to defend their positions will do -- sometimes Admins are known to not get their mistakes for quite awhile, if ever -- and even when not a mistake, everyone will be informed what the relationships are, and how it came to be this way, including what potential biases are involved. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

it has never been that we trust Admins having conflicts of interest, quite the opposite, not without detailed disclosure. if that were true then admins would be required to disclose, in detail, every conflict of interest they have. We do not do that, and we have never done that, because the community recognises that requiring such would be grossly disproportionate. Rather we do trust administrators to not edit in relation to a COI they have. Thryduulf (talk) 11:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

The community has always required disclosure to some extent, it's true that those who protected PAID editing were able for a long-time to weaken disclosure because of their evident conflict if interest. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Everything you say would equally apply to non-admins, and to conflicts of interest that do not arise from solicited work for pay. We do not currently require anyone to disclose any of their conflicts of interest unless they edit in the areas where they have conflicts of interest. The Lex Cullen proposed here does nothing to fix the hypotheticals of bad-faith New Page patrollers. —Kusma (talk) 11:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

That a rule does not go far enough is not an argument against the rule, it's a call to build on it. And ethics realizes that when money is involved the issues of conflict-of-interest are particularly salient. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

There are several extensions of this rule that I would also strongly oppose. For example, editors including admins should not be required to disclose all of their COIs involving money, as that would require disclosing their employer and potentially compromise their real life anonymity. —Kusma (talk) 14:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Come on. We are hardly so ethically obtuse, to not know what paid consultancy to effect Wikipedia is. This is like a bad re-run of all the reasons why it took so long to get PAID disclosure. But we did finally get PAID, when the conflicted opposition was overcome, and it demonstrates that identifying clients is nothing new for Wikipedia, let alone some radical departure from anything. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Although it doesn't affect your main lines of argument, note the paid-contribution disclosure requirement was enacted by the WMF, and the policy to disclose external accounts on-wiki came from a Metawiki discussion. English Wikipedia's editing community did agree on the requirement that paid editors must disclose their Wikipedia accounts to their clients, on their external web pages and in emails to their clients. isaacl (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Sure and it was years of discussion in getting it done, for all the bassically same conflicted opposition. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the point is that years of discussion never overcame the opposition on English Wikipedia regarding the paid-contribution disclosure policy. The only policy that did get approved by English Wikipedia is one that requires off-wiki actions and thus can't be enforced by Wikipedia admins (but that the WMF legal department said would be of assistance to it). isaacl (talk) 23:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Not that WMF legal has ever acted on it. - Bilby (talk) 23:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

But no, years of discussion led to more and more and more recognition of the issue on Wikipedia and to various ways of address, and led to tightening up the rules, although the same silly and conflicted objections kept slowing it down. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, @Folly Mox, I didn't intend to question whether that post had appeared, or whether it was in good faith. At all. The fact I hadn't seen it wasn't an indication I thought we'd been blindsided. It's my own fault I didn't see it.

The problem here is that once an article subject starts paying an editor for...well, pretty much anything...we should probably assume someone needs to look at future edits because it means that article subject is willing to pay to have some influence -- even if that influence isn't intentionally nefarious -- that article. Valereee (talk) 17:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry too @Valereee: rereading my comment, it seems unduly personal, although I intended it to be a more general response to several comments in the discussion, including yours. I apologise if I've misconstrued anything you wrote, and thank you for the clarification in your last sentence: I understand that position much better now. Folly Mox (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

No worries, just wanted to clarify. The situation is probably limited to two types of article: current organizations, and BLPs. It's a small segment of WP articles, but it's where almost all paid work is involved. Few would pay to be advised about how to edit Napoleon. But I am literally chasing List of entities associated with Tata Group around the encyclopedia, to the point I'm ready to take all of their dozens of organizations and the related BLPs of their management off my watchlist because nearly every day some editor with 8 edits comes in to "update" one of the articles with excessive positive and/or trivial detail on one of them. I added them all to my watch because I noticed Tata is apparently willing to pay for editing, and I think that means their articles need scrutiny. But it's incredibly frustrating to chase after it when I'd really prefer to do almost anything else. Valereee (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

One organisation allegedly paying for editing contrary to our policies tells us nothing about people paying for advice on how to edit in accordance with the rules. Do you have a citation for Few would pay to be advised about how to edit Napoleon. because I have been involved in teaching at an editathon where at least some of the participants would have paid to do exactly that (more precisely the Battle of Waterloo) - indeed some (maybe all of them) will have paid their own travel expenses to be there. IIRC received my travel expenses (from Wikimedia UK) and a free lunch in exchange for my time and expertise. Thryduulf (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

As you did not hold that as secret information nor refuse to disclose any of that in public, your opposition here is even more groundless. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

In what way is whether any of that is secret and/or disclosed at all relevant here? The point is that people will pay (and indeed arguably did pay) to learn how to contribute to Wikipedia for purposes completely unrelated to self-promotion. I wonder whether @Cullen328 can say whether any of their clients goals was to edit articles about subjects other than themselves/their organisation? I don't know whether that is something they will even know in all cases. Even if I'm wrong and everybody who pays for advice actually really wants to bypass NPOV and have a glowing hagiography about themselves and/or an advert for their company, it still wouldn't mean my opposition (which is based on multiple factors) "groundless". Thryduulf (talk) 20:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Really? A few lines ago you made a preposterous mention of outing, as this proposal is all about disclosure, the same disclosure Wikipedia requires everyday in PAID (so not outing), so once again your points are baseless. And how to contribute to Wikipedia is answered for free every day of the year, in person and in writing, multiple times a day, so your arguments in favor of an Admin corp, charging for what is free, is even worse. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, please dial down the hyperbole, and read what people are actually writing before responding next. While the proposal as a whole is about disclosure but the specific point here is about what content people want advice regarding. It has been asserted that people will only want advice regarding self-promotion and similar, and I provided evidence this is incorrect. You responded to that with hysteria about something irrelevant.

Secondly, opposiing a requirement for editors to out themselves and others when doing so would not bring any benefits to anybody is not "preposterous" in the slightest. Despite your attempt to conflate this with paid editing it is not the same. With paid editing there is a clear impact on the encyclopaedia: content gets added, changed or removed. With advising none of that happens - there are no changes to the encyclopaedia, there is nothing to protect it from. With paid editing the dangers of outing are being balanced against a clear benefit to the project, but requiring disclosure here will not bring any benefits and so is grossly disproportionate.

Whether advice is available for free or not is irrelevant - nobody is competing with the teahouse etc, they aren't trying to undermine it, devalue it, replace it, or anything like that. They're offering a supplemental service to it and there is nothing (and should be nothing) stopping anyone who advises for free getting paid for it as well if they desire. Thryduulf (talk) 08:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

So, you do support pay-for-play, creating an admin corp, which concerning Wikipedia only provides some level of service to the public for those rich and willing enough to pay. ('I could advise you whether that source is RS, but you have to pay me', 'I could advise you on your Wikipedia behavior but I only do that well for people who pay', 'I could be your wikifriend, but I like people who pay me', 'I could provide you an advantage concerning Wikipedia, but only if you pay me' etc, etc. etc. For the poor, let them eat cake, shall we say.). As for effects on Wikipedia, we see it here in this discussion, and with disclosure will actually be able to better monitor it just like PAID, and all disclosure rules, and it serves Wikipedia's transparency ethos. (As for your irrelevant mention of the Teahouse, that's not even where most free advice is given, it's only one channel.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Almost all of that is completely irrelevant to what is being discussed here, and is yet more evidence of the assumption of bad faith and assumption of a desire to undermine the project that characterises so much of the discussion around anything to do with money and Wikipedia.

I believe that everybody should be free to receive payment for giving advice regarding Wikipedia and how to contribute to it properly if someone desires to pay for it. If someone can't or doesn't want to pay then the free options should (and importantly will) be available. Nobody, for pay or otherwise, should be offering to give anyone else an unfair advantage on Wikipedia - and importantly nobody has provided any evidence that anybody giving the advice of the sort this discussion is about is doing anything of the sort.

My mention of "the Teahouse etc" (note that last word, it's important) was not irrelevant, it was in direct response to your comment And how to contribute to Wikipedia is answered for free every day of the year, in person and in writing, multiple times a day. I simply used "Teahouse etc" as a shorthand for the longer phrase you used. Thryduulf (talk) 11:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

You've been advised for free before to stop making your empty claims of bad faith. Nothing in my prior comment assumes anything, it is entirely based on your prior comments and all relevant to it and this discussion. That you don't like my conclusions based on your words has nothing to do with assuming let alone bad faith, that last comment is made, in whole, in good faith. As for your word play about unfair advantage, I never said unfair advantage. Either the selling you support provides something above and beyond the service that administrators' provide for free concerning Wikipedia (thus advantage to the client) or they are providing what is worthless (the economics of the scheme among the public is certainly unequal, as that's the nature of wealth distribution.) Thus, your support for pay-for-play is no assumption. (And yes, your Teahouse comment was irrelevant, as what the quote you point to has nothing in it about "denigrating" the Teahouse or anything else as you irrelevantly said-- my comment was noting the fact of Wikipedia's transparency, which this present proposal further supports.)Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Everything you said from "'I could be your wikifriend..." onwards is about gaining an unfair advantage, you did not use those words but they are an accurate description of what arises from the things you are suggesting. As for "worthless" it is completely irrelevant to us whether a paid offering offers any value or not. If someone pays to have an article created about a subject that gains them absolutely nothing over someone creating an identical article for no pay (other than accusations and suspicions about the motives of the author and client). Additionally, what people consider value varies by individual, e.g. one person might regard getting advice from a single specific person as more valuable than getting advice from a variety of people, another person might see that as less valuable.

Your comments about pay-for-play are misleading. I support people being allowed to choose whether to pay or not, but those who do choose to pay should not get any special treatment (good or bad) on Wikipedia because of that choice. Some people choose to pay money for Wikipedia in the form of donations to the WMF, yet they still get the same product as those who choose not to do that. Is that pay-for-play? It depends on your definition and interpretation.

I will stop accusing people of approaching this discussion in bad faith when their comments cease assuming that everyone paying or being paid has some sort of bad faith motive. Thryduulf (talk) 13:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

No, you should cease your nonsense bad faith claims now. As you have already been told there is no assumption nor bad faith in my comment. Everything I said is just fact, economic relationships regularly bind people together. Nor is my comment about pay-for-play misleading, it is the effect of what you support, what the economics of the situation are, and that this 'advice' information you just now posit is of value, only highlights the economic inequality. (As for getting advice from one person, in time that's always how it's done, one person at a time.)--Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

As you are clearly not reading what I'm actually saying rather than what you want me to have written I'm not going to respond any further Thryduulf (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I've read every word, and deeply comprehended it. Blind spots often arise in such money situations. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

• I don't understand the opposes because this doesn't go far enough. I feel like we could pass this, then open a related proposal to apply to all editors. But at the rate we're going it's no consensus even to require admins to disclose, even when they're soliciting paid work as an admin. Valereee (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

  I guess it's up to whoever closes this (and whoever you are, you have my sympathies), but my general philosophy is you roll up votes to the next level. For example, at AfD (yeah, I know, not a vote), if I saw 25% keep, 25% draftify, 25% merge and 25% delete, the last thing I'd do is declare "No consensus, defaults to keep". I'd look at it more like "75% are opposed to this existing as a stand-alone article", and then I'd dig deeper to figure out which of the various alternatives I should do. I would hope similar logic would apply here. RoySmith (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

  Same. But I've seen a lot of discussions that are closed 'no consensus' in this kind of situation. If there's someone willing to do the heavy lifting to either DVR or open another RfC, it could still happen, but it seems like often people have just wandered off. Valereee (talk) 18:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

  It still doesn't appear to me that this RfC has even truly addressed the central argument that needs to be addressed, based on the fact that the oppose !votes all oppose for different reasons, as do the support !votes. Again, I feel it's not a matter of whether disclosure is required, but what rises to the level of requiring disclosure. What tangible wrong has been committed here that requires a change to policy, and how did we come to the conclusion that Wikipedia now thinks it's wrong enough to merit a policy update? I think Ivanvector's !vote has it right, and at the very least, we need to retarget the discussion. Otherwise you're right, this just ends in "no consensus, no action" because ANY decision otherwise is going to be a supervote. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 19:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

  What tangible wrong? COI disclosure is not about a wrong, it is about the ethics of being up-front, and it's about full information so others can keep tabs in heading-off any issues, and make informed decisions. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

  Based on numerous !votes (both support and oppose) that say "all paid advising should be banned outright for admins" then I'm not entirely certain that's all it's about. If you approach it from that viewpoint, then that also means that if Admin Amy disclosed payment for a Wikipedia-related activity, then obviously she has done something wrong. The question in my mind is where are we setting the bar, and why are we setting the bar there. We've given a lot of analogies, scenarios, hypothetical situations, but all of them interpret the type of activity Cullen engaged in differently, and we have not here in this discussion agreed commonly on what is and is not tantamount to disclosure. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  Well, true that if admins did not do it, we would not have the issue. But conflict-of-interest disclosure is regularly concerned with potentialities and the inherent unequal information held by the person who is asked to disclose. Once they disclose, the inequality of information is lessened and others (everyone) can better watch-out for the potentialities. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  Beyond that, I know I'm a broken record at this point. I think we'll just agree to disagree. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 19:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

  To be fair, the trust put in admins has been a central part of this discussion, and "making money from adminship" appears in the most outraged !votes. Without that "using adminship" line of argumentation, this discussion takes on a different flavor. If you're going to roll "shouldn't apply to just admins" opposes into supports based on a hypothetical different question, you could also roll the support !votes that focus their support on the adminship dimension into opposes for that hypothetical different question. Likewise Roy's roll up votes to the next level is still entirely based on the closing admin's "levels". The exact same discussion that led to "75% are opposed to this existing as a stand-alone article", dismissing the keep !votes and deciding between the other three, could just as easily be interpreted as "75% are opposed to outright deletion (or 75% support retaining this material somewhere, etc.)", ruling out deletion and choosing between the other three. There's no objective "up", just different ways to frame. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

• Are there compromise/alternative options? For example, ask admins to disclose to Arbcom? Or something else that would be a least worst option for opposers, and an acceptable level of doing something for supporters? Good ideas welcome. —Kusma (talk) 12:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  Compromise may be possible, but this suggestion isn't it. Requiring people to disclose to arbcom would be even more pointless than requiring them to disclose in public. Instead of giving everybody a list of people and organisations that may or may not be thinking about editing the encyclopaedia in some way, which may or may not align with Wikipedia's goals in one or more ways, that may or may not relate to anything with a connection to them/their organisation and which may or may not involve giving/receiving money in exchange for making changes to the encyclopaedia; we'd be giving that list of vague to the point of uselessness information to a group of people who do not have either the resources or remit to do anything with it. Disclosing to arbcom would reduce (but not eliminate) the potential harm from the outing, but still wouldn't satisfy the GDPR principal of not collecting personal information without a tangible purpose for doing so. Thryduulf (talk) 13:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  I still can't see this outing risk you talk about. Recently I had to make a choice - raise things on a talk page relating to an article where I have a COI, or stay away. I chose to declare the COI, but I could just have easily stayed away. Admins hired to consult on articles get to make the same choice if this goes ahead - accept jobs which might reveal hints about who you are when you declare the COI, or don't accept those jobs and look for other work. They're not being forced to reveal anything about themselves, as ultimately it is solely up to them as to what jobs they accept. Anyway, if there was a reasonable compromise I'd go with it, but "if you accept a job as an admin providing paid advice regarding WP editing, be transparent" is not exactly a huge burden. - Bilby (talk) 13:50, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  The outing risk is moderate in the current proposal as it only applies to solicited-advice-for-pay, but there are massive outing risks related to disclosing advice-where-editing-would-mean-a-COI in general, and any slight extension of the proposal could be dangerous. —Kusma (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  I don't see the outing risk as moderate. I see it as almost non-existent. The rule is simple - if you are employed to provide advice about Wikipedia editing to a company where there is a risk that disclosure could provide some personal information about yourself, just say no. - Bilby (talk) 22:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  How about voluntary self-disclosure? Rather than mandate the practice, encourage editors and admins to disclose paid activities. This accomplishes two things. First, it allows them to manage the amount of information that they present so that they are not endangering their privacy or outing themselves. Second, there is still an incentive to do so because if one does not disclose such an activity, and later it turns out that this activity is highly problematic, the community can then respond accordingly based on the facts and nuances of that particular situation. Third, if someone got paid a fiver for a trivial task such as teaching someone how to properly edit an article about ambrosia beetles, that would be a situation where choosing not to disclose it would actually be less harmful and problematic than being mandated to disclose it. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  I could get behind voluntary disclosure with some guidelines around how and where to disclose (arguments about whether someone did or did not disclose ("properly"/correctly) will only lead to heat and no light) and guidelines around the sorts of things where disclosure is encouraged (e.g. you've received megabucks from a big corporation with a history of hiring paid editors) and where it really isn't necessary (you got a free lunch for teaching a couple of friends how to improve articles about fossil plants), all with a note that you should be careful to avoid outing yourself or your clients. Thryduulf (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  You've already rejected the idea that different levels of financial support come with different requirements "The amount of money received is completely irrelevant to the reasons why I oppose this." but here you appear to be endorsing it. I'm also still not sure what the outing concerns are, can you explain how in the scenario you just described of receiving megabucks from a big corporation the outing concern would manifest itself? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  Having a big corporation as a client could lead to outing if it's actually the local office or specific division of a big corporation or they pay for advice regarding something very specific (maybe they run projects in the small town where they began or something) - this is one of the least likely ways outing could happen related to paid advising (but the possibility is not zero), but when the same requirement exists for all paid advising what matters is the greatest likelihood not the least. The advice to be careful about outing would be general advice given to everybody in a position where disclosure is something to consider, it should not imply that any particular disclosure will or will not out anybody (it is impossible for us to know that).

  The amount of money received is irrelevant to the reasons I oppose mandatory disclosure as proposed at the beginning of this discussion, but this section is not about that mandatory disclosure. In the case of voluntary disclosure as proposed here people can choose not to disclose when that disclosure would out somebody., so that takes out much of the potential for harm. It reduces the value of the information disclosure would produce from "pointless but possibly complete if everyone complies" to "pointless and definitely incomplete" but if people want to collect pointless but harmless information I'm not going to stand in their way. Based on other people's comments here, they feel like receiving large amounts of money and/or money from large corporations makes it more likely that someone will act in bad faith and if it turned out later they didn't disclose but something bad did happen that the admin was responsible for (or even if they weren't but it is theoretically possible for them to have been) there will be a bigger fuss made (by some at least) if the client was a large corporation paying large amounts of money than if it was one guy giving you a fiver. Thryduulf (talk) 17:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  In your scenario, where someone is asked to provide paid advice to a local office of a big corporation and therefore is at some hypothetical risk of outing, is there any reason why they can't simply say no to the job? - Bilby (talk) 22:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  Can you be specific about what the risk actually is? Is it of the client outing the consultant by publishing information about the contract under their real name and not their wiki name? Thank you for explaining your understanding of where the amount of money becomes relevant, IMO we're basically in the same boat there... A lunch doesn't need to be made a fuss over but if an admin is paying for a second home on off the books wiki consulting thats an issue for me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:50, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  The risk of the client outing the consultant in that manner isn't something I'd thought of, but that is a non-zero risk for an editor whose real name is not public. As someone whose real name is public I don't feel qualified to judge how likely it is for a such a person to consider interacting with organisations in this way, or how they would go about doing so if they chose to.

  The risks I had in mind were third parties (other Wikipedia editors, Wikipediocracy/Wikipedia Review/etc folk, people looking to create joe jobs, etc) using the information about a client (or the information about multiple clients in combination) to discover (intentionally or otherwise) an editor's non-public information (real name, location, etc) or, potentially more seriously, similar information about a different client.

  Regarding just saying no, sometimes definitely yes if the risk is understood at the time and disclosure requirements are never changed with retrospective effect and/or changed mid-contract, but those are big ifs. In some cases it's probably more complicated than that, especially when there is little-to-no way for the paid advisor to know what combination of things might or might not out themselves or one of their past (or future) clients. Thryduulf (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  Thats not outing unless something happens on wiki and if it does we have systems in place for that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Who says nothing is happening on wiki? Regardless, it's just as harmful to the person whose private data is made public if the outing happens on Wikipedia, Wikipediocracy, Reddit, or any other place you care to mention. Thryduulf (talk) 00:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  Our outing restriction only apply to wikipedia editors, they are not meant to provide protection against non-editors... The point was never to protect people from the public off wiki or to shield people's commercial activity. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  As an Oversighter I am fully qualified to tell you that Oversight is not a magic bullet. While we do our best to minimise the harm caused by disclosure of non-public information we cannot guarantee that harm will be zero. For example, how quickly such information gets removed depends on how quickly it is reported to us and how quickly we see the ticket (this varies from seconds to hours, depending on when people happen to be awake, online and available). Thryduulf (talk) 00:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  We aren't talking about non-public information. Are we? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  I have explained multiple times how it can be. Thryduulf (talk) 00:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  How does this work without the person effectively outing themselves? If their wikipedia profile says "worked for Coke, Ford, GM, Bernie Sanders, and the Chinese Ministry of State Security" and their professional profile says the same thing and someone links those two thats on them not anyone else. They published that information. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  As explained previously it is not (in most cases) the list of clients that is the non-public information, but information derived from that list of clients. While those lists of clients would likely be unique, just because Wikipedia user:A says they worked for BigBusiness B, and Upwork advertiser C says they worked for BigBusiness B doesn't necessarily mean that User A and Advertiser C are the same person. Unless the connection has been made publicly then it is (likely) outing to make that connection. Thryduulf (talk) 00:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  Its not outing to make that connection off-wiki, its not a problem for us and not something we should be interested in preventing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  We should (arguably must) always be interested in preventing unnecessary outing, regardless of why it is happening and regardless of whether it is on or off wiki. The disclosure required by this proposal is on wiki anyway, so your point is irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  If we must do that then we must ban any form of wiki related work, such as consulting, which reasonably leads to outing. Theres only one actual solution here if thats your goal and its the one you don't want... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  Nothing will out their future clients, because by deinfition they have already disclosed who their clients are, so it doesn't matter if other clients could reveal who those clients may be. In respect to past clients, there is no reason why they need to be disclosed, so I'm no seeing a risk if there is no on-wiki connection between past clients and the admin's editing, and if there was they would have disclosed that under the paid editing rules. This feels very much like a strawman, as it seems to be predicated on some possible and badly timed change to the policy at some point in the future. - Bilby (talk) 00:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  I don't understand your first two sentences (I can't parse them into something that makes sense). Future policy changes (whether by their nature or their timing) are only a small part of the risk, but it is not a straw man to point out the risks from that happening when people have explicitly stated a desire for those changes to happen. Thryduulf (talk) 00:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  You seem to be saying that work for future companies could out prior companies that someone worked for. Or amd I reading "there is little-to-no way for the paid advisor to know what combination of things might or might not out themselves or one of their past (or future) clients" incorrectly? Aussming that by "out" you mean "identify", if someone has followed the proposed policy and revealed who their clients are, there is nothing to "out" about those clients in the future. They have already been revealed. - Bilby (talk) 00:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  You seem to be saying that work for future companies could out prior companies that someone worked for. No you've misunderstood. While the list of clients is public, not everything about those clients is public information - especially when the client is an individual not a corporation. While in theory all we should know is that a person or organisation with a given name has worked with a given editor (which doesn't actually tell us anything useful at all, as I and others have explained at length elsewhere in this discussion), the combination of clients could lead to non-public information about the editor and/or their clients being made public. If I say I've advised "J Lewis" that tells you nothing, but I subsequently advise clients whose details are public this could (and likely will, given how much people care about hunting out any potential paid editing) be used to discover who this "J Lewis" is and details of them (or an unconnected person they think to be them) could be made public. This is not the biggest risk of outing on Wikipedia, but it is a risk, and it is in my opinion completely out of proportion to the benefits gained from the disclosure this proposal would require (or could be interpreted to require, see other aspects of this discussion). Thryduulf (talk) 01:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  If you simply say "J Lewis" and that doesn't reveal the client, then it is not proper disclosure. If you properly disclose who your client is, there is nothing to out in the future. - Bilby (talk) 02:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  In which case you are requiring the publication of non-public information about private individuals, directly outing them. How would you feel about a disclosure that the client is "user:J Lewis" or "User:Three elephants in a trench coat"? Would you require them to disclose personal information about themselves? Thryduulf (talk) 02:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  If this was in place, and I was hired to provide advice to a company as an admin, (not that I would accept such a role, but this is a hypothetical) I would first inform the client that I will be required to declare who they are on Wikipedia in order to provide these services as part of Wikipedia's transparency requirements. If they agreed I would provide proper disclosure. If they were not comfortable with this, I would politely inform them that I am unable to accept the contract. The only clients who would be named are those who are aware of the requirement and agree to it. If they did not agree, they would not be nameed, because I would not be working for them. - Bilby (talk) 02:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

• I see a lot of concerns about client and admin privacy here. I'd like to offer a different POV on that. Some editors think that this disclosure requirement would put administrators and their clients in a position where they'd be "outed" by the community, or forced to "out" themselves. That may be true, it may not, but let's assume for the sake of argument that it is true, and that every administrator engaged in paid advising would be obligated to publicly out their clients. And potentially themselves too.

The assumption on the part of "oppose" editors is that this is a bad thing. From my perspective, as a strong "support"...this is a feature, not a defect, of the proposal. I absolutely abhor doxxing and involuntary outing, on Wikipedia or elsewhere. On the other hand, I would argue that this wouldn't lead to "involuntary" outing, it would set a new standard for transparency that would mandate voluntary outing from those who want to pay volunteers for "advising" off the record, and from those choose to use their Wikipedia credentials to make money IRL. I do not accept the presupposition that administrators who accept money for Wikipedia advising, or clients who hire said administrators, should have an expectation of anonymity. Why should they? This isn't directed at any particular admin, but in general, don't you think it's a bit arrogant to not only say that admins should be allowed to collect unknown amounts of money from unknown entities for off-record Wiki-related activities, but that it's absolutely none of the community's damn business and should be allowed to take place behind a veil of anonymity? I reject that. Maybe in 2008 we could just "AGF" and hope for the best, but nowadays, Wikipedia is simply too important. Literally billions of people read this website every week, and trust it to some degree. We cannot have administrators taking money off-Wiki in such a non-transparent manner. The potential abuses are almost infinitely vast and numerous. So when I read someone say "but this would compromise admin and client privacy!", I don't read that as an issue. Instead, I think to myself "good, someone who voluntarily engages in this sort of paid off-Wiki relationship should have zero expectation of anonymity. If they want to be anonymous, then don't do it." That's my spicy take for the day. Pecopteris (talk) 02:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

• Generally we tend to react after a problem has become apparant, not before. This actually serves us rather well, although it does create a bit of a hodgepodge of rules. It might be the best option here is to wait until a bad actor becomes apparant (which is hopefully never) and then respond. However, I've been thinking about scenarios where an admin being paid for advice rather than editing may be an issue.

1. An admin is hired by a client who has found it impossible to get changes through to their article as the admin has been identifying the problems with either paid editing or promotional/COI editing. The admin is employed under an NDA to offer advice, and so the admin must stay away from the article and advise the client. They cannot edit it, which prevents them from taking admin actions in the future, but they are also limited in saying why because of the NDA.
2. An admin is hired by a client who has hired paid editors in the past. The admin has never been invovled in the article, but now is aware of past UPE and may identify future UPE. Because of their COI they cannot act on the UPE and cannot say why, even though they are aware of it happening.
3. An admin deletes an article as promotional, then offers to provide paid advice on the article to the client. They do not directly edit the article after the original deletion, but do make money as a result of that deletion.
4. An admin is hired to provide advice, and does not directly edit the article. They do perform admin actions related to editors of the article, but do not edit the article, and insist that they were not paid to make those actions (having only been hired to provide advice).

I think 4) is probably going to come under acting while involved, so may be nothing. 2) has already happened and worries me. I can easily see 3) happening, and it wouldn't need to be deliberate - the accusation that someone took jobs providing advice to clients after making admin actions would be a serious one, and only disclosure could make it clear that a) this is not happening; or b) it did happen, but I'm being open about the situation. - Bilby (talk) 02:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Regarding 1 (I don't have time right now to address the others) in every other scenario we don't care why someone has a COI or otherwise does not wish to get involved in an article, only that they do not act while involved. Why is this situation any different? Thryduulf (talk) 06:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

It is a way of removing an admin from the picture - hire them as an advisor, and they won't have anything to do with the article again. No need for the admin to reveal that's why they stopped fixing issues. It's a proposed potential problem, of course, I have no idea if this has ever happened, and I assume no, but I'm thinking through scenarios. - Bilby (talk) 07:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• This is a response (which ran a little too long for me to feel comfortable leaving in the !votes section) to Joe Roe's comment (directed towards another discussion participant) above in the 'Support' section, reading "You're not seeing how a COI arising from someone paying you specifically for help with Wikipedia, because you advertised yourself to them as an admin with special insight into its processes, is different from the COI you have with your regular employer that probably doesn't even know or care that you edit Wikipedia?":

I don't see how either scenario justifes the invocation of a supposed "conflict of interest". There's a lot of hand-wavey (indeed, frankly borderline jingoistic) use of the phrase here to imply some sort of wrongdoing that has to be guarded against, without any kind of substantiation of such a harm, or even significant clarity about what it consists of. Where is the "conflict" between someone sharing their opinion/knowledge about Wikipedia and its systems and their ability to conduct themselves appropriately as an admin and community member?

I've wracked my brain trying to figure out what exactly the advancers of this proposal think is the danger so severe that we have undermine the bulwark of privacy on this project and force admins (or everyone--that's clearly where this is headed, as comments above make clear) to disclose their off-project professional associations that touch upon Wikipedia. The only thing I can come up with is the notion that an admin might take administrative action to curry favour with their client. Honestly (even putting aside for the moment that it would generally be pretty hard for an admin to put their thumb on the scale in such a fashion, given our consensus- and policy-based processes, and pretty much impossible without attracting notice) that's a pretty massive leap. No evidence has been presented to suggest this hashappened even so much as once, or is likely to happen in the future, let alone that it would occur with the kind of regularity that would necesitate our community making such a dramatic cultural shift towards recquiring our contributors to disclose their personal associations.

For that matter, this hypothetical admin who has so lost the plot/sight of their priorities such that they were willing to take administrative action to bootstrap the interests of a client, could not possibly be relied upon accurately report their clients anyway: so corrupt would their motives in this fantasy scenario have to be. So we're talking about only asking those who wouldn't act in such a clearly impermissable, policy-violative manner to report their off-project associations.

So the only thing such a proposal would really accomplish (given the fact that it comes to meet a speculative, probably wholly imaginary concern and wouldn't even be effective against that concern even said concern did exist) is to encourage tendentious parties to go digging into the identities and associations of other contributors in order to undermine administrative actions they don't care for, tearing through our our privacy, outing, and harrassment policies to do so--and weakening the enforcement of such prohibitions when it comes to such activities because, afterall, the off-project associations of users are now considered an issue of "legitimate interest" to the community.

Talk about a mind-bogglingly bad trade-off: vitiated privacy standards and probable mountains of disruption in exchancge for an ineffective tool against an imaginary (or at worst, exceedingly rare) concern. Mind you, we are only even having this discussion about this phantom threat because the only admin we know for a fact has done a tiny amount of this consutlancy work was so obsessively pro forma and desirous to be above-board about it that he put a notice on his user page despite a lack of requirement to do so. I don't know if Cullen regrets his decision to do so, but I sort of do: this has got to be one of the worst cases of histrionic overeaction and reaching toward WP:CREEP/making a rule for the sake of making a rule that I have ever seen in my time on this project. And adopting this particular rule would be a significant step in dismantling this community's long-standing respect for the privacy of its users, in a way that I honestly think is a serious threat to the operation of the project, given the knock-on effects and likely next steps down this line of expecting users to disclose personal info. Terrible, terrible idea. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Snow Rise, you ask whether I regret being so obsessively pro forma and desirous to be above-board about it that he put a notice on his user page despite a lack of requirement to do so, and you did not even mention that I also disclosed my plans quite openly at WP:AN, which I have always considered to be the place for such frank self-disclosures. And for however long my disclosure was up at AN before being routinely archived, not a single editor, not even Valereee, wrote a single word of objection. No, I have no regrets whatsoever about making those disclosures then or repeating them now because I thought then and I continue to think now that my disclosures were the right thing to do, and I proceeded with my little business venture because literally no one objected at that time. I have already said that I will stop offering my off-Wikipedia consulting services if a policy requiring on-Wikipedia disclosures of off-Wikipedia client identities is required. I believe that this policy change would be a net negative to the encyclopedia, but I fully understand the sincerity of the contrary opinions, and will comply with consensus, as always. I have declined two clients while this discussion is underway, but to be frank, this particular income stream is tiny for me, and I do not need it to live comfortably. On the other hand, I do not believe that there is anything wrong with an administrator providing ethical off-Wikipedia paid training and consulting services, as long as the administrator never edits Wikipedia on behalf of a paying client. Cullen328 (talk) 08:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Cullen328, it's not that you did anything wrong. But we still need to know who paid you, not just that you have been paid by some ambiguous "someone'. That's what paid disclosure means. Not just "I've been paid", it means "I've been paid by ________ and __________". There should be no keeping payments secret, and that includes the identity of who paid. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade that sounds good in the abstract, but in all this discussion nobody has yet managed to articulate how knowing that is actually useful in practice. We would know that e.g. Megacorp or J. Williams of 22 Acacia Avenue, Liverpool paid for advice, but what would we actually do with that information? We could look to see whether there was any promotional editing at articles related to Megacorp but (a) we do that anyway (it's called RC patrol), and (b) any such editing may or may not be related to the advice given. Thryduulf (talk) 11:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@Thryduulf, I've said multiple times that knowing who is paying lets us know which articles to give more scrutiny to. You may not think that's a valid reason why it's actually useful in practice, but I do. It's fine that we disagree on whether it is or isn't useful, but it's not true that in all this discussion nobody has yet managed to articulate how knowing that is actually useful in practice. No one has articulated it in a way that convinces you, but that doesn't mean it's not being articulated. Valereee (talk) 11:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Except, as has been pointed out every time you've said this, it doesn't let us know which articles to give more scrutiny too. In some cases it gives us a long list of topics that might or might not be relevant, in other cases it doesn't even do that. In the narrowest example, being paid by someone who is notable for exactly one thing that has one article about them and that thing (say a musician with one notable song), we'd need to watch:

• That article
• whether they create articles about any or all their other non-notable projects
• the articles about directly related topics, e.g.
  • their record label
  • anyone they worked with and/or are or were inspired by (singers, musicians, composers, lyricists, producers)
  • the chart(s) they were featured on
  • the instrument(s) they play
  • similar songs
  • contemporary songs
  • the subject of their song
  • the genre(s) of music they perform and/or are inspired by

Then there are the articles that are a further step removed from these (e.g. other songs their lyricist worked on), and then it could turn out that they actually wanted advice about editing articles about physiotherapy, cacti or politics. Now consider that the client is a notable corporation with a large number of notable products or an author with a dozen notable books and think how much longer the list will be. Finally, having received advice about how to properly interact with Wikipedia, any edits they do make (and remember they may not be making any) are more likely than average to be good. Thryduulf (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, we can disagree, but it's not true that no one has stated a reason they think this would be useful to the encyclopedia. You think it wouldn't. I think even narrowing it to multiple articles would. I have every one of List of entities associated with Tata Group on my watch after stumbling over COI editing on one of the articles, checking a few others, and realizing there was systematic COI editing of multiple articles associated with Tata. Valereee (talk) 12:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

COI editing (for pay or otherwise, declared or otherwise) is completely different to giving or receiving advice. A list of articles that we speculate may or may not be of interest to someone who paid for some sort of advice related to something to do with Wikipedia (which is always incomplete unless it's a list of all 6,824,099 articles) is not something that is even debateably useful. I stand by my claim that nobody has articulated any practical use., despite multiple claims to theoretical use. So even assuming there is a problem that needs solving, this proposal will not solve it. Then consider that we can only generate uselessly vague lists, can only do even that for some clients and they require the disclosure of non-public information that may lead to real-world harm to editors and/or clients. Thryduulf (talk) 12:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

We give people (and companies) many routes for seeking advice. We have forums on the site, we have ways of calling for questions, we have events for learning Wikipediaing. there are books available (and oh, those authors may be getting a royalty!) It seems odd to say "this one avenue for advice demands disclosure". We don't demand folks seeking information disclose their employer, don't assume that seeking advice includes an intention to do damage. We actually want people to have good advice, and adding extra scrutiny for the mere fact that you act for advice works against that. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure we do, what's done in public is done in public so the situation does not trigger the inequality of information, and everyone from WMF to education projects disclose. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Not everyone. Editathons with paid (or otherwise reimbursed) teachers don't disclose the attendees. I was an assistant teacher at an editathon on drama in NYC years ago. I know the username of the editor who I helped get a username and showed how to edit the articles he wanted to edit, but I doubt anyone else does. It's so long ago I don't recall if I was reimbursed for travel or food, but I might well have been. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not all advice is given in public, e.g. some emails from the Oversight team give advice, I suspect many more VRT emails do. Many (probably most) experienced editors have given formal or informal advice at some point. None of those recipients are publicly disclosed. Thryduulf (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I have trouble pointing to any examples of where we require that disclosure from those seeking advice, so that "sure we do" doesn't go far. If the curious "inequality of information" concern is the problem, then couldn't that be addressed by the admin posting this advice ("No, don't make up an article for your own company. Here's how you request a correction on your page, Joe-Bob's Pollution Fan Page would probably not be considered a reliable source", all that radical stuff) on their talk page without disclosing the name of the client?v -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Disclosure is always about inequality of information, only the dislcosee has. We require every WMF account to disclose their pay relationship (the WMF), we require teachers to disclose who is paying them. Public presentation attendee don't pay, so they are not clients. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: If you think all COI editing is of the type that's easy to spot in general patrols, that goes a long way to helping me understand why you don't see the point in disclosing clients. But in my experience, even moderately skilled COI editors can twist articles to favour their external interests in a way that is very difficult to spot. When we expose undisclosed paid editors using off-wiki evidence, it usually reveals a whole batch of articles that got through NPP and RC patrols, but that on closer inspection are unduly promotional, misrepresent sources, exaggerate notability, etc. You just have to look through the COIN archives to see dozens of examples of the substantial clean-up involved in these cases. – Joe (talk) 14:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

So explain how, in practice, requiring the disclose of everybody who has given or received paid advice will help detect that? Also, how and why does paying for advice on how to edit Wikipedia properly make it more likely that someone will engage in COI editing than someone who receives the same advice without paying for it? Thryduulf (talk) 14:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

If a company don't get anything more by paying for advice why would they pay for it? If the same service is available for free there would be no market, a market exists therefore the goods aren't equivalent and the non-free version is superior. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't answer either question. Obviously someone paying for something is getting something more valuable to them than they know they can get for free, that could be personalised service, advice in person, or any of many other things. You need to explain how and why paying for advice means they will be more likely to engage in COI editing than they would be if they got advice for free. Thryduulf (talk) 15:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't intend to answer a question that wasn't asked of me, you asked Joe Roe to explain and I'm sure they will. You can get personalised service and advice in person for free, no need to pay for those... Both can be had at the help desk right now, if something more personalised is desired a wikipedia mentorship is probably the way to go. The problem is that "any of many other things" includes a lot of stuff that isn't kosher, most likely the client believes that they're paying for influence. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I cannot go to the help desk and arrange for someone to come to my home or office to give me an in-person lesson on how to use Wikipedia. Even if the client believes they are paying for influence, they aren't going to get it from someone who is operating in accordance with our existing policies. Someone who does attempt to give them influence (as nobody can guarantee anything more) will not be following the rules about COI editing and so won't follow any rules about paid advising. Thryduulf (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

If the client believes that they are paying for influence and the Admin takes their money thats corruption no matter what the Admin does. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the questions either. Even if it is corruption, and this is happening (for which no evidence has been presented) and this is the only reason anybody would want to pay for advice (evidence to the contrary has been presented) supporters of this proposal still need to demonstrate what practical benefit regarding that that this proposal would bring. Regardless of what someone things they are getting, if they aren't getting influence then there is nothing to detect so disclosure doesn't help. If someone is getting influence they aren't going to disclose it so disclosure doesn't help. Thryduulf (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

You did not ask me those questions, I can not answer them. I don't think admins should be involved either knowingly or unknowingly in a conspiracy against wikipedia, which is what paying for influence would be. There's no good outcome there for the project. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

If you cannot give any explanation of how knowing the names of clients will provide a practical benefit to the project, why are you supporting a requirement to do so?

If someone's goal is to influence Wikipedia unfairly and they are seeking advice on how to contribute then either they tell a prospective advisor before they hire them, they tell an advisor after they hire them or they don't tell them. Taking each in turn:

1. They tell a prospective advisor before hiring their goal is to influence content related to a subject with which they have a COI:
   • A good faith advisor will explain that nobody gets unfair influence, but there are ways to interact appropriately.
     • Choose not to proceed with the hire. In which case nothing happens and this proposal is irrelevant.
     • Choose to proceed anyway (likely after explanation of what they can get). The client learns how to contribute appropriately (e.g. edit requests). Then
       • Contributes appropriately. The advisor has done nothing wrong, Wikipedia has benefited, there are no problems to detect and so disclosure gains us nothing.
       • Contributes to articles they don't have a COI with. The advisor has done nothing wrong, Wikipedia has benefited, there are no problems to detect and so disclosure gains us nothing.
       • Contributes inappropriately: The advisor has done nothing wrong, the client has learned nothing useful to their goal, so from the project's perspective it's as if the no advice was given. Disclosure of the client's name will not (as repeatedly explained elsewhere) make it more likely that the inappropriate editing will be detected, so disclosure gains us nothing.
   • A bad faith advisor will give take the client without explaining anything, and either
     • They only teach the client how to contribute appropriately. This may or may not be fraud on the part of the advisor, but from the project's perspective it's identical to the above scenario. Disclosure gains us nothing there so gains us nothing here.
     • They teach the client how to contribute inappropriately. This advisor will not disclose this regardless of what the rules are, so disclosure gains us nothing.
2. They tell the advisor only after hiring them.
   • A bad faith advisor will just continue the relationship without explaining anything. From the project's point of view it's indistinguishable from a bad faith advisor under scenario 1.
   • A good faith advisor will explain that nobody gets unfair influence, but there are ways to interact appropriately.
     • If the client refuses to respect this then they have the option of either:
       • Terminating the contract. The advisor has done nothing wrong, the former client has gained no information useful to their goal so it's as if no advice had been sought. There is no motivation for the advisor to edit inappropriately related to their former client. In theory, if the advisor knows what article(s) their former client was planning to edit then they can alert the project to those articles (anonymously if there are outing issues) - knowing the client doesn't add anything. If they advisor doesn't know the articles, then the most they could give would be the client's name which (per elsewhere) is useless in practical terms and so disclosure gains us nothing.
       • Continuing anyway. From the project's perspective this is indistinguishable to a bad faith editor under scenario 1.
     • If the client does accept this, they can either:
       • Stop there. The advisor has done nothing wrong, Wikipedia benefits from a lack of attempted undue influence, nothing inappropriate happens so there is nothing to detect and disclosure gains us nothing.
       • Choose how to learn to contribute appropriately instead. From the project's perspective this is identical to making this decision after disclosing before the hire (see scenario 1).
3. The advisor is not doing anything fraudulently.
   • If the advisor is acting in good faith they have done nothing wrong, the client will learn only how to edit appropriately and Wikipedia has benefited.
     • • If they don't make any edits, or only interact appropriately then there is nothing bad happening, nothing to detect and disclosure gains us nothing.
       • If they go on to interact inappropriately it's not because of the advice they received, and (per elsewhere) simply knowing the client isn't going to help us in any practical way so disclosure has gained us nothing.
   • If the advisor is acting in bad faith then they wont be disclosing their clients regardless of the rules, so disclosure gains us nothing.

tl;dr there is no scenario in which disclosure gains us anything useful in a practical sense. Thryduulf (talk) 19:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I will be concise, the primary practical reason (one not based on tradition, best practices, policy, philosophy, etc but on pure utility to the project) to require disclosure is that purposeful nondisclosure can be treated as a de-facto admission of bad faith editing. It is primarily because it allows us to identify such conduct that it should be done, it is not the case as you contend that nothing can be done to identify such conduct. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Yet again that's a response that doesn't answer the question. How does knowing clients of good faith advisors gain us any knowledge about bad faith changes to the encyclopaedia? Thryduulf (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Seems like a tautology, if any bad faith changes are identified by definition the editor who made them couldn't be good faith but you can't identify those bad faith changes unless you know the clients. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

But you still haven't explained how knowing the clients helps identify any bad faith changes. At this point I'm just going to let the closer draw the appropriate influence from this inability to answer a simple question despite over a dozen requests. Thryduulf (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

How do you know whether an advisor is engaged in inappropriate editing unless they have to disclose their clients? If editor A is employed by Coca-Cola, has disclosed that, and either has previously removed or subsequently removes a well sourced section about (hypothetically) dead rats being found in coke cans across the country then the disclosure has allowed us to identify an area which may need to be addressed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Just because an admin is trying to act in good faith does not always mean they do the right thing, and the disclosure helps manage this. Somewhat akin to how good-faith COI editors can go about it poorly, there is the possibility that an administrator could solicit advice in a way that is good-faith but that the community finds problematic, and we would have no way of knowing of this problem if the admin did not disclose. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 19:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

How would knowing the clients let the community know this? Thryduulf (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Say user X works for a company (COI disclosed in advance) who want to improve their article. They hire admin Y to act as an advisor, asking for feedback on drafted talk page comments, or checking the rigour of any arguments put foward in a discussion. Y is not editing, nor are they in violation of any policies, but they are helping X advance their agenda.

Were it to come out that user X is secretly being supported by admin Y, I'm sure a significant number of people would take issue with the integrity of Y: Y would be assumed to have put the interests of a client before what they may consider the best interests of the wiki, e.g. advising X on how to convincingly vote keep on an article that Y may personally think should be deleted. Y wasn't suggesting policy violations, but they may have been going against their own better judgement.

If the relationship between the two was disclosed, there is a much clearer context within with to view X's edits, and a clearer picture of Y's activities on Wikipedia in general. If some part of the client-sysop's relationship was a cause for concern, the community would be able to address it much easier than if it had not been disclosed beforehand. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 21:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

So, @Snow Rise, to be clear (and honestly could you please please try to write shorter? That is not a little too long) you're against even requiring an editor disclose they're soliciting paid advising if they aren't required to disclose who they're advising? Valereee (talk) 11:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

With respect Val, I don't feel that my response was unreasonable or inappropriate in these circumstances. This is the discussion section of a major community discussion for a proposal that I feel has been made hastily and without sufficient evidence gathering or consideration of the almost certain to be massive longterm implications. Sometimes in such situations it takes much more time and detail to point out why an idea is bad and why it's negative consequences are likely to be so widespread than it does to simply throw that idea out there or support it for the perceived up sides. On top of this, I am not in a position this week to routinely follow this discussion and comment piecemeal: if I am going to share my perspective on this (maybe the most important community discussion I have seen in the last year), it will have to be in a couple of larger posts, rather than distributed more evenly over time, alas.

Anyway, if you didn't like that one, better shield your eyes. Because I'm about to response to Joe below with the longest response I have ever made to anyone in my history with the project, so powerfully do I feel about this topic and so many distinct issues did he raise. In any event, to answer your question, I would probably oppose a blanket disclosure requirement too if an !vote were raised on that issue, but at the same time, I would find it vastly more paltable than a requirement to disclose specific associations. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: I've already observed here that calling the concerns of fellow editors things like histrionic is a fairly spectacular failure to remain civil and assume good faith. If you've "racked your brains" trying to figure out why ~30 experienced Wikipedians are worried about something, and the conclusion you come up with is that they're all suffering from emotional instability, chances are its your comprehension that's the problem, not their mental state.

Put simply, a conflict of interest is where an editor can be reasonably seen to be motivated in their actions here by something other than improving the encyclopaedia. Our policies already recognise that this is the case if you are paid to edit, or if you have a personal or professional relationship with a topic you are editing, especially if that relationship involves money. If an admin is paid to consult with a client, that creates a professional relationship, one that definitionally involves both money and a party that has an interest in how they are represented on Wikipedia. It is obviously a conflict of interest under our current policies. I could sketch out some specific scenarios of problematic editing that such a conflict of interest could encourage, but that'd be hypothetical, and honestly nobody but you, on either side, seems to question that what we're talking about is a COI. The question is more whether it's severe enough of one to warrant proactive disclosure.

As for whether the "phantom problem", I believe you picked that phrase to try and dismiss it (see above), but it's actually quite a good one. This is indeed a phantom problem in that we don't know if it exists or not, or if it does exist then to what extent. That's because we only have one admin who has owned up to doing this, and since he's not willing to disclose his clients, we can't tell whether it has led to any problematic edits/admin actions. So, we have two options, we can assume that Cullen is the first and only editor ever to think of this business strategy, and trust that he has never succumbed to the temptation to make edits on his clients' behalf. The other option is to require paid consultants to disclose themselves and their clients, so we can then investigate related articles and know for certain whether it's a problem or not. Many above seem happy to go the trust route; that's fine, apparently they have a lot more faith in humanity than I do. But wanting to know whether something is a problem, rather than just hope that it isn't, isn't irrational or making rules for rules' sake.

Yes, people could be dishonest and avoid disclosing. But every norm and rule of conduct we have on this project can be gamed, and we don't give up on them. As with other forms of dishonest editing, like sockpuppetry or undisclosed paid editing, we have tools that could help us detect undisclosed paid consulting. Even if we didn't, we'd benefit from the deterrent effect – in our sample of one, 100% of paid admin consultants have already said that requiring disclosure will stop them doing it. Yes, people could use this as an excuse to harass and out admins, but people already use anything as an excuse to harass and out admins, and we have strong policies and processes against it. We're a project that tries to protect people's privacy up to the point it starts impinging on our ability to achieve our mission, not some deep web collective that pursues anonymity for anonymity's sake. – Joe (talk) 14:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

"I've already observed here that calling the concerns of fellow editors things like "histrionic" is a fairly spectacular failure to remain civil and assume good faith. If you've "racked your brains" trying to figure out why ~30 experienced Wikipedians are worried about something, and the conclusion you come up with is that they're all suffering from emotional instability, chances are its your comprehension that's the problem, not their mental state.

I reject in the strongest possible terms any implication that my comments come anywhere near being uncivil or implying bad faith, and frankly your observations massively distort the subject, intent and tone of my comments. I did not call anyone histrionic. Indeed, none of my observations referred to any one community member in particular. I certainly didn't opine about anyone's "mental state". Rather all I did is observe that the proposal is, in my opinion, a huge and unjustified overreaction to a non-issue, advanced hastily and without due consideration for factors that make the "solution" an extremely dangerous idea with a poor cost-benefit return for this project and community. And I stand by that assessment.

And if I feel a given idea is terrible and share that perspective with the community, I am not thereby making personal attacks against those who support it: if that were the standard for WP:CIV on this project, we would get absolutely nowhere with resolving any divisive issue. I am merely sharing my (admitedly extremely critical) view of the proposal. Not only does that not consitute "assuming bad faith" in any sense relevant to this project, but I believe that any community member in my position (who thinks an idea would have as far-reaching negative impacts and knock-on effects, as I believe this one does) should not only be free to describe their impressions in frank terms, they in fact have an ethical burden to the community to do as much. Saying that an idea is poorly considered is not the same thing as saying those who support it are mentally deficient, or any such nonsense. Please do not put words in my mouth as relates to my fellow community members: I do not appreciate it, especially as I work hard to respect my rhetorical opposition even when I have to disagree with them in very strong terms.

"Put simply, a conflict of interest is where an editor can be reasonably seen to be motivated in their actions here by something other than improving the encyclopaedia."

Yeah, their actions here, operative word. Advice giving to third parties off-proect does not constutute "actions here". This community has long mantained a strict firewall between on-project and off-project activities, and we do not pry into the personal lives of our contributors (including the portions of their professional lives that involve discussion of Wikipedia). For numerous reasons far, far, far too important to abrogate in some overkill rush to quash run-away fears about an unproven and unlikely category of administrative malfeasance.

"If an admin is paid to consult with a client, that creates a professional relationship, one that definitionally involves both money and a party that has an interest in how they are represented on Wikipedia."

Possibly true, but far from dispositive of an issue needing addressing, let alone through such radical means as proposed here. Teaching a third party about Wikipedia in no way implies inappropriate motive on the part of the person receiving that instruction and it certainly doesn't constiute anything in the same universe as substantial cause to believe the admin providing the instruction would then go on to abuse their tools/community standing to aid that individual.

"It is obviously a conflict of interest under our current policies."

Really, then would you care to cite the policy language in question that you feel supports this position? Because I have many long years of familiarity with community consensus on COI, going back to the formation of our formal standards, and I can recall no community discussion which reached the conclusion that discussing Wikipedia off-project leads to a COI (in any context), or anyhting remotely similar. Let alone consensus captured in a PAG.

"I could sketch out some specific scenarios of problematic editing that such a conflict of interest could encourage, but that'd be hypothetical, and honestly nobody but you, on either side, seems to question that what we're talking about is a COI."

If that's genuinely your take-away of the discussion, I'd read it (or at least the oppose section) again more closely. Regardless, please feel free to stop by my talk page to share such scenarios if you want to discuss them. The lack of any such concrete specificity in the majority of the support !votes is a cause for serious criticism of the position, imo. This proposal is coasting on a very vaguely defined supposed source of disruption/bad faith activity. But I'm certainly open to hearing better-defined explanations of the concerns here.

"The question is more whether it's severe enough of one to warrant proactive disclosure."

Ok, let's assume that you and I were closer together in our opinions as regards the last couple of points. I'd still be strenously opposing this proposal on a "cure is worse than the condition" basis. On a "lobotomy to address a headache" scale, bluntly.

"This is indeed a phantom problem in that we don't know if it exists or not, or if it does exist then to what extent."

Right. And changes to policy that massively undermine existing community priorities and commitments to privacy, with huge impacts and knock-on effects to our outing and harassment standards, are not fit solution to an unsubstantiated problem that seems to be springing more from imagination than evidence.

"That's because we only have one admin who has owned up to doing this, and since he's not willing to disclose his clients, we can't tell whether it has led to any problematic edits/admin actions.

Meaning no disrespect, but that's both circular logic and begging the question. The very question at issue here is whether or not it is useful, practical, or necesary in any sense to require an admin to disclose such information, and the fact that Cullen has not done so voluntarily is hardly evidence that it is.

"...or...we can trust that [Cullen] has never succumbed to the temptation to make edits on his clients' behalf."

That's right. We could do just that, since we have absolutely no good reason to believe anything else.

Incidentally, your use of "editor" rather than "admin" in this context only enhances my concern that most of those supporting this policy for admins would be looking to support it to cover all community members in time. I don't even want to think about how many valuable community members we might lose on principle, were that to ever come to pass.

"But wanting to know whether something is a problem, rather than just hope that it isn't, isn't irrational or making rules for rules' sake."

You're right: it would certainly be nice to empirically know the answer to this question. Even those of us here pointing out that these concerns lack any substantiation or good cause to believe, and who think the threat here is likely illusory and the concerns similar to a moral panic--even among those editors, I am sure I am not the only one who would love to know for sure, if that knowledge came without cost. In fact, in that hypothetical sense, it would be really nice to know a lot about the motivations of our fellow editors.

But I for one am not prepared to authorize a fishing expedition standard that would irrepairably undermine our respect for the privacy of our contributors with regard to their personal associations, just to assuage what are (yes, in my sincere opinion) likely to be histrionic fears without significant basis. You can't put that genie back in the bottle: at a minimum, a much larger showing of an actual and truly massive issue should proceed such a monumental change in community priorites. Regardless of whether you feel that puts us at a disadvantage in proving the matter either way.

"Many above seem happy to go the trust route; that's fine, apparently they have a lot more faith in humanity than I do."

I don't feel that characterization holds water. There are many historical cases where the spectre of a threat has been utilized to justify invading the personal privacy of individuals in a community. The people in said communities who push back against such measures do not necesarily do so out of an especially "trusting" nature, but typically because they do not feel such inquiries are justified in the circumstances and proportional to the supposed threat. The "if they have nothing to hide" line of reasoning in these cases has historically not aged well...

"Yes, people could be dishonest and avoid disclosing. But every norm and rule of conduct we have on this project can be gamed, and we don't give up on them."

It's not just that people "could be dishonest": you hypothetical (and I believe probably fictional) admin who has so lost sight of their priorities as a figure of trust in this community that they would block someone on a client's behalf would almost without question be willing to lie about it. It would be absolutely inevitable that they would be reversed if they took action on behalf of a dislcosed client they and would almost certainly be desysoped for their trouble, so there would be no reason for them to take said action (and destroy their illicit source of income-via-administrative fealty to their clients) unless they had already refused to disclose the relationship. That's just a fact: it would be such a pointless thing for your theoretical admin-for-hire to openly carry out administrative activities on behalf of their client, so no admin willing to do so would ever disclose such a relationship.

"As with other forms of dishonest editing, like sockpuppetry or undisclosed paid editing, we have tools that could help us detect undisclosed paid consulting."

Please explain to me which tools you think would be effective here, then? Because there is no technical tool that would catch evaders in this context, and if you believe that behavioural analysis would catch administrative acts done for the benefit of the acting admin's off-project client, then what are we even doing here? The disclosure wpuld thereby be unncesary even for these highly speculative bad actors, and therefor the requirement would eviscierate privacy concerns (and welcomes all manner of harassment and outing disruption for the remaining admins) for absolutely no purpose.

"Even if we didn't, we'd benefit from the deterrent effect – in our sample of one, 100% of paid admin consultants have already said that requiring disclosure will stop them doing it.

You're again begging the question. Part of the inquiry here is whether we need or want a deterrent for advising people of Wikipedia's functions. That "100% of paid admin consultants" happens to be constituted of one of the most respected admins and community members in the history of the project. The first to be voted into the position by the community with a 100% support ratio, if I remember correctly, and carrying that vote with nearly 400 community members. Someone who to my recollection has never been accused of betraying that community trust. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that his instructions and advice for his clients urge them to aquaint themselves with and respect project guidelines (including those for COI editing, a much more real source of potential issues!), to avoid gamesmanship, and to understand the consensus-based mechanicsms of this community. The fact that he might be chased away from pursuing such relationships (that benefit all stakeholders) for completely fanciful reasons is by no means a positive for us, if you ask me. If anything your requirement will stop him from potentially stopping actual problems.

And sure, not every admin can be assumed to be above reproach, nor does everyone in this community necesarily hold this particular admin in such regard, I expect you would respond. But neither do we have any reasonable cause to believe such activities by admins would be anywhere near probelmatic (rather than healthy and helpful) in the aggregate such that we should celebrate their being discouraged from these activities as an automatic boon to the project. And even if we did agree that it was a per se benefit, it would still not be remotely worth the costs.

"Yes, people could use this as an excuse to harass and out admins, but people already use anything as an excuse to harass and out admins, and we have strong policies and processes against it."

Yeah, policies and processes which would be substantially more difficult to enforce once we give bad actors a motivation to start digging into the offline activities of our admins. The fact that people will "use any activity to harass and out admins" is precisely why we don't need to give them a greenlight to view the offline associations of other contributors as fair game to investigate in order to "protect" the project.

"We're a project that tries to protect people's privacy up to the point it starts impinging on our ability to achieve our mission, not some deep web collective that pursues anonymity for anonymity's sake."

Here's the thing: those privacy protections you are so quick to treat as disposable are vastly, immeasureably (I mean it's not even in the same universe) more imporant to achieving our mission than this disclosure rule you want to implment. That's true even if we assume a realistic worst case scenario for paid advisors taking administrative action on behalf of clients, let alone the vastly more likely has-never-happened reality. The privacy of this projects contributors is vital in a world where untold numbers of them face vulnerabilities relating to their associations and communications. Punching holes in those protections is not a reasonable price to pay for conspiracy theory-adjacent reasoning regarding an unproven threat.

So, I repeat, a terrible, terrible idea. And I'm not saying that you are terrible, terrible person (or community member) for supporting it. I recognize your perspectives have been shared in good faith: I ask you to do the same for me. But that doesn't change the fact that it's a bad notion on so many levels, for so many reasons. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to hat this divergence of ours about the nature of goodfaith dispute, as it is not really directly germane to issue in discussion here, and can only serve to force further scrolling in an already bloated discussion. If you have further thoughts for me on this subject, Joe, I would respectfully suggest we can discuss further in good faith on user talk, where arguably we should have been discussing this from the start. SnowRise let's rap 19:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I did not call anyone histrionic. No, you called everyone who thinks this is a problem histrionic, right here: this has got to be one of the worst cases of histrionic overeaction [...] that I have ever seen in my time on this project. If you don't see why that is uncivil or a comment on other editors' mental state, I suggest you look up the word histrionic in a dictionary. I don't have time to read the rest of this, sorry. I echo valereee's plea above; trying to write concisely is another way to show respect to other editors. – Joe (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC) Ok. In case you want to TLDR after the first paragraph again, let's try this as a concise summary of what I think of your dogged insistence on taking personal offense on behalf of everyone here, where none should be taken (and just generally assuming bad faith left, right, and center, to the point of being on the border of WP:ASPERSIONS even after I took the time to explain the distinction between my criticizing an idea versus criticizing an individual, or individuals): "Wow. Just Wow." Short, but about sums up my feelings about how you are approaching this discussion at this juncture. I 100% stand by my assessment that this proposal was in fact a histrionic overreaction to an unproven issue, the proposed solution for which could have many, many problematic implications for the project. Not only is that fairplay comment (and nowhere near uncivil as we use the term on this project, as you continue to imply) but I am in fact ethically compelled by my loyalty to the project to say as much (in frank terms) if I think the idea is poorly reasoned and dangerous, as here. Sometimes bad ideas just take on a life of their own: that's what I think clearly happened here. Just because I think a proposal is a stupendously bad idea does mean I am making general assessments of the mental faculties of other editors, as you keep implying. I mean, this is rhetoric and consensus-building 101, friend: it is not a WP:PA for me (or anyone here) to say that we think the idea you support is a bad one, based on poor reasoning during a rush to make an unecesary and possibly disastrous rule: it's merely my opinion (and clearly the opinion of others as well). And sometimes you need to say as much about such ideas, even if it incidentally reflects upon someone else's opinions. Now, if you don't want to read my response, that's wholly your prerogative. To be quite blunt, I didn't really write them so much for your benefit (frankly you appear quite dug in on this and not looking to make even small concessions to the possibility that there may be issues that crept into this proposal in the rush to create a new rule). It suffices to me that I addressed what I viewed to be numerous flawed conclusions in your (also quite long, btw) comments. Those were for the benefit of the community at large, not you in particular. As for the length of my comments: I'll tell you what I told Val: sometimes it takes a lot more time to explain why an idea is bad and could have unintended consequences than it does to just throw that idea out there and jingoistically imply it is necessary to protect some interest. And considering that since I made the post in question the ratio of the !votes has switched from slightly supporting to increasingly opposing, with several other community members citing my views as aligning with or influencing their own, I'd say my comments were relevant and useful to the resolution of this community discussion. I may not be about to win any awards for my brevity on this one, but I do try to save the walls of text for occasions where they are appropriate and necessary. This just happens to be one such case. Happy editing Joe: I hope we can be on the same side of the next issue. SnowRise let's rap 19:05, 6 October 2023 (UTC) (EC) Maybe in the future use a word other than histrionic? The ambiguity of the term is not doing you any favors in the civility department and seems to be largely what people are reacting to. I'm pretty sure if I used histrionic to refer to a co-worker (especially a woman) my boss would be poking his head in for a chat. As a general rule if its also a common recognized personality disorder don't use it colloquially. At the very least it isn't collegial or respectful. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC) Except again, I didn't call any indvidual or group of individuals histrionic. I referred to the proposal as histrionic. And it is an apt description of how I feel about the proposed course of action: a hand-wringing (if well-intentioned) overreaction, likely to lead to much more serious problems than the speculative concern itself. That's precisely what I meant to imply and I stand by that asessment. And that's not a colloquial use, but the older, more common, and plain meaning: it's much more niche meaning in clinical psychology is the newer and more idiomatic usage (not the other way around), and I clearly didn't mean it in the sense of a personality disorder... Look, my friends, I can appreciate that you feel the phrasing puts an idea you both support in a less than postive light and that it apparently feels hyperbolic to you. But bluntly, it was meant to cast the idea in a negative light. But not to do so to any editor, and this is the third time I've made that distinction (which indeed I think was clearly reflected in the wording in the first instance). I'm not sure what more I can do for you here except to politiely suggest we aren't going to have a meeting of the minds on the implication that it was incivil or ABF as the terms apply on this project. I'll grant you I didn't mince words about what I felt about the proposal, but that was very much the point--but also a very different thing from characterizing the qualities or value of a fellow editor, which is a line I make serious effort to stay on the right side of in my discussion style here. I'll take your thoughts under advisement, but beyond that, I think it's time to move on. This can only serve as a distraction to the actual topic of this discussion at this point. SnowRise let's rap 22:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC) Yes, you are being told that your choice of words is grossly offensive no matter how you intended them... You need to AGF that we're telling the truth and modify you behavior accordingly. If you want to communicate that something is a "a hand-wringing (if well-intentioned) overreaction" then simply use those words. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC) Jack, that's not how AGF works: I can stretch myself (and honestly, it is becoming a stretch to continue to do so at this juncture) to assume you two are telling the "truth" about how you two perceive the statement in question. But AGF does not require me to grant that such an interpretation is facual or a reasonable read of the content or the tone of the comment. And "grossly offensive" isn't even on the distant hroizon of a reasonable read. The two of you seem determined to take umbrage for a comment that didn't name you or a single editor--or even grammatically/semantiucally allow for it to apply to a human being at all, but rather a very bad idea. So I'm done with this conversation. SnowRise let's rap 18:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

In the spirit of accuracy, my RfA support was (316/2/3), Snow Rise. Cullen328 (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I stand corrected, Jim: merely 99.4% support. ;). And lest I give the impression that I think you are some sort of Wikipedia ubermensch, let me hasten to add that you and I actually disagree on some fundamental policy issues quite strongly, especially of late. But what I can say in support of you is that I have not the slightest doubt that when you advise your clients, you attempt to educate them fully on this project's culture and the need to comport with out policies and guidelines to the letter.

So to see the notion that the proposed rule is already proving its potential value because it would put an end to those relationships is just frankly such an analytically and pragmatically backwards way of doing the cost-benefit analysis here, that I'm at a loss to fully convey how poorly thought-out I think that particular observation was. It fundamentally frames any work you might do in educating others off project as presumptively a bad thing, insofar as your inability to continue those relationships is being positioned, in that comment, as a per se victory for the project's interests.

Honestly, it's pretty close to an expressly ABF statement asserting that your work educating these third parties can be presumed to be a net-negative, and that we are better off assuming that you are more likely to commit bad acts hurting the project (to serve these clients) than you are to aid the project (by educating them). I personally feel that crosses the threshold from cynicism to paranoia, and a misanthropic presumption of ill intent on your part. I'm sure you have thick enough skin not to take it too personally, and i'm aware of the pitfalls of taking umbrage on someone else's behalf, but I still find the way that conclusion was framed inappropriate all the same. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

In the spirit of completeness, could you cite the words you used in your RfA to describe your intention to advertise your admin credentials on upwork if promoted? I couldn't find the standard declaration that you had never engaged in paid editing, which I read above was a requirement (perhaps Candidates are also required to disclose whether they have ever edited Wikipedia for pay. was added since your RfA?) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 15:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

SashiRolls, there are no such words going back six plus years because I did not even think about offering off-Wikipedia consulting and training services until October, 2022, and did not make the decision to do so until November, 2022, after disclosing my plans at WP:AN, and receiving no negative feedback. Cullen328 (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328: About your disclosure at AN, I think a lot of this controversy can be explained by an inadvertent miscommunication. It's laudable that you took steps to disclose in advance, both at AN and on your user page. However, your disclosure did not state: (1) you were planning to advertise consulting services on a job board website, and (2) the job board posting would expressly advertise your status as an admin. I believe that if your disclosure had said, "I am planning to post on a job board that I am a Wikipedia admin available for hire as a consultant," you would have received a lot more feedback. Just speaking for myself, I remember reading your disclosure at the time, and I did not think that what you were planning to do was make an admin-consultant-for-hire post at Upwork. I thought it was something more like an existing client of yours found out you were a Wikipedia editor and wanted to ask you some questions about it.

In short, the disclosure didn't disclose that you planned to solicit work based on your status as an admin (and, to add a third minor point to that, that the solicitation would be made on a job board website that also hosts ads for actual paid editors, including WP:UPE). In my view, those were two key details (maybe three) that weren't disclosed in the disclosure, and I think that's why so many editors were surprised to learn of the job posting, despite your earlier disclosure. To add a fourth point, your disclosure was made at WP:AN, which I think is a strange place to make such a disclosure (why would admins need to know about this and not non-admins?). I think WP:COIN would have been a better place to make such a disclosure.

Now, I'm not suggesting you intentionally omitted those details (for all I know, you hadn't even decided to make a job board posting, or written it, at the time you made your disclosure) or otherwise acted in any sort of duplicitous way--I think it was a good faith mistake--but I also think that's why there was little little feedback when you made the disclosure vs. the large amount of feedback now.

And now I'm starting to think that maybe it would help to have a rule that any editor (admin or otherwise) soliciting work on a job board website must disclose same at WP:COIN. Levivich (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you think that your RFA would have been successful if you'd declared at the time that you intended to profit off of your position through consulting? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@SashiRolls @Horse Eye's Back Cullen's RFA was in July 2017, the requirement for candidates to disclose whether they have ever edited for pay was not introduced until January 2018. Have you considered the possibility that Cullen's decision to start advising for pay was made more recently than the 6 years ago they passed RFA? Thryduulf (talk) 15:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

You appear to be conflating two questions, mine isn't about that requirement at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Your question is about what someone might think the perception of the ethicality of this behaviour is, not about the ethicality. As this discussion shows, there are good faith differences about that. I would expect most of the supporters here to oppose an RfA where the candidate declared they might do paid advising. I don't know if that would be enough to prevent an RfA passing, but either outcome should make no difference to anyone's opinion on the ethical question itself. I hope you're not saying that every question or preference raised at RfA represents a valid concern that all admins ought to abide by. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)

My question is about whether they think they would have passed RFA. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I will decline to speculate about what might have happened six years ago, because I had no such plans or intentions at that time. I came up with this idea about a year ago, disclosed it at WP:AN and on my user page without objection, and proceeded on that basis. I am willing to discuss the facts, as opposed to engaging with the ABF evidence-free speculation that has proliferated in this sprawling discussion, Horse Eye's Back. Cullen328 (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

So if I've understood correctly you are saying that the tally concerning your RfA is unrelated to this discussion about paid advising, insofar as you had not yet decided to advertise for your services as an admin advisor. That's why I wasn't sure why you mentioned it above. Please dont assume bad faith when others point out that things said in the spirit of accuracy may also be incomplete. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 19:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

SashiRolls, another editor brought up the tally and I furnished the correct numbers. No more and no less. Cullen328 (talk) 20:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Cullen mentioned his pass rate to correct an earlier recollection by myself that he had passed RfA with a 100% support ratio, when in fact the support ratio was just over 99% (and involved around 80 fewer participants than I recalled). I mentioned his high level of support (still one of the highest in the history of RfA) in the context of responding to an observation that presumed it to be a per se good thing if Cullen was forced to not consult on Wikipedia if this proposal passed, insofar as it seemed to assume that the impacts of said advising could be assummed to be a net negative for the project. Now, I understand how that part could have gotten lost in the mix with as long and complicated as the discussion has gotten, but to be clear, Cullen was not invoking his pass rate himself to bootstrap his position. To the contrary, he was correcting me and pointing out that his RfA bonafides were (ever so slightly) lower than I suggested. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

But pivoting to the other, etangled inquiry of whether or not Cullen thinks he would have passed RfA if disclosing his (then non-existent) intent to consult for pay (or whether he could pass RfA today with such a declaration, now that he does consult, or however else you might want to reframe the same basic question)...I think it's a giant red herring. It may not be accurately described as a "bad faith question", but it is certainly an example of bad rationalization for a proposition. The entire point of asking that quasi-rhetorical question is to imply that the person asking it feels that there is at least a decent chance that a candidate would not pass RfA if disclosing such an intent. Possibly even as strong a candidate as Jim. But that line of reasoning does not have persusasive rigor regardig the underlying inquiry here, imo:

For starters, it's a complete argument from authority--and not even one's own authority, but rather originating with a supposed likely outcome of a speculative poll. Well here's the thing: putting aside for the moment the fact that I don't think we have the information to arrive at such a broad conclusion--I think it would very much depend on the candidate and how they handled inquiries at RfA--the relative popularity or unpopularity of an idea (even real established popularity, let alone presumed, untested popularity) is just not the same thing as a rational, first principles argument for that idea. Bad ideas sometimes get popular support; good ideas sometimes run afoul of unreasonable opposition.

At RfA in particular, though I broadly support it being a tough vetting process to foreground the project's needs over the candidate's, it's undeniable that some candiates routinely face excessive scrutiny for sometimes bad reasons. So, implying that candidates (or a particular candidate) would face a stiffer vetting process under such circumstances doesn't help us one whit in making an a priori analysis on whether or not the proposal being made here is a good one or not. It's an empirically and rationalistically weak argument based on speculative evidence that wouldn't even directly support the proposition even if we had hard data on it. Asking Cullen himself to speculate on the question is even one level more abstracted and pointless.

This discussion should rather be focused on the following questions: are the prospective problems being speculated about here likely to be real and substantial enough to justify such broad community action impacting many longstanding policies and fundamental community priorites? If so, is the proposal actually a reasonable and effective tool for dealing with such concerns? Is the suggested approach as minimally invasive of the contributor and third party's established privacy interests (and related concerns about harassment and outing) as recognized by prior community consensus and existing rules and processes, or would the proposed approach substantially aborgate other more important protections that also protect project and community interests? Clearly, respondents are all over the place when it comes to those questions, but at least those sorts of considerations directly inform upon whether this is a good idea, unlike wildly speculating about hypothetical counterfactuals regarding past RfAs, or asking Cullen to do it himself. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

The last two RfA I watched had similar rates: 313/1/2 (one I supported) and 315/3 (one I did not participate in). Eostrix/Icewhiz had similar numbers (132/1) until their run was shut down by an ArbCom investigation. These numbers are a red herring. The question of whether these numbers could be achieved by someone straightforwardly announcing an intention to advertise on upwork as a private contractor is not a red herring. Here are the facts as I see them: policy discourages people from making undisclosed paid changes to the encyclopedia. The word "change" is what is meant on en.wp by "edit" (on simple.wp the word "change" is used, other wikis use "contribution", etc.) There is nothing, as far as I am aware, in policy that prevents paid contractors from affecting content as long as they do not themselves effect change by pressing the save button (either on talk pages, mainspace pages, or in the dialogue box allowing admins to protect pages / block users, etc.) The precedent being set by doing nothing to shut down this admin advising "loophole" (you can do what you want and your privacy rights allow you to avoid disclosing who your clients are since you yourself are not pressing "save" for them) is to add a new official perk to getting through RfA (at least in terms of the hourly rate the market will bear), because an RfC said it was OK for admins to advertise their services on upwork. Let's be clear though, there is nothing preventing advising from including providing fully rewritten articles to clients, suggesting talk page strategies, counseling on how to rid pages of annoying gadflies, how to get pages protected, how to argue at RS/N, NPOV/N, etc., etc.

At the moment, the going rate appears to be under 100€/hr for admin advising, so it won't represent big budget overruns for the big-endian lobbies to hire the hierati, while the little-endians are always welcome to have the tea leaves read to them. :) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 22:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Well as to the empirical value of speculation about past RfAs, I'm sure we can pleasantly agree to disagree. That said, what you have described as a "loophole" in regards to the community's decision not to include advising under the same umbrella as paid editing, I think is more realistically characterized as an express feature of community consensus. Afterall, the discussions in which the current rubric of COI/PE standards evolved are among the most widely attended and consulted-upon in project history. And the very express divide between on-project versus off-project conduct defining the barrier between what we can and should be looking into in behavioural discussions of most sorts goes back to the earliest days of the project and has been maintained consistently since--up to an including major proposals have been shot down as recently as a few months back.

Protecting the privacy of contributors and third parties against well-intentioned but overzealous efforts from community members seeking to "bust" supposed malfeasance, but at the cost of violating that barrier is not an oversight: it's an expression of community will about our order of priorities regarding competing considerations that have varying levels of potential harm for the project, the community, individual contributors, and third parties. The current standards did not come into existence haphazardly, including the existing particulars when it comes to paid editing and what conduct does and does not constitude such activity. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

It is astonishing how sprawling this discussion has grown, and in my view, a significant amount of it is based on evidence free speculation. So it goes. I do want to state that I have consistently insisted that my few clients make either a WP:PAID or a WP:COI declaration on their userpages before editing, according to the specific circumstances, so any speculation that I am helping bad faith actors evade scrutiny is false. All of my clients have expressed a desire to improve and not to damage the encyclopedia, even to the extent of a couple of them paying me US $150.00 to explain to them in great detail why they are not eligible for a Wikipedia biography at this time. I also want to state that no paying client so far has ever asked me to use my administrator's tools in any way, and I would have refused instantly if they had. None of them has shown much interest in me being an administrator, except as seeing it as evidence that I actually know what I am talking about. Cullen328 (talk) 02:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

But we only have your word for it, Cullen, can't you see why that makes some of us uneasy? We're speculating because you've given us no choice. Please understand that I'm not accusing you of being dishonest or doing anything wrong, but the community has given us extra tools with the expectation that we use them on their behalf, and that requires transparency – we need to be able to see that you've been forthright here. Even checkusers and oversighters, that have to work privately, have their actions logged and reviewed by ArbCom, who answer to OmbCom, and so on. – Joe (talk) 06:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

My word, my reputation, my track record and my honor, Joe Roe. Those are the things that I care about the most. Checkusers, oversighters and ArbCom concern themselves with on-Wiki behavior, or demonstrably inappropriate and provable off-Wiki behavior like harassment. There is zero evidence of any misconduct by me. Again, I have never edited Wikipedia, not even a single keystroke, on behalf of a paying client. What is the precedent for forcing disclosure of off-Wikipedia activities like training and consulting? Why would you want to infringe on the privacy of my clients, who never agreed to by be scrutinized by a howling mob? How does that fit into the Wikipedia ethos? To repeat myself, if the consensus is that intrusive disclosure of consulting and training conducted entirely off-Wikipedia is required, then I will comply and stop offering that service, because I would never expect any client to agree to be subjected to this extreme level of scrutiny by people engaging in evidence-free speculation. Cullen328 (talk) 07:20, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, it's "evidence-free" because you're blocked the possibility to gather evidence. You're a very highly trusted editor, likely one of the most well-regarded admins there is (at least before this). But frankly I think you're exploiting that reputation, because the average editor and admin is never extended this level of blind trust – the rest of us have to work transparently, and answer to the community. I don't really accept that you telling us who you worked with is a meaningful breach of anyone's privacy, but if I were in your shoes, I'd have advised your clients that scrutiny is the name of the game here. – Joe (talk) 07:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Joe Roe, you are asking for a whole new level of intrusive scrutiny of off-Wikipedia activities, that, to the best of my knowledge, has no precedent in the 22 year history of this project. Please correct me if I am wrong. As for advising my clients that transparency and scrutiny is the name of the game here, as I said above, I have always required that any of my paying clients who wanted to edit Wikipedia make either the WP:PAID OR WP:COI disclosures, according to the circumstances, so that the normal level of scrutiny of the contributions of such editors can take place. I recently hit 100,000 edits and I welcome scrutiny of every single one of them. You and those who support this policy change want to take the widely accepted scrutiny of on-Wikipedia activity, and extend it off-Wikipedia to places where transparent disclosure and scrutiny has never before been accepted let alone required. As for accusing me of "exploiting" my good reputation by engaging in off-Wikipedia activities that violate no known policy or guideline, that just seems like a bizarre argument to me, but I suppose that it must make sense to you. As for your snide remark, (at least before this), I will proceed as always with my head held high, because I know that I have provided policy compliant consulting and training services to a handful of clients, for the purpose of improving this encyclopedia, no matter the dark suspicions that some editors harbor. Entirely off Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

@Joe Roe remember we also have the exact same level of evidence (i.e. none) that you are not engaging in anything untoward off Wikipedia, including taking payment for advising clients how to engage with Wikipedia (properly or otherwise). Given this complete lack of evidence that your offwiki activities are doing anything to damage the project we trust that you are not. Why are you not able to extend that same trust to Cullen? Thryduulf (talk) 08:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not exactly the same level of evidence, is it? Because I don't have an Upwork profile declaring that I'm an active Wikipedia administrator who will assist you behind the scenes every step of the way for a fee. I'm also perfectly willing to disclose all my clients to you right now, because there are none.

Nobody forced you to make yourself the guinea pig for this exciting new way to make money from your admin status, Cullen, and nobody can force you to be transparent about what you've been doing after the fact. If you were willing to be open with the community, we wouldn't have to scrutinise every single one of your edits from here on. That's another choice you've made. – Joe (talk) 09:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

It is exactly the same level of evidence. You are exactly as equally likely to be lying that you have never advised anybody inappropriately as Cullen is. Thryduulf (talk) 09:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

If its the exact same level of evidence lets see that evidence equivalent to the Upwork profile. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Firstly I need to know what evidence an Upwork provides that Cullen is doing anything untoward, on or off Wikipedia, and/or is more likely to be doing such. In this entire discussion nobody has yet answered this question with anything factual. Thryduulf (talk) 18:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Its the "more likely" scenario, doesn't mean I think they've done anything wrong just that they've put themself in a more difficult to manage situation therefore inherently increasing the risk of even inadvertently having COI become an issue. As I've said I think that Cullen made the right call in asking the community for input and I will note that the community has been overwhelmingly supportive of them at the same time as expressing a healthy skepticism of those in positions of power. This isn't about Cullen, this is about the abstract issue and perhaps it would be wisest to decouple the discussions from each other... Or wait until this particular discussion closes before having a calmer and less personalized discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, now explain why disclosing that you are being paid to give advice about Wikipedia makes it more likely that you will be doing something untoward than someone who gives the same advice to the same people without being paid, or to people who don't disclose whether they are giving advice (pair or unpaid) or not. Thryduulf (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Someone who only has a social COI seems less likely to become involved in sketchy editing than someone who has both a social and financial COI. I would say that the risk would be significantly lower than for editors who don't disclose paid advice. I would also challenge you to answer why someone would pay of something they could otherwise get for free? The presumption here is that the client is not a friend or family member of the consultant and so would have no way of getting that same advice from that same person outside of the paid channel. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Why someone would pay for something the could get for free has been answered multiple times in this discussion by multiple people (including by me earlier today), repeating myself here seems unlikely to add value.

So the answer to my question is that no, there is no evidence that someone disclosing they give paid advice is more likely to do anything wrong, just vague speculation based upon assumptions about the user's faith. Which means we have exactly the same level of evidence that Cullen and Joe are telling the truth that they have never engaged in undisclosed paid editing. Thryduulf (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand, how can it be the same people? How can they both have never met the consultant and be a family member or personal friend? Also note that you appear to have moved the goalposts, they've shifted from "anything untoward, on or off Wikipedia, and/or is more likely to be doing such." to "engaged in undisclosed paid editing." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I never said anything about being the same people, or about being friends or family members - that was you. It's irrelevant for this point how in practice the adviser and client connected, because it makes no difference. If person A gives person B advice C and gets paid for doing so, they are exactly as likely to be telling the truth about whether they acted inappropriately regarding it as if the same person A gave the same person B the same advice C but did not get paid for doing so.

After undisclosed paid editing in my previous comment please add "or other untoward conduct", because there is the exact same evidence for both.

Regarding goalpost moving, you challenged me to back up my comment that there is the same evidence regarding Cullen and Joe, and then said it's not about Cullen but an abstract issue. Thryduulf (talk) 08:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

"someone who gives the same advice to the same people without being paid" Do you genuinely not believe that payment increases the risk of corruption? And if so do you have any literature to support that extraordinary contention? Basically all the research on this topic finds that value transfers increase the risk of corruption and the risk increases proportionate to the scale of the value transfer. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Is there a slightly increased risk of corruption? It's not impossible. Is that evidence that an editor who discloses they have given advice in exchange for money is less trustworthy than someone who doesn't disclose? No. Is it evidence that Cullen is more likely to be giving inappropriate advice than Joe? No. Will requiring admins to disclose who their clients are make it any easier to detect whether they or their clients have been engaging in inappropriate edits? No (see explanations given repeatedly elsewhere for details). Thryduulf (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Not sure why you want to keep making this about Cullen and Joe when this isn't about Cullen and Joe. I find that sort of personal rather than professional focus off-putting. We established that it does make it any easier to detect whether they or their clients have been engaging in inappropriate edits, perhaps you need to re-read above? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make it all about Cullen and Joe. I used the two people as an example and then got asked as series of questions specifically about that. It makes no difference to the point whether the people are Cullen and Joe or John Doh and Fred Smith.

Also We established that it does make it any easier to detect whether they or their clients have been engaging in inappropriate edits except you haven't. You've tried, but the only thing you've actually come up with is a very long list of articles that might or might not be relevant, and which any edits to might or might not be made in relation to the advice by someone who may or may not have been advised and, if so, may or may not have been made inappropriately. So in practical terms, no you haven't established that it achieves anything useful Thryduulf (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

In practical terms it can't be established one way or another without actually trying it, purely theoretical otherwise. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

For those not paying attention, Cullen has by his own admission earnt $1,290 for only 22 hours work servicing only 8 clients. That is an hourly rate of nearly $60. It is also an average of around $160 per client. This work includes twice charging $150 to tell a client in "great detail" that they do not merit a Wikipedia biography. We can therefore speculate he spent no more than 2.75 billable hours compiling and explaining that detail. That is amazingly lucrative work. Work that is as far as I can tell, not very difficult. Why even be a volunteer Administrator with all the hassle of having others looking over your shoulder, when you can earn $60/h for giving out the same advice but with zero oversight? Even if it hasn't affected how Cullen approaches being an Administrator, and all we have is his word for that, it will affect others. Edson Makatar (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

It's really not that lucrative. Freelance gigs will always attract a higher hourly rate than an employee because of the inherent lack of job security. That's a very (very) reasonable rate for a freelancer. Try hiring a plumber or an accountant or a web designer and tell me they don't charge more than that. Aspersions about nefarious motives aside, you've yet to demonstrate that this a problem, much less one that can be eliminated with a policy change. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

If this is not that lucrative what would be the level at which you would feel uncomfortable? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

It's self evident what the problem is. Cullen isn't earning $60 an hour as a plumber or an accountant or a web designer. He is earning it as a Wikipedia consultant. And he is doing so in complete secrecy. He answers to nobody but himself. It is debatable whether even his clients have recourse. The comparison to plumbers, accountants and web designers is deeply insulting to those who have done what needs to be done in their respective industries to earn thet kind of money. And that always includes being transparent to somebody other than the client. There is no Wikipedia regulator or trade body. There is no rate card or accreditation scheme for Wikipedia consulting. It's also deeply insulting to all members of the Wikipedia movement, who pride themselves in not being part of a business, even though they are now unwittingly all part of an umbrella organization for authorizing and facilitating entirely unaccountable freelance consultants it seems. Edson Makatar (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

$60/hr is low for a business consultant. Honestly, if you can't get someone to pay you $60/hr for advice, your advice isn't worth paying for. Nobody wants $20/hr advice. (Unless you're invoking Levivich's Price-Match Guarantee! $100/hr advice at $20/hr prices! Sign up today!) Levivich (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Cullen is not a business consultant. Cullen is earning $60 an hour to tell people things they can already get for free, because the sprint of Wikipedia is to be a non-profit encyclopedia run by volunteers in a transparent way. He has apparently twice already spent less than three hours to tell someone "in great detail" they lack Wikipedia notability, charging $150 for that service. Nobody knows what he did to earn that money. Nobody knows what contractual arrangements exist by which a dissatisfied client of his can seek recourse if they later learn how little Cullen did to earn that money, relatively to what a half way competent volunteer could or would do. Nobody knows even if Cullen has compiled with the license requirement be clear he does not represent nor is he affiliated with Wikipedia in any way, and this advice is given entirely on the basis of him being a man on the street who could very well simply be, as one person put it, looking to eat. He has no relevant qualifications or record of business that would give a client independent reassurance he is fit to provide this service, and he is keeping the details of it secret from the very people who can give that reassurance. This is why comparing him even to a lowly plumber, people he has presumably sub contracted before in his real life, is deeply insulting. If he were a business consultant he could be challenged by the entity (without which he could not earn a single dime in this fashion) to prove he really is acting in its best interest and there really is something about this service that can only be provided by him charging this fee. As a Wikipedia Administrator, a status that he has admitted gives his clients confidence he "knows what he is talking about", he has a moral obligation to explain why the addition of money to the equation means he can keep secret that which would be reviewable by anyone were he doing it as a volunteer Administrator. Inadvertently casting him as a business consultant perhaps gets to the heart of the ethical issue here. Would it surprise anyone to learn if every single one of his clients has a commercial motive for being on Wikipedia? If not, the world really does need to know if Cullen has taken it upon himself to be a proft driven broker between non-profits, and he really does need to give a better accounting of how that can possibly be ethical if he intends to shroud that activity in complete secrecy. He certainly needs to prove that this combination of secrecy and profit not only has a long history within Wikipedia, efforts to bring transparency to it have historically been met with fierce resistance. Because that is an extraordinary claim. Edson Makatar (talk) 08:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't feel insulted at all, by the way. And I have no illusions that this is other than a business. Jimbo's done quite well out of it, as have others, so I hear. Wehwalt (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

As someone who has been part of the Wikimedia movement for over 15 years, and who has invested literally thousands of hours into it over that time, the only thing about this discussion that is insulting is people being outraged on my behalf. Once you look past the hysteria you realise that this [advising people how to correctly interract with Wikipedia] will benefit Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Edson Makatar I find it offensive that you proclaim to speak for all Wikipedians. I've blocked literally thousands of people who have tried to use Wikipedia to promote their business so I can tell you two things: first, you're focusing on a moral panic about admins advising clients instead of the real problems that those admins are busy trying to address at the coalface; and second, no matter what rules we put in place, there will always be a market for these kinds of services, much the same way as there will always be a market for cocaine, regardless of the law. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

What does any of that have to do with the inherent problem with someone earning $60 an hour for a service nobody can review but which is intrinsically linked to a non-profit movement built on transparency and volunteerism? Edson Makatar (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

What inherent problem? Stating that something is an inherent problem doesn't make it so. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Your manner of debate is an example of the problem. How many opportunities have you had now to show you can actually address the points raise by me, and you have seeminy deliberately ignored them. Yet you can go out tomorrow and advertise your services as an ethical Wikipedia consultant, because you too are an Administrator. How does that not inherently damage the reputation of Wikipedia? People like you charging $60 am hour to waste everyone else's time having to deal with celebrities and companies who learnt from you that the best way to deal with criticism is to deflect. Edson Makatar (talk) 13:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what kind of oversight or recourse one might expect should Wikipedia consulting be appropriately regulated. The hypothetical client, if anything egregious should occur, has (I assume) the option of mailing paid-en-wp or going to COIN or one of the administrator's noticeboards. If this is made clear, would this be sufficient oversight? Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

It is correctly written "advising people how to correctly interract with Wikipedia for money and in complete secrecy". Those last six words are the issue. As is the fact it also involves using Administrator status as a USP in that endeavor. Edson Makatar (talk) 09:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

RfA scenarios

Seraphimblade raised a question in their support !vote above that I think is interesting. They said If someone announced during their RfA that they intend to do this type of thing, would that RfA stand any reasonable chance to pass? I'm pretty certain the answer is "no", and so that indicates this is not a practice the community really wants to see admins engaging in. Given that RfAs require at least two-thirds majorities to pass, they may well be right. What if (as I expect will start to happen) someone were to pose a question at RfA of "Are you willing to commit never to work as a paid advisor to clients who want to be advised about Wikipedia?" and the candidate answered "I do not wish to answer this as it relates to off-wiki behaviour, and so is an inappropriate question". If I were to run for RfA I would be tempted to answer that way regardless of whether I would be willing to make that commitment. Is there precedent for RfA questions about off-wiki behaviour? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

To answer your question, I looked at the last four RfAs on the list: Hey man im josh, theleekycauldron, Pppery, and Firefangledfeathers. All four of them made a statement that they had never edited for pay in their nomination acceptance. So it seems to be a de facto expectation that not only will candidates discuss such off-wiki behavior, they will do so without needing even to be asked. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

They made those statements because they're required to. —Cryptic 22:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Are they? The only requirement I can see on that page is Administrator tools may not be used as part of any paid editing activity, except as a Wikipedian-in-Residence, or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF. That clearly can't be anything a candidate at RfA would need to comment on except to commit to as they don't yet have the tools. Declaring that they have never edited for pay is not the same as declaring they never will (presumably not using the tools, if they did so). In any case editing for pay is on-wiki behaviour. I'm trying to ask about questions at RfA relating to off-wiki behaviour. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Paragraph two of #Becoming an administrator. Candidates are also required to disclose whether they have ever edited Wikipedia for pay. —Cryptic 22:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

There's a big difference between "I have never edited for pay" and "I will never advise anyone about Wikipedia for pay". The first is a reasonable requirement for admins (and, in my dreams, all editors). The second is a much higher bar: why shouldn't any editor, even an admin, write and sell a How to Edit Wikipedia book or give paid seminars on the topic? I admit that the sequel How to Make your Promotional Edits Stick Without Getting Blocked is more of a grey area. Certes (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Neither of those scenarios (publishing a how-to book or giving general seminars) are covered by this proposal, are they? Espresso Addict (talk) 23:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

That depends how you interpret terms like "paid", "soliciting", "Wikipedia-related", "consulting", "advising" and "services". Giving a general seminar in exchange for a free lunch is definitely not covered by the spirit the proposer intended (as indicated by their support comment it's intended to cover only secenarios where an admin puts up a website to find clients or goes onto upwork, or the like., but it's very clear that views about what the spirit of the proposal is and/or should be cover a very wide range. By the letter of the proposal, if you advertise that you are available to give general seminars (for any non-zero fee) then this proposal would (I believe) require you to disclose. If you write either of those books and make it available for free then this proposal does not cover you. If you do charge for and advertise either book, then the proposal would probably require you to disclose, although I'm not sure who the client would be in this scenario (maybe the publisher if you solicit money from them?) unless you want to argue that selling a book is not service (but that feels wikilawyery to me). If you write the book, charge people for a copy, but do not advertise it's available then it's anybody's guess whether this proposal would cover you. Thryduulf (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the primary concern here is personalized advice to individual clients (whether people or organizations) in exchange for a fee, and actively soliciting such business. So, if you advertise your services, and Acme Corp. hires you to be their in-house advisor, that's covered here. If you write a book, or give a seminar, or write a blog and make a few bucks on ads from it, or anything else involving giving general advice to the public, that's not a problem and not what this is intended to address. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:38, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree giving general advice to the public is not what Barkeep intended this to address when making the proposal however the proposal as worded does not restrict it to that intent, and I am absolutely certain that there are multiple different views about what it does and should cover (both in letter and in spirit). Thryduulf (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

In terms of the spirit of wikipedia nobody has yet explained why these wannabe consultants aren't just putting in shifts at the help desk or other public forums. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, I am the administrator in question, and I have been heavily involved with the Help Desk and the Teahouse for many years, and remain heavily involved. I have 10,355 edits to the Teahouse and 1055 edits to the Help Desk and my participation is unabated. My volunteer time is different from my work time. I edit Wikipedia mostly from my living room with my smartphone. I make money in my home office using a desktop computer. My paid Wikipedia consulting and training work has taken me less than 20 hours in the last 11 months. Cullen328 (talk) 03:33, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

So its substantially different because it happens on a different device in a different room of your house? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I have been self-employed for 30 years, Horse Eye's Back, and to me, my paid work is very different from my hobbies and my social life. Not just two devices, but two bank accounts, two email addresses, separate financial records, and so on. I have worked from a home office ever since 1993. Cullen328 (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

And if you had not spent those 20 hours doing wikipedia related work what room would you have been in? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, I will decline to answer a question that is, in my view, ludicrous, intrusive and unknowable. Cullen328 (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back I endorse Cullen's characterisation of that question and also add "irrelevant" to the list. Thryduulf (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

And no one's saying you shouldn't be permitted to do that, even. There's no proposal here to outright bar it. The only requirement would be that, as with all WP:PAID type activity, you say who is paying. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Because they want pay to benefit (or in the words of contract provide consideration) to those who can and will pay --- which, unless it is a fraud, has to be a benefit/consideration those who can't or don't pay, don't get. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Who says they aren't? Even if they don't, if they spend their volunteer time improving the encyclopaedia in other ways how is that not within the spirit of Wikipedia? If someone feels they are a better educator in person than online then why should we force them to do something they are bad at before they're allowed to do something they're good at? Thryduulf (talk) 00:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Its not possible to be two places at once, if they're helping people off wiki they aren't on wiki helping people. Making money off of wikipedia (especially making a living) outside of the organization is against the spirit of wikipedia (as it is with nearly any charity), we're all supposed to be self-supporting and thats one of the project's greatest strengths. Its supposed to be a charitable pursuit, not a job. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Making money off of wikipedia (especially making a living) outside of the organization is against the spirit of wikipedia (as it is with nearly any charity) By that argument everybody employed by the WMF or a chapter is making a living that is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia, and everybody employed by a charity (in any capacity) is doing so against the spirit of that charity.

Its not possible to be two places at once, if they're helping people off wiki they aren't on wiki helping people. they are not doing so simultaneously, but that still does not mean they are not doing both. Thryduulf (talk) 01:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Both of those examples are of someone making money inside of the organization. I said outside of the organization. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Sensible charity's don't allow people placed in central positions in the organization, to potentially work either in a way that brings them into disrepute or could cause internal conflict, not without disclosure. And, hello, all WMF personal are publicly disclosed on the pedia, everyone knows what the relationships are, and it is no secret they own the site. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that non-personalised instruction for a general audience, whether in the form of a book or a seminar, is a different kettle of fish, even if remunerated. In particular, it doesn't seem to generate any obvious conflict of interest. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

According to other comments in this discussion, anything involving money in any way automatically and inescapably generates the strongest possible COI. You and they cannot both be right, but the wording of the proposal gives no firm guidance as to which it is. Thryduulf (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

But COI for what??? Espresso Addict (talk) 00:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

You will have to ask the people making that argument that question. I don't understand how simply teaching someone how to properly engage with Wikipedia automatically gives the teacher COI with regards the articles the student is (or might be) interested in editing (whether they actually edit them or not), yet multiple people are arguing that it is vital we know the clients so we can check both parties are not engaging in paid editing. Thryduulf (talk) 00:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The public presentation is public, so obviously even were there a paymaster, such info need not be kept secret. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

• No they would never pass adminship, because they are most defiantly not trusted for that. And the actual question might be more like, 'If during your adminship you consult about Wikipedia for pay, would you publicly disclose the identity of who is paying you or share that information with the rest of Wikipedia, like in PAID?' (Also, if someone is publishing a book, whether someone want's to call that consulting (which seems nonsensical) or not, they do it in public.). Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

This RFC is to determine whether or not we want the "disclosure of the client's name" requirement. (which I opposed as being a partial self-outing requirement) I think that the three possible answers are: Consensus to do that, no consensus to do that, and a consensus against doing that (e.g. to explicitly reject that idea). The result of the RFC (which we do not yet have) would substantially affect the topic of this conversation. This might be useful discussion regarding the rfc, but it's hard to hypothesize the results of a "what if" when there will be impactful news affecting it in 1-2 weeks.

BTW, it's been said that "The promises that are most carefully made are the ones that are the least likely to be broken." For such a broad/vague eternal promise, I would tend to trust the thoughtful person more who didn't just jump in with a simple "yes" to the question as written. North8000 (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Is it ethical to personally profit from Wikipedia in ways that your fellow Wikipedians cannot review? Framing the question that way is how to get to the heart of the matter. Edson Makatar (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia's license explicitly permits anybody to profit from Wikipedia, including in ways that Wikipedians cannot review. Thryduulf (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Any Wikipedia editor can review the way a commercial re-user of Wikipedia content uses their work. Specifically, they can check whether the use falls with the spirit of Wikipedia as embodied by that license. Namely that Wikipedia content is free to distribute and the people who made it retain their copyright no matter how many times it is repackaged for whatever purpose. A small thing perhaps, but an important thing to anyone who donates their time and effort for free. Nobody can review how Cullen uses his Wikipedia knowledge for personal profit. Up to and including whether or not he distributes training materials derived from Wikipedia content without fulfilling the license conditions. Perhaps he does. Nobody can know (unless they pay him I suppose). Needless to say, charging a fee for such a review is unambiguously against the license conditions (yet another reminder of how people can use this simple question to determine whether someone is operating within the spirit of Wikipedia or not). Hopefully Cullen is getting some idea of all the things he could have done and could still do to reassure people his ethical consulting is actually ethical in the Wikipedia sense. It's a shame he didn't think to do so before he did it. But as we have seen, somehow he got the idea that combining secrecy with personal profit is within that spirit. I really doubt he came to that conclusion by thinking about the Wikipedia content license. Edson Makatar (talk) 19:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Any Wikipedia editor can review the way a commercial re-user of Wikipedia content uses their work. really? It is an awful lot of effort to check whether anyone who ever sells copies of books containing my articles or who reposts my articles on other websites is complying with the letter of our CC license. There is no way I can check Wikipedia reusers who print one of my articles on a T-Shirt and sell it for hundreds of dollars on their personal yacht. Yet that is allowed by the license, as long as credit is given and further use of the content is not restricted, and Wikipedia authors can check neither. Why would you expect Cullen of all people to violate the license when there is absolutely no advantage for him to do so? Or do you not understand what license Wikipedia is under? —Kusma (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Any Wikipedia editor can check whether a T shirt with a Wikipedia article on it is complying with the license conditions. Any Wikipedia editor can determine if your rights have been infringed and alert you. This is transparency. This is review. Difficulty is irrelevant. It would be difficult to review whether Cullen has given anyone poor advice, or if that advice had been tainted by his personal views. Currently, it is impossible. This would be possible for any assitance he provides a volunteer Administrator. Edson Makatar (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

This would be possible for any assitance he provides a volunteer Administrator. That's yet another factual error. Not all advice is given on-wiki, much is given every day in person, via email, on social media, etc. formally and informally, and most of this cannot be verified. Separately, knowing which clients have been advised will not enable anybody to review whether Cullen has given anyone poor advice, or if that advice had been tainted by his personal views.. In some cases it will lead to edits by the client being able to be identified, but there is absolutely no way for anybody (even Cullen in at least some cases) to know whether the advice given was followed. For example, if the client is User:MegaCorp_PR_Supremo, and after getting advice they create a non-neutral article about MegaCorp, we have no way of knowing whether Cullen had told them this was permissible or impermissible. Thryduulf (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

If Cullen is giving advice as a Wikipedia Administrator in a way that nobody can subsequently review, that is clearly a problem. Nothing is impossible if he keeps the proper records. Edson Makatar (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Please can you give an example of the sort of records you think should be being kept so I can better understand what you mean by this comment. Thryduulf (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Any Wikipedia editor can review the way a commercial re-user of Wikipedia content uses their work. only if it is publicly available where they are and contains no elements that are available under a more restrictive license (e.g. Wikipedia is not required to share the media it includes under fair use principals)

Specifically, they can check whether the use falls with the spirit of Wikipedia as embodied by that license. What matters is the letter of the cc-by-sa license, not the spirit of Wikipedia (these are not the same thing).

Namely that Wikipedia content is free to distribute and the people who made it retain their copyright no matter how many times it is repackaged for whatever purpose. Sort of. "You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if any changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original." there is no requirement that it is Free (gratis).

Nobody can review how Cullen uses his Wikipedia knowledge for personal profit. Up to and including whether or not he distributes training materials derived from Wikipedia content without fulfilling the license conditions. Nobody can review how anybody uses their Wikipedia knowledge, whether for personal profit or otherwise. I don't even know how you would go about doing so. Whether someone charges for advice is completely independent of whether they fulfil the licensing conditions, and they are neither more nor less likely to do so.

Needless to say, charging a fee for such a review is unambiguously against the license condition No it isn't, read the license.

It's a shame he didn't think to [reassure people his consulting was ethical] before he did it Except he explicitly did seek that feedback, and the feedback he got indicated that nobody had any issues with it.

somehow he got the idea that combining secrecy with personal profit is within that spirit. [citation needed]

I really doubt he came to that conclusion by thinking about the Wikipedia content license. unless you have evidence to the contrary, nothing Cullen is doing is in any way contrary to the license. Thryduulf (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Cullen said on this very page that he believes what he is doing is within the spirit of Wikipedia. He is charging for advice and is doing so in confidence. Nobody can review anything he does, and I thank you for reminding everyone that one of the things people might want to review is whether he is complying with the license conditions of making it clear that Wikipedia does not endorse him or his use of Wikipedia materials (just another aspect of this tangled web of conflicts that makes it pretty clear the stakes are potentially very high if Cullen isn't meticulous in his activites). Which is itself a perfect opportunity to remind everyone that in every single case where someone is being officially endorsed as a Wikipedia trainer, transparency is a given. You can determine who, where, when, what and even how much. The spirit of Wikipedia writ large. Cullen frankly needs to think long and hard about why every single one of his clients apparently insisted on anonymity before engaging his services, and whether it is tenable in the slightest to say this is within the spirit of Wikipedia. Edson Makatar (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I never said that all of my clients insisted on anonymity. What I said is that none of my clients consented to their personally identifying information being disclosed on Wikipedia for training and consulting services conducted off-Wikipedia. To be frank, the subject never came up until this thread began. I have been professionally involved in the construction industry for 40 years, and self employed for 30 years. The only times that I ever revealed the names of clients was when they were so pleased with my work that they told me in writing that they would recommend me to potential customers. If you contact a plumbing contractor or an accountant or a physical therapist and ask them for a list of all their clients in the last year, you will be told "no", either politely or not so politely. As for hourly rates, in my business unrelated to Wikipedia, I charged $100 per hour and then $120 per hour for many years and raised that to $150 per hour early in the pandemic. At age 71, I no longer work on construction jobsites, but I charge $150 per hour for my son's time, who works for me four days a week and teaches one day a week, and people all over Northern California have been willing to pay that type of rates for our expertise all these years. Frankly, this discussion should not be about rates in a market economy. The issue here is whether mandatory on-Wikipedia disclosure of off-Wikipedia clients should be required. Cullen328 (talk) 18:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, it would probably have been better to start an RfC with the question Should those consultants advertising their admin status for paid work be required to go through RfA again in order to see if they have the community's approval for such a practice? That would have perhaps been more likely to reach consensus one way or another, because there wouldn't have been privacy issues allowing the fundamental issue to be dodged. Oh well, hindsight is 20-20. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what this "fundamental issue" some people seem to have with this is? An administrator, who has been judged trustworthy, is using the knowledge they've gained to provide a service that (a) people want and (b) benefits the project. Why would we not want that? Thryduulf (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

By the current tally 44-39 of this non-consensus RfC, I'm not sure it would make it to a crat-chat, but there's no point comparing peaches to nectarines. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that the proposed question is fundamental. If the work were unethical, then disclosure of specific clients would not change that. And since such a disclosure is tantamount to outing, we're talking about violating something that is strongly, high-priority prohibited by Wikipedia and which would do a lot of damage to both the admin and the ability to obtain/keep high quality admins to solve something that IMHO not a problem. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing in the skyish blue question above requiring a recalled admin to reveal any personal details in their reconfirmation RfA. They need only ask the community (canvassed on watchlists -- as with all RfAs) if it has at least 65% confidence in their ability to juggle paid advising with moderation given that they state that their honor is their fundamental motivation. (Other admins may approach convincing people of their good egginess using other terms.) It's not a complicated proposal, and privacy/outing does not enter into it at all because nothing requires anyone to advertise online under their given name before such reconfirmation. Granted, the more secretive types might have to create a shell company, but that's apparently not too hard to do. Moreover, I'm not sure that privacy/outing concerns really are an issue for the admin in question here and now as they have had their name on their userpage for years. Only by requiring disclosure of clients does privacy become a distraction to the basic question of community approval (or lack thereof) for the mod's practice. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 19:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I have never expressed any privacy concerns about myself in this particular discussion although the occasional waves of targeted harassment and threats against me and my family are certainly irritating and sometimes deeply worrying. Trust and Safety has the records. To date, this conversation has resulted in none of that. My privacy concerns are for my past clients. None of them agreed to be subjected to the heightened scrutiny of the baying hounds of Wikipedia. They are not foxes. They are human beings who do not deserve to be harassed, and disclosing their personally identifying information would surely subject them to intrusion and abuse. Cullen328 (talk) 08:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

A rule such as that proposed here would apply to all admins, some of whom would may privacy concerns for themselves as well as their clients. Even though they would be able to make a choice, choosing between privacy and advising people how to properly engage with Wikipedia is not a choice one should have to make as there is no reason for them to be mutually exclusive. There is definitely no justification for requiring clients to give up their privacy in return for being allowed to pay someone to advise them how to ethically contribute to a project whose ethics include a very strong regard for personal privacy. Thryduulf (talk) 08:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be responding to a different proposal. As worded, the skyish blue question above does not require the admin to reveal any personal details, nor does it require them to disclose the name of their advising company, even after they get the requisite approval through their reconfirmation RfA. In my opinion, Cullen could set an honorable example/precedent by agreeing to seek community approval to advertise his adminship. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 15:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I was confused by the mixing in of other comments regarding the original proposal (a separate section header may have made things clearer). I still don't get what benefit there would be to the admin, the community or anybody else from requiring a reconfirmation RFA (which have generally not gone down well as concept, although I personally have no issues with them). If we trust admins to be admins why would we not trust them to advise ethically? If we don't trust them to advise ethically, why have we not sought their desysopping? Why do we automatically trust non-admins (whose trustworthiness has not been formally vetted) but not admins? Thryduulf (talk) 15:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

We don't trust admins with what they do with money or how it affects them. Adminship is unpaid. And that anyone on Wikipedia would suggest we assume Wikipedian's vouch for admin's money handling and ethics with money involved is an absurdity. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

On what basis then would you evaluate someone's trustworthiness with regards to money and how it affects them? Thryduulf (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

With money? It's always done by disclosure. Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Well first off if they didn't feel like they needed to disclose that would be a massive red flag when it comes to someone's trustworthiness with regards to money. That would suggest that they don't trust themselves or their activities. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Cullen has disclosed substantial information, which just goes to show that disclosure is compatible with advising and the ethical thing to do. The real difference is not disclosure, it is what to disclose (and in no system does it make sense to leave that solely up to the admins decision). Disclosure rules seek to manage ethical and potentially ethical issues -- the identity of the payor rule is simple, it is already done in multiple situations on the Pedia (eg PAID, WMF employees, teachers, affiliates, WIR's, etc) and it allows others know who is paying admins to effect or potentially effect Wikipedia, to do what Wikipedia always wants to do transparently manage itself, and transparently let the world know how it is done (and the admin consultant can easily tell any potential client the payor will be disclosed.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The proposal being discussed appears to explicitly exclude disclosure of past clients: "This expectation will only apply to administrators after the passage of the RfC." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• Noting that I've listed this discussion at WP:ANRFC. There has only been one !vote in the last week and the last comment was nearly 2 weeks ago, but with circa 50k words (including 90 numbered !votes) to read I don't expect it to be closed quickly. Thryduulf (talk) 01:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Historical aside

In 2008, John Broughton was paid by O'Reilly for an entire book, Wikipedia - The Missing Manual advising people how to edit Wikipedia. It's interesting to think how the standards propounded by some above would have affected the notion of giving an entire book-full of advice for payment to people. Uncle G (talk) 10:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how anything here would affect that. The author's name literally appeared on the book; I don't think anyone could claim Broughton failed to disclose what he was doing! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

That would depend on what was disclosed on wiki. The only way to comply with some of the proposals here would be for the author to regard themselves as having a conflict of interest regarding anyone who read the book and any topic those readers edited and/or had a conflict of interest regarding. Thryduulf (talk) 12:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't appear to be a good faith reading of any of the proposals here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Another 2008 book, How Wikipedia Works, was written (for pay, I assume) by three Wikipedia editors,one whom (Phoebe), became a member of the WMF Board of Trustees in 2010. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 04:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

For my book I didn't get a commission or the like but I did get royalties (which were rather small indeed) but yes, I got some money for writing and selling HWW. Jumping in without following the thread of whatever has been talked about above, but perhaps worse yet: I've spent plenty of time talking about Wikipedia at my day job, which is in a library, where the work we do is quite close and relevant to the work we do on wiki. Did that experience make me a better board member, as someone able to bring knowledge of how cultural professionals and the GLAM sector thinks about working with Wikipedia? It did indeed, I would argue. I have always edited under my real name, with my real affiliation posted; professional as well as personal ties to Wikipedia are not always detrimental to productive contributing. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 19:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think any reasonable person would call talking about Wikipedia at your day job "paid consulting or advising services". This is a very specific proposal to require disclosure for (i.e. not forbid) for a specific type of paid work. It's not going to affect people like you (and me) who engage with Wikipedia in good faith in a professional context, just like our existing paid editing requirements don't. – Joe (talk) 09:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

And yet, there are many unreasonable people in the world; and I think there will be many questions and challenges, both from editors on a hunt for issues and from good-faith GLAM contributors who want to follow the increasingly-arcane rules. I think that folks will see this as yet another barrier to contributing. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 15:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Arcane rules? What? We have had COI and potential COI disclosures for a very long time (PAID is more recent but we had disclosure in COI long before that). Also, academics and indeed anyone who writes, knows of COI disclosure rules. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Come off it, in what world would requiring disclosure for soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services apply to someone writing a book about Wikipedia? You can just oppose the proposal if you don't like it, there's no need for these absurd hypotheticals. – Joe (talk) 20:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

A world that multiple people who have commented in favour of this proposal explicitly wish to see. Thryduulf (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

No they have not. In no world is private paid consulting remotely the same as publishing a book. They are two well known and very different activities, that are easy to distinguish for anyone who is honest. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

It's the same every time we talk about COI editing. Should we try and stop government officials taking bribes? No, because my great uncle's wife's brother works for the tax office and sometimes sells hand-carved miniature kittens on the side – where's the harm in that? – Joe (talk) 08:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

It is a completely different situation. You don't have a COI regarding everyone who purchased a book., You do have a COI with someone who has specifically employed you, as an individual, to provide advice to them about their actions on WP. - Bilby (talk) 04:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Register of ethical Wikipedia consultants

If ethical Wikipedia consultants are going to be allowed to operate in complete secrecy, with the only safeguard being whether or not they are a trusted member of Wikipedia, it is perhaps worthwhile starting a register to identify all those people who currently possess that trust. There are presumably very experienced editors who are not Administrators who deserve the same opportunity to monetize their Wikipedia expertise as Cullen. There are also presumably some Administrators who are for whatever reason not likely to be endorsed by the community as an ethical consultant. Rather obviously, this register would be entirely unenforceable and carry no legal standing where that might be relevant (not the U.S. I gather). Anyone can call themselves an ethical Wikipedia consultant if they think that will be profitable for them. But by having a register, potential clients seeking consultancy services can at least know who is trusted by the community to perform that role. Edson Makatar (talk) 20:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

As previously mentioned, there is a list of paid editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Integrity/Editor Registry, but it is updated very infrequently. isaacl (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Given the above discussion, I doubt such a register would attract the necessary consensus and buy-in from the community to be effective. And then it would require a structure to be formed, when the community has generally shot down new structures with real or apparent authority. All this over one admin earning a few hundred bucks with a side hustle for which the market seems to be very limited indeed. Wehwalt (talk) 06:33, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles

Should airport articles include tables that display all the airlines that serve the airport and the cities they fly to? Sunnya343 (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I wanted to clarify that the central question is whether airport articles should mention every single flight that the airport offers (no matter the way that the information is presented). I said "tables" specifically because that's the format currently used by all of the articles. Sunnya343 (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Virtually all airport articles contain tables showing all the cities that passenger airlines fly to. Some articles also have tables for cargo destinations. Here are a few examples: Tehran-Mehrabad, London-Heathrow, New York, Jakarta. In 2017, we had two RfCs at WikiProject Airports on this topic: one that determined we should keep the tables, and one on how to reference them. However, I am concerned the results of those RfCs may be cases of WP:CONLEVEL. I think it would be useful to hear more opinions from the wider Wikipedia community. Sunnya343 (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Notices placed at WikiProject Airports, WikiProject Aviation, and the talk pages of editors who participated in the two RfCs above and the following discussions on lists of airline destinations: 2018 RfC and 2023 AfD.

• No. An article should certainly discuss an airport's current operations, but the listing of every single flight that is running as of today's date is inappropriate for this encyclopedia. Airlines frequently make changes to their schedules, and Wikipedia is not meant to be a news service that documents all of these changes. I also consider the lists indiscriminate; in the overall history of an airport, there is no reason why today's particular list of destinations is more noteworthy than the one from last month or two months ago. Few to no independent sources exist for most of the routes, demonstrating that they are not significant enough to merit inclusion in an article. The references that do exist generally are just covering the recent inauguration or upcoming termination of the flight - one of those frequent changes to airline schedules. Sunnya343 (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  (I wanted to present a more clear argument above based on policies. The following is my original comment, where I describe the impractical nature of attempting to maintain and reference up-to-date lists of destinations.) I'd say there are three general categories of sources for the tables:

  1. Secondary Independent sources - Only exist for a small fraction of routes.
  2. Booking engines or flight schedules on airline websites - These require you to input the origin, destination, and a random date to see if the airline flies between the two cities. For routes listed as seasonal, I suppose you'd have to search for flights on random dates in different months.
  3. Flight-tracking websites - FlightRadar24 will show you a map of routes from an airport (example). You have to click on each destination to see which airlines fly to it.
  I have not encountered another type of Wikipedia article that includes sources like #2 and #3 above - databases that you have to navigate to verify each destination. I don't know if they are considered acceptable references.

  When an airline announces a new destination, editors will add it to the list with a reference. However, once the new flight begins, that reference is often removed (probably to avoid citation clutter). Still, what this means is that timetable references in the right-most column (see the New York-JFK article) are taking precedence over what may have been secondary third-party sources supporting individual destinations. I've also noticed that the timetable sources usually have access-dates going back several years, even though editors continue to update the lists. So there is a discrepancy. Maybe I'm nitpicking, but theoretically, every time you make a change to the list, you should go through the timetable and verify every other destination, and then change the access-date...

  Ultimately, I believe the fact that there are no secondary independent sources for most of these destinations demonstrates that listing all of them isn't encyclopedic. Primary Non-independent sources are certainly allowed, but I don't think it's OK for large portions of an article to rely on them exclusively. It may be appropriate to replace the tables with a few paragraphs that summarize the airport's operations, supported primarily by secondary third-party sources. Below is a rough draft for the Indianapolis airport article.

Idea
As of September 2023, the Indianapolis airport is served by ten passenger airlines. Allegiant Air maintains a base at the airport. International air service includes routes to Cancun and Toronto. Indianapolis is also a hub for the cargo carrier FedEx Express. In 2022, the airport handled 8.7 million passengers and 1.3 million tons of cargo. References

Sunnya343 (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree in general but in my experience almost all routes will have secondary sources especially international ones. For example I bet I can find coverage for every single route out of Taoyuan International Airport. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I've personally found those tables to be useful and feel it would be a waste to have them deleted. Wehwalt (talk) 16:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Is that what I'm agreeing with? My understanding is that Sunnya343 is opposed to the whole RfC in general hence why they voted "oppose" instead of yes or no. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm simply making my point without !voting. If you like I will outdent. Wehwalt (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

My apologies, I thought it was a direct response to me. Re-reading @Sunnya343:'s post their meaning does actually appear ambiguous and I'd like some clarification on that, so this was helpful for me regardless of whether it was intended. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, I'll change it to "No" (as in no, I don't think the tables should be included). Sunnya343 (talk) 17:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I did misunderstand a bit what you were saying but I still don't think we're actually that far apart position wise... 45% and 55% are close despite one being a yes and one being a no. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:42, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: Even if you were able to find independent sources for each of the routes, the table would look like it does below, for each airline. I would argue that the bigger question is, do we need to mention every single destination.

Airlines	Destinations
China Airlines	Amsterdam, Auckland, Bangkok–Suvarnabhumi, Beijing–Capital, Brisbane, Busan, Cebu, Chengdu–Tianfu, Chiang Mai, Da Nang, Denpasar, Frankfurt, Fukuoka, Guangzhou, Hanoi, Hiroshima, Ho Chi Minh City, Hong Kong, Jakarta–Soekarno-Hatta, Kagoshima, Koror, Kuala Lumpur–International

Sunnya343 (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@Sunnya343, the sources you list in your example are almost all WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources. Did you mean that you wanted Wikipedia:Independent sources? Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent. I'd also add that Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean good. Wikipedia requires 100% use of reliable sources, not 100% use of secondary ones or 100% use of independent ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize those were primary sources. I would say then that the "Airlines and destinations" section should be based mainly on reliable independent sources. Sunnya343 (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

In my (US-focused) experience, every single time an airline adds a new destination (or a new airline), it's reported in the newspaper(s) for the airport's area. I therefore expect that it would be possible to provide a citation to an independent source for every destination (at least for a US airport). But – is it actually better? I'm not sure about that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you about certain destinations, such as a new flight to a foreign city. But if we take the Indianapolis airport as an example, you'd be hard-pressed to find third-party sources for the more mundane domestic routes, e.g. American Airlines' flights to Charlotte and Phoenix. I think you have a point about newspaper articles and other independent sources perhaps not being better than non-independent sources in this context, where we only seek to reference the cities an airline flies to. What I'm arguing is that the lack of independent sources for many of the destinations is an indication that it is not notable to mention each and every one in an article. Sunnya343 (talk) 02:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

You will often find coverage of mundane domestic routes (even legacy ones), especially around mundane incidents. Here is Indianapolis to Charlotte[1] for example. I would also note that all of these routes were non-mundane once and almost certainly received coverage in the local paper when they launched even if that was in the 70s and it will be harder to find. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

If you can find reliable secondary coverage for each what would be the policy grounded basis for not including some of them? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

(Responding to your two comments above) You have a point. But I would say, compare your source on the Indianapolis-Charlotte route to this one that describes the airport's first transatlantic flight. Your source is not focused on the Charlotte route itself. I think this excerpt from the essay WP:TMI would apply: Advocates of adding a lot of details may argue that all of these details are reliably sourced. Even though the details may be reliably sourced, one must not lose sight of the need for balance. I'd also argue that per WP:NOTNEWS, we do not need to cover the launch of every single flight from an airport. Sunnya343 (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Which of the four points of NOTNEWS would that be per? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm referring to #2, in particular: While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. You'll notice for example that in this table, the launch, resumption, and termination of various routes is mentioned. Sunnya343 (talk) 15:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

That part of 2 is about inclusion of articles on Wikipedia, that is WP:NOTABILITY not about what to include in articles. The only part of 2 which is not about notability is "Also, while including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." which does not support your argument that it be treated differently. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I see your point. What I will say is that I'm focusing on the general notion of what sort of information belongs in the encyclopedia. The paragraph at the beginning of the section (WP:NOTEVERYTHING), especially the sentence A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject, addresses both the creation of articles on different subjects and the content of those articles. Do you really believe we ought to mention that Delta Air Lines is resuming flights from Indianapolis to Salt Lake City, or that Korean Air is ending service from Seoul to Tashkent? Sunnya343 (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I struck the words above based on this excerpt from WP:N: [These guidelines on notability] do not limit the content of an article or list... For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not,... Sunnya343 (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, airport articles should include such tables when including a table would be due (closed airports don't need to have an empty table for example). A table should not preclude prose coverage of routes nor should prose coverage of routes preclude a table, there is room for both and both are often due. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
• No comment there should not be WP:CREEP on this fairly minor point of discussion; as HEB noted above, prose coverage does not preclude tables and vice versa. Of course, all the usual guidelines relating to weight and reliable referencing (I'm thinking specifically of WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS) should still be considered, but there is no need to prescribe a "yes" or "no" answer to this question. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
• The tables are fine if they are based in secondary sources rather than original research using booking systems and the like. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:27, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
• No, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. My feeling is that this is both a) sometimes impractical, b) hard to source reliably, and c) verging on a WP:NOTGUIDE violation, which is the main reason for my opposition. Edward-Woodrow • talk 19:03, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
• Partial A list of airlines that routinely serve the airport makes sense, but the list of cities probably does not since this is a function of the airline, not the airport, and can change regularly. That said, outside of table, one can describe in prose the general profile of cities that it serves - I can see this for small regional airports to say what cities that they link to. But this should be by the airport in general, and not because Airline X goes to one place and Airline Y goes to another. --Masem (t) 19:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

  Let me add another notch against city listings. We're supposed to be writing content as an encyclopedia that will stand the test of time, not what is just currently the situation. A list of airlines that an airport serves will not routinely change, and if there are major departures, that will likely be a discussion in prose. But for the most part, the cities that each airline services changes year-to-year if not more frequent, so it is not very useful information in the long-term. The only arguments that are being given to keep those cities are from a WP:NOT#GUIDE standpoint. Masem (t) 03:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• No, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTTRAVEL, and WP:OR. First, these lists relying almost without exception on WP:OR; entries are typically unsourced, and when they are sourced the reference is usually something like this. Second, they are indiscriminate and are are not put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources as required by WP:INDISCRIMINATE; they are just lists of where an individual can travel to and on which carrier. This brings us to WP:NOTTRAVEL; these lists are travel guides, telling people how to get from a to b, and not content that belongs on an encyclopedia.

This isn't to say that we can't include information on the airlines and destinations at an airport; to provide information that is actually beneficial to our reader and complies with our policies we can use the section to discuss how the number of airlines operating from an airport changed over time, as well as the number of destinations. For example, using prose we could show how Heathrow went from a small airfield to a global hub, including covering the impact of events like the pandemic, all of which is encyclopedic content and none of which can be done with tables. BilledMammal (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

• Yes - this is one of the key aspects of airports, namely what connections to other airports they have. If the info is only embedded in prose, the risk of outdated creep increases. --Soman (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Espresso Addict, Kusma, Soman, and Reywas92: (Replying to you all at once because I feel your arguments are similar) The same could be said of airlines - that we should have a list of the cities they currently serve because it's a key aspect of them. But there is consensus not to mantain lists of airline destinations on Wikipedia. I don't see how we can disapprove of full lists of airline destinations, and at the same time allow complete lists of each airline's destinations from an airport. Sunnya343 (talk) 22:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  It seems to work and not cause any problems. Airline destination lists were also separate articles. It is perfectly acceptable to have rules that allow content in one form but not in a different one. —Kusma (talk) 05:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• Generally yes per Horse Eye Black and Soman. Obviously everything must be verifiable, and in some cases it will be better covered on a separate article to the main airport article. In some cases there should be a history of notable carriers and destinations as the goal is an encyclopaedic coverage of the airport and its history rather than a contemporary travel guide. However the current services are an encyclopaedic aspect of the airport. Thryduulf (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Thryduulf: When you say "in some cases it will be better covered on a separate article to the main airport article", where else do you believe the information should go?

  One could also argue that the current destinations of an airline are encyclopedic; however, the consensus of this RfC (reaffirmed by this AfD) was that Wikipedia should not have complete lists of airline destinations. I agree with Beeblebrox when they say, There is an important distinction between information and knowledge. Wikipedia strives to provide knowledge, and is explicitly not a directory or catalog, which is just information. Sunnya343 (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  where else do you believe the information should go? it depends how information about the airport is covered, and how much information there is. For example a major airport that has a long history and lots of detail may need spin-off articles per WP:SUMMARY and the list of destinations may be better in (or indeed as) one of them, in other cases it may be better to have an "Air travel in X" article covering multiple airports. Basically, being overly prescriptive could cause problems.

  Whether airlines do or should have complete destination lists is not relevant to coverage of airports. I'm sorry I didn't comment in that RFC, but as should have been easily predictable based on other contemporary discussions the consensus is being over-applied to excise encyclopaedic related content. Thryduulf (talk) 15:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• No per WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTDB. These are things that change all the time. There are websites which do an admirable job of tracking all this stuff. Our job is to be an encyclopedia, not a airline database. RoySmith (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
• I feel these tables semi-duplicate list of airline destinations, something long described as WP:NOT. Also if no other sources are describing this information, beyond primary sources, then are they WP:DUE. If they are going to be included they need to be properly referenced with something better than a ticket system that needs to work through to see if the route is currently nrunning or not. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, generally this is relevant and encyclopedic information, and it should be included if you can source it (including to the airport's own website, which is reliable despite not being independent). I arrived at this general conclusion by thinking about how important it is to understanding the subject of the article (i.e., the airport). If you want to understand the airport in context, you need to know some basic, objective/universal facts. These include: Is there scheduled passenger service at all? How many passengers use this airport? How many airports does it connect to? Are those connected airports nearby, or does it have long-distance/international flights? There is a big difference between "one daily flight to the next city" and "direct flights from ten countries", and providing the lists makes it easy to see whatever level of granularity the reader is interested in (e.g., how many destinations, how many countries, whether they're all short flights, etc.). Similarly, you can't understand an airport unless you understand whether one airline holds a monopoly there. On the other hand, does it need to be presented in the exact form of a table? Meh, I don't think that matters. A table is a perfectly fine form for this, if there are more than about three airlines or destinations to be presented, but a bulleted list is also fine, and if the list is very small, then plain old prose text is good, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

  Is there scheduled passenger service at all? How many passengers use this airport? How many airports does it connect to? Are those connected airports nearby, or does it have long-distance/international flights? These questions are all better answered with prose; take Heathrow Airport#Airlines and destinations for an example. It doesn't answer the question "How many passengers use this airport", and while theory it could provide answer to the questions of "How many airports does it connect to" and "Are those connected airports nearby, or does it have long-distance/international flights", in practice it does not - we can't expect our readers to count the airports listed, and nor can we expect them to carefully analyze which airports the flights go to to assess what types of flights that leave the airport. It does answer the question "Is there scheduled passenger service at all", but it would be hard to include information on the airlines and destinations serviced by the airport without doing so.

  What would be better for the reader is to say something like In 2022, 35,000,000 people used the airport, with flights to 200 airports in 90 countries. On the average day 120 flights departed; 40% of the flights were shorthaul, 20% were medium haul, 30% were long haul, and 10% were ultra-long haul. British airways accounted for 60% of all flights. - and that's just what I threw together in 30 seconds. An editor working to improve the article could provide far more benefit to the reader than that. BilledMammal (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  I would expect some of these questions to be answered elsewhere in the article, e.g., in Heathrow Airport#Air traffic and statistics, which begins with a description of its passenger traffic. (Note that you have quoted from a list of "some basic, objective/universal facts" that IMO readers need to know to understand the subject, and not from a list of things that I think belongs specifically in a list of destinations served.)

  Statements like "40% of the flights were shorthaul" and "British airways accounted for 60% of all flights" are good, but not necessarily what the reader wants to know, especially if the flight pattern is weird ("40% are shorthaul, and none of them go to the neighboring region that the governor is touting in his plan for promoting business in your state"). I think that a both/and approach would be better than an either/or approach. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• Yes. The tables give a clear view of many encyclopedic aspects of airports, in particular their connectivity, that would be unacceptably vague if relegated to a prose "description." While some of the data may be sourced from databases, it is definitely verifiable, and no one seems to be suggesting that it cannot be kept accurate. CapitalSasha ~ talk 22:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

  @CapitalSasha: Here's an example of (what I consider to be) the difficulties of using databases as references. This is an excerpt from the table in the Los Angeles airport article:

  Airlines	Destinations	Refs
  Delta Air Lines	Atlanta, Auckland (begins October 28, 2023), Austin, Boston, Cancún, Cincinnati, Dallas/Fort Worth, Dallas–Love

  When the flight to Auckland begins, should I remove the reference attached to it, since the timetable is already cited in the "References" column? But on what grounds can I remove a valid reference? If I leave it there, then I don't see what's stopping an editor from adding references to all the other destinations:

Airlines	Destinations	Refs
Delta Air Lines	Atlanta, Auckland, Austin, Boston, Cancún, Cincinnati, Dallas/Fort Worth, Dallas–Love

An example of the above can be seen in the Flydubai row of the Dubai airport table.

Sources

Sunnya343 (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@Sunnya343: What's the problem with just using the timetable when the Auckland flight starts? CapitalSasha ~ talk 22:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I suppose it would be OK. But pretty much all articles on Wikipedia include information that is supported by more than one reference. I can't think of any other place in this encyclopedia where you can remove one of two references - and in this case, what would the justification be, to make the table look better? Sunnya343 (talk) 23:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that if a reference is really redundant or out of date then there is no issue with removing it.... CapitalSasha ~ talk 23:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you. But by removing those references, we are prioritizing the timetables over third-party sources. It's true that the timetables are only being used to support basic facts, but articles are supposed to be based on independent sources. And as WhatamIdoing pointed out, both the timetables and the newspaper articles describing new routes are all primary sources, and I don't believe we should be including such large amounts of information supported only by primary sources.

Another issue is that the timetable reference above has an access-date of April 7, 2018. But we just included a destination that began after that date. So I guess I have to check all the other destinations in the timetable, make sure Delta still flies to them, and change the access-date. Who is really going to do this, and is this how a Wikipedia article should be? This might seem like a minor critique, but I believe it helps shows the problem with having these tables and trying to keep them up-to-date. Sunnya343 (talk) 00:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, a newspaper article describing a new route is not a primary source. For example, this recent local news piece about new international routes is a secondary source. Primary sources may be the airport's press release and the airline's press release. But there's nothing wrong with using the non-independent sources - while an article as a whole needs secondary sources for notability and some interpretations, to suggest they can't be used for this type of section is simply false. If anything, these could be more accurate than a secondary source because it's straight from the horse's mouth. We sometimes avoid WP:PRIMARY sources because they may require WP writers' original research to interpret or summarize, but none of what's cautioned about there is happening for this, or even a timetable. Things change and may not always be perfectly up-to-date, but so what? This is a wiki, and there are a lot of interested users who actually seem to be doing a pretty good job on these to stay current, there aren't daily changes on most pages. Everything is still perfectly verifiable, even if the accessdate in the reference is old. Reywas92^Talk 01:38, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@Reywas92, I think you will want to read WP:PRIMARYNEWS and WP:LINKSINACHAIN. A newspaper article that repeats someone else's information, without adding its own analysis, means the newspaper article is still a primary source. As the article Secondary source puts it, "Secondary sources involve generalization, analysis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information." It's not enough to merely be the second link in a chain.

Having said that, I agree with you that this kind of basic information isn't really what we need either a secondary or an independent source for. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• Sort of. I don't see why it's needful to have a complete list, but to me, it seems appropriate and encyclopaedic to provide some indication of which areas an airport serves.—S Marshall T/C 23:05, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, this information is encyclopedic and as WhatamIdoing writes very important to understanding the nature of the airport. Sourcing to the airport website is sufficiently reliable. Agree that the list need not be exhaustive and need not necessarily be tabulated. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
• No the fact that these are not easily found and sourced to independent or secondary sources demonstrates that as a general rule they are run afoul of DIRECTORY and NOTGUIDE. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 02:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  @David Fuchs: is that a fact? It doesn't appear to be true so it doesn't seem like it could possibly be factual. The vast majority of these are easily sourced to secondary independent sources, on what basis do you draw your unique conclusion? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• Allow destination lists. They are central to what airports do, and generally well maintained and up to date. Old Britannicas feature this type of information about seaports, so there is some precedent for calling it "encyclopedic". We also don't have to delete information only because it is useful to have. —Kusma (talk) 02:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
• Allow, again This is getting tiresome, already recently at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_167#RfC:_Ariport_destination_tables and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports/Archive_19#RFC_on_Maps_and_Airline_&_Destination_Tables. That an airport is a gateway to numerous destinations –and which airports – is obviously highly relevant to the airport, and it is perfectly acceptable and informative to include this content in the articles. It is risible to say this is indiscriminate or original research to include information that is easily verified in airline timetables and other sites. I have yet to see an example of users fighting over someone making up routes because there are in fact ways to look this up. These are not travel guides because they are not instructions, unencyclopedic details, or a guide at all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reywas92 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  Just because data is easily available doesn't mean it isn't indiscriminate - although based on the sparsity of sources at Heathrow Airport#Airlines and destinations I'm not convinced it is easily accessible.

  That an airport is a gateway to numerous destinations –and which airports – is obviously highly relevant to the airport, and it is perfectly acceptable and informative to include this content in the articles. Why are the specific airports that Heathrow is a gateway to highly relevant? As an experiment, I tried to find sources that discuss that the connection between Zakynthos International Airport and Heathrow Airport; Google news returns nothing, and while Google books returns a few dozen sources that mention both none of them even mention a connection between the two. Similarly, Google scholar returns five sources, but again there is no mention of a connection.

  If reliable sources don't consider this relevant, why should we?

  Based on this, I also support this proposal on the grounds of WP:BALASP; we are giving undue weight to an aspect of the topic that reliable sources give no weight to. BilledMammal (talk) 03:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  While there's not always in-depth coverage of individual routes – though the introduction or cancelletion of routes are often covered in travel media (and it's disingenuous to search academic article) – that's downright false to say sources "give no weight to" an airport's destinations. Some for Heathrow include [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. That's just risible to say no one cares about the entire point of an airport – getting to specific other places. How can this possibly be indiscriminate? Simple inclusion standard: Can you fly from one airport to another? There's no unrelated overlapping criteria, subjectivity, or excessive number of items for this objective, narrowly defined, and finite concept. Reywas92^Talk 23:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  Websites like flightsfrom.com, directline-flights.co.uk, and the blog London Air Travel are not the type of source we should be using on Wikipedia. Sunnya343 (talk) 00:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  it's disingenuous to search academic article Why? In any case, I searched academic articles, news articles, and books.

  While there's not always in-depth coverage of individual routes ... that's downright false to say sources "give no weight to" an airport's destinations You've constructed a bit of a strawman here; you argued that the specific airports that an airport is a "gateway" to are highly relevant. I demonstrated that they weren't, by providing an example of a pairing - picked at random - that sources give no weight to. I'm not sure how you can claim that my comment is "downright false".

  How can this possibly be indiscriminate? Indiscriminate; done without careful judgement. Including every route, regardless of whether sources consider that route relevant or irrelevant, is done without careful judgement. BilledMammal (talk) 23:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  When I go to the airport, there's a big board with all the flights and destinations – that's what the purpose of the place is and what people are often interested in when they come to these articles. Is going after London_King's_Cross_railway_station#Services and Union_Station_(Los_Angeles)#Services next? I don't think Google Scholar talks much about Amtrak's Texas Eagle... Is the real complaint just that air routes aren't as permanent as train tracks so some change more frequently? Reywas92^Talk 00:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  that's what the purpose of the place is and what people are often interested in when they come to these articles. And I still don't understand why we would want to have a manually updated, single-point-in-time snapshot, of what services are offered (contrary to WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which says Listings to be avoided include .... services), rather than an encyclopedic long-term summary. BilledMammal (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• Yes. This is not indiscriminate info, as there's a very specific inclusion criteria. And being primary sourced is not disqualifying. Primary sources are perfectly acceptable for establishing matters of uncontroversial fact. oknazevad (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with you that the tables are discriminate - they list all the destinations currently operating. But airport articles are not supposed to be directories that note each and every destination, no matter how trivial. Sunnya343 (talk) 02:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  Your comment is begging the question and presumptive. This RFC is specifically to ask and answer whether or not such material is appropriate for articles. If the consensus is yes, then the guideline should be modified to note that consensus. Assuming existing guidelines automatically represent current and broader consensus is a perennial issue. Consensus can change, and arguing that the new consensus doesn't comply with older guidelines is without merit as an argument. oknazevad (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  How else am I supposed to justify my point of view that the lists are not appropriate for Wikipedia articles, if I am not allowed to cite existing Wikipedia policies? Is this not what you yourself are doing when you make references to WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:PRIMARY? WP:PG says, Wikipedia's policy and guideline pages describe its principles and agreed-upon best practices. I am trying to make an argument based on those principles and best practices. If you have a concern with a policy itself, you should start a separate discussion (example). Sunnya343 (talk) 02:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  Since the discussion is about the scope and content of the guideline itself, saying what the guideline contains doesn't actually contribute to the discussion of what it should be. Saying you think the guideline is fine as is and why does. oknazevad (talk) 22:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  On second thought, I concur with JoelleJay and others that the information is indiscriminate. The tables list all destinations as of [insert today's date], and this information changes frequently. In the entire history of an airport, what makes today's list of destinations so notable, and not the one two months ago?

  Say that two months ago, an airport lost its only international flight. Because the emphasis is on maintaining up-to-date lists, an editor decides to simply delete the foreign destination. Sure, you can still mention the flight in the "History" section of the article, but you've nevertheless removed it from the table because you believe today's particular list of destinations is more noteworthy. FOARP said the following in an AfD on the lists of airline destinations, but I believe it applies to these tables as well: Since [the lists] can only be true on a particular, randomly-selected day, they are ephemeral and impossible to maintain given the way airline schedules change constantly, but if you did try to do keep them up to date, what you would have would essentially be an airline news-service, and Wikipedia is not news. Sunnya343 (talk) 02:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

• No, per @BilledMammal, @RoySmith, and @David Fuchs. I cannot see how these lists/tables of the airlines/destinations serviced by an airport provide so much utility and encyclopedic value as to override our policies on indiscriminate info, NOTDB, BALANCE, NOTNEWS, and OR. Items on these lists may be ephemeral and quickly out of date, and if their only sourcing is non-independent or primary then having such detailed tables for them arguably violates the Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. policy in PRIMARY. Of course any routes that have enough coverage to be part of a BALANCED article can be discussed, but creating exhaustive lists or tables simply for completion's sake, or for needless consistency between articles, regardless of how well the entries are sourced, should not be normalized. JoelleJay (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
• Sort of We should provided enough details on destinations to allow readers to have a good understanding of the airports reach. For smaller regional airports this will likely be the complete list, whereas for large international airports perhaps condensing it into countries served would be more useful. As an aside, another thing to consider is to remove what destinations a particular airline serves, this starts intruding into making a product guide and introduces duplication if multiple airlines serve a single destination. Jumpytoo Talk 19:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, the tables should stay – from a user standpoint, I've found them very helpful. At very least, if the tables are removed from Wikipedia, they should be moved elsewhere (Wikivoyage perhaps?) Codeofdusk (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• @Codeofdusk: yes, Wikivoyage is the wiki for readers and users desiring for travel information, not encyclopedic information. See my vote+comment below. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• Yes—There's nothing wrong with the prior RfC on this matter. Airports, like other transportation destinations, are primarily useful for their specific connections to specific places.--Carwil (talk) 16:43, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
• With my reader hat on, definitely yes - these are surprisingly useful. With my editor hat on, there is an obvious "...assuming they can be sourced", but this should not be difficult in most cases. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Andrew Gray: What do you mean by these are surprisingly useful to readers?

  I agree that many destinations can be sourced with timetables and similar references (although I noted my concerns about this above in my response to CapitalSasha), but I believe Wikipedia is not supposed to be a directory of all destinations from an airport, nor is it meant to be a news site that seeks to maintain a current list of all destinations and makes note of the launch, resumption, and discontinuation of individual flights. Sunnya343 (talk) 02:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Sunnya343 The use is I think in simply having that readable list of "where can you fly to from ---" without needing to go through individual airport websites. A reader can use it for various things, be that figuring out travel planning (I want to avoid a local domestic flight, does that place have any direct flights from Europe? Are they only seasonal?) or more general background reading (what places actually let commercial airlines fly to Pyongyang? Is some pair of cities very heavily served from that airport? Are the international flights only to one or two countries and what does that imply? Which airline clearly dominates the market here?). I think I've read it for some version of all of these over the years. Anecdotal I know, but hopefully informative.

  A lot of this can indeed be covered in text but it'd be awkward to try and pre-emptively address all those questions (as @WhatamIdoing I think noted above).

  In terms of suitability, I think I take an expansive approach to things like NOTDIRECTORY: the fact that we've been happily doing it for untold years means that we seem to implicitly consider that within the remit of permitted things, in much the same way we consider it eg appropriate to have a comprehensive list of film credits for an actor even when it's "policeman #3". You can certainly interpret the guidelines in such a way as to rule those both out, and I don't think you're wrong to read them that way, but ideally I feel our interpretation of them should be informed (and in many cases led) by what community practice is. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  No one should be using Wikipedia articles on airports to plan their travel. We are explicitly not a travel guide, our information can be decades out of date or plainly wrong, and numerous sites like Google Flights are freely available to use for most airlines. JoelleJay (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  To clarify, when I say "travel planning" I'm meaning something that might be better described as reading with the intention of eventually travelling, the sort of initial familiarisation reading people do well in advance of booking travel, rather than the detailed Google Flights type planning that involves "right, if we take Air France then there would be a connection in Frankfurt". I wouldn't expect anyone to use it for that. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  But...what would readers actually be getting out of this content? Why would anyone be looking up which particular airports service airlines that go to particular other airports at any point in their planning? It would be way more effort to try to reconstruct flight paths based on a rarely-updated table of destinations on the wiki pages of individual airports than to just...go to Google Flights and plug in e.g. Pyongyang as the origin, set the destination as "anywhere", and select "nonstop only", which will yield all the locations that will send planes directly to Pyongyang in the next six months. Apparently roundtrip goes as low as $161 from Tokyo... JoelleJay (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  You can disbelieve me if you want, but I'm pretty sure that I personally did that a few weeks ago (can't remember what prompted it, probably read something about someone travelling to NK and was curious; never underestimate idle curiosity...)

  I knew Wikipedia would have that table, and it was likely to be reasonably up-to-date (not updated this month, fine, but probably correct to a year or so) - YMMV, of course, but I wouldn't have gone to a flight search site because, well, I wouldn't want to wade through ads and a clunky interface to find the answer and then spend extra time figuring out if it was actually answering the question I'd meant to ask.

  On that note, GF would give you the wrong answer: it doesn't think Pyongyang Airport exists, so the flights it quotes are from the wrong side of the DMZ. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  Ok, I guess in the extremely unusual situation where an airport has very restricted commercial accessibility it might be easier to use something other than a standard flight planner, but I would not have expected to find this info on Wikipedia and definitely would not expect it to be updated... I would just google which airlines/airports serve NK and go to their websites. JoelleJay (talk) 23:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

• No - they are poorly maintained and often out of date. There is no way any reader is going to rely on Wikipedia for accurate and up to date information in this area. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
• No. Poorly-sourced and badly-maintained lists like these are worse than useless, in contexts where people might be misguidedly attempting to use Wikipedia to plan travel. Wikipedia should not be trying to substitute itself for better sources of information, even disregarding the obvious WP:NOT issues. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  Do you have an example of one of these tables that is incorrect? CapitalSasha ~ talk 02:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  Based on the airline destination list issue the problems are typically:

  - WP:CRYSTAL pronouncements about planned services that may not happen.

  - Long-out-of-date data.

  - Broken links.

  - Unreliable/non-independent sourcing.

  - Original research based on comparing the routes displayed as available on different days. FOARP (talk) 11:50, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

• No, not in this form. A general overview of an airport's airlines and connections over its history would be relevant. But a continuously updated point-in-time snapshot of every current airline and every current connections feels more like the function of a travel guide than an encyclopedia article taking a long-term, historical view.--Trystan (talk) 00:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV can cover relevant concerns. Making a blanket rule banning such information is unnecessary WP:CREEP. —siroχo 00:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
• Not in this form - an overview of the major destinations served by a airport, sourced to an independent source seems fine. There we are talking about essentially transport infrastructure. Compiling exhaustive lists of all destinations served from airline websites, almost always including WP:CRYSTAL-style information about planned routes that may not happen, and which anyway change quickly, is creating a service-directory and promotional content, both barred by WP:NOT. Moreover it is essentially discussing the airlines, not the airport. FOARP (talk) 04:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  Reliable sources like [11][12][13] do not violate CRYSTAL. There's no speculation, these are legitimate announced plans with approvals that rarely get reversed. Addressing the fact that they can change – and not that regularly – is the beauty of a wiki. Reywas92^Talk 04:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  These are: (1 and 2) airline websites that are obviously not independent of the subject and (3) essentially a news-ticker blog. Flight plans change week-to-week, as a perusal of e.g., the BA website news section shows. FOARP (talk) 08:46, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

• yes such tables should be allowed or to a limited extent encouraged. Particularly for smaller airports, the information is useful and maintainable. However for major international hubs, it probably will not be complete or up-to-date. So major airports could have a reduced summary of long running or major routes. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:23, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
• No/ disallow per NOT. These ubiquitous lists exemplify everything we do not stand for: NOTNEWS, INDISCRIMINATE and NOTDIR. Also RECENT, for as the nom noted, this excludes previous versions on no other grounds than to be up to date. Whereas an encyclopedia should take a long-term, historical perspective where necessary. Plenty of policies back their exclusion. This would not preclude keeping information of genuinely encyclopedic interest (to be assessed on a talk page-by-talk page basis, perhaps). Serial 15:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
• No in this current form (airline+destination tables) in all airport articles. That is the job of Wikivoyage. Both Wikipedia and Wikivoyage provide meaningful information, but Wikipedia is geared towards encyclopedic information, not information exclusive for travellers or readers planning to travel. WP:NOTGUIDE. Migrate all tables to Wikivoyage. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. Frostly (talk) 02:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. At a glance, looking at how large the destination table gives us an idea how well served the airport is. And I would recommend listing this suggestion under WP:PERENNIAL because it is proposed at least once a year for last 3 years with no traction each time. I wouldn't oppose if this data is imported and made available in Wikidata before removing it from Wikipedia. But until then, it should stay. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  Your accurate characterization of this information as data underscores a larger point. Allow me to pose a rhetorical question. What if we made a tool that imported all the data from airline flight schedules into airport articles, and we configured it to update the lists regularly? That way we would always have up-to-date information... However, articles are not supposed to be repositories of raw data. Sunnya343 (talk) 02:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  But we're proposing to delete the data first before it even has a chance to be exported to Wikidata. This is like telling someone that Commons can be used to upload photos but deletes the local copy first. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• No for all of the different reasons cited by others already that Wikipedia is NOT. And a maintenance nightmare.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SandyGeorgia (talk • contribs) 18:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• Yes The routes for an airport are sensible content and, per WP:CREEP, what we don't need are petty rules to micro-manage the form of presentation. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• No. The RfC is about current airlines which currently "serve" the airport. This is constantly changing and, per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, etc. etc. this information is not appropriate to an encyclopedia. I am sure that some "yes" voters find it useful, but that is not the point; useful stuff does exist elsewhere on the Internet, but that is no reason to maintain a live copy here. The previous RfC, earlier this year, showed a clear consensus, and just because one editor missed that discussion is no reason to revisit it so soon. This RfC borders on WP:DISRUPTION. Of course, illustrative remarks on major and historic destinations, backed in depth by multiple independent WP:RS are quite a different matter, but are not the subject of this RfC. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  Do you oppose listing the current (ever changing) squad in an article about a professional sports team? —Kusma (talk) 09:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  Nearly every pro sports team has a per year/season article where the roster for that year is given. That type of resolution works for sports since these are typically always noted. But I can't ever see support for a case like "2023 in Chicago O'Hara Activity" which would be the equivalent here. Masem (t) 17:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  That query is just a red herring: sports teams are not airports, and the points of interest are not comparable, per Masem. Specifically, if you want to cite/verify the lineup of Pro Team X back in 1953 there is likely plenty of RS, but if you want to do so for Airport Y you will be lucky to find anything at all. So we get WP:NOTABILITY, WP:UNDUE, etc. weighing in too. Just because there are fans here on Wikipedia does not mean that there is a verifiable fan base out there in WP:RS land. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Steelpillow: Did you mean to link to this RfC from August 2023? That one was on the lists of airline destinations (example), whereas the present discussion is about the lists in airport articles (example). If you apply what you said to the latter type of list, I actually agree with you, but that's besides the point. I started this RfC here at the Village Pump because I felt the previous discussion at WikiProject Airports was a case of local consensus. Sunnya343 (talk) 02:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  Apologies, I did get my RfC's mixed up. Thank you for spotting it. But both support the case that these kinds of list are inappropriate to this encyclopedia. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• No Lists of destinations by airline are very volatile, and do not belong ion an encyclopedia. I have largely given up on reviewing changes to airport articles because of the constant churning to destinations, which can be difficult to verify. - Donald Albury 19:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• No. NODIRECTORY, NOTDATABASE, NOTINDISCRIMINATE, basically, and it all changes too frequently. The very fact that many of our readers might think that the information is reliable and current, instead of incomplete and months out-of-date anyway, is itself problematic. This is not the kind of informational purpose that an encyclopedia serves, and there are oodles and oodles of travel-related sites that already fill this niche (never mind that WMF even seems to be running one itself at Wikitravel.org already).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  I would be happy to use one of the "oodles and oodles of travel-related sites" for my travel planning instead of Wikipedia, but I am not aware of any place that tells me in an easily accessible way what the direct connections from any given airport are. @SMcCandlish, if there are so many, I am sure it will be easy for you to point me to one. —Kusma (talk) 09:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  [14][15], etc. And even if some informational niche gap could be identified does not mean that WP should fill it anyway; this is the main reason we have WP:NOT policy in the first place.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  These are all terrible (ad-ridden and full of stuff like sales links that do not help answer my question). And the point of WP:NOT is not actually "this is useful, so we must kill it". —Kusma (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with SMcCandlish, but I will say, why don't you just consult one of Flightradar24's route maps for that purpose, like this one? Come to think of it, the lists in airport articles are basically attempts to duplicate the entire content of those Flightradar24 maps, which are more up-to-date anyway. Sunnya343 (talk) 01:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  Why would you even need to know the list of direct connections from given airports? Do you plan your trips by looking up what places some airport has non-stop service to and then choosing one of them? Why not use google flights instead...? Also the flysfo.com link with a list of all the SFO destinations has zero ads... JoelleJay (talk) 01:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  Why not use google flights instead...? Because not every airline is on Google Flights. And that's just in the US. We haven't gotten to developing countries. Are you confident in telling me what airlines and flights fly out of Mogadishu Airport with links to the announcements? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  As a contributor to an encyclopedia article, I'm not interested in mentioning every airline and flight out of the Mogadishu airport as of October 2023. I won't rehash my arguments in my !vote above, but one reason is that the body of reliable, independent sources does not cover that information in depth. On the other hand, I might note that Mogadishu has direct flights to the Middle East,[16] or that Turkish Airlines was the first major airline to begin flying to the city since the onset of the Somali Civil War 20 years prior.[17][18][19] Sunnya343 (talk) 03:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

• No. We settled this already. Nothing has changed, and WikiProject RfCs are a joke. --James (^talk/_contribs) 20:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  That was a different question, about lists on airline articles. The question regarding airport articles has not been asked. Thryduulf (talk) 15:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  In my opinion, the same logic applies here. --James (^talk/_contribs) 18:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• No – WP:NOTDATABASE, WP:NOTTRAVEL, these lists are often quite volatile and difficult to properly maintain, and the fact that Wikivoyage exists. I did sample some major US airports and did not see lists of destinations on those articles, but there is no reason they cannot be created and maintained there with a cross-wiki link in the enWiki article. I presume the purpose of Wikivoyage is to serve as the very travel guide enWiki is not supposed to be. If there are particularly interesting things about an airport, such as the aforementioned fact that KIND only has CYYZ and MMUN as international destinations, then those can be mentioned in prose. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• No. A few very notable mentions are ok, but not a complete list. A lot of these lists aren't verifiable and the extend of what is considered a destination often involves adding references from booking sites, which becomes promotional. We have WikiVoyage for this purpose. Ajf773 (talk) 08:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  With these and related articles where such lists mushroom up, perhaps we could do with a WP:NOTWIKIVOYAGE meme. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• No. An encyclopedia summarizes. It has no business providing a comprehensive account of all the destinations served by an airport. It doesn't serve researchers, since it lacks any context or analysis, it is just raw information. It doesn't serve general readers, unless they are extremely bored. It doesn't serve historians, since it is only a snapshot of current arrangements (that it will invariably be out of date is already covered by the Wikipedia disclaimer). Edson Makatar (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, obviously – The list of reachable destinations is naturally part of key information that a reader expects from airport articles. Even if Wikipedia is not a travel guide, it certainly is a go-to place to understand the local geography and potential connections in places you are not familiar with... or for that matter even for places you ARE familiar with. Wikipedia has a distinct advantage over travel-booking engines, in that the information is clearly and predictably laid out for a quick glance by human eyes instead of being buried in cookie acceptance requests, promotional offerings and ungodly "connections" through creative routes that only a database engine can imagine inflicting on a naive traveller. Yes, Wikipedia, please tell me whether I can fly direct from Phnom Penh to Yangon instead of spending 27 hours on a bus ride through the jungle. I'll figure out in a minute how to buy my tickets elsewhere, as you conveniently list which airlines may be able to serve me. Per WP:Readers first, Remember that the main purpose of Wikipedia is to provide useful articles for readers! — JFG ^talk 13:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, Wikipedia, please tell me whether I can fly direct from Phnom Penh to Yangon instead of spending 27 hours on a bus ride through the jungle. Per WP:NOTGUIDE, this is not our purpose. If someone wants to determine this they can go to Wikivoyage, or to any one of the dozens of websites that, upon being told you want to fly from Phnom Penh to Yangon, will provide you a complete and up to date list of flights and booking options. BilledMammal (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  Our purpose (at least mine) does not include ideological adherence to a pure vision of WP:NOTGUIDE, though. (Otherwise we would have long since deleted classic violations like the lists of United States network television schedules). That something is useful is not a reason to delete it (weird that this needs to be said). —Kusma (talk) 14:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  The issue of television schedules has been debated before (5+ years I believe), which is why the wording for that in NOT is clarified as such. Its why these are generally allowed as talking about a given year's television season as to compare the blocks of prime time programming between the major networks as these trends are themselves notable. But not the specific week-to-week scheduling or things like daytime programming. There's a clear refinement there. The same can be done for airports - there are broad ways to discuss airlines and main routes but that do not rely on trying to keep up with day-to-day operations. Masem (t) 23:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  You can just visit the RGN website's flight schedule and see that Myanmar Airways International provides service to PNH Mondays and Sundays...which you can confirm at the MAI site. JoelleJay (talk) 02:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  Being useful is not a sole reason to keep info. It would be extremely useful if we could supply medical advice to our readers, but even if we kept that strictly to MEDRS sourcing, that's still a huge minefield that we avoid it all together. Our first purpose is an encyclopedia, and NOT is what sets the bounds for what that should not cover. Masem (t) 18:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

• Yes Keep them available for readers to enjoy. I have been trying to keep them up to date and accurate for the airports in the Oceania region for 15 years. They can be maintained with the right sources and they have been allowed on Wikipedia almost since the beginning. A lot of people will miss them when they are removed but won't know why as they are not too involved with the Wikipedia policy. So will never know why they will be no longer on Airport pages CHCBOY (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
• Yes informative, encyclopedic. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
• Yes Easy to source, from someone who started out working those tables, encyclopedic and should be kept. 47.227.95.73 (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
• No Wikipedia is not a travel guide, WP:NOTGUIDE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratnahastin (talk • contribs) 01:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, a rare case I disagree with SMcC. I love this discussion, as it combines many fine things about Wikipedia: meticulous attention to certain details; a desire to capture parallel details about every entry in a category; a desire to be concisely useful and maintainable as a public resource. The whole purpose of an airport is to host airlines taking people and things to other cities, so it is a significant detail. Destination tables are moderately long, need occasional but not continuous updating, and are maintained by a community of passionate enthusiasts — I see no reason not to include them. (This does not strike me as what NOTDIR or NOTGUIDE were created to avoid.) For the sake of making the freshness of information clear, it might help to have a standard template that includes a "last updated" footnote at the bottom of such tables with a link to a canonical source for anything without its own ref. – SJ + 01:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, because non-stop destinations are useful information about an airport – what places does it directly connect to? Breaking it down by airline is even more helpful to determine WHO flies a specific route, instead of just saying there's a non-stop connection to X destination by some air carrier. Additionally, airport websites are not always the most frequently updated with their destination offerings, nor do they always differentiate between seasonal and year-round service. Panthercoffee72 (talk) 20:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
• Yes for me case-by-case makes the most encyclopedic sense; in general I would expect commercial airports with a handful of destinations would be the most suitable -- it really matters to understanding such a topic what three, or six, or nine places you can get to (indeed, it is perhaps the most informative thing to really understand the operation at all). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. There appear to be many Yes !votes here which really mean No. The OP has made it clear that "the central question is whether airport articles should mention every single flight that the airport offers". Many of those "Yes" votes are qualified as, for example, "every route" or "case by case", so what they really mean is "No, not every single flight indiscriminately". — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  An outcome of "no" will be interpreted as a justification for indiscriminately removing entire lists, which is not what any of those qualified "yes" !votes want (nor at least some of those with bolded "no" comments). Thryduulf (talk) 18:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  My impression is that the people who !voted "no" (and many of those who made a qualified "yes" !vote) do not seek to simply remove a list and leave it at that, but to provide instead a description of the airport's operations that is in line with Wikipedia policies. Sunnya343 (talk) 03:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  Some who voted "no" and some who voted "yes" do think a prose replacement and/or a prose supplement to a partial list will be appropriate, but lists (comprehensive and otherwise) will be removed without replacement using this RFC as a justification if the outcome is "no", even though that is not the desire of most. Thryduulf (talk) 09:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  Mass excision of lists without a sincere effort to replace them would not be productive, but disruptive, and such behavior should be dealt with accordingly. Sunnya343 (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  Except such mass removals are almost always the result of an RFC with a closure that something doesn't belong. And any attempt to push back against such mass removals results in not only the removed simply pointing to the RFC as justification with no nuance, but offer results in the person saying correctly that mass removal is a bad idea having to defend themself at ANI. Thryduulf is right. The strict binary of wording of the RFC would absolutely result in a mass removal with no sense of subtly whatsoever. oknazevad (talk) 14:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed, this is why I raised issues with the phasing of the question all the way at the beginning. I'm not sure I could blame the removal on disruptive users I think the blame falls squarely on the wording of the RfC. @Sunnya343: this means that if such mass excision happens it will be on your head alone. You can not, as you do here, simply pass the buck to other editors and claim that its them who is disruptive for your mistake. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  "It will be on your head alone"? What nonsense. It would be on the head of everybody who helped build the consensus - which usually means most of us - and especially on the wording of the closure. And many of us would not be sorry to see a clean slate and a fresh start on the well-sourced ones. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  How am I supposed to incorporate every possible nuance into the RfC statement and still comply with WP:RFCBRIEF? The nuances arise over the course of the discussion and should be incorporated into the closing summary, as Steelpillow noted. Sunnya343 (talk) 23:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  A question closer to "what should lists of destinations in airport articles include?" with a list of options, including (but not necessarily limited to) "nothing" (i.e. remove the lists), "an up-to-date list of all destinations", and "a representative sample of destinations" would allow for much greater nuance and much less scope for overzealous content removal. That you needed to clarify the question so soon after asking it is not evidence of a well-workshopped proposal. Thryduulf (talk) 00:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I must add that I am astounded and bewildered by the personal attack on me for the hypothetical actions of other editors following the hypothetical outcome of an active RfC. Sunnya343 (talk) 22:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• Close poorly phrased RFC and start over. It isn't clear from the wording whether we're discussing requiring these tables or banning them. I don't think anyone's going to !vote for saying the tables "should" always appear; that's not the same as putting in a rule against them. --Trovatore (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  How is the wording different from this RfC, which editors did not have difficulty understanding: Should Wikipedia have and maintain complete lists of airline destinations? In the same vein as the latter discussion, the present RfC is asking whether the complete lists of airlines and destinations in airport articles belong in Wikipedia. The paragraph that begins with Virtually all airport articles should make this clear. Sunnya343 (talk) 02:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  Appears to be substantially different from "Should airport articles include tables that display all the airlines that serve the airport and the cities they fly to?" the key difference being "all the airlines" which the first question doesn't ask at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  The first question asks whether Wikipedia should have complete lists of airline destinations (example). My question asks if airport articles should have complete lists of airlines and destinations - i.e. "all the airlines that serve the airport and the cities they fly to". Sunnya343 (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Sunnya343: The problem is with the interpretation of the word "should", where a yes answer could be taken as meaning that these lists should always appear, and no could be taken as meaning that they should never appear. That's a bad question and basically invalidates the whole RfC. You need to close it and start over, asking a question more focused on what you mean. If you think that maybe we should ban the lists, you should ask if we should ban the lists. If you think they should always appear, you should ask whether they should always appear. --Trovatore (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  There are, at a basic level, multiple options for how lists/tables of destinations could be handled.

  1. Never allowed.
  2. Exceptionally allowed. Exceptions would require discussion at an individual article level, with a presumption against inclusion
  3. Discouraged. Most articles should not have a list/table, but there are some airports where it is justified.
  4. Neutral. Neither required nor prohibited, with no general presumption for or against inclusion.
  5. Encouraged. Most articles should have such a list/table, but sometimes it makes sense not have one.
  6. Almost always required. Exceptions are possible and would require discussion on each article, with a presumption in favour of inclusion.
  7. Required. Every article about an airport with scheduled flights should have list and/or table of the airlines and destinations.

  It should also be made clear that there are multiple types of list/table, none of which are mutually exclusive (even on a single article) and the consensus regarding each might be different:

  1. Complete, listing every airline and destination.
  2. Comprehensive, including most but not necessarily all.
  3. Representative, a sample giving an overview of the types of airlines and destinations and their relative proportions
  4. Most significant only.

  Finally, each of those four types could be for the rolling now, for a specific moment in time or covering a period of time (e.g. a single year through to a decade or so, possibly more). An article may have more than one (e.g. a complete list for now and a representative list for each prior era of operations).

  This discussion reduces all this to a single question and assumes that everybody is talking about the same thing. Thryduulf (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  The other RfC statement also includes the word should, yet editors raised no concerns about its meaning. The outcome of that RfC was clear enough for three subsequent discussions to reaffirm it (1, 2, 3). I have contacted the people who started those discussions to seek their input.

  The question is quite straightforward. Either you believe Wikipedia should maintain the current, complete lists of airlines and destinations found in all airport articles, or you do not. If you !vote "Yes", you provide your reasoning. If you !vote "No", you are free to explain what sort of information should be provided instead, as many editors have done. Sunnya343 (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• Needs further clarification. It should not be required, but does not prohibit mentions either. Senorangel (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• No hopelessly outdated in most articles WP:NOTGUIDE.Moxy- 23:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. I don't buy the WP:NOTGUIDE argument one bit. It's encyclopedic info relating to which airlines serve the airport (along with other airports that can be reached directly from that airport, which can often be found in RS). That is essential info relating to an airport's operation - much like we would not have a road article that fails to list what towns the road serves, or a railway station article that doesn't mention what railway lines actually stop there. What would bring this into NOTGUIDE territory are timetables, flight numbers, gate numbers, etc. Epicgenius (talk) 13:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  Roads and train tracks are essentially permanent and thus once down, they won't change. The airlines that serve an airport, and moreso the list of cities they serve, are extremely flexible since planes are not required to travel fixed paths. Masem (t) 02:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  Good point; it could be harder to maintain articles like that. I still think airline/destination lists can be included if supported by RS; though I don't think their usage should be banned (or conversely, mandated), as the destinations served by an airport are still valuable pieces of information relating to the airport's very operations. If an airport only has flights to one or two other airports, for example, it would not serve the WP:READER well to not mention that. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  To add, the equivalent of airports/airlines to roads would be bus and train routes, which are subject to daily changes. And which we don't include. Masem (t) 02:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Epicgenius: I agree 100% with your sentiment regarding an airport with few flights. For example, it would be silly to insist that you may not explicitly mention the three flights available at the Kalamazoo airport. I'm sure you will find a good number of RS that discuss them in detail, given their significance to a small airport like Kalamazoo's. The Newark airport is a different story. But even then, there are some noteworthy routes that we should describe in the article, such as the nonstop flight to Singapore, which is the longest in the world.[20][21]

  Is that what you thought when you read the RfC question and clarification - that if you !vote "No", it means you believe that explicitly mentioning any current destinations should be forbidden? (Not asking sarcastically.) Because that's not what I meant. I didn't think it was necessary to include that nuance since this RfC on a similar topic did not either, and editors seemed to understand. Sunnya343 (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for the response @Sunnya343. I will admit that I interpreted the question "Should airport articles include tables that display all the airlines that serve the airport and the cities they fly to?" as having two choices—yes, we should allow them to be included, and no, we should not allow them to be included. My position is that the tables could be included if sources support them, but that the tables shouldn't be mandatory (which I supposed would be the subject of a later discussion). Epicgenius (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

• Yes - It's an integral part of the importance of an airport. It includes information that goes into airport size, airline market share, and more. Since the dawn of Wikipedia we've had these tables and I'm not sure why some people keep going after them. ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 14:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
• No - We're not a directory and this comes off as way too promotional. It's like listing the menus of restaurants, or listing all the different model bulbs made by General Electric. It comes off as not only unencyclopedic but as an advertisement for these facilities. There's a fine line between giving a basic summary highlighting what a business does and promoting what they do. This seems to cross it by a mile. Zaereth (talk) 03:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. The destinations that an airport serves are just as relevant as the destinations that a road or railway serves. It is true that these airport destinations change more easily than roads or railways, and so needs more frequent updating, but the content is usually easily verifiable through airport websites and airline timetables. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  As an aviation enthusiast who used to edit these lists frequently, I have found that the easiest way to verify their contents is to check Flightradar24. The website is convenient in that it compiles data from different airline timetables and other sources. If we take the Chongqing airport table as an example, it's easy to type "CKG-CAN" (the airport codes for Chongqing and Guangzhou) in the search box and click on Flight AQ 1200 to confirm that 9 Air flies between those cities. You can do the same for the rest of the destinations in the table. There was a time when I would pull up one of Flightradar24's route maps for an airport, write down all of the airlines and destinations, and add that information to articles in the Spanish Wikipedia that previously lacked such lists. Eventually I paused to reflect. What is the point of meticulously copying all of this information from one website to another, especially given how often it changes?

  Railway services are major pieces of infrastructure that receive extensive coverage in the body of published sources. For instance, the services at Cleveland Lakefront Station are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles. If one of these ended, it would be a major event that we would describe in the station's article. On the other hand, when Lufthansa ends its Frankfurt–Erbil service or British Airways stops flying from Doha to London-Gatwick, we will simply delete the destination from the table; that information will be removed from the article forever. In other words, we're not meaningfully building or expanding the article, but continually hitting the "refresh" button on the list of destinations. Providing information that is transient and at this level of granularity is a job better suited to a constantly updated database like Flightradar24, than to an encyclopedia article. Sunnya343 (talk) 22:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

• Yes: WP:V and WP:CREEP are each valid counters to the WP:INDISCRIMINATE claims, and simply because some articles lack the proper sourcing does not mean that it doesn't exist. Let'srun (talk) 18:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
• Yes Certainly they may need better sourcing, but that can come in the course of article improvement, and it's useful to have.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
• Yes Without expounding further....as many excellent reasons cited above. But the same expectations and content rules should be applied as consistently as the rest of Wikipedia (well sourced, cited, maintained etc...) (If it is unmaintained / not well sourced - it should be either repaired or deleted just like every other wikipedia article. DigitalExpat (talk) 06:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  Vote to close this RFC - upon rereading, there's been excellent valid points raised about the flawed nature of the question in this RG and it is unlikely to be able to drive to a productive conclusion. Some very experienced wiki editors have given good points here and they have largely been ignored or taken as an argument. I would suggest a more productive RFC would be on the Aviation Wiki talk pages on perhaps 'how best to source flight information' (eg OAG and Cirium as proof of routes instead of FR24 that just says a plane flew from A to B within the last 30days). To contradict my vote above, upon reread of this long (and growing) RFC, it is a flawed question and unanswerable as evidenced by the above. (PS - if we source superior resources like Cirium based data,it would tell us that EWR-SIN is not the "longest flight", but is the 2nd longest.) Cheers! DigitalExpat (talk) 02:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

• Qualified yes For major airports like Heathrow, or Chicago IMHO it's not necessary: one can assume that there are many flights to & from many places involving those airports. However, when it comes to less trafficked airports, where there might be only one or two carriers that service it, it becomes important not only to potential travelers, but as an indicator of how busy that airport is. Further, the airports I have in mind are those in second or third-tier cities in Africa or Asia -- only as an afterthought I realized this could apply to the US & Western Europe. (IIRC, all cities in Oregon except Portland have at most one carrier serving their airport, which is the case for most states in the US.) As for the issue of maintainability, we have that same issue with countless articles, & the only solution is for more eyes & editors. If we start accepting that as an unqualified reason to omit information, we might as well go on a deletion spree thru the rest of Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
• No, not at all, per SMcCandlish and Moxy. The fact that readers trust us for this, is a problem in itself, when these very long tables are poorly maintained. Disallowed by several sections of WP:NOT (heck, even WP:NOTPRICE: "products and services" / "availability information"). Information cannot be defining (or encyclopedic) if it changes frequently, and we shouldn't be maintaining carbon copies of info findable on other websites (like the airport's site, or flightradar24). Destinations are determined by airlines, not airports, so this would make less sense than lists of airline destinations, which there is already consensus against. DFlhb (talk) 18:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (airlines and destinations)

• I have a problem with the framing of this question, "Should airport articles include tables that display all the airlines that serve the airport and the cities they fly to?" is so vague that we all appear to be voting on different proposals. @Sunnya343: can you clarify whether by "all the airlines that serve the airport and the cities they fly to" you mean all which we can reliably source or is it a rhetorical question? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'm asking whether airport articles should mention every single flight that the airport offers, which is what it appears the articles are trying to do. I specifically mentioned "tables" because that is the format used by all the articles, but the central question is what I said in the previous sentence. Sunnya343 (talk) 23:35, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

  If they're going to mention some of them, and a complete list is possible, then why shouldn't we have a complete list? What's the advantage to having a partial list? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  In my rough draft for the Indianapolis airport article (which is just an idea, I'm not saying this is exactly how it should be), I do explicitly mention Toronto and Cancun, but that's because those are the airport's only two international destinations. If the airport had 10 or 15 international destinations, I personally wouldn't list all of them. So I'd say it comes down to the judgment of the editor(s), just like in other articles, where you have to decide whether or not to include certain details. I think WP:NOTEVERYTHING would apply. Sunnya343 (talk) 02:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  Does it come down to judgement or does it come down to what the sources cover? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  I still believe it comes down to judgment, and that WP:TMI is relevant here. Sunnya343 (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2023 (UTC) Actually, I think it's more nuanced. Please see the paragraph I wrote on October 7 after !voting "No". Sunnya343 (talk) 03:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  TMI is a WP:ESSAY, WP:NPOV is a WP:POLICY. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  You're right. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about the need to mention every flight then. Sunnya343 (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  You're disagreeing with a straw man, that is not my position and never has been. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  Then what exactly is your position? I thought you were saying that because third-party sources can be found for every destination, we should include them all. Sunnya343 (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  Nowhere did I say that and I'm not really sure where you would get that I did from. I said that "airport articles should include such tables when including a table would be due (closed airports don't need to have an empty table for example). A table should not preclude prose coverage of routes nor should prose coverage of routes preclude a table, there is room for both and both are often due." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• Theoretically these tables might be able to be maintained to adequate sourcing levels, but this will not ever happen in practice. It's thousands of airports with shifting schedules and much fewer editors. The route and destination tables of most airport articles I watch are maintained by unsourced and often unexplained edits which add or remove routes and airlines. Obviously no-one checks these, and no-one has time to check them all, and even if someone did check them at some point it's entirely possible the situation might have changed. That is not to say the edits are not in good faith, much seem likely to be accurate, but it can be hard to know. Sometimes sources are added, which will note route opening, but these routes are as subject to change and removal as the unsourced ones. Many seem to find the tables useful, so I'm hesitant to oppose. I find the tables occasionally informative if indiscriminate. However, I read them with the knowledge that they are a mixture of incomplete, out of date, and possibly unsubstantiated information. I do not know if we should assume the same from our readers. CMD (talk) 02:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
• I am pretty sure there was a major deletion discussion and reversion a few years back, on exactly this topic. Would it be relevant to this question? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  You might be thinking of this RfC on the lists of airline destinations. Sunnya343 (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, that was really weird. We got a consensus to delete destination lists, then I got yelled for actually doing it. I still firmly belive that per WP:NOTDIRECTORY we shouldn't be hosting these schedules at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• I would suggest that rather than attempting the impossible task of maintaining a complete and current list of airlines and destinations, we provide a snapshot of the typical operations of a given airport with respect to this information. That way, nothing needs to be updated, so long as we can accurately say that a particular set of this information from a particular date is exemplary for that airport. BD2412 T 18:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  But what encyclopedic purpose would that serve?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  The purpose would be to illustrate the typical activity of a given airport at a given time. This is not much different from showing a picture of a tiger in the Tiger article. No single picture will be illustrative of every possible instance of a tiger, but the snapshot is still informative. BD2412 T 02:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  "a snapshot" and "at a given time" immediately runs against the fact we are an encyclopedia, that we are supposed to be looking reasonably long-term/enduring factors, and not what happens day to day. We can add and update that long-term coverage as it happens, but we should be far away from trying to keep WP up to date with information that is changing in the short term, as would be the case of an airport's destination list. Masem (t) 02:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  As I said, it is the same as having a photograph of a tiger. Or, for that matter, a photograph of the airport itself, since airports tend to undergo steady renovations, extensions, and so forth. BD2412 T 01:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  The matter of determining whether the list from a particular date is exemplary for the airport sounds arbitrary to me. Additionally, people will see an outdated list in the article and inevitably attempt to make corrections, and you will have to find a way to justify reverting all of their edits. Sunnya343 (talk) 01:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  If someone updates then they will either be correct to a new as-of date or they will be incorrect. If they are incorrect then either revert them as incorrect (as is frequently done across the encyclopaedia today) or correct them (as is frequently done across the encyclopaedia today), if the updates are correct leave them. If reverted then the project is no different to how it was before, no gain no loss. If the article is now more up-to-date then the project has benefited. Thryduulf (talk) 02:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  My comment above addresses BD2412's proposal, which, as I understand it, is to have a complete list of destinations from a particular date that is considered exemplary for the airport. Therefore, nothing [would need] to be updated (that is, until editors somehow decide the list is no longer exemplary). Let's say the list of destinations from July 2023 is deemed exemplary. If a person makes a single change today, the list will no longer be a snapshot from July 2023. You can either revert that edit or update the entire list every time someone modifies it, which would defeat the purpose of BD2412's strategy. In conclusion, this proposal would be difficult to carry out. Sunnya343 (talk) 02:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  Look, it's a tautology. A list that is exemplary for its time will always be exemplary for its time. For example, a list (or a prose description) that demonstrates the height of activity of a particular airport in the 1970s will always demonstrate the height of activity of that particular airport in the 1970s. BD2412 T 02:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  I think I understand what you were saying now. Nevertheless, two questions remain: a) How often would you "refresh" the entire list, and b) How would you respond to editors who just think the list is outdated and (in good faith) proceed to make individual corrections (e.g. today British Airways ended service to Zakynthos, tomorrow Ryanair starts flying to Warsaw) - i.e. the status quo.

  In any case, a complete list of destinations at a single point in time is far beyond what's necessary to communicate the scale of an airport's activity. See the paragraph I wrote in the HAL Airport article that starts with On the civilian front for, in my opinion, an example of how to convey that information without providing an exhaustive list of destinations. Sunnya343 (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  Except a tiger doesn't change its stripes every quarter. Honestly, the comparison to a tiger is rather bizarre and suggests that there isn't a common understanding of what this discussion is about. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 06:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Orange Suede Sofa: no, that is not what I am saying at all. I am not saying that a given airport is like a specific tiger on a specific day. I am saying that there are thousands of tigers in the world, and we choose one picture of one tiger to represent all of the topic, Tiger, although there will be many tigers that do not look like the one selected. BD2412 T 03:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

RfC on reducing the privileges afforded to the WMF under WP:CONEXCEPT

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Withdrawn, clear consensus against this proposal, although future editors interested in this topic may want to note that there was more support for an option to overturn CONEXECPT actions and a future proposal in that line (eg, The WMF has legal control over, and liability for, Wikipedia. Decisions, rulings, and acts of the WMF Board and its duly appointed designees presume consensus, but may be overturned by community consensus so long as said decisions, rulings, and acts are not required to comply with the WMF's obligations.) may be more successful. BilledMammal (talk) 08:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

---

WP:CONEXCEPT currently reads:

Certain policies and decisions made by the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), its officers, and the Arbitration Committee of Wikipedia are outside the purview of editor consensus. This does not constitute an exhaustive list as much as a reminder that the decisions taken under this project apply only to the workings of the self-governing community of English Wikipedia.

• The WMF has legal control over, and liability for, Wikipedia. Decisions, rulings, and acts of the WMF Board and its duly appointed designees take precedence over, and preempt, consensus. A consensus among editors that any such decision, ruling, or act violates Wikimedia Foundation policies may be communicated to the WMF in writing.
• Office actions are not permitted to be reversed by editors except by prior explicit office permission.
• The English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee may issue binding decisions, within its scope and responsibilities, that override consensus. The committee has a noticeboard, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, for requests that such decisions be amended, and may amend such decisions at any time.
• Some matters that may seem subject to the consensus of the community at the English-language Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org) are in a separate domain. In particular, the community of MediaWiki software developers, including both paid Wikimedia Foundation staff and volunteers, and the sister wikis, are largely separate entities. These independent, co-equal communities operate however they deem necessary or appropriate, such as adding, removing, or changing software features (see meta:Limits to configuration changes), or accepting or rejecting some contributions, even if their actions are not endorsed by editors here.

Should it be changed to:

Certain policies and decisions made by the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), its officers, and the Arbitration Committee of Wikipedia are outside the purview of editor consensus. This does not constitute an exhaustive list as much as a reminder that the decisions taken under this project apply only to the workings of the self-governing community of English Wikipedia.

• The WMF has legal control over, and liability for, Wikipedia. Decisions, rulings, and acts of the WMF Board and its duly appointed designees that are needed to comply with legal obligations take precedence over, and preempt, consensus.
• Office actions are not permitted to be reversed by editors except by prior explicit office permission.
• The English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee may issue binding decisions, within its scope and responsibilities, that override consensus. The committee has a noticeboard, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, for requests that such decisions be amended, and may amend such decisions at any time.
• Some matters that may seem subject to the consensus of the community at the English-language Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org) are in a separate domain. In particular, the community of MediaWiki software developers, including both paid Wikimedia Foundation staff and volunteers, and the sister wikis, are largely separate entities. These independent, co-equal communities operate however they deem necessary or appropriate, such as adding, removing, or changing software features (see meta:Limits to configuration changes), or accepting or rejecting some contributions, even if their actions are not endorsed by editors here.

The section that is proposed to be changed is highlighted in bold. 01:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Related discussions

There are three related discussions that editors involved in this may be interested in; they are listed here.

Survey (CONEXCEPT RFC)

• Support, primarily to make the paragraph consistent with our broader values of collaboration, transparency, and consensus, as well as act as a safeguard against WMF overreach. If the WMF needs to overrule us then they should be able to - but absent any such need they should instead work with us to try to implement a change that they believe is necessary, and they should accept the communities consensus if their change is rejected.
  I also hope that this will serve to improve the long-term relationship between the WMF and the English Wikipedia, by shifting us away from a situation where we are functionally their subordinate and towards a situation where we are their partner. BilledMammal (talk) 01:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
• Doesn't really go far enough. It should be changed to read that WMF may only overrule the community when it is literally legally required to do so. This isn't a significant change, and it should be one. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for the time being, as an example of pursuing something just for "the principle of it" without any information about the actual practical implications.
  Putting aside the quandary of proposing changes to a rule that basically prevents us from changing the rule, what actual problems would this solve? What are the ways the WMF has trumped local consensus in the past which were allowed under the current wording, but would be disallowed under the proposed wording? Especially curious for examples where existing mechanisms failed to achieve a good result. Also, what work are the words "legal" and "obligations" doing here? Legal matters that are not obligatory aren't covered, presumably? So best practices and precautions for following the law don't qualify? Global bans dealing with sensitive personal information, for example, would be subject to an ad hoc !vote with a bunch of volunteers? I'd be curious about what other things would be excluded here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
  • +1. — Frostly (talk) 02:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  WP:FRAMBAN is the most obvious and recent example, I suppose. The Trust & Safety department of the WMF placed several sanctions as office actions, which under this policy the enwiki community couldn't challenge directly (one admin tried and was desysopped for it). The only way we broke the stalemate was by complaining loudly and by the ArbCom of the time going over T&S' heads with a letter to the WMF Board, asking them to give it permission to review the case, which they did. The overall result was an enormous amount of wasted volunteer time and aggrevation over what, in the end, was a transparently bad call by T&S. I'm not sure where I stand on this proposal yet, but I can certainly see how restricting office actions to legal matters would have stopped, or at least made it easier for the community to object to, WMF attempts to intervene in user conduct issues, like FRAMBAN. – Joe (talk) 05:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose as factually incorrect. I might not like it, but the board can overrule the community – for legal reasons or otherwise. If the board decides to shut enwiki down tomorrow, it doesn't matter why they made that decision. Enwiki would be shut down tomorrow, and that will not change if this proposal passes. Policies are descriptive, not prescriptive, and we cannot change reality by attempting to live in a fantasy land. HouseBlaster^talk 01:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  The difference it will make is in how they overrule us. Currently, they can overrule us, point to this policy, and per our own policies we have to do what they say - the effort the WMF has to put into overruling us is minimal, and thus the cost of doing so is minimal. However, absent this policy they will need to take direct action to implement the change, and that will be a drain on their resoheaurces.

  You're right that they can still do so, but their ability and willingness to do so will be degraded, and I consider that a very positive step. BilledMammal (talk) 02:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  The WMF doesn't like overriding community consensus for fun. Heck, in the post FRAMGATE world, they actively seek consensus where possible. They redesigned banners last year, and were unable to meet their fundraising goal. They opened an RfC before rolling out Vector 2022 (and yes, this counts; enwiki admins closed the two RfCs and determined consensus just like any other RfC; it is only different if we want to ban the foundation from making suggestions). They are already very unwilling to override consensus; all of the stuff at WP:FRAM happened under the current wording. The current policy was sufficient to get the foundation to go from "no appeals, no exceptions" to "ArbCom gets to decide the future of this ban". In sum, they already are already unwilling to override consensus and we already can push back when we feel they have stepped out of line. Actions don't need to be against policy to be "wrong" or open to criticism. HouseBlaster^talk 03:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  To be pedantic, the WMF can force enwiki onto a non-WMF platform tomorrow. Alternative backers will fight for the tens of millions that come through that Donate link in the sidebar. Some candidates may even offer us better terms than the WMF. Certes (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  I would also say that this proposal is a matter that should be discussed at the level of WMF, because it intends to regulate actions of WMF, not of enwiki editors. Janhrach (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with Rhododendrites. I doubt this will have the intended effect, or really any effect at all. — Wug·a·po·des 02:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Policies are decided by consensus. It makes no sense to have a consensus that consensus can be overruled. If the WMF wants to throw its weight around, then that's their decision. But we do not benefit in any way from actively encouraging it. I agree with Seraphimblade that the language could be stronger still, but I'm supporting as this wording is better than the status quo. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Since my return I've been a bit shocked (perhaps naively so) at the veiled and not-so-veiled hostility between en and the Foundation.
  It would be a disruptive, existential crisis for a large group of en editors to fork and leave Wikimedia. But as someone who has a bit of of benefit of distance, reading over the past many years of controversy it's pretty clear that's the rough direction the relationship is going in.
  The benefit of such a change is that it draws a very clear line on the part of the en community, when the Foundation appears unable to do so. This doesn't have a direct effect on Foundation actions. But it makes it clear what actions the en community considers valid, and I hope such clarity can help lower the temperature, where ambiguity has raised it. I'm open to alternatives, but the idea here is a good one. —siroχo 03:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as it removes the ability for the enwiki community to formally protest decisions of the foundation that violate their own policies (Putting aside the quandary of proposing changes to a rule that basically prevents us from changing the rule). Also history suggests that the premise that the effort the WMF has to put into overruling us is minimal is very wrong in any circumstances the community actually cares about. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with what Joe Roe said below, but I'll add that I can't see any situation under the proposed version of CONEXCEPT that the WMF could make such a decision - any such decision would go beyond what is needed to comply with legal obligations - and thus instead of needing to formally protest we just say "no, go get a consensus". BilledMammal (talk) 07:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

• Weak oppose, though spiritually I can see where this is coming from. Mostly I subscribe to the Rhodendentries argument on lack of effect, and to use the words of Cullen328 from the paid editing admin disclosure RFC, it's "a solution in search of a problem". With the WMF, it's usually better to WP:Drop the stick when it comes to office actions. I expected of them to uphold the present social contract between editors and the WMF, and so far I think they've done a good job at upholding their end. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support as a shift in the balance of power toward clearly-defined roles and against nebulous subservience. This may well do nothing, as suggested above, but I don't see how it could harm anything. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  Removing a formal process for us to protest out of process CONEXEMPT actions does strike me as harmful. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  Do we need a formal process? I would've thought it was a given that we can inform the WMF about anything we like "in writing" (how else?), prior permission or not. – Joe (talk) 06:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, I see, there's two separate issues here. I concur there's no reason to remove "A consensus among editors that any such decision, ruling, or act violates Wikimedia Foundation policies may be communicated to the WMF in writing", although it does seem kind of redundant. I still prefer the wording of the first sentence proposed in this RfC to the existing one, though. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Limiting things to where there is a legal obligation may cause problems with things that are legal good practice but not obligations and also enforcement of aspects of the terms of use and codes of conduct that they may not be legally obligated to do. I'm also seeing a complete lack of any evidence of any actual problems caused by the current wording. Thryduulf (talk) 08:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, largely per HouseBlaster and Barkeep. Changing the wording of this policy does not really change anything. It's a statement of fact that the WMF can override policies or consensuses on en.wp if it wishes. Changing the wording will not restrict the WMF's ability to do so. Even if it did, introducing the 'on legal grounds' wording doesn't really help much - legal grounds are themselves complicated, debatable and subject to interpretation - the en.wp community does not really have the level of expertise needed to interpret and debate them. Further, the WMF in practice is pretty keen to engage in dialogue these days and follow community consensus even on things like the fundraising banners (which it wouldn't have done at any previous point in the history of Wikipedia). The Land (talk) 09:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
• Neutral. It doesn't change the reality which is that the WMF can shut enwiki down in the morning if it wanted to. Stifle (talk) 10:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose As it stands the WMF knows that they can override us, but if we disagree with them it will probably be a bit disaster. If we change this, the only different seems to be we've told the WMF you cannot override except in specific circumstances; but we know they still can and if we disagree it will be a bit of a disaster. I'm concerned that with this change rather than us considering, did the WMF have a reason to override us sufficient for us to just accept it; it will become a case of the WMF overrode us and it technically didn't fit the narrow parameters we defined so fuck them no matter that actually they probably did right thing. (I mean I feel there's already something like that but I don't see a reason to make it worse.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support. I agree with Thebigugly alien. The WMF should have no need to interfere in community affairs outside of legal problems; the community regulates itself by consensus. The proposed change makes this position clear. Edward-Woodrow • talk 12:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
• Moot per HouseBlaster. The current reading of the text reflects reality. Changing it would just make the policy of WP:CONEXCEPT substantively incorrect, and I don't see how it helps anyone to tell ourselves to alter policy and scream from the heavens that WMF cannot or should not trump the common wisdom of Wikipedia as much as it can already do, and indeed has done. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support per Thebiguglyalien and others. Gradually, over many years, the WMF has expanded dramatically in size and broadened its remit beyond all recognition. Whatever the technical merits of Vector 2022, its appearance and imposition out of nowhere is a perfect example of the WMF's disdain for readers and editors alike. It's time to issue a gentle reminder of why we're here. Certes (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support restricting CONEXCEPT to "legal obligations" instead of the current rule, which can be paraphrased as "whenever the WMF feels it's best." Yes, the web host -- whoever it may be -- will always have legal obligations that the web host must and will follow, even if the user community doesn't agree. That should be the extent of CONEXCEPT. Beyond legal obligations, community consensus should rule. I also support removing the other sentence about lodging a complaint, because it implies that's the only thing the community can do. That sentence doesn't create any formal process, we already have a formal process (RFC), and there is much more the community can do (and has done, eg FRAMGATE, last year's fundraising RfC), than just lodge a complaint. Levivich (talk) 17:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  Some oppose voters are pointing out that the web host can do whatever they want, regardless of what rules the user community comes up with. Yeah, that's true. But WP:CONEXCEPT is not a real-life rule, it's a Wikipedia rule (part of the core, foundational policy of this website, WP:CONSENSUS). The purpose of the document isn't to restrict the web host, it's to document what consensus is. Or, in other words, in my view, this proposal is not about what the WMF can do, it's about what the rest of us agree to. So, yeah, the web host can do whatever they want, up to and including pulling the plug and shutting down the whole website. But I support this proposal because I don't agree to the web host being able to overrule consensus, except when due to legal obligations. Levivich (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose and Moot - There are and will always be issues that are not quite legal obligations that the Wikimedia Foundation should be the one to make decisions on, even if it conflict with individual project's wishes. There are decisions that are good for the Wikimedia movement as a whole that may be disliked by individual project, where it is undesirable for projects to have differing responses. And moot because such a change to the policy would itself falls under the existing policy exemption. -- KTC (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support. The rule of the the server obviously gives the WMF the ability to override this if they want to, but our policies should reflect the community's desires and should communicate where we stand to the WMF, which would be better with the altered wording. In the past the WMF has stepped in it because they assumed that the existing CONEXCEPT language reflects the uncontroversial consensus of the community, which it absolutely does not; making it clear that the community's desires are that the WMF only override it in cases of legal necessity (and that carelessly overriding community consensus or failing to seek consensus at all for vital changes may result in a drastic blowback) would be preferable, even if the practical reality is of course that whoever controls the physical servers can do what they please. For the people who say that they don't see the problem, just look at the problems caused by WMF actions in the past; the WMF has trusted the previous CONEXCEPT language, which was a mistake because it is wrong - it doesn't reflect community consensus, and it is, in practice, subject to community consensus. And this addresses the other objection people have made above - the text absolutely is incorrect in putting itself above consensus; the very fact that we are having this discussion proves that. As a practical matter the WMF can obviously override any of our consensuses but we have the ability to define what those consensuses are and to make it clear where the lines are that will cause blowback if crossed carelessly; the fact that we have failed to make that clear in the past has benefited neither us nor the WMF. --Aquillion (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
• Out of scope - As WMF has control over all of Wikipedia, if you are displeased with Wikimedia Foundation actions, the only option you have is the right to fork. WMF will always have control over Wikipedia servers and always will have the ability to make decisions for the entire site, regardless of consensus. Changing this bit of text will not change this fact. Website owners have the right to determine policies for their website. Wikipedia is no exception. The best solution would be to have a WMF-appointed community liaison announce changes ahead of time so that community members can give feedback before they are implemented. That used to be Jimbo, but now Jimbo is quite distanced from Wikipedia in the hierarchy, only being one of several Board of Trustee members. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 20:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Creating a Wikipedia account does not and should not give you any rights. CONEXCEPT is necessary for software changes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  CONEXCEPT will still apply for software changes; the fourth dot point, which deals with that, remains unchanged. BilledMammal (talk) 04:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

• Weak oppose I would support changing the first sentence from
  The WMF has legal control over, and liability for, Wikipedia. Decisions, rulings, and acts of the WMF Board and its duly appointed designees take precedence over, and preempt, consensus.
  to
  The WMF has legal control over, and liability for, Wikipedia. Decisions, rulings, and acts of the WMF Board and its duly appointed designees that are needed to comply with legal it's obligations take precedence over, and preempt, consensus.
  -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Rhododendrites Gamaliel (talk) 23:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Opposers. But especially Rhododendrites and the slant of the proposal that only legal "obligations" can overrule community consensus. This is "legalistic" in the bad way (as in, not actually legal, just faux-legal). There are lots of things where, strictly speaking, there isn't a law against doing something, but doing it anyway would be really stupid and could invite legal peril later. As an example, in most contracts, you aren't "obligated" to fulfill your end of the bargain - you can just break it (efficient breach). Does this mean an angry community mob can just be allowed to break unpopular contracts, even if there is a 1 zillion dollar penalty for doing so? Same with privacy concerns - often there's very vague obligations where any one step isn't clearly breaking the law, until some angry government official looking to make a name for themselves takes the collection of decisions and uses it to make a case. SnowFire (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, agreeing with sentiments that this is a solution in search of a problem. Post-FRAM, the foundation will have (what it thinks is) a very good reason to override community consensus if and when it does, demonstrated by the much-appreciated effort by the WMF in fundraising and the Vector RFC (and the time spent on that)(per Houseblaster). In addition, I suspect that T&S learned a lot from fram, and they take the time to regularly meet with arbcom now (I don't think fram is a problem that needs fixing now). Also per sentiments like Thryduulf. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 03:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, for now. There hasn't been another "Fram incident" since, well, the Fram incident, so I would like to at least cautiously hope that lessons were appropriately learned from that. So, let's see if those stay learned. If it turns out they didn't, well, we can always consider stronger medicine at that point (and I'll be the first one supporting it if that day comes), but right now I don't see it being needed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
• Something, but not this I think the current wording goes a bit far, in that it says anything WMF does preempts consensus. But the proposed change goes too far in the other direction. IMO the reality is somewhere in between: the WMF has the power to try all sorts of stuff, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't push back if consensus says they've overstepped. Anomie⚔ 07:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  Would you be suggesting something along the lines of the WMF can preempt consensus, so long as there isn't a consensus against their position? (Ie, a "no consensus" result for something the WMF supports will default in favor of their position, rather than in favor of the status quo)? Combined with ActivelyDisinterested's suggestion I wonder if something like this (subject to copy editing) would be more palatable:

  The WMF has legal control over, and liability for, Wikipedia. Decisions, rulings, and acts of the WMF Board and its duly appointed designees presume consensus, but may be overturned by community consensus so long as said decisions, rulings, and acts are not required to comply with the WMF's obligations.

  I think it is too late to switch to for this RFC, but it may be worth considering in a future one? BilledMammal (talk) 07:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per Risker, below. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 11:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, principally per Rhododendrites and SnowFire. Restricting the WMF's putative remit to "legal obligations" creates the risk that currently uncontroversial WMF actions, if based on things that are best practice but not strict legal requirements (e.g. pertaining to individuals' privacy), could be turned into major points of contention and cause further friction between the WMF and the enwp community. I also don't find myself convinced that the proposed change in language would substantively change the WMF's ability or willingness to take any given action. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I am concerned that the expression "legal obligations" is being used far too lightly. Particularly for large organisations it may be unclear what is a legal obligation until the courts have decided. How a business should behave will be a policy matter possibly (in the US) up to the Supreme Court. And as for jurisdictions outside the US, such jurisdictions can decide Wikipedia is breaking their laws. It will be a matter of policy whether to continue, so risking fines, sanctions on local editors and internet blocking. WMF, and not volunteer editors, need to bear the weight of all this uncertainty. Thincat (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
• Snow Oppose. While appropriately located in a policy page, the language in question here is less a reflection of community consensus and more just information relating legal and pragmatic realities that are simply not within the purview of the community to significantly change. We are volunteers with this project; the WMF have a fiduciary role, and they are not just entitled (by both internal and extrinsic factors defining this project's governance) to override volunteer decisions, where they have cause to believe it is in the best interests of project and to prevent certain kinds of harm to it or third parties--they are in fact legally and ethically obligated to do so.
  As Aasim quite aptly states above, anyone who has issues with that largely immutable state of affairs can feel free to stop volunteering their time here and attempt to create a similar project where they can position themselves in a fiduciary role, with all of the accordant responsibilities and authority, but with regard to this project, there are some things that volunteers, no matter how numerous or how dissatisfied, are simply not empowered to change. Therefore the proposal would accomplish nothing except to change the information contained in that section to be less accurate as to the division of authority and responsibilities between the community and the WMF and potentially foster unacceptable disruption.
  The reality is, much as we understandably value the wisdom-of-the-masses/consensus decision making model that defines our editorial and community standards, when it comes to certain activities, the WMF fiduciaries and the staff they designate for T&S and other functions are the final authority, and certain office actions are not permitted to be undone by volunteers--even our most highly positioned. If you are a volunteer on this project, you just have to accept that. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 17:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, the amendment is hopelessly vague on its face, as it is apparently assumes, random, 'nobody knows your a . . ., on the internet, will parse what "legal obligations" are -- no: real, known experts go through lengthy qualifications and long evolving trials to find that out for real and legal issues are constantly evolving. Also, in a system such as this, which is vulnerable to mobocracy, checks and balances are particularly crucial. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. On consideration I believe there are numerous areas where the Foundation is required to take actions that don't fall within a strict definition of "legal obligation". Espresso Addict (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The fact of the matter is that the WMF can pretty much do whatever it pleases, and while this community can complain about and protest against the WMF's actions in the most vehement of terms (and indeed, we have, we do, and we will), we have no authority to force the WMF to do anything. The text of CONEXCEPT should accurately reflect that dynamic. Mz7 (talk) 03:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Rhododendrites, Houseblaster, and most of the other oppose comments above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, the WMF has the power to overrule the community outside of this narrow restriction. It is used sparingly, but used nonetheless, for example with WP:FRAMBAN and with WP:VECTOR2022, so presumably the WMF wants to keep it around. The proposed change unilaterally enacted by the community would be a symbolic gesture, but its practical impact and enforceability is unclear. I do not view the symbolic gesture as worth the potential for creating more conflict with the WMF. (And since legal issues are under discussion, the WMF would probably appreciate a broad remit if only for potential legal contingencies, and I don't think that is something we would want them to lack.) CMD (talk) 12:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support the role of the WMF should be as limited as legally possible. This is a project made by the community, and the community should be in charge --Ita140188 (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Rhododendrites and SnowFire.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per SnowRise "and most of the other oppose comments above." The WMF's position as owner does give them certain rights that includes "final authority". We are not in some battle with the WMF. The editing world of wikipedia has secured a certain collective autonomy. This seems to be a world where each needs the other to advance the goal of a free encyclopedia so there is no reason to poke the bear. The WMF seems to have goals and obligations to ensuring the various projects exists in perpetuity. -- Otr500 (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support One point many of those opposing this change overlook is the qualifying language immediately before this list of exceptions where consensus can be overruled by the Foundation: "This does not constitute an exhaustive list". So if the purview of this exception is reduced, it does not necessarily mean that the Foundation cannot overrule in some area not listed here.
  So what value do these listed exceptions have? IMHO, this does not apply to the Foundation whatever. What these exceptions apply to is what areas the en.wikipedia community may be asked to support some action. As pointed above, some or all of us volunteers could decide in response to some action of the Foundation to fork; this is an extreme act, & should not lightly be done, but if the Foundation attempts to overrule a consensus outside of these 4 areas, we reserve the right to fork over that act.
  I wish these exceptions could limit the powers of the Foundation. One oversight when the Foundation became an actual institution was an binding agreement about exactly what the Foundation would be empowered to do, with everything else being reserved to the various project communities. Had that been done, we could have avoided the Foundation arrogating the rights & duties of we volunteers. But it wasn't, & now we have the situation where the Foundation is free to act capriciously & irresponsibly towards the volunteer communities. For example, turn off the ability to edit articles or any pages & turn all of the projects in a Knowledge Machine. -- llywrch (talk) 06:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose; regardless, this is out of scope. Wikimedia has full control of enwiki, regardless of what we say/want. Sure, it sounds nice, but it functionally does nothing. In these post-FRAMGATE times, WMF has, multiple times, sought out consensus, and while I am not necessarily a fan of their methods in many cases, they have complied with policy, and that is as much as we can reasonably expect. Forcing WMF to leave us alone by changing the rules to make it harder for them to interact with us is a terrifyingly hostile way to go about things, methinks, one that will only add to the WMF-enwiki tension. Cessaune [talk] 16:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Seems like a (symbolic) solution in search of a problem. If this is about WP:FRAMBAN, I would say WP:DROPTHESTICK. Sometimes the WMF's decisions are clueless, but they do own the servers whether we like it or not. Luckily they don't blatantly overrule the community very often (unlike Reddit). Nosferattus (talk) 05:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (CONEXCEPT RFC)

• Does the English Wikipedia even have the power to tell the Foundation (which somewhat owns all of the resources for this project save for the people) what it can and can't do? (I mean, everyone could fork, or everyone could make noise and complain to try to goad the WMF to change its course (reminiscent of how Framgate played out), but short of those two options this strikes me as a bit reminiscent of the ending of You're Not Elected, Charlie Brown: Linus meets with the principal to force him to implement the platform policies Linus had been elected upon, only to leave the room five minutes later and respond to "Well, did you tell him?" with a sheepish "...actually, he told me." 2600:1012:B164:9F55:5845:635D:767C:169B (talk) 02:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
• I'm intuitively leaning towards a strong support here, but I'd like more information. I can't think of a legitimate reason for the WMF to overrule en.wiki consensus, other than legal reasons. Can anyone provide an example of a situation where it's legitimate and important, for non-legal reasons, for the WMF to be able to overrule consensus? Pecopteris (talk) 03:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  Safety of individuals/groups, site security, ability to operate the website(s); each of them has been in play in dozens of scenarios where the WMF hasn't done what (some) people on English Wikipedia wanted. Risker (talk) 04:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  First would fall under legal, if I have understood correctly what scenarios you are referring to, second and third are technical matters and would fall under Some matters that may seem subject to the consensus of the community at the English-language Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org) are in a separate domain. BilledMammal (talk) 06:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  No, the first does *not* fall under "legal". And the second and third are both exactly the type of issues that have repeatedly caused invocation of CONEXEPT, to the dismay of the English Wikipedia community. They *are* the real-world examples under which this rule has created tensions between the community and the WMF. It would be helpful if you spent more time learning the history of these policies, and the actual reasons behind them, as it would result in better proposals. Risker (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  The WMF's Trust & Safety team is part of its Legal department, is it not? If so, that would suggest that, yes, trust & safety would fall under "legal."

  Anyway, hard to see why/how the safety of individuals/groups, site security, or ability to operate the website(s), would require overruling consensus. Levivich (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  Trust and safety currently is part of legal. But that hasn't always been the case. If that's the way people are interpreting legal that's pretty reassuring compared to the way I did

  I thought the revised wording would only cover things like following laws (eg DMCA) or following a court order. This would omit a variety of actions currently taken to protect editors, such as from authoritarian regimes (where the action might actually be illegal) but is following through on the safety part trust and safety. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  Maybe "legal obligation" isn't the best phrasing. But the proposal is about overruling consensus. The WMF doesn't need to overrule consensus in order to protect editors from authoritarian regimes, or to protect editors' privacy, and so forth. Those are all things that consensus exists for. I'm having a hard time imagining a scenario where the WMF would need to act contrary to consensus for some reason other than fulfilling a legal obligation.

  So, for example, if the community decided to allow copywritten images to be uploaded, copyright law be damned, the WMF might step in and say no to that, and I would agree the WMF (as web host) should be allowed to make that decision. But if the WMF oversights something to protect editors' privacy, or globally locks someone they've determined is a bad actor, none of that involves overruling consensus; to the contrary, those are examples of the WMF following consensus. If the WMF enforces the TOU, that's not overruling consensus, that's following consensus, because the TOU (arguably) has consensus.

  To use a real-world analogy, pretty much all modern democracies have a "nobody is above the law" principle enshrined in their laws. There is an exception to this, which is the declaring of martial law, allowing the government to exercise extraordinary police powers in times of emergency -- powers that would otherwise be illegal. But it has to be a real emergency. So I see CONEXCEPT as analogous to that. As written, CONEXCEPT places the WMF "above the law" of consensus. I'd like to see it limited to something akin to "in times of emergency." Maybe "legal obligations" aren't the best words for conveying that. But I'm rather surprised that editors aren't, at least in principle, agreeing that the WMF is not "above the law" of consensus, but should only overrule consensus in emergency cases. Levivich (talk) 17:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  Modern democracies don't use consensus decision making because it scales upwards poorly. On English Wikipedia, almost all major changes are stalemated by its consensus-based decision-making traditions. Organizations generally don't use consensus decision making by its entire membership both due to the scale problem, and because it's more effective to delegate decisions to a smaller group of people, with the membership setting direction. English Wikipedia has additional issues to overcome: truly getting the views of a representative sample of the community, which includes readers as well as editors, is very difficult. For a healthy collaboration, the community needs to engage throughout the objective-setting process to guide the organization on the path it desires. isaacl (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  Actually it's about decisions that cannot be subject to consensus. Sometimes that means overruling consensus. More often it means that consensus can't overrule it. The actions I'm aware of, but NDA'ed from specifically documenting, around editor safety would fall into this second category. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 08:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  I'd say the job of executing the terms of service is mostly operational. Terms of Service are legally binding (both ways). A user could sue the foundation for NOT upholding them and that definitely would then involve the legal department. The judge would throw you into mediation faster than you can introduce yourself to said judge, but still. A department called 'Legal' doesn't just do things that are 'a legal obligation' of the foundation. For instance enforcing the trademarks is done by the legal department, but not a legal obligation of the foundation. It is an obligation if you want to keep your exclusive rights, but there isn't anything requiring the foundation to perpetually keep a trademark for Wikipedia. If the board tells the Legal department to let go of these trademarks, they can be let go. Executing that is a legal obligation of the employees designated to execute this (by their bosses), under the terms of the job contract and function of the employee.

  "Legally obliged" is probably a pretty narrow scope of the foundation's activities; very broadly stay within your legal purpose as an org, organise the required votes, do proper bookkeeping, fulfil contracts you agreed to and respond to and take action on legal demands with basis in law and you are pretty much done. If you've ever been part of a mostly dormant org or association, you will know that there is very little that is actually required to simply exist. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  Risker, I'd be interested to know more about what you see as your second two examples. I don't recall the community ever having reached a consensus that Wikipedia should be insecure or inoperable, the WMF overruling that, and anyone being upset about that, and that's quite the astonishing claim. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

  Hi Seraphimblade. There was a point in time where there was a strong push to make 2FA available to anyone, which got promptly shut down. I don't recall that there was a consensus level, because things moved very quickly to illustrate why it is a bad idea. It is a security issue, it is also a user accessibility issue, and it is mostly an issue that the software was never designed for global use, and it is currently maintained only by volunteers. It was originally designed with the intention of only being used by the small number of developers who had full access to MediaWiki core software, and was subsequently expanded to WMF staff. Many years later, it was made optionally available to all administrators, and is now required for stewards and interface admins. The kicker is that there is no proper support for users who encounter difficulty with the extension. In the earlier days, everyone who had it personally knew someone who could vouch for them in order to get their 2FA reset. Today, not even all admins on all projects can say that. Instead of having a big long discussion or RFC about something like this, it's much more effective to simply say "not gonna happen" right off the bat. (As an aside, I've been reliably informed that this extension is high on the priority list for review and potential redevelopment, which could change this situation.) There are other examples I've seen over the years, all of which were stopped early.

  The most recent widely known and discussed example is the graph extension, with a very significant number of users on multiple projects expressing dismay about its removal. This was also a definite security issue, and was clearly labeled as such; as such, it's a global CONEXEPT situation. Risker (talk) 01:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

  As a fresh example, please see Challenging Disinformation in the Wikimedia Ecosystem. This includes a bundle of WMF initiatives including:

  1. Disinformation Response Taskforces focussed on prominent elections or geopolitical events
  2. WikiCred, a project aimed at training media professionals how to use Wikipedia
  3. Knowledge Integrity Risk Observatory

  As these seem to be concerned with content and are based outside individual projects such as this, they seem to have potential to generate conflict when establishing consensus for contentious topics.

  Andrew🐉(talk) 14:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

• I wish there was a decent solution to the ongoing problem of conflict between the WMF and the Wikipedia community. I think there's some cultural incompatibility -- the WMF is a traditional hierarchical voluntary sector organisation, while the Wikipedia community's an opinionated anarchy; the WMF's made up of voluntary sector people, who care and want to make a difference to the world, while the Wikipedia community's made up of exhausted people whose patience is constantly tested by playing whack-a-mole with vandals and marketers. We think differently because we live in different worlds. I think this is a conflict that'll come to a head again in future. But I can't see the point in us passing a resolution that the WMF should voluntarily give us its power. They won't do that. If this looks like passing they'll treat it as a PR problem and send someone to give us warm words and start a discussion about how to begin to plan a consultation.—S Marshall T/C 09:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I think you're overestimating how much the WMF would care or react. To me, this change is useful in that it would convey the preferences of the Wikipedia community and would draw more clear-cut lines to establish that if the WMF goes past them they're going it alone, without community support and with the potential for blowback; but I'm under no illusions that the WMF will take this as any more than a suggestion or a community request. I just think it's worth having something like that, because previously the WMF has acted with the assumption that it can do whatever it wants without community protest and that clearly hasn't worked for either party. --Aquillion (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I suspect that this change is useful is more a matter of personal opinion rather than, at least at this stage, a matter of community consensus. It seems unlikely that WMF has an assumption that it can do whatever it wants without community protest but I dare say we could note that protest is probable under some circumstances. If some editors are profoundly dissatisfied with English Wikipedia top-level governance they could fork it like Wikipedia en español did to Enciclopedia Libre Universal en Español. That would demonstrate where community consensus lies better than an RFC. Thincat (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I've found it a bit curious that the WMF is not run as some sort of cooperative. Is this feasible and worthwhile? Shells-shells (talk) 00:05, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Proposed change MOS:TERRORIST

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.

---

The problem

Decided to post this here instead of the NPOV noticeboard or MOS talk page as predicted this could generate quite lively discussion, as it historically has [22][23][24], but the 2023 Israel-Hamas war has again placed the spotlight on MOS:TERRORIST. The present policy rightfully encourages caution, but seemingly allows for the term's use in Wikivoice if consensus is reached in the sources. Nevertheless, the discussions on various Talk pages relating to the violence in Israel and Gaza plainly demonstrate the inherent problems of using the term in Wikivoice.

Although Terrorism scholars recognise a distinct phenomena to which the term applies, the problem for an encyclopedia is that its actual lay usage is extremely value-laden (except, of course, when referencing or quoting third party usage) and vague. Our own article on Terrorism offers such a broad definition that it escapes all utility. Scholarship is increasingly recognising the inherent definitional problems, or questioning the label's usefulness.[25]

I anticipate some of the counter arguments (based on those I've come across in the various discussions). Firstly, that terrorism is not a biased or value-laden label. I think the contentious discussions around the label disproves this point. Secondly, that it improves articles to include the term. And third that to not use the label gives such-named groups/individuals plausible deniability about the nature of their act(s). But, if the third is true, the first cannot be.

Working proposal

The Provisional Irish Republican Army article offers, in my opinion, persuasive precedent for how we should use the term. It discusses who designated it, and the fact news orgs routinely referred to the PIRA as "terrorist", all the while maintaining a neutral point of view by avoiding using the label in the narrative voice. As such, I propose a change to our MOS:TERRORIST. Of course, I welcome suggestions, but as a working start I propose the wording be amended to read:

Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term.

[...]

For the terms terrorist, terrorism, or freedom fighter: per the policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, these words should only be used in quotations or referencing third party use of the term.

If adopted, I realise this does mean slight edits to the wikivoice for an extensive number of articles, most notably the September 11 attacks, but these articles don't lose anything by replacing the word. In any case, the term is applied inconsistently across articles: used for the Jaffa Road bus bombings but not the 2016 Jerusalem bus bombing despite cited sources using the term. Yr Enw (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

For reference, the present material says: Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term. It does not thereafter discuss terrorism further. So, this is a proposal to add the For the terms terrorist, terrorism, or freedom fighter: per the policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, these words should only be used in quotations or referencing third-party use of the term. language as a new sentence, and to remove terrorist, or freedom fighter from the opening sentence.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I think this is an important topic. Regarding Hamas, it is designated a terrorist organization by the European Union, the US, Canada, Australia, the UK Japan, Israel and Paraguay. In context of English Wikipedia, it is apparent that most English speaking nations have designated the organization as terrorist.

I think it is important to differentiate between militias and terrorists. This is important also for the inverse reason, so that the term militia does not come to encompass such a huge sway of organizations, thus weakening the word militia itself. Indeed I find it odd that units that served in the American Revolution are considered militia, and organizations such as Palestinian Islamic Jihad or Hamas are also considered militia.

Thus, I argue in respect to the Neutral Point of View issue, that just like Al Qaeda and ISIS can be argued to be freedom fighters or militia for some people. They are still recognized as a terrorist organization in English Wikipedia due to its intent to harm civilians as well as the scope of its actions. Thus there comes a point in which one must assume that the Neutral Point of view is that they are terrorist. Especially in light of the stance of English speaking nations towards it. To be neutral at times demands us to be objective and see the facts for what they are.

And one more thing for now, an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia can trust in rapport to the fact that it is trusted to reflect information and the values of its readership. If Wikipedia would decide to stop calling organizations such as Al Qaeda or ISIS or Hamas for this matter, terrorist; I fear Wikipedia would have lost itself in its readership.

In summary, I argue that we must designate and refer to Hamas as a terrorist organization. Homerethegreat (talk) 19:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion2

• Comment: Still thinking on this, but I my initial sense is that it's an oversimplification. The 9/11 attacks qualify as terrorism under every known definition of the term, but that probably is not true of every single thing that various sources apply terroris[m|t] to. I think what we need to be concerned with is whether the preponderance of the sources, the vast majority of them, agree in using the term. "I can find it in some source somewhere" doesn't equate to a WP:DUE viewpoint, but the idea above seems to encourage injection of "quotations or third-party uses of the term" without much consideration for that. As a side matter, I want to be very clear that BBC News is under rather concerted attack in [Western] public opinion for avoiding labeling Hamas's, well, terrorist actions as terrorism, and dancing along a thin and to many very inappropriate both-sidesism line. (The short version is that the fact that Israel probably has some things to answer for in regards to its treament of Palestine and residents thereof doesn't make Hamas massacring a music festival and going on a rampage of child-decaptiation any less a bunch of terrorism. Terrorism is a collection of techniques of pursuing political violence, and doing it in the name of "freedom fighting" doesn't make it magically become non-terrorism.) If WP joins BBC is beating around the bush on this, we're going to be inundated with both on-site disruption and off-site criticism in published sources. That's not a reason to do one thing versus the other, but it is something to consider and, potentially, to be prepared for. Anyway, I will agree that our lessons in how to write about the Provisional IRA are probably going to be of value in dealing with this situation in the Middle East.
  PS: There is a somewhat related RfC (of sorts) open at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#RfC Proposed Addition to "Contentious labels" section. Making much sense of it will require reading the thread immediately above it.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for the feedback. I don't disagree with the caution of the current policy, I think it needs to be tightened and certainly wouldn't advocate injection of quotations or third-party uses of the term without agreement in the sources. My thinking is that the policy needs to explicitly eliminate use of the terms in Wikivoice, but equally not to allow backchanneling a smattering sources that then falls foul of WP:DUE. This isn't, as I hope I had made clear above, to say I (or WP) think(s) there's no such thing as terrorism, just that the label is too loaded to be used neutrally and too contentious to be used consistently. Yr Enw (talk) 09:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  I tend to agree with this, recently both of the UK and US governments placed pressure on the press to follow government policy such that if the government declared an org as terrorist then the press should follow and then presumably we would follow the press.

  Selfstudier (talk) 10:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I think if we do that, we then compromise on impartiality. Yr Enw (talk) 10:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

On the contrary, to NOT follow the sources would be inserting our own partiality on the situation. Blueboar (talk) 11:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I emphasise again I have no problem quoting and referencing such sources. My problem is explicitly with using the terms in Wikivoice, as is done in the Jaffa Road bus bombings article. Yr Enw (talk) 11:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• Quoting the proposed addition: these words should only be used in quotations or referencing third party use of the term - That's what in-text attribution is; it is, or should be, already covered by MOS:TERRORIST. DFlhb (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, the application of that particular sentence is the crux of the issue really. I have no issue with the formulation of MOS:TERRORIST except that recent edit disputes have demonstrated that can seemingly be interpreted to allow use of the terms in Wikivoice as per Wikipedia:Citing_sources#In-text_attribution. Therein lies the problem from my perspective. Perhaps I should be clearer about that and the proposed wording be adjusted to specifically and explicitly address this. Yr Enw (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  I'd point those people to WP:NPOV, which says: Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution. NPOV says we're supposed to attribute "John Doe is the best baseball player", so how could we not attribute "John Doe is a terrorist"? But MOS:LABEL being ignored is a problem, and, as you say, any fix should address that directly - DFlhb (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  I guess that example goes to my point though, to say “John Doe is the best baseball player” in wikivoice would be absurd. It would likely read something like “John Doe is recognised as the best baseball player”. Likewise, “X is/was widely recognised as a terrorist organisation/attack”. Yr Enw (talk) 20:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• I don't think there's any issue with the way MOS:LABEL treats the word "terrorist" specifically. If we were to make any change to it, it'd be for (slightly) liberalizing the wording. In practice, we do use MOS:LABELs in Wikivoice if the sourcing is so overwhelming the label can no longer be said to be contentious, and I think we should formalize that. Loki (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  It seems we're both on the same page when it comes to recognising that, in practice, MOS:LABEL when read in combination with WP:INTEXT allows for use in Wikivoice, albeit we have opposite opinions on how to address that. Like I said to @DFlhb above, I think this is the crux of the issue. Yr Enw (talk) 06:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yr Enw, we've got a handle on giving credit where it's due based on the sources we've got. But there's still a head-scratcher about those lists and categories with some pretty hot-button labels in their names. It seems like Wikipedia is slapping those labels on things without attribution in wiki voice. Infinity Knight (talk) 08:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  That appears a slightly separate point to the one I was trying to make, but I agree with you the lists and categories is something that needs to be addressed by an revisal of the MOS too. Yr Enw (talk) 09:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

• How about we add a rule that when someone's part of a group known as a 'terrorist' organization, we make sure to mention that? It could go like, 'John Smith, a member of Brave Hearts, which countries Harmonia and Technoville call a terrorist organization.' And when we first bring up Brave Hearts on a page, we do the same thing. Just keeping things clear for the reader, no bias intended. What do you think about this idea? Infinity Knight (talk) 14:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  If that reflects with due weight how the subject is discussed in reliable sources, sure, but not as a hard and fast rule. With figures like Nelson Mandela, it would give undue emphasis to primarily describe him by referencing the fact that some governments at some points in time labelled him as a terrorist.--Trystan (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  I totally get what's going on with the whole Mandela case, but I'm kind of unsure about how to go about evaluating sources. Lately, it looks like sources are tossing around the word "terrorism" in quotes only, like it's open to interpretation. This isn't just happening on Wikipedia; even the big names like the BBC are doing it. For instance, the Prime Minister and the Royals are calling it an 'act of terror,' but it's being reported as an 'attack.' So, how do we figure out which sources are trustworthy? Doesn't it put the editors in a tricky spot, having to decide what qualifies as atrocities and what doesn't? Infinity Knight (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  So, how do we figure out which sources are trustworthy? the usual way.

  Doesn't it put the editors in a tricky spot, having to decide what qualifies as atrocities and what doesn't? Plus ça change, consensus and all that. Selfstudier (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  In my opinion, it appears that then OR and POV would have a significant influence.

  It's possible to envision small editorial teams forming local agreements in specific topics where unconventional viewpoints dominate. Infinity Knight (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Totally, in the world of terrorism studies, they've been going back and forth on what the heck "terrorism" even means. It's like trying to separate real terrorism from other political violence - a real brain teaser. The whole terrorism lingo and how we think about it have been under the microscope of scholars, always changing.
  But hey, check this out, some new scholars are diving into the topic of "International Terrorism" after those wild Hamas attacks on Israel. They're not holding back on using the word "Terrorism" in their titles. They're also pointing fingers at some "international terrorist actors" and naming names. Infinity Knight (talk) 08:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
• I think this is bad idea. The suggested change says: ...these words should only be used in quotations or referencing third party use of the term. This contradicts the first and most important part, i.e. "...unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject.... It the term was widely used by multiple sources with regard to something, it should not be placed in quotations. For example, we can not write that person X was a "racist" ("...") if multiple RS have described him as a racist. Same applies to other terms. My very best wishes (talk) 23:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  I see what you're saying, but as I had also said to an earlier comment: any such comment would likely read something like, “X is/was widely recognised as a terrorist organisation/attack”, and likewise "X is/was widely recognised as racist." I don't think the label loses power if framed that way. Yr Enw (talk) 14:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

  But is that sort of distancing really appropriate in all cases? Sometimes we should state things plainly. I think we can safely say that the founders of white supremacy organizations "are" racist, and not merely that they "were recognized as" or "called" racist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  I see what you're saying, but in the case of "terrorist/m" it's so charged that I think there is no way to 'state things plainly' without getting into murky territory with regards to neutrality, assuming "terrorism/t" is a universally agreed definition, which it isn't. I don't personally think it loses impact caveating in as such, it is - after all - people who apply these words to things. Yr Enw (talk) 06:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not entirely sure why there isn't a rule disallowing 'wiki voice'; all the information provided could be attributed since Wikipedia primarily rephrases its sources. Wouldn't this approach make Wikipedia more neutral and precise? Infinity Knight (talk) 06:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  I completely agree. I'm unsure if I have just been obscure in my explainations, bc it seems a lot of editors are against exactly this. Yr Enw (talk) 06:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Infinity Knight, we don't attribute every statement to a source because that would be non-neutral. Consider:

  • "According to Democratic Party, Joe Biden is the current US President" – and according to Donald Trump, he's not.
  • "According to the American Medical Association, HIV causes AIDS" – and according to Kary Mullis, it doesn't.
  • "According to algebra textbooks, algebra is a type of mathematics" – and according to some students, it's a particularly fiendish type of torture.

  We use wikivoice when a mainstream POV clearly exists (Barack Obama is US citizen, Al Capone was a gangster, Benedict Arnold was a traitor) and we are reporting that mainstream POV. To do otherwise is to imply that these are not widely agreed upon facts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  Hello @WhatamIdoing: Wikipedia basically condenses and rephrases what it finds in its sources, and it can attribute the content to those sources. That'd be both impartial and precise. Some other contributors pointed out that the need to censor what sources actually state can introduce bias into Wikipedia. The word 'terrorist' can function as both a label and, at times, as a factual description. The guideline seems to overlook the latter. Now, how can we attribute the term 'terrorist' in the Hindustan Times content within the existing framework without introducing bias? Infinity Knight (talk) 03:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  Is that source the only one that uses that label? If not, why do you want to attribute the label on this source alone? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  "Label"? Could it be a factual description? What's the right way to use the word "terrorist" when rewording the Hindustan Times source? Any ideas from other sources? Infinity Knight (talk) 05:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Infinity Knight, the HT piece that you linked is WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Why would you be using that source at all? I don't think we need to worry about "rewording" that source because I think we should be citing secondary sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  "[It is not] always easy to distinguish primary from secondary sources. A newspaper article is a primary source if it reports events, but a secondary source if it analyses and comments on those events".

  HT goes through Israeli sources, and it's pretty obvious that the audio of the call is connected to the IDF. So, I have some reservations about labeling this source as primary. Infinity Knight (talk) 07:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

  @WhatamIdoing I agree with this point (that attributing some statements can lead to neutrality issues), except that I don’t think it should apply to any use of the terms “terrorism/t” because they are specifically called out for challenge in many academic sources. So the notion it’s “calling a spade a spade” just isn’t correct Yr Enw (talk) 07:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  When most of the sources are using the term terrorist, and there is no significant disagreement, then we should feel free to use that term, too.

  The challenge in academic sources is about defining the edges. There is no significant disagreement about the core. Consider the debates in astronomy about what constitutes a planet: There have been debates about whether Pluto is a planet, but there is no disagreement about whether Earth is a planet. We don't say "Oh, there is disagreement about the cutoff point – okay, we give up; nothing can be called a planet in wikivoice!" The same logic applies here: There have been debates about whether certain groups are true terrorist organizations, vs (e.g.,) criminal gangs or political groups with unorthodox publicity methods. The fact that some are dispute doesn't, and shouldn't, stop us from labeling the undisputed other individual groups as terrorists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  The academic debate isn’t simply about the “edge”. That might be a legal struggle by governments, but discussions in academia im talking about are about the very notion of “terrorism” as a term full stop. To use the planet example, academics aren’t talking simply asking “does x and y constitute a planet”, but rather to the core of “what even is a planet?” And “does the concept of planets in and of themselves help us understand?” And of course many are now saying “no” - See Stampinzky [26] for example.

  nb - ofc im not actually talking about planets, nobody doubt the utility of that term, just transplanting the example Yr Enw (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  Funny coincidence that you'd link to Stampinzky. The rest of the book is also an excellent read. DFlhb (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  I've read Stampnitzky. She doesn't argue against using the term. Instead, she argues that the people trying to come up with a single, universal, apolitical, amoral definition don't understand what the term means. She argues that this word means that the speaker has identified an "enemy" (someone who's the "them" in the us-versus-them thinking) who is using overt violence for political purposes in illegitimate or out-of-place contexts (e.g., shooting random people in a nice part of town is "out of place"; shooting people in a combat zone is expected).

  For example:

  • Drug cartel murdering someone who stole from them: "Enemy", but not "unexpected" or "political", therefore not terrorists.
  • 9/11 hijackers: "Enemy", "out-of-place violence", and "political", therefore terrorists.

  Her main point is to say that if you call someone a terrorist, you are saying that the action is overtly violent, that it is perpetrated in an atypical or abnormal context, and that it is primarily public and political in nature. This is not an argument against using the term. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  My apologies. The structure of my message was unintentionally misleading. Stampinzky is an example of scholars asking the question as to whether it’s possible to define it. For scholars more explicitly saying no, perhaps see [27]. I’m not sure what she offers can really be said to be a definition, although yes I suppose it’s “this is how people seem to define it”, which is a definition of a definition, albeit it’s so extremely broad that, even if we agree she accepts that definition, isn’t the very notion of “(il)legitimate” highly subjective that it escapes all utility? Yr Enw (talk) 07:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

  My argument being: analysis like hers underscores, to me, the need for extra caution with slapping unattributed labels around Yr Enw (talk) 07:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

  There is an elephant in the room. On a linguistic level, I'm not sure how the UK Prime Minister and the Royals can freely use the term "terrorism" when it lacks a clear definition. How can they expect the British people to fully understand what they're saying?

  When we look at current scholarly research, experts and international law scholars provide detailed explanations. The labeling of celebrities by world governments is a subject of extensive discussion, but scholars, when analyzing the available sources, tend to use the term in a factual, unattributed manner. They talk about what they define as "the world of international terrorism" and the interaction of major terrorist groups in that realm. So, it doesn't appear that there's a consensus among scholars that the term is so poorly defined that we should eliminate it from our vocabulary.

  This perspective should be taken into account in the guidelines. In some cases, the term could be used as a "LABEL," as seen with Mandela, while in other cases, it could be employed for factual description, as is the case with Bin Laden, for instance. Infinity Knight (talk) 07:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

  “(il)legitimate” highly subjective that it escapes all utility might be WP:FRINGE. Just a quick look at scholarly sources shows that the term is used without attribution in factual contexts, for instance in research about social interactions within certain celebrity groups, see "Identity, International Terrorism and Negotiating Peace: Hamas and Ethics-Based Considerations from Critical Restorative Justice" as a random instance. This isn't just a theoretical matter, see QFT; it's a practical one. Real governments invest significant resources in legislation and funding for counter-terrorism activities. For everyday people, this term has utility, and leaders use the term to communicate with their audiences. Regarding the guidelines, stating that the term is exclusively a label can be misleading and should be clarified. I share the concern about the potential for bias due to label misuse, and we already provide a warning about this. However, it has been argued that the current approach can also introduce bias in some cases. So, we need to strike a balanced approach. Any suggestions? Infinity Knight (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

  I’m not entirely sure there is a way to strike balance between the two perspectives. We either don’t use it (as I suggest) or we do (and potentially invite this debate each and every time). But perhaps someone else has an idea Yr Enw (talk) 15:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Restating the problem & formal RfC

The above discussion appears to me to have ironed out the crux of the issue:

1. MOS:TERRORIST restricts the terms to "in-text attribution"
2. According to WP:INTEXT, "in-text attribution" includes use in Wikivoice can be used when there’s consensus in RSs.
3. For me, the problem is solely about using the terms in Wikivoice (ie. not quotations or referencing third party use).
4. Because the definition of these terms are highly contested, RSs cannot be said to use or define the terms consistently.
5. Therefore, I believe use of the terms "terrorist/terrorism/terror attack" in Wikivoice should be explicitly eliminated.

As such, perhaps a useful way of proceeding is to open a formal RfC below, to gauge whether there is appetite for any such change at all. Please note, this poll is not about any particular policy wording. It is solely about whether there should be any change to MOS:TERRORIST.

This poll has now closed.

 Not done There is clearly no consensus for change. I remain of the views expressed, most specifically that this will continue to lead to Talk page punch-ups until a clear interpretation of the guidelines is reached/adopted/enforced. Am keeping the discussion open, however, in case of further constructive comments. Yr Enw (talk) 10:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

MOS:TERRORIST is a link to a section that covers many things... Not just terrorism. Is there a reason for using this particular link and not the actual name or the more general links? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes I appreciate that, I was only using it as a shorthand because my focus is on “terrorism”, as opposed to the other contentious labels Yr Enw (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

And, for what it’s worth, even if we were to eliminate wikivoice use of any of those terms (I say, once again, I’m not talking about referring to third party use of the term) I don’t feel it loses impact. Saying, “X is widely regarded as racist” for example. Yr Enw (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello there, I think it would be a grave mistake to restrict the use of the term terrorist/terror attack/terrorism. Several points

Point 1) In respect to the Neutral Point of View issue, that just like Al Qaeda and ISIS can be argued to be freedom fighters or militia for some people. They are still recognized as a terrorist organization in English Wikipedia due to its intent to harm civilians as well as the scope of its actions. Thus there comes a point in which one must assume that the Neutral Point of view is that they are terrorist. Especially in light of the stance of English speaking nations towards it. To be neutral at times demands us to be objective and see the facts for what they are.

Point 2) An encyclopedia such as Wikipedia must be able to decide on such issues according to a set of parameters. For example, if the US, UK, Australia and Canada accept an organization as terrorist then it ought to be considered as such since they make up more than 75% of the Native English speaking world. (The rule should be if countries representing more than 75% of native English speakers consider an organization terrorist than it should be done so)

Point 3) What you are proposing would make the 9/11 attack not a terrorist attack but an "attack by militia"; it would make the Charlie Hebdo attacks, militia attacks; everything will be militia attacks! This would really be simply absurd.

Point 4) Potential for disastrous effect. Wikipedia has power, all who control information have power. By removing the terrorist label, we run into the dangerous ground of potential legitimization of groups. Wikipedia is read by millions, we have a responsibility to ensure that some organizations are labeled as terrorists and are not legitimized in some manner by us.

Homerethegreat (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for your comments and for adding to the discussion. To just tackle the points you raise:

1. "They are still recognized as a terrorist organization in English Wikipedia due to its intent to harm civilians as well as the scope of its actions. Thus there comes a point in which one must assume that the Neutral Point of view is that they are terrorist. Especially in light of the stance of English speaking nations towards it. To be neutral at times demands us to be objective and see the facts for what they are." The problem is that this seem to fly in the face of WP:NOOBJECTIVITY. The NPOV policy "says nothing about objectivity." The point being, we are not - as WP editors - the arbiters of what does or doesn't constitute terrorism. We report what reliable sources say, aiming to reflect the general consensus in media and scholarship as best as possible. So, to me, that means attributing use of the term (ie. "X says Y is terrorism") but generally not interpreting acts as terrorism in the narrative (Wikivoice). This isn't to say we don't think it's terrorism.
2. "An encyclopedia such as Wikipedia must be able to decide on such issues according to a set of parameters." Agree, but the parameters of verifiability are not simply "what governments say". They are far from neutral actors when it comes to applying this specific set of terms, as well.
3. Disagree. I have said elsewhere, and evidently need to say again, the issue is only when in text attribution is avoided in favour of Wikivoice.
4. See above numbered point. I'm not advocating removing it.

Further to the point about objectivity, while this really gets into the domain of the Problem of universals, it should nevertheless be pointed out that even eminent terrorist scholar Bruce Hoffman, who spent an entire book trying to pin down a definition of terrorism, still had to acknowledge at the start of the book that - in reality - the term is never used neutrally and becomes inevitably subjective.[28]

If the issue is one of losing impact by not using the term (or that "terrorism" should be used bc it's a strong label), I just disagree. I don't believe there's any such loss by simply sticking some citations at the end of a sentence. But that's just me. Yr Enw (talk) 07:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Survey (MOS contentious labels)

I'm not convinced that there is actually a problem that needs solving here. When the majority of reliable sources say X is/was a terrorist (organisation) it would be an NPOV violation not to include that description in our article. If the sources are using it with inconsistent meaning we should say that - iff we can do so without engaging in original research. Thryduulf (talk) 15:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

We probably wouldn't be able to do that without engaging in OR. But, like I said above, the problem I find arises solely with use in Wikivoice, not with the mentioning of it. I am not saying we shouldn't include that description in our article, just that we need to be cautious how frame that description (and, in my opinion, not use Wikivoice). Yr Enw (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The BBC approach :) Selfstudier (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The BBC and other entities who are unwilling to call terrorism terrorism are taking intense criticism and in some cases seeing loss of contributions, or so I've read. The optics of this proposal may not be ideal. Wehwalt (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I can appreciate if that turns out to be the case. The irony is that whole thing really underscores how un-neutral a term it is! Yr Enw (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Or maybe it represents how little tolerance most people have for a media outlet trying to protect the feelings of people who are willing to kill children for political reasons by making sure that they don't use the "T-word" to describe the murderers. Reminds me of https://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/1982/08/26 in reverse. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Your comment underscores exactly how value-laden the term is, though, because you assume that by not using it you're 'protecting the feelings of people who are willing to kill children for political reasons'. That exemplifies the biases that have been imbued within it. That act is so clearly wrong and immoral without needing to get bogged down in labels. And hey, I am not even saying don't use it, I'm saying don't use it in wikivoice. Yr Enw (talk) 06:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

If "the act is so clearly wrong and immoral" – if, in short, there is no significant doubt about it being an accurate description, and when this is a typical categorization made by reliable sources – then we should call a spade a spade, and a terrorist a terrorist.

Here's how this conversation appears to me:

• You: We shouldn't call people names, even when they murder children for political purposes.
• Other editors: Um, you know that the general public, which includes our readers, is strongly criticizing the few other websites who've taken that self-censorship approach?
• You: Yeah, our readers hate it when we accurately describe terrorists as being terrorists. We just shouldn't call people names, even when it's totally obvious that they really are terrorists.

I understand that you dislike name calling, but I find your argument non-existent and your assertion unconvincing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

That is a total mischaracterisation of the arguments I have advanced. I have said from the start that there is substantial scholarly literature attesting to the problems inherent in this specific term. That is the motivation behind seeking a more restrictive policy in its usage. If my actual arguments simply go unaddressed, I don’t think we are going to get any further here. Yr Enw (talk) 07:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Notice how we're not calling it a terrorist attack in wikivoice, because the sourcing doesn't support it? By definition, it's not totally obvious. Nor do we call Hamas, Al-Qaeda, or the Taliban "terrorists" in wikivoice. May I remind you that WP:BLP applies to groups, even those we don't like, and also applies in this namespace? DFlhb (talk) 09:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems many editors equate "not using in Wikivoice" to "saying/believing it doesn't exist". But the latter isn't relevant to the question of style, it belongs in the domain of the Problem of universals. Yr Enw (talk) 09:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The issue is that Wikipedia editors are instructed to replace the word "terrorist" with "militant" which has slightly different meaning, thus introducing bias. In the Wikipedia world, we usually roll with the idea that a word's just a "label," but hey, that's not always the case. No one even talks about it when we're using the term to describe actual facts, and we don't even think about that possibility. The way we talk totally shapes how we see things, you know? Infinity Knight (talk) 10:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Instructed? Sources use militant all the time, as well as fighter, gunman, etc depending. Here's an AP report of today, here the killer is a "settler" and we have "Hamas militants infiltrated Israel on Oct 7". Nothing there about Hamas attack being by "terrorists" or the October 7 events being "terrorism". Bias? Same goes for 7000+ dead, mostly civilians, half women and children, in Gaza, that's not "terrorism" either, it's "self defense". Selfstudier (talk) 10:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

See Yr Enw suggestion above: "militant" is a much less problematic term (eg. "A Hamas militant boasted to his mother of 'quote whatever he says', widely denounced as a terrorist (citation x, y, z)") I'm cool with going along with the sources and using the term they're throwing out, like "militant" if that's their lingo, or "terrorist" if that's what they're saying. Infinity Knight (talk) 10:51, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

That's my position as well, the trouble starts when MOS TERRORISM is cited as a reason not to, then it requires in depth source analysis every time to see what's what. Selfstudier (talk) 11:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The term 'terrorism' is the elephant in the room: an obvious, significant, and often uncomfortable issue or topic that people are aware of but choose to ignore or avoid discussing. Infinity Knight (talk) 11:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The AP Stylebook approach, too, for the record. DFlhb (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

And the Agence France-Presse approach too. I've noticed Le Monde has largely adopted this too, though silently. It's rather remarkable that we would be less cautious than our news sources, to say nothing of academic sources. We're supposed to be more formal and clinical than them; it would be an anomaly for the roles to be reversed.

• News is highly selective in which acts of political violence are presented as terrorism, according to this paper.
• These words have always been tricky; the subject of controversy. “One person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter.” “Today’s terrorist is tomorrow’s statesperson.” These recurring phrases have become clichés in journalistic and political commentaries. They mean that using these terms is never neutral. (emphasis mine) from the UNESCO handbook for journalists
• Ariel Merari, professor at the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism, Tel Aviv University, from the above handbook: “Terrorism has become merely another derogatory word, rather than a descriptor of a specific type of activity. Usually, people use the term as a disapproving label for a whole variety of phenomena which they do not like, without bothering to define precisely what constitutes terroristic behavior.”

There is far, far more from that handbook, and from other papers, all the way from Becker's original labelling theory paper, up to today. DFlhb (talk) 09:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The section is about contentious labels in general, not just the label terrorist. Is the objection to the entire idea of contentious labels or just this specific label? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe this specific label requires singling out for particular treatment. Yr Enw (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Then this isn't a discussion about MOS:TERRORIST is it? You've just used that link to make a point. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I’m not sure I understand your comment? The MOS has a specific caveat about pseudoscience, for example, that’s what I envisioned when I said singling out, given how contested the term is (more so than “racism”, for eg) Yr Enw (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

So you're challenging the inclusion of terrorist but not freedom fighter, denialist, etc? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I would support eliminating wikivoice for them all, but I’m singling terrorism out for specific mention because, as I have said in the “discussion” (and the “problem”) section, there is a specific recognition in the scholarship about how loaded and contentiously defined the term is. Yr Enw (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose- I'm with Thryduulf here. When the overwhelming majority of RS say X, we can and should say X. --GRuban (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per GRuban and Thryduulf. If and only if the majority of sources say X, we must as well. Andre🚐 19:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per the above. Also feel that it's not the time to have such a discussion, even were it warranted.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
• Contrary to the OP, nothing in the manual of style is policy, thank goodness. Our articles have to mean what the sources mean, but we don't have to use the words the sources use. Whether to use the word "terrorism" is in fact a matter for editorial judgment, although our judgments should be based on what the most reliable sources say.—S Marshall T/C 08:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for the comment, that's quite informative and makes sense. This really does seem to come down to editorial subjectivity, which - in my opinion - is a neutrality problem when it comes to this set of terms because we are making a judgement as to what we think the sources mean. Yr Enw (talk) 08:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  We have to know what the sources mean. Someone who doesn't know what the sources mean shouldn't be editing the article, under any circumstances, ever.—S Marshall T/C 14:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  When making a statement like "X was a terrorist attack" without directly attributing the use of the term (which is the only thing I have an issue with here), are we not inevitably making an editorial judgement? Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. Yr Enw (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yea, it is an editorial judgement, that's the point, I think. Selfstudier (talk) 14:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Doesn't this inevitably lead us to a potential punch-up between pro and anti "using the term" every time "terrorist" is put in any article? Yr Enw (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Ahem, civilized discussion, yep:) Selfstudier (talk) 15:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  That's what underpins my desire for an explicit position, but I can understand why we may not get one. It's just frustrating to see this has seemingly been a point of disagreement for 20+ years on Wiki. Yr Enw (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  There are loads of iffy labels, and that "terrorist" is contained in a short list named specifically, it's not doing us any favors in my book. It just gets folks all riled up 'cause of their different takes on things. So, I'm on board with setting some clear rules, or else this chaos just keeps rolling on. Infinity Knight (talk) 18:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• There is no consensus in reliable sources about what the definition of terrorism is. Therefore, I see it as something that is almost never acceptable to use in wiki voice. I also don't think it conveys any information to the reader besides just describing in plain English what a "terrorist" attack consisted of or what a "terrorist" organization is up to, which we should already have in the article. (t · c) buidhe 03:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  As the BBC reporter expressed it, while dealing with a comparable issue of "word choice," there are moments when certain freedom fighters engage in deeply troubling actions that indeed merit the label "an act of terror". Infinity Knight (talk) 04:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  The problem still arises as to what measure determines when an action crosses into "an act of terror", on which there is seemingly little (if any) agreement. Yr Enw (talk) 05:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  In most cases, it's important to focus on what really went down, rather than the political statements that were made. There are scholars and international law experts that break it down for us.Infinity Knight (talk) 05:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  I agree. Contentious labels only bog us down Yr Enw (talk) 16:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  "Contentious labels" is a guideline. I mean, the whole deal about giving credit when sources don't see eye to eye is already baked into those core policies about being neutral, reliable, and verifiable. In a sense, this guideline simply serves as an explanation of how to implement those fundamental policies. I think "Contentious labels" works fine and plays a key role, explains why not to use a pejorative term used by opponents to portray something or someone negatively. But tossing in political terms as examples in "Contentious labels" just gets editors all riled up about politics instead of making Wikipedia better. Infinity Knight (talk) 17:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  Supporting @Infinity Knight.

  Generally speaking, I suspect it will continue to be the source of lively discussions (or civilised discussions as per @Selfstudier) as it was in the past ~two decades unless there will be a practical resolution agreed by the community.

  As I see it there is an internal conflict in MOS:LABEL concerning the classification of organisations/individuals. It starts with Value-laden labels – such as calling an organisation a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. I argue that it might be misleading to include terms like "racist" and "sexist" alongside "terrorist" because these terms differ in terms of formal categorisation. For instance, there are well-established lists - albeit with some variations - for defining terrorist organisations/individuals in different countries or unions, such as the UK, US, Australia, and the EU, just to name a few focusing on those that are especially relevant to the English speaking world. These lists have clear and practical criteria, like "initiation of investigations or prosecution for a terrorist act or an attempt to carry out or facilitate such an act."[29] However, there are no equivalent lists for categorising individuals or organisations as racist or sexist of course. Moreover, in the Value-laden labels reference in MOS:TERRORIST the example of 'terrorist' is taken from a source dated to 1944 - quite historic for our current discussion I'd say.

  Wikipedia serves as a platform for people to access common knowledge in a digestible format. Therefore, it's essential not to shy away from defining certain groups or individuals as they are according to major official listings, i.e terror organisations. Sunshine SRA (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  Just a couple of (gentle) counterpoints to some of the points you raise at the end:

  • I don't know what 1944 source you're referring to, I don't appear to be able to see that. But, even if that's the case, there are plenty of contemporary sources attesting to the problems baked into the label.[30][31][32]
  • On your last point, "Wikipedia serves as a platform for people to access common knowledge in a digestible format. Therefore, it's essential not to shy away from defining certain groups or individuals as they are according to major official listings, i.e terror organisations". On the first part, I agree. WP is a platform for common knowledge in a digestible format. On the second, if we think avoiding or attributing the term is "shying away" then doesn't that betray an inevitable bias attached to the term?

  I can't seem to find a better way to articulate the points I've been raising in this discussion, except to say that the problem arises, to me, solely with regard to unattributed use of the label.

  Yr Enw (talk) 06:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Support use of term Terrorist - There are actions that must be referred to what they are. 9/11 is a terrorist attack. If you give "both sides" an equal voice then it would be in essence legitimizing the action since it would be referring to Al Qaeda potentially as Freedom Fighters considered terrorist etc.

Sometimes there is no choice but to use the strong term - terrorist. According to international experts, world leaders and ordinary people the Hamas attack on Israel on the 7th of October targeted civilians, over 1000 civilians were killed, 229 civilians were kidnapped. Of the 1000 civilians killed, many were mutilated, burned, raped... It's the truth, can we really deny that it was a terrorist attack?

This debate may determine the course of Wikipedia. Please think through this. Homerethegreat (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, I doubt there will be a resolution. And certainly unlikely in favour of my arguments. It's a very old debate that crops up every so often (see the links attached to my OP). I don't know how else to express the points I've been trying to make, but it seems they are still being misunderstood and misinterpreted. I'm not, for example, saying we can/should deny the 7th Oct attacks were terrorist. Yr Enw (talk) 07:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that these big RfCs with tons of folks jumping in are really doing much good for Wikipedia or its content quality, you know? There are better ways to put all that energy to work for the common greater good. The guideline's current wording doesn't acknowledge that "terrorism" isn't always meant to slam something or someone. Just look at who we should credit for using the term "terrorist" in that Hindustan Times piece, for instance? Infinity Knight (talk) 07:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

You might be right. The motivation behind sticking an RfC here was bc of the obviously wide ranging implications of any such changes for thousands of articles. But perhaps it’s better served by individual talk page discussions, after all Yr Enw (talk) 07:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I get what you're saying. I wasn't aware of that before, the individual reported as the current Hamas military leader, as reported by FT, is the same person responsible for the 1996 incident described as "terrorism" in Wikipedia's voice, you previously referred to. When rephrasing, how should we attribute the term "terrorist" for the individual mentioned in the Hindustan Times article? Infinity Knight (talk) 10:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Depends in what context we're saying it, I think. If we're describing him within a narrative of the incident itself, "militant" is a much less problematic term (eg. "A Hamas militant boasted to his mother of 'quote whatever he says', widely denounced as a terrorist (citation x, y, z)"). But then we could say X, Y, and Z denounced him as a terrorist (if it fits the article) and the actual incident can be attributed as terrorism according to X, Y, Z. Yr Enw (talk) 13:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Widely described by whom? Infinity Knight (talk) 13:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Whatever citations follow it in the sentence? Yr Enw (talk) 13:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

My bad, it's not quite clear what you're getting at here. Are you thinking of using "described by Hindustan Times"? Or maybe "Kyiv Post" or something else? We've already heard from a bunch of angles why this could introduce some bias, even though I get that the intention is to keep things fair and square. The concern is valid, sometimes people use "terrorism" to diss something or someone and make them look bad. But there are situations when it's just straight-up facts. Infinity Knight (talk) 13:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh, my apologies. Yes, I would either say: "described by (whoever)" or just more passively say "described as" with citations at the end. Because it's implied "described as" means by the sources cited at the end of this sentence Yr Enw (talk) 13:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Someone pointed out that such wording might come off as biased, even though the original intentions are well-meaning, and thus it could harm Wikipedia's credibility. Infinity Knight (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

If that's true, though, there is no way to avoid bias I don't think Yr Enw (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreeing to ditch wiki voice altogether was one idea we could get behind. But I'm not convinced there's nothing we can do about it. Infinity Knight (talk) 14:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

That is the position but it is not set up as a policy, so can be overridden case by case. In other words, the usual WP thing of getouts, letouts and constructive ambiguity. Selfstudier (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

There also appears to be no consensus to establish "ditching Wikivoice" as a policy, either Yr Enw (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I doubt it would be possible to ditch it completely but a tightening up might be doable. Selfstudier (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you think it would be a better discussion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch? Is it a matter for the ArbCom?? I genuinely have no idea how we'd achieve it. But, like we discussed above, it seems this is going to be a persistent issue until there is something done. Yr Enw (talk) 15:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Could start at MOS and see if could get some agreement. It's content question, I guess, it doesn't seem to be a V question, nor OR, leaves NPOV. When is it/Is it neutral to use the word "terrorist/terrorism/terror" in Wikivoice? Could be a question worth asking at the NPOV noticeboard, idk. Tricky. Selfstudier (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@Yr Enw: Thanks for digging into this topic. I don't really have a strong take on what the next steps should be, but I'm on board with the idea that this is a recurring problem, and it's in everyone's best interest to figure it out. Infinity Knight (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@Selfstudier @Infinity Knight Thanks both. This survey closes tomorrow anyway, with the very likely outcome of no consensus, so something to mull over after that. Yr Enw (talk) 15:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Take care, and give me a heads up if you're doing some serious thinking. Infinity Knight (talk) 16:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure thing. I think after the numerous attempts at explaining what I was trying to say here, collaborative drafting of any RfC/noticeboard comment/etc would be beneficial. Yr Enw (talk) 16:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Also good would be RS using the phrase "widely described" or similar. Selfstudier (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

If it followed the Loughinisland massacre, for instance, it would be "member of Hamas". Yr Enw (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• "Terrorism" is a word that has potential legal meaning - many police forces are given more powers to investigate when an event is considered terrorism. As such, we should not be using the term in the short-term in Wikivoice (w/o attribution) just because a majority of press sources use it. If it is declared terrorism by the appropriate authorities, that's fine. In the long-term well after the event has occurred, then the metric of using significant uses in normal reliable sources as to use it without attribution is then fine. --Masem (t) 13:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not a lawyer, but according to WP:COMMONNAME, we want our content to be easy to understand for regular folks. "Terrorism" is a common English word, and we all know what it means. In general, Masem, your argument seems to keep ignoring the fact that terrorism does exist, and it's not always about people using "terrorism" to trash something or someone. There are cases where it's just stating the plain facts. And so far, I haven't come across any guidance on how to handle such situations. Infinity Knight (talk) 13:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  The problem is, I don't agree that "we all know what it means" because it is not applied consistently and academic scholarship (which form part of our RSs) don't agree on any single definition. By very nature of being a contentious, value-laden term (as MOS:LABEL calls it), it doesn't have a definition that we all know and agree upon. Wikipedia isn't about determining whether or not "terrorism exists" but about reporting what people say (with citations, of course0. Yr Enw (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  It's a legit legal puzzle. Hindustan Times appears to understand the word meaning, and so do the UK Prime Minister and the Royals. The list goes on. The deal is, "Terrorism" can sometimes be just a label, but it ain't always the case. The guideline ought to make that super clear. Infinity Knight (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  The BBC is occasionally able to capture the meaning of the term "terrorism" when reporting on the bombing at the Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, for instance. Infinity Knight (talk) 04:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose this proposal. If the preponderance of independent reliable sources use a term like "terrorist", then WP needs to use it also, or we're simply engaging in a PoV and OR dance to avoid going along with sources, for reasons particular to individual editors' sensibilities, and that's just not what this project is for. If there is some kind of discrepancy between definitions of "terrorism" as used by these sources (and they result in any sort of meaningful categorization difference with regard to the case at hand) then that can be explored in the article body. But this seems unlikely anyway. If pretty much all the sources are agreeing to use the term "terrorism" then whether they intend a meaning nuance that differs from someone else's exact definition really isn't material. It would only be relevant when a bunch of sources use "terrorism" and bunch do not and call it "freedom fighting" or something else. If an editor here is convinced that somehow the term "terrorism" shouldn't apply to a particular case, against the consensus of the reporting of the whole world, then they can go somewhere else and write a blog post about it. This isn't ContraryOpinionPedia or BothSidesismPedia or NeverUseATermThatSomeoneSomewhereMightNotLikePedia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  I see your point, though how do we practice this in light of MOS:TERRORIST ? In-text citations all the time? If that's the case, there's no problem in my mind. Yr Enw (talk) 10:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  So, there were like, tons of debates on climate change and the whole scientific consensus thing. "going against the worldwide reporting consensus," how do we figure that out? With that, I wouldn't be against adding something like that to the guidelines, just thinking out loud here. Infinity Knight (talk) 10:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  going against the scientific consensus is a factual claim (and a correct one, which we should include per WP:PROFRINGE); not a label. That's what WP:INTEXT tells us to use in wikivoice, and we indeed should say it in wikivoice. DFlhb (talk) 11:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for simplifying it. How can we implement WP:PROFRINGE, WP:INTEXT, and MOS:TERRORIST when we're rephrasing Hindustan Times? Can you provide a neutral rewording that avoids introducing any bias? This is purely a thought exercise. Infinity Knight (talk) 12:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  The same outlet uses the term "militant" elsewhere, while CBS News calls him a "Hamas fighter", and only uses the word "Terror" in its headline. Substituting "terrorist" for "fighter" or "militant" is one option, since the "terrorist" label isn't universal in sources. I think sources that discussed the labelling issue agree that "militant"/"fighter" are unbiased replacements for "terrorist". The Times of Israel presents it as: Foreign Minister Eli Cohen plays a recording of what he says is a Hamas terrorist bragging to his parents that he “is proud that he has the blood of 10 [Jews] that he murdered.” That would be another option, "BBC-style"; conveniently attribute the label as part of attributing the accuracy of the recording. Bear in mind a recording is only a "factual claim" if it's been independently verified, though that's a separate issue, and I've seen no reason to doubt this recording. DFlhb (talk) 12:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  The BBC sometimes employs the term "terrorism" without providing attribution, such as in their coverage of the Ariana Grande concert bombing in Manchester, for instance. And here is another Hindustan Time article, where they appear to be referring to Hamas's attack as a "terror attack". I suppose the person in question made a phone call home during that attack. What would be the correct way to attribute the use of the word "terrorist" concerning the individual making the call home or should we just ignore the sources that use it? Infinity Knight (talk) 14:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  Attribution of the word terrorist about that individual is exactly what my comment addresses. DFlhb (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  You seem to have grasped what I was trying to get at in my post more than most others. May I ask, incidentally, do you have any suggestions on how we might advance this? Is it worth a post in the MOS talk? or NPOV noticeboard? Yr Enw (talk) 15:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  It's advanced by making bold edits, and seeking consensus on talk pages if need be. DFlhb (talk) 17:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  Can’t help but feel that’s just going to lead to endless debates with conflicting interpretations of the existent guidelines, of the kind that led me here in the first place Yr Enw (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (MOS contentious labels)

According to WP:INTEXT, "in-text attribution" includes use in Wikivoice. I do not understand this statement. WP:INTEXT describes in-text attribution as "the attribution inside a sentence of material to its source". It then goes on to give several examples where not to use in-text attribution, because it would be non-neutral or otherwise misleading, but that doesn't alter the fact that in-text attribution involves explicitly attributing the wording, which is the opposite of wikivoice.--Trystan (talk) 10:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I had potentially misunderstood those examples as saying wikivoice can still count as ITC. So, if that’s not the case, okay. What I’m saying though is that with the word terrorist/terrorism there is an inherent neutrality problem when in text attribution is avoided in favour of wikivoice. Yr Enw (talk) 11:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I read MOS:TERRORIST as saying avoid or attribute (even if widely sourced) and I am fine with that. Selfstudier (talk) 11:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

So am I, but it doesn’t appear to always be attributed in practice. For example in Jaffa Road bus bombings and, ofc, the September 11 attacks. Yr Enw (talk) 11:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you give examples of how the lead sentences of those two articles might read were your proposal adopted? Wehwalt (talk) 11:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Something like “X was widely recognised/condemned as a terrorist attack”, following an article like 1996 Manchester bombing, but for September 11 in the lead (for WP:DUE) given the prominent association of the attacks with that term. Yr Enw (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The "widely recognised" language doesn't provide in-text attribution. In-text attribution sounds like "was called a terrorist organization by Alice, Bob, Chris, David, Eve, Frank, and many others". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I was envisioning the "widely recognised" sentence to have a bunch of citations at the end. Yr Enw (talk) 06:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Or an alternative demonstration of widely recognized. Selfstudier (talk) 10:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

In my experience, "was called <names>.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]}" is at risk for getting a {{by whom?}} tag. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I would be inclined to allow Wikivoice if the perpetrator is as well included in the UN consolidated list (AQ, IS being the most notable). Selfstudier (talk) 11:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• When we're using the strongest labels -- "evil", "terrorist", "terrorism", "act of terror", "extremist", "fundamentalist", and other words at that level -- I'd prefer it if the in-text attribution came before the label. So we'd get The British government called this an act of terrorism, and not An act of terrorism, in the British government's view.—S Marshall T/C 23:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  1. In-text attribution cannot be applicable to article names and list articles such as List of terrorist incidents in London. Hence, it is imperative that the Wikipedia community reaches a consensus on a precise definition of 'Terrorism'.
  2. Moreover, it would be absurd to label the events of terrorist attacks such as 9/11 as a 'Militant attack' —a euphemistic term that grossly understates the gravity of the tragedy. The notion that this incident was not a terrorist attack is a fringe view and does not align with the mainstream understanding and historical narrative surrounding the events of that day. September 11 attacks uses the wording 'Islamist suicide terrorist attacks', Britannica describes this as 'the deadliest terrorist attacks on American soil in U.S. history' and there are few people who would contest this characterization.
  3. The above arguments apply to 'acts of terror' and 'terrorist organizations'. I'm not talking about moral judgements such as "evil" which are non-encyclopedic and should be kept outside of the scope of this discussion, in my view.

  Marokwitz (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  Terrorism can sometimes be thrown around as a sort of diss by folks trying to paint something or someone in a bad light. But there are times when it's just plain facts. Take this person reported by Hindustan Times, for example. Hindustan Times didn't hold back on the title. So, just rattling off the names of countries where governments have spotted these global celebs and put them on a list, well, that's a little one-sided, since that list doesn't even include countries like India or Ukraine, to kick things off. Infinity Knight (talk) 21:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• As the old saying goes, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." "Terrorism" is a label often applied by the strong to the weak, the strong having the assumption that the use of violence on their behalf is justifiable, legitimate self defense and that violence opposing the strong is "terrorism." Plus, too often the use or non-use of the word "terrorism" is political. I may be wrong on this, but I don't think that U.S. government called the IRA a "terrorist organization." Why not? Our politicians didn't want to lose the support of voters of Irish origin in the U.S. Likewise, I doubt that we in the U.S. are going to call actions by Israel or Israeli citizens against the Palestinians "terrorism" although some acts of violence against Palestinians in the past and probably more in the future may deserve that designation.

  Also, we are horrified when a gunman shoots civilians in, for example, a grocery store, citing as a reason its help to enemies. But we are less horrified when an airplane drops a bomb on a grocery store and kills civilians citing as a reason its help to enemies. That's just collateral damage or military necessity.

  All that is by way of saying that a definition of terrorism is impossible. However, I don't oppose the use of the word "terrorism" or "terrorist" provided that it is cited as the view of a reliable, non-partisan source. Certainly the recent Hamas attacks on Israeli civilians qualify as terrorism. We should also, however, ensure that the motives and political aims of the "terrorists" are explained. We shouldn't let the strong dictate what we say about the weak. Smallchief (talk) 12:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

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

School districts and GEOLAND

According to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, school districts are near-presumptive notable as "populated, legally recognized places". I started looking into this after looking through random articles and finding Rondout School District 72. WP:GEOLAND itself states that Census tracts, Abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable. The Geographic Names Information System and the GEOnet Names Server do not satisfy the "legal recognition" requirement and are also unreliable for "populated place" designation. Maybe my interpretation differs from other Wikipedians, but school districts likely have more in common with census tracts? Therefore, would WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES be consistent with other current notability norms? My gut instinct is that school districts should not qualify as near-presumptively notable. I think being individually accessed under GNG would make more sense (e.g. like the 2017 RfC consensus about high schools not automatically being notable because they exist). However, I wanted some feedback on whether my line of thought here actually has any merit. Does anyone have a convincing counterargument they would like to make? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2023 (UTC), edited 18:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

The explanatory essay is incorrect, we treat school districts like census tracts not municipalities. Its very basic, school districts have no population... Therefore they are not "populated, legally recognized places" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

(ec) Great that you brought this up. I think that the essay that you linked to incorrectly (or outdatededly ) mis-summarizes NGeo which specifically excludes such abstract entities (not commonly recognized as a place) from presumed notability. Second, that essay should be just observing/summarizing actual outcomes, not trying to provide it's own restatement of the guidelines. I'm tempted to change it right now but there's no rush while the discussion is in progress. North8000 (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

A couple of things I have to add are that WP:GEOLAND is about villages and towns, not school districts, and that school districts are a peculiarly American thing. In most of the world local authorities are responsible for state education. I would say that they are obviously notable, as a school district couldn't possibly exist without reliable sources having been written about it, but there seem to be many editors who disagree. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:41, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

In terms of schools, in most of the world ones that are not individually notable are merged to the article about the locality (or a list of schools in that locality if one exists), but in the US (and Canada?) they are merged to the articles about school districts. School districts do seem to be treated as notable though, the only example I've found of one being deleted at AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rucker Elementary School District, the unsourced content of which was in its entirety "Rucker School District 66 was a school district in Cochise County, Arizona, currently closed." The deletion discussions include a mixture of views about inherent notability, but in pretty much every case sources were found that demonstrated GNG was met anyway, so the question in practical terms is moot. If they do have inherent or presumed notability though, that doesn't come from GEOLAND but from their own nature. As the long-gone Klonimus wrote in a 2005 VfD (as it was back then) A school district has the combined notability of each of its constituent schools. Thryduulf (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I think that school districts (in the US at least) are presumptively notable (as long as they are verifiable). I think it would be hard to find a district that does not have any coverage of the organization or any of the component parts of the organization. - Enos733 (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Rondout School District 72 (as referenced above)? Rainy River District School Board? Superior-Greenstone District School Board? I think it can actually be difficult to find sources about school districts that go beyond passing mentions and would be enough to furfill GNG. One of the common arguments in the 2017 high school RfC was that notability went beyond verifying that a school existed. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Absent a scandal school districts rarely get significant coverage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:44, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Scandals can definitely influence the amount of coverage but I don't think it's the only thing you see school districts in the news for. I will say that it's easier to find potential sources for larger school districts in more populated areas (e.g. Toronto Catholic District School Board or Detroit Public Schools Community District) but you're also more likely to have a scandal because you're dealing with larger amounts of money, resources, and the public.

I started writing this comment to say that the accessment of rarely didn't seem right. But I've spent the past hour or two looking at school district articles and the vast majority of them currently are lists of the schools and communities they serve and cited to primary sources. That doesn't mean that sources don't nessecarily exist and of course deletion isn't cleanup. I'm not suggesting any sort of like mass deletion spree for school district articles. I just see a lot of potential comparisons in regards that 2017 RfC about high schools and inherent notability. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

If I can clarify they often get coverage, rarely is that coverage significant. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the question are two-fold. What level of coverage of a school district goes beyond trivial coverage. I found this article for Superior-Greenstone District School Board that addresses concerns within this district. This, by itself, should be enough to meet GNG. And, with governmental entities, there are a large number of reliable, verifiable sources about their organization (stats usually from the state or province) and there is self-published data of the internal organization. Second, there is (or there ought to be) a usefulness to readers about governmental entities, and the examples of districts mentioned above contain pretty good information for our project. - Enos733 (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

In Canada is a school board the same thing as a school district? In the US it varies, some districts don't have boards and some boards don't have districts (only schools) but there's a clear split with the board being an organization and the district being a geographic feature. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

A schoolboard here is basically the overseeing body for several schools in a town or geographical area. They hire teachers/principals and own the schools. The area served by a school is called a catchment basin, at least in my corner of the world, it's a map showing what school your kid can attend based on where they live in the city/zone served by the schoolboard. Helps the schoolboard plan for numbers (we have x number of kids in the area, so our school can hold x number of students). Oaktree b (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I think there's a clue to the "level" of coverage and that is if the coverage extends beyond the area around the district itself. If the East Whosville County, South Virginia school district is getting coverage in the East Whosville County Gazette-Advertiser, that can be expected to be by-the-numbers in our sense, but if it's getting covered the the Washington Post-Advertiser, that's another matter entirely -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

We appear not to have articles for the vast majority of school districts, so the lack of AfD doesn't mean much. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: how do you square "A school district has the combined notability of each of its constituent schools." with "Geographical features must be notable on their own merits. They cannot inherit the notability of organizations, people, or events." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I explained that in my comment - the notability school districts have is not inherited from being a geographic feature, it comes from being a school district and/or from the schools within it. Thryduulf (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

But a school district is a geographic feature, it has to follow those rules which include not counting organizations (school boards, schools etc) towards its notability (at least when considering GEOLAND). It can not inherit the notability of schools within it anymore than a census tract inherits the notability of what's in it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

But a school district is a geographic feature, that's irrelevant. it has to follow those rules which include not counting organizations no it doesn't. The community decides what notability means for every subject, and this is not bound by any sort of hierarchy unless consensus says it apples. Thryduulf (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, GNG is always a path to notability... But GNG also excludes inherited notability. There is no context in which "A school district has the combined notability of each of its constituent schools." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Anything can be excluded from GNG, due to inherent notability or any other reason, if the community consensus is that it should be. That is the de facto status quo in relation to school districts. The GNG is not some super-powerful policy that trumps all else, it is a guideline that applies when and how consensus says it applies. Thryduulf (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

What is inherent notability in this context? Thats not a wikipedia concept I'm familiar with. Has it been endorsed by the community? Note that an article which meets the GNG or a SNG may be deleted, but an article which does not meet the GNG or a SNG may not be kept on anything other than IAR grounds. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

In response to the first part of your comment (after edit conflict with you editing it and adding the second part): see also the reply I've just written to Espresso Addict below, but given that this is the current consensus, and consensus is by definition what the community endorses, yes. Thryduulf (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

So point me to this "inherent notability" consensus Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

It is the de facto consensus of school districts having articles and not being deleted at AfD when challenged on notability grounds whether sources GNG-passing sources are found or not. Thryduulf (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The vast majority of school districts appear to not have articles, so the de facto consensus would appear to be against universal notability. I will ask you again, where is the community endorsement of the concept of "inherent notability"? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The vast majority of school districts appear to not have articles that's irrelevant. Wikipedia is a work in progress, not everything that is notable has an article yet. Consensus is always what the status quo is until either the status quo changes or there is a discussion that explicitly determines that the consensus has changed. This is not a difficult concept, but this is not the first discussion related to notability in which it has been explained to you multiple times. Thryduulf (talk) 20:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The status quo appears to be that there is no such thing as "inherent notability" and nothing you've presented suggests otherwise. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I've literally just explained to you what it means in this context. I do not intend to repeat myself further. Thryduulf (talk) 20:39, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The status quo is that school districts don't have inherent notability. I'm not asking you to repeat yourself because you have yet to provide a diff of this consensus and until you do the status quo will stand. As you said "Consensus is always what the status quo is until either the status quo changes or there is a discussion that explicitly determines that the consensus has changed." so either provide a diff of such a discussion or drop it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Consensus in this case (as in the majority of other cases across the encyclopaedia) is (as repeatedly explained) derived from the collective outcome of smaller decisions and includes silent consensuses. I cannot give you a single diff to show that school districts are generally not nominated at AfD (silent consensus towards notability), and when they are they are almost always not deleted when nominated (collective local consensuses). As explained, this is the status quo I'm referring to. Thryduulf (talk) 00:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

On wikipedia a silent consensus ends the moment its challenged. See WP:SILENTCONSENSUS. You don't appear to be describing the status quo, you appear to be stating your personal opinion and then calling it the status quo... Or is that just a coincidence? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Regarding the second part, that's not quite true. The GNG is a guideline and as such is explicitly not applicable in every situation (just most) so keeping something that the GNG suggests is not notable is not "ignoring a rule" as such. Rather it is consensus saying that the given situation is one of the exceptions to the general case that the guideline allows for. In any case, even if it were a policy community consensus that would be perfectly compatible with the community deciding by consensus that it doesn't apply in a given situation. Thryduulf (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The guideline allows exceptions in terms of deletion but it doesn't offer any in terms of inclusion unless I'm missing something. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

What you aren't understanding is that GNG is, by definition, a guideline. i.e. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Thryduulf (talk) 20:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is why I brought up IAR which is policy. Did you think I was being flippant? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

In the comment starting "Regarding the second part" I explained that exceptions to guidelines and ignoring all rules are not the same thing. Did you read it? Thryduulf (talk) 00:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Now that is flippant... Please keep it civil, you know I read it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Are we taking about inherited or inherent notability? They are different words and mean different things. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is that we were talking about inherited notability but then Thryduulf brought up inherent notability and they've done so repeatedly so it doesn't appear to be a typo. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

• I thought this was a compromise to prevent us from being flooded with articles on the individual schools? Espresso Addict (talk) 08:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  Basically yes - the consensus regarding schools was that non-notable ones should be merged or redirected to the appropriate higher-level article, and that in the United States the article about the school district is that article in almost all cases. The inescapable implication of this is that school districts are notable enough for their own article. Thryduulf (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  Question - for the US, what would be the next “higher” level after school District? Blueboar (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Blueboar: I'm not entirely certain as I'm not American and super familiar with their education system. At first glance, their district system seems to be similar to the one I'm used to but with greater student populations. I will say that at least in my Canadian province, school districts tends to line up with municipalities. For example, the District School Board of Niagara and the Niagara Catholic District School Board serve the Regional Municipality of Niagara. So I suppose one option would be fleshing out education sections in the most relevant article(s) if a district school board isn't considered notable enough in itself or writing something at a relevant province/state-related article like Education in Ontario. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  In the US, usually the city or other municipality and much more occasionally the county. Never the state, though you could maybe argue for a List of school districts in state or list of schools in state which can be a merge target on occasion. Izno (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  Never the state? What about state level boarding schools like Louisiana School for Math, Science, and the Arts and Arkansas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  Both could go to their containing cities, the suggested lists, or at the worst to the article that could/already does exist on education in the specific state. Much school content for schools outside the US have homes in their containing municipality regardless of who runs the school. Izno (talk) 22:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  Depending on whether we're talking private or public, for the public its going to be a municipality, county, or state... For the private it might be a church, diocese, or district but likely its nothing at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  I just want to note that here in Ontario both the regular public school systems and Catholic school boards are publically funded and not private schools. I realize this is likely not the case elsewhere but it is relevant in these particular circumstances. Time to go back to washing dishes and figure out what I'm doing with a draft. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  Much more complicated in the US... Especially by things like Charter schools in the United States which are primarily publicly funded but in most cases independent of the local school districts. You also have things like education councils (example Capitol Region Education Council) which are kind of school districts but also kind of not. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

• No more "inherent" notability, please. All that gets us is a bunch of permastubs, in many cases either bot-generated or might as well be. Either we have sufficient independent and reliable source material available to write an article (not just factoid stub) about a subject, or we don't. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
  • I concur completely. A patchwork system of notability guidelines only ensures inconsistency. GNG should be the only PAG in this area. — Frostly (talk) 00:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

    On the contrary, a Procrustian one-size-fits-all system of notability guidelines based on media coverage, without subject-specific guidelines, ensures that we have an encyclopedia only of celebrities and pop culture. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, any inclusionist sentiment is not widely-supported by the community. Lots of sources on a subject create GNG and provide the information for an article to be written. A dearth of sources with a subject-specific guideline or essay does, to paraphrase the Chinese, hurts the feelings of our editors. Inclusionism on behalf of silly fandoms is one thing. Inclusionism for schools is the most foolish I can think of. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Your first sentence needs an explanation of what you mean by "inclusionist sentiment" and a citation for that not being widely supported by the community because recent discussions show that there is a lot of support for positions that could be termed "inclusionist sentiment". Your last sentence is irrelevant as this is not about either fandoms or schools (school districts are not schools) let alone fandoms about schools. I can't parse your other sentences. Thryduulf (talk) 00:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Surely it doesn't *need* that? You didn't provide diffs when asked, so why would Chris troutman need to? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I think Thryduulf was right to question a sweeping generalization about the community as a whole not espousing "inclusionist sentiment". I don't really engage in deletionism/inclusionism debates that much but I have noticed that many people seem to make a big deal over how these concepts align or do not align with their editing philosophy. I'd prefer if people not go into a constant back and forth here. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - Per the guideline at WP:NRV, No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists, so please drop any discussion of "inherent notability", the adjacent formulation we might be looking for is presumed notability, otherwise a determination that school districts are inherently notable might mean that school districts are the only "inherently" notable thing in the universe according to Wikipedia, which would make us look rather stupid. As for the question on district notability specifically, I think we'd be making a terrible mistake to think that GEOLAND was ever meant to apply to what is essentially a specialized service district for notability purposes. Most people in the world, I tend to think, don't answer the question of "Where are you from?" with "I'm from the Foo garbage collection district". GEOLAND fits way better with recognized general purpose government jurisdictions (like towns with a governing council) or, even, notable communities that don't have their own unique governments but have good SIGCOV of their unique history etc.. While "place" is a broad term, as far as importance, it still has its limits. I've yet to meet a single human being who has ever identified themselves by what school district or other special service district they live in. I'm all ears if this is a pronounced phenomenon in non-US areas but I'm doubtful. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

RfC on school districts

Should school districts be required to meet WP:GNG? Support or oppose? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. In the United States (and other places where such districts are legally separate from and non-conterminous municipalities or other organs of local government), school districts should be presumptively notable. This is not because of their status as places or areas with a population but because they collections of (marginally) notable schools. Because of the large amounts of routine (and otherwise) coverage that schools receive it makes sense for Wikipedia to organize that coverage at the district level in most cases. Although most routine coverage of school sports and academics focuses on the individual school (because that is how students experience them) the actual practices and policies are usually set at the district level (or above) for U.S. public schools. U.S. school districts are not primarily abstract areas in which the state provides public education to its citizens but rather the local government entities that manage and provide that education. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Eluchil404: Are you perhaps confusing a school district and a school board? A district is in most cases an abstract area, in many cases (but not all) the school board is the local government entity that manage and provide that education. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  In my U.S. based experience a school board functions as a board of directors for a school district and their is no real difference between them. Just as there is no real difference between the city council/city government and the city itself. We treat them as a same entity for notability purposes and cover them in the same article, even though they could be considered different things in the abstract. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  I believe its different in every state... Education is handled on the state not the federal level in the US, no? I'm also curious as to whether you think no school districts need to meet GNG or just public ones don't? The religious ones can be extremely obscure. Also note that if there is no difference between them then they're an organization and would need to meet WP:ORG even if GNG isn't in play. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  In the US, school districts are always government-run. Religious (and other private/non-government-run) schools don't have a school district. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  That's not necessarily true. For example, Catholic schools where I live are part of the Diocese of Orlando, which is considered a private school district. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 02:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Rockstone35, I'm not sure what it means to have a private school district. They don't get to tax the properties in the area, they can't compel the students in the area to attend, they have no legal duty to substantially modify the program to be appropriate for disabled students. In short, basically nothing that the US would normally say is the right or responsibility of the local school district is actually true about them.

  Does a student who lives outside of the area have to get special permission to attend that school? If a parent shows up with their kid and a check for the year's tuition, is the school going to say "Oh, no, you're not allowed to go to school here. This is West School; your home address is in East School's area"? So far, it seems to me that this sort of "school district" is not very different from a single business that offers after-school tutoring at several locations within an area. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  "They don't get to tax the properties in the area" neither do school districts in the vast majority of states. In most places they are the beneficiaries of those taxes but don't have any control over them. The ability to compel appearance is also delegated to authorities other than the school district, normally the police. Thats not a power that the school district/board has in the vast majority of American states. What you have named as essential rights and responsibilities of American school districts actually aren't... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Horse Eye's Back, I'm starting to wonder whether you and I need to collaborate on School district#United States. Working my way down the List of U.S. states and territories by population, California's school districts tax the properties within the district.[33] Texas school districts tax properties within the district.[34] Same in Florida.[35] New York's property taxes for school districts exceeds California's property tax for everything.[36] Pennsylvania school districts can lay taxes.[37] Illinois school districts collect around $20 billion a year.[38] Ohio and Georgia school districts lay taxes, too.[39] Those eight states make up half the population in the US.

  This report from Connecticut says that 40 out of the 50 US states allow school districts to lay taxes. [40] Perhaps you have only lived in one of those, so you didn't know how most of the country operates? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:43, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  So you're wrong you're just not as wrong as I thought you were? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  "Religious (and other private/non-government-run) schools don't have a school district." Are you sure about that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  I've never seen groups of such schools called districts and I wouldn't call them that. Catholic schools are, in my experience, usually organized on the diocesan level so a diocese could be used as redirect target. For other private schools I would proceed on a case by case basis. Usually following the GNG, but with the understanding that an association or company that manages multiple notable secondary schools is likely notable though some might be adequately covered in an article on a 'home campus'. But to the extent I favor suspending the GNG, as opposed to reading it relatively broadly in line with my generally inclusionist-in-the-present-environment views, I am only talking about publicly run school districts on the U.S. model. I believe that it makes sense to cover government subdivisions and agencies completely even if the independence prong of the GNG has to be bent or broken. My oppinion isn't really supported by any guideline that I am aware of, but don't believe that it is inconsistent with them either. At least in spirit. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  So you would argue to disregard WP:N on WP:IAR grounds? Note thats not a " generally inclusionist-in-the-present-environment view" thats a radical inclusionist view which puts you on wikipedia's policy fringe. I'm generally inclusionist... You're way more radical and extreme than me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  I don't know if it's really that extreme. It's unusual for an article about any actual, separate government agency in the developed world to be deleted. If your government more or less holds to the usual level of transparency that we expect in democracies, then it would be very unusual to find a separate government agency that doesn't pass the GNG. Generally, when people think they have done so, they have learned that the fault is in their search skills. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  IMO there's a big difference between presuming notability (a very mainstream position which I think is what you're describing) and inherent notability (suspending GNG). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  In my area, Catholic schools do form their own school district. The idea of associating them with a dicocese would not really make sense. The ratio between public school board districts and Catholic school districts here are relatively comparable (and both are publically funded [41]), see List of school districts in Ontario. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Just so that everyone is on the same page: in Ontario, Canada there are *two* systems of publicly-funded school boards governed by publicly-elected trustees - the geographical extent governed by each board are also referred to as a school districts, One system is "public" and the other is "separate" (Roman Catholic). Each of the two systems consists of a set of geographically bounded entities that divide up the entirety (essentially) of the province's land mass. Both systems are governed by the same provincial curriculum and governing legislation and are under the same regime for collective bargaining (which the province has partly centralized). Each district board governs the schools in at least one municipality but often many more than one - only Toronto, Ottawa and Hamilton have boards that correspond to a single city. These are large entities managing hundreds of schools, responsible for managing large budgets and thousands of employees under the scrutiny of parents, taxpayers and electors. I don't know other systems as well, but the quasi-religious status of Ontario's separate school boards - which teach, employ, and are responsible to an electorate of non-Catholics - is fairly idiosyncratic I think. Newimpartial (talk) 22:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  I think the problem is that every country is idiosyncratic and even more so countries like the US where there are actually 50+ ways to do things because education is handled on the state and not the federal level. The Australians for example are somewhere between the US and Canada when it comes to religious schools... The money is public but the control is split between the state and the church and is either organized on the school level, something like a school district, or a national organization depending on the school/faith. The United Kingdom also does it a little oddly with each constituent country being in charge of Faith schools. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  Outside of Ontario, publicly-funded education in Canada is now essentially secular, after Quebec removed the denominational aspect of its school system in 1998 and Newfoundland and Labrador abolished its four state-funded systems - including a Roman Catholic and a Pentecostal system - in 1997. Newimpartial (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  Apart from private schools, note that the city of Ottawa (and other parts of Ontario) is actually covered by "four" school boards, that do not necessarily share the same boundaries as each other. These are: English-Public, French-Public, English-Catholic, and French-Catholic. Loopy30 (talk) 11:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  While this is true, it might be relevant to add that thr whole province is covered by only 12 French school districts/boards (four public and eight separate), as opposed to the 63 English boards (34 public and 29 sepatate). Among these, there is only one vestigal micro-board (an English Protestant board north of Toronto). Newimpartial (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. This proposal is too US-centric, too simplistic, premature and unnecessary. How is this rule meant to apply outside the US? Education is heavily localised all over the world, many places would think a US style school district would be a terrible idea, others may have a similar concept with a different name. Regardless of the answer to that question, the proposal suggests that school districts and similar government departments are not covered by WP:NORG. Is that really the case? If NORG doesn't apply, what's the default rule and how would the proposal change that? And most importantly, does changing the default rule improve the encyclopedia? Iffy★Chat -- 11:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Iffy: Reading the discussion above might help answer your confusion regarding the why? I'm not necessarily looking to change anything but to clarify what exactly the standard is/should be. So far it's been really unclear about whether or not people consider school districts to be inherently notable (if that's the case both GNG and NORG would require better sourcing than just verifying existence). I figured this proposal was actually useful because it might make the community's overall perspective on the matter more clear. I'd also like to note that I'm not American. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  That discussion has way more heat than light at the moment as the two main participants (not faulting either of them for this) are talking past each other to try and answer your original question directly. If we all took a step back and instead tried figure out the answer to my predicate questions, it would then be a lot easier to resolve what the best way forward is. Iffy★Chat -- 12:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  In the United States (and other places where such districts are legally separate from and non-conterminous municipalities or other organs of local government), school districts should be presumptively notable. This is not because of their status as places or areas with a population but because they collections of (marginally) notable schools. I live in a state where most (but not all) public school districts are not "legally separate from and non-conterminous [with] municipalities or other organs of local government". There are some unique "municipal" districts (though their jurisdictions don't typically align exactly with the cities/towns they claim to cover) but every county has a public school district and county commissioners usually help determine funding for things like teacher pay. I'm also not familiar with any other formula on Wikipedia which allows us to combine disparate coverage for multiple non-notable things to create a notability for an inclusive parent article. And, along the lines of what you're suggesting, how useful is it for us to have a few articles on the "Foo Highschools" football games when building an article dedicated to covering what the whole district does? While I do think it is appropriate to redirect a non-notable local school to its parent district article if such exists, I don't see why we should be combining a bunch of non-notable material and adding it to an article on an institution which is also not notable. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  If school district = county I have problem using a "Education in Foo County, State" section of the county article as the equivalent of a district article. I think most lists work the way I described. In particular "List of mayors of Bar" or "List of characters in Foo media" don't require that every entry be separately notable only that the topic as a whole have coverage, usually as a part of coverage of Bar or Foo. In particular my proposal is based on my observation that U.S. secondary schools are basically always notable based on sourcing and my belief that it makes sense to have lists of all government run schools in the appropriate place. This is partly so that there is an obvious place to put content on actually notable events or controversies that people might look for, but also because I dislike removing content because it is "trivial" or "unimportant". It does not improve the encyclopedia to prevent our readers from finding reliably sourced verifiable content that they are looking for. The purpose of curation is to prevent trivia from crowding out important details and making it easy to find basic facts. But Wikipedia is not paper, if readers want to go on deep-dives down rabbit holes, we should let them. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose -- school districts are inherently notable. GNG should not apply. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 02:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Why should they be? -Indy beetle (talk) 06:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support, obviously. They already are required to meet GNG.
  JoelleJay (talk) 04:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Important Note: School notability guidelines are explicitly mentioned in WP:NSCHOOL: All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations (i.e., this page), the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria.

The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 19:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@The Corvette ZR1: I'm aware of NSCHOOL but (and the 2017 RfC that led to high schools needing to meet GNG) but so far I've been under the impression that school districts are not required to meet the same standard. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES mentions this requirement for individual schools but explicitly excludes school districts in the section above. I also think that the way this conversation is going seems to indicate that current consensus is somewhat unclear on what is suppossed to apply and why. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I am generally against any presumption of notability. Having sufficient sourcing to meet the GNG is also a decent threshold for being able to write a decent article of use to readers on the subject - and avoid two line permastubs. firefly ( t · c ) 10:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

IMO this should be reworded or dropped A "no" could be interpreted as either support of the status quo or as specifically rejecting the idea of a school district having to (ever) pass GNG. North8000 (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm open to suggestions on how to make it clearer. I was trying to keep it simple because I was under the impression that's what you're supposed to do. I thought my phrasing was okay (I support/oppose school districts being required to meet GNG) but people do seem to be having different interpretations of what I'm asking here. I'm not even sure what the status quo is so I thought an RfC could gauge that a bit more accurately. I thought seeking community consensus on this would be helpful because it gives people some direction going forward (e.g. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES interpretation regarding GEOLAND could be changed). I will say it's slightly disheartening that I've got the impression that whenever I try to start an RfC it's not that helpful when I genuinely do have good intentions. I'd like to know how exactly I'm messing up. If anyone wants to give me constructive feedback on my talk page or anything, please feel free to. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I think some of the confusion arises because it's not clear whether the subject is the location (24.5 square miles, could be GEOLAND) or the government agency (180 employees and a budget of millions, could be WP:ORG). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Meeting GNG should be enough, I don't see anything here that gets them an automatic pass. If there are neutral sources, extensively written, about the "thing", it's fine. Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
• Unclear RfC I'm with North8000 here: what is a "yes" or "no", or even a "support" or "oppose", supposed to mean in this case? And what is the scope meant to be? Are we trying to gauge what the status quo is, or is this about articulating something new? I can appreciate the desire to seek greater clarity, but I doubt this particular RfC will help in that regard. XOR'easter (talk) 17:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  Right now we're on two opposes indicating GNG should be applied and two opposes indicating GNG should be disregarded. At the very least we can conclude the proposal has generated strong opposition. CMD (talk) 03:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support using GNG to judge notability for school districts Unlike the commenters above, I was not so confused as to what the RfC was getting at. GNG is a perfectly reasonable standard to use globally and, lest we forget, is a low bar of 2-3 secondary sources of SIGCOV. I'm not sure what a good argument for the alternative is: "I went here so it should be mentioned on Wikipedia" (how most Wikipedia primary and secondary school article content is typically generated)? If you can't find 2-3 secondary sources to rub together on a given school district (or its governing body), why should there be an article on it? -Indy beetle (talk) 08:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose but there should be some established standard (GNG is a little too high, but I strongly disagree with Rockstone35's assertion that they are WP:INHERENTly notable. Edward-Woodrow • talk 20:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
  Changing to tentative support. Edward-Woodrow • talk 19:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• Confused Doesn't school districts come under WP:ORG? Davidstewartharvey (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Davidstewartharvey: I think school boards would, but a school district is an administrative region used by the school board (at least in my understanding). Edward-Woodrow • talk 19:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Edward-Woodrow From my reading they are one in the same, with the district just being the area covered by the board. However I may be wrong as its the wrong side of the pond for me!Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) My personal experience has led me to believe that school districts are where a school board operates as an organization. To me, the two concepts are interconnected and cannot be easily separated from each other. It's possible that this isn't the case everywhere where school districts exist and this is what is causing the confusion. Alternatively, I'm just making a stupid mistake for using an RfC in this situation. I haven't had the best of luck with them and I don't want to be seen as misusing the process. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  Don't be. As per my failed attempt to actually change GEOLAND because it is not accurate, this is a valid point and as we can see from the varied different responses, opinions differ. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 08:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  The first thing I have learned in this discussion is that in some jurisdictions (like Ontario, where I live) a school district is essentially a synonym for a school board (technically the territory in which a board operates, but used as a synonym) while in others, a school district is a subset of a school board's territory (sometimes maybe equivalent to an electoral district for school trustees, or perhaps similar to what we might call a catchment area for a high school, or conceivably both).

  School district lacks a treatment of the Ontario system, but something I learned from that article is that on average, a US school district enrolls 5,000 students while I calculate the average for Ontario as more than five times that number (and the average for Ontario is depressed slightly by the inclusion in the denominator of eight special-purpose "school districts" outside of the two main school systems). Newimpartial (talk) 13:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support forcing them to meet GNG. I do not see how they could be considered anything like a city in terms of notability. They should not get a free pass just by existing. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, they can meet GNG or a SNG. If they pass a SNG they don't need to pass the GNG. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• Unclear RfC This should be withdrawn and a new RFC put together. --Enos733 (talk) 00:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• School districts should have to meet WP:NORG to have a separate article, just like any other organization. (t · c) buidhe 03:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment One complexity is that "school district" can refer to two completely different things. One is a set of lines on a map. The other is an organization which is a bundle of a governmental body, a bunch of facilities, a bunch of staff etc. (whose area of operation is defined by those lines on a map) North8000 (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
  • True, but aren't those typically merged in practice in articles? -Indy beetle (talk) 07:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• School districts should have to meet WP:NORG just like any other organization. Schools, school districts, school boards, non-profit schools, for-profit schools... they're all types of organizations. Levivich (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as written. Many of these articles are better viewed as set-index articles about the schools in the school district. Policy should be designed to prevent AFD arguments such as "the references aren't about the school district organization, but the schools in the school district (which don't have stand-alone articles)" leading to article deletion. But I also don't support "inherent notability"; for example Maynard School District could probably be merged. Walt Yoder (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support school dsitricts not having any kind of "automatic" or "presumed" notability - It's simply daft that people are proposing to have an article for every single US school district, simply because of a tendentious interpretation of WP:GEOLAND. The interpretation of GEOLAND's presumption of notability being an automatic pass on requiring any actual significant overage anywhere is just crazy - the only way to source the vast majority of these articles is from the documents of the organsations themselves - where's the NPOV?

Regarding the unclear objections above - it's a pretty simple question of whether or not school districts are under GEOLAND, and they definitely should not be. FOARP (talk) 09:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose For some time now, there has been consensus in community discussions that school districts should be presumed to be notable. School districts should continue to be presumed to be notable. School districts are likely to satisfy GNG and LISTN. Articles on school districts are needed so that individual schools can be redirected to them. The following passage, or something similar, should be added to NGEO: " School districts are typically presumed to be notable." The alternative is to have futile time wasting arguments about whether schools district articles are lists of schools; or populated legally recognized places that are administrative regions; or organizations; or all of these things at the same time; or none of these things; or some of these things. None of which matters, because we need articles about "education within geographical area X", and we presently do not appear to have any practical alternative. (The most likely alternative at this time is "being flooded with articles on the individual schools" as Expresso Addict put it). James500 (talk) 03:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The status quo is working fine here. In the US public school context (which is the relevant one for most of the articles being discussed), school district articles tend to be about the district itself, the schools it encompasses, and even the history of local education within the district. There are some smaller districts where this information could fit in the local town's article, but in most cases it's worthy of an article itself, and subjecting school districts to GNG would most likely lead to a lot of arguments that the sources have to be about the district itself rather than anything else. (By the way, it was pretty easy to find coverage of the Rondout school district that started all of this: [42] [43]) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• I think this is best settled case by case. Some districts, such as the Palo Alto Unified School District aren't as notable solely on their own but provide better organization for certain districts which have a lot of notable institutions. Some districts, like Lagunitas School District, could do better by being merged into their home article. Then there are some which already fulfill GNG on their own; I think that Columbus' Dublin City School District (despite a Notability tag there already) would meet this based on the awards it has received. Oppose a blanket solution; the status quo doesn't seem as harmful as it seems to be put out to be. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
• Unclear RfC. I support the status quo, but it is unclear what !voting "support" or "oppose" means here in terms of effecting a change to the notability guidelines. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think there are multiple adequate descriptions by editors above. I also foresee heated AfD debates about how many paragraphs of coverage a single decades old print article needs to have and how many quotes are allowed, before we count a school district (with decades of coverage) as notable. Given what other editors have explained above, let's avoid putting ourselves through that. —siroχo 03:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
• Speedy close. It's clear that this RfC is unclear and that there are multiple subquestions. (1) The basic question, based on the previous thread, is whether Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#School districts is correct. I suspect it isn't, seeing as no discussion-based consensus has been linked and the disagreement on this very page. (2) Relatedly, whether school districts fit under WP:NORG (per this discussion) or WP:NGEO (per "Common Outcomes"); the evidence is that NORG at least mentions schools as organizations whereas NGEO does not. (3) The matter of whether "GNG applies": GNG always applies, with rare exception by consensus. If attempting to make a similar case here, it needs to be stronger than the circular logic about what should be "presumed notable" and why this would warrant an exception. (4) Given the differences here, it's unclear what other editors mean by "status quo". At the very least, it needs to be codified as was necessary in the [2017 discussion]. czar 17:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Size and consensus

Originally posted at WP:VPIL because I got my noticeboards mixed up:

Recent discussions at a good article reassessment and Wikipedia talk:Article size, among others, have led me to ask whether WP:AS, and more specifically WP:SIZERULE still has community consensus to be a guideline. Objections raised include that: it includes false assumptions about Wikipedia readers; that the ideas behind it are based on out-of-date products and technologies; that it includes "rules of thumbs", etc.

I have come here to gain opinions on how to phrase a sort of "reconfirmation RfC" on the guideline as a whole. I think it would be beneficial to have clear consensus on whether the guideline should retain its status, and if so should WP:SIZERULE be a part of it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29, I think this is an interesting question, but I'm not sure you've put enough "handles" on it to help people get a grip on your question. So here's one:

• One of the characteristics of an encyclopedia article is its concise writing style (e.g., omit needless words) and brevity (e.g., an encyclopedia article should be shorter than a book). Should Wikipedia make any recommendations about the ideal maximum length of a Wikipedia article (NB: not lists, categories, or similar pages)?
  • If so, should Wikipedia make those recommendations based on:
    1. Word count (e.g., as measured by the Wikipedia:Prosesize gadget)
    2. Number of sentences or paragraphs
    3. How many minutes it takes to read the article
    4. Byte size (shown in page history)
    5. How long it takes to load the page (more pictures = slower)
    6. Rendered page size (more formatting = bigger/worse for people on old devices)
    7. Something else?

My answers would be Yes and 1 + 3. Bonus points if we define this in terms of the tomat (unit) (after The Old Man and the Sea. One tomat = 26,000 words). I suggest that one centitomat is a long stub, one decitomat is a nicely developed article, and one quarter tomat is getting a little long. (ScottishFinnishRadish, I'm particularly curious whether these numbers feel about right to you.)

What would you suggest? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

It brings me no end of joy to see tomats catching on, but quick clarification, the unit name always contains the s and should be phrased so it always sounds plural. Also, according to the New York Times, it's about 27,000 words.[44] It is an excellent measure though, because it communicates the conceptual amount of reading in a way that many people are familiar with, rather than just word count.

Your scale seems pretty reasonable. If an article is running a quarter the size of a small novel it's definitely pushing out of encyclopedia article into a longer research work. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The above comments are reasonable in general but there are plenty of exceptions where brevity would obfuscate the topic and remove important information. Some articles could be replaced with a couple of sentences that an expert in the field would understand but which would be a waste of time for anyone else. Johnuniq (talk) 00:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

There will always be exceptions, but in a lot of circumstances it would make more sense to fork the article and leave a summary. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• Brevity is not a characteristic of an encyclopaedia article. The Encyclopaedia Britannica article on the United States runs to over 300 pages - easily comparable to a small book. It's hard to overemphasise how wrong-headed that preconception is. And Wikipedia is not paper. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
  • #3 is also based on an equally invalid and assumption; only about 5% of readers read the article from top to bottom; about a third read the lead only; and the rest jump about the article, looking for certain specific information. (See Research:Which parts of an article do readers read?) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Creating a new Close review page (CLRV/RFCRV) to be split from AN

There were two discussions on the topic of an RfC review noticeboard separate from AN. A 2017 discussion briefly touched on the topic, and under a recent close review, there was another one, which was relatively extensive. It appears that there was enough brainstorming to have at least a discussion to create a new board.

It is proposed to:

• Create a separate "Close review" page (CLRV/RFCRV) to handle challenges to closures.
• Create an archive of all close reviews in one place (something like this but updated and not self-reported)
• Generally model the CLRV on deletion review processes, but with a few quirks. To be exact:
  1. The duty of the user to discuss the closure with the closer will stay, except for closures made by IP editors, which may be reverted without discussion.
  2. When pushing a "Request a close review" button, there will be an automatically generated template (something like when opening an AE request) where the user will put the necessary data (link to the RfC, diff(s) of closure, user who closed an RfC, evidence of talking with the user, evidence of notifying them about the review, reason for making the request, possibly other fields should there be a need)
  3. Create "Involved", "Uninvolved" and "Discussion" sections for discussing the merits of the closure (see WP:INVOLVED for details). Admins may sanction users who routinely post their opinions in the "Uninvolved" part of the closure if they are involved.

     Editors will !vote "Endorse" or "Overturn". Overturned discussions will be automatically reopened until the next closer comes. Overturned closures should be collapsed and the CLRV thread provided in the hat above the RfC for reference.

     CLRV should not be RfC round 2. Only closer's judgment should be analysed. Statements that rehash the arguments in the RfC or do not discuss the soundness of the closure given the arguments presented in the RfC should be discarded from consideration. (Cf. Deletion review should not be used, in WP:DRV)

     Editors will determine the burden of demonstrating the (un)soundness of the closure if the page is created. This may potentially impact WP:NOCON.

• Modify WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, Wikipedia:Processes#Formal_review and other relevant policies, guidelines and information/explanatory pages to direct closure review requests to the newly created page. Edit all relevant templates and post relevant info to AN/ANI so that editors engage in close reviews on the dedicated forum.

I would like to see if there is consensus for a concept of the page, before actually starting to create it.

Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I do not see the need of creating a separate noticeboard, when the most needed regulations could simply be transcribed as a formal AN procedure. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support as proposer. Close reviews should feature less drama, so it's best to move them from a drama board which AN is. Also, a couple of common-sense formal rules would not be a bad thing for these discussions. It's going to be active enough that people will be actually watching it, so I see no harm doing that, and all the benefits of housekeeping and civil, focused discussion. AN should best be left for, well, purely administrative stuff, or stuff where only admins can act on something, like unblock requests.
  Also, DRV and MRV are not noticeboards, and at least before MRV was created in 2012, appeals were processed on AN.
  EDIT: I'll add that if we need a separate formal procedure for some threads on AN that can be grouped in one category (here: close reviews), but not for others, chances are we need a separate page. Clogging up the top template of AN with instructions for each type of requests that may come to AN is suboptimal and will dissuade people from actually reading the template to see if they have any business being on AN because the template will be too big and folks will scroll through the wall of text.
  Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support the general idea For the reasons described. But there are also about 12 other rules in the proposal.....IMO some are codifying current practices plus many more good and bad new rules. Suggest workshopping to develop the "rules" and keeping them to a minimum which mostly follow current practices. North8000 (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support the idea, although per North8000 the specific proposal needs more workshopping first. DRV and MRV work well and have little bureaucracy so something modelled after them should work for RFCs. Thryduulf (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as stated. I'm not sure we need a entirely new board, RFC close reviews are not that numerous. But some set of guidelines for the process would help improve discussions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, as splitting it off to a page with fewer watchers and more self-selection isn't likely to be the ticket. Some enforced guidelines at AN would be sufficient. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support. RfCs are mostly content decisions, and sysops don't/shouldn't have any special jurisdiction over content, so reviewing RfC closes on the administrators' noticeboard doesn't make sense.—S Marshall T/C 23:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  We also need a searchable index of RfCs, by the way. At the moment they're often on talk pages or talk page archives. It would be better if they were transcluded into log pages like XFDs are, and a useful abuse-fighting tool would be if we could search those logs for all the closes made by a particular editor.—S Marshall T/C 23:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  Brilliant!

  The only problem here would be to comb through 20+ years of RfCs, but yeah, that's a good one. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 07:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Archive is something like an archive of RfCs of project-wide relevance, but I agree better searchability would be useful. I've spent far, far too much of my life digging through talk page articles to try and find out how a particular policy came to be. – Joe (talk) 07:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  A good step to take to address that would be change administrator's noticeboard to administration noticeboard, which better matches its use. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Close reviews have become more and more formalised over recent years and centralising them, as we do for deletion reviews, move reviews, admin action reviews, etc., seems like a straightforward organisational improvement to me. I don't see how low volume or an (initially) lower number of watchers are particularly problematic; ANI should be enough evidence for everyone that having lots of eyes and lots of opinions doesn't make for better decisions. We should also consider the fact that neither making closes nor participating in close reviews is restricted to admins. Anything that brings AN closer to being a noticeboard for admins again is a step in the right direction, in my book. – Joe (talk) 07:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support - especially the automated discussion template generation. I take the point that these aren't as common as deletion reviews but when they do occur they tend to be lengthy and seem to take take over WP:AN until they're closed and archived. Having a separate RfC noticeboard will also give us an easy way to refer back to RfC decisions without having to search through the entire AN archives. The positives of this proposal far outweigh the negatives in my view. WaggersTALK 12:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support - because of how well DRV works. DRV does well not to be "AFD round 2", and I believe this proposal will assist in stopping the discussions at AN being "RFC round 2", but rather focusing on endorse or overturn based on the prescribed format. I don't believe AN is capable of this sort of debate as there is little to no distinction between a normal AN discussion and a Close Review. Daniel (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support DRV for RFCs per nom and others above. The archive will be useful and getting it off AN will improve the participant pool. Levivich (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  A template, splitting involved/uninvolved votes, is also a good idea. Levivich (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  XRV (suggested below) works, too. Levivich (talk) 14:51, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment If this more specialized (than AN) place were created, people who watch the page are more likely to catch / less likely to miss something close-review related than on a broader/ more active page like AN. For example, if AN had 30 posts a day and the person checked their watchlist twice per day, they would see only 2 of the 30 posts on their watchlist page. North8000 (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support: worth a try to clean up the cesspit of AN. Close reviews should be rare and too often they are just attempts to run "RFC round 2", as Daniel puts it. I'm unsure whether this board would encourage more vexatious close reviews or provide the necessary structure to mitigate this trend. I like the idea of separating involved comments from uninvolved comments to help independent editors and the final closer assess provenance more easily. — Bilorv (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• We have too many noticeboards already. I'd start with combining WP:NPOVN and WP:NORN into one before creating yet another noticeboard, dividing attention. WP:XRV is a mostly-failed dream with the same idea of splitting something away from AN; there is no reason to believe that a separate closure noticeboard would be more popular. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Most RfCs and similar do not need formal closure. Most formal closures don't need to be reviewed. A dedicated noticeboard would just encourage more unnecessary reviews in the same way that WP:CR has caused the number of requests for formal closure (mostly unnecessary) to balloon. And, as TBF points out immediately above, a similar concept never really got off the ground (which is a shame because I'd strongly support something like XRV but with teeth). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. I was going to stay out of this, but HJ Mitchell's point is compelling: If you create a special, high-profile place request that a decision be overturned (and that's always the point of a review request; nobody opens a review because they think the closing statement was perfect), then the existence of that page will suggest to some editors that closing summaries should be challenged, and thus we'll see somewhat more of them, and that could turn into a time sink. BTW, if you don't know how to challenge a closing summary, then read the directions (middle of second point at top of WP:ANRFC, Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures, and probably elsewhere) or ask someone (e.g., at WT:RFC. Also, at least wrt RFCs, we don't get very many of these now, so creating a new noticeboard for an uncommon event is unnecessary. If the folks at WP:AN found that these discussions were so frequent as to disrupt their other work, I'd have another view, but they don't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, so it's an equivalent of: "why let people know that there's a dedicated appeals court with clear rules in one place when there is 75-95% chance they won't succeed anyway? It just burdens the justice system too much and that's why we have delays".

  If the thinking goes that people will appeal just for the sake of it, this will always happen but that doesn't mean automatically they are wrong. If the rules are scattered all over the place it's just user-unfriendly.

  It is as simple as that: i

  If a request is frivolous, vexatious, comes from a sock or people didn't read the manual, it can be closed down quickly so it's not a timesink. Admins are not needed for that.

  Wrt to RfC review frequency, let's see the stats for move reviews and estimated RfC close reviews on AN to see the difference, starting from the beginning of 2022, by month:

  • Move reviews: 0, 6, 8, 2, 2, 3, 1, 4, 3, 8, 5, 4, 1, 7, 4, 3, 6, 9, 1, 1, 2, 5 (avg per month: 4.5 reviews, of these only 20% were overturned and a few, like 5, simply relisted, and a couple of procedural moves)
  • Requested close reviews (searched through AN archives from 340 till today), and I generally saw about 2 closure reviews per month, which was fairly consistent month-to-month. On your theory that dedicated forums will encourage appeals in their subject matter, it might be a bit lower than move reviews but not by much at the end of the day. Surely you won't vote to delete MRV because it is inactive?

  The discussion that triggered the RfC was an absolute mess of a review, so in fact if you are concerned about timesinks, we can do that by enforcing certain rules that already work elsewhere and prevent people from continuing the RFC on AN. But can we really apply that directly to AN when there are so many other discussions that we have to distinguish from? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 06:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  • Increasing the number of close reviews will be subject to the Law of diminishing marginal benefit. If you're seeing ~5 move reviews a month now, with 4 being sustained and 1 being overturned, then creating this is more likely to result in twice as many discussions but a lower chance of success (e.g., 8 discussions, 7 sustained and 1 overturned, or 20 discussions, 18 sustained and 2 overturned).
  • If an editor discovers this process through a navbox, they are unlikely to learn enough about the process to post relevant and appropriate discussions. We need people to discover this process by Reading The Friendly Manual, which says things like close reviews not being an opportunity for re-litigating the dispute because all the other editors are wrong.

  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  This mirrors the schools of management opposing theories, one side advocating for a flat management style with no hierarchy and the other with various levels of hierarchy, generally between 5 and 10 members per team in a vertical chain of command (command which also has various theories of leadership style). Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  From what I saw, some close reviews are already close reviews for the sake of them, so there is little marginal benefit in having them in the first place. Also, to show this law is applicable, you'd have to see if the current rate of overturning RfC closes at AN is higher than at MRV, or, which would be better, look through pre-2012 AN archives and compare MRVs from back then and after moving to MRV. Have you made the research? Well, I can't be bothered but my hypothesis is that it's not about economics here, and RfC closure reviews aren't delicatessen which you get used to once you start eating a lot of them.

  If a user discovers the new process through the navbox but is otherwise uninterested, I agree they won't learn about it. But if they think that an RfC was poorly closed, and they become interested in how this should be filed, they will click on the link and RTFM. And the friendly manual should and, as I proposed, will in fact include such instructions.

  Right now these instructions are not in one place so if someone new (who we should assume edits in good faith) is lurking at AN and sees an RfC review process, they have little clue about how this should go, because AN does not say it and it does not tell which policies apply. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. There's definitely a problem here, but creating a new noticeboard should be a last resort. We should at least try separate uninvolved/involved sections (which everyone seems to support) first, and if that doesn't work, there are also other techniques (hatting unproductive tangents, preventing bolded !votes from involved editors, etc.) out there. If close reviews are still a mess after all that, we can revisit this conversation, but otherwise I think it'd cause more harm than good, per several others above. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
• Strongly support. I think noticeboards for specific situations if there are enough editors willing to participate in them are a good idea that promote more expertise, efficiency, quality, and fairness in processes.

    I have to mention I went to AN once about this, adding an entry challenging a close, following instructions in WP:CLOSECHALLENGE; it was a monumental fiasco. The summary speaks for itself: Improper forum. I got excoriated for "making a mountain out of a molehill" and for a "time-wasting exercise", among other things. It was my impression that a few editors neither cared about the guidance I linked nor based their rationale in Wikipedia guidance but in general they resorted more to their arbitrary opinions. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 01:17, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  The other editors were correct; please don't assume their reaction is a problem to be corrected. DFlhb (talk) 08:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  I disagree but in order not to divert the main topic of this thread, I won't start a discussion about it here. If you want to discuss it you are welcome to post in my talk page. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per HJ. However, I would be open to moving close challenges to XRV. HouseBlaster^talk 06:51, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per ToBeFree. AN benefits from having a lot of experienced eyes on it, and a new noticeboard will not have as many of those eyes. Mz7 (talk) 01:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support - There are actually two main parts to this proposal.
  • Specify procedures for RFC close reviews, of which the most important is that close review is not RFC round 2. This principle is taken from the culture of Deletion Review, where it is often stated that DRV is not AFD round 2. The deletion reviewers ae not asked how they would have closed the AFD, but only whether the close was reasonable, or whether the closer made an error.
  • Set up a separate board for RFC close reviews to implement these reviews, with an origination template, and with automated archival of close reviews.
  • In my opinion, the first is very much needed, as has been concluded by recent discussions at WP:AN and elsewhere.
  • The second, a separate forum, is a nice-to-have rather than essential. However, if the close reviews continue to be carried out at WP:AN, they probably will not have their own automation processes.
  • A separate forum will provide the benefits of its own automation. If there is agreement that special procedures are needed, but not agreement for a separate forum, there will have to be discussion of how to integrate the new procedures into WP:AN.

Robert McClenon (talk) 08:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, we have already specified the procedure for RFC close reviews. You can find the procedure (and a list of strong and weak arguments for overturning the summary) at Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures. The first sentence in that paragraph specifies very clearly that it applies to RFCs, splits, and merges. Therefore, the first part is done; in fact, it was done years ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support largely per proposer. Simply put, close reviews are irrelevant to an administrator's work so AN is the wrong place. Having a dedicated venue to appeal things is due process, not encouraging frivolous claims; after all, an equally strong (and much more evidence based) argument could be made that AN/I encourages frivolous claims of incivility. I'm not experienced enough to judge imperfections in the details of the proposed rules, but I don't see obvious issues and I'm sure it will be ironed out. Fermiboson (talk) 19:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Notified: centralized discussion and the the administrators' noticeboard. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per ToBeFree. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, very much per Mz7, ToBeFree, et al, above. The standard of "many eyes" applies to this. Plus, this is putting the cart before the horse - we don't have much in the way of a written guideline regarding reviewing RFC closures as far as I know. So we're now going to create a whole new process out of whole cloth? No. - jc37 12:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  Here you can see that the Category for Discussions page has about a 2,700 monthly views average while Closure requests has about 2,400. I am pretty sure CfD started one day somehow, therefore the argument no guideline does not hold much weight because things start one day. Also, "WP:Closure requests".

  User:Mz7 talks about AN having experience. Show me a discussion about specifically a close challenge in that noticeboard. I went there once challenging a close (with a detailed rationale) and ironically my request was closed with the explanation "improper forum" (see my post above) and derided for spending time in researching and pointing guidance you imply doesn't exist.

  User:ToBeFree states, "there is no reason to believe that a separate closure noticeboard would be more popular". I point out the views of closure requests and the level of support the proposal for the noticeboard has in this thread. I think they are proper reasons. And I do support more specialized noticeboards, not less. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  WP:AN has about 40,000 views per month. Your counterexamples prove the point: There would probably be less attention on other pages. Here's the requested example of a well-attended AN closure challenge; this one led to overturning a panel close: [45]

  As pointed out above, what you portray as a general problem may have been very specific to your closure challenge request. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  I think the example you provided is less illustrative of general cases because it relates directly to an administrator's issue not just a close. Do you have an example of a close challenge in AN that is not directly related to an administrative issue? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 07:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per HJ, ToBeFree and SFR. Splitting to a new noticeboard with fewer page watchers will result in fewer uninvolved participants. We're already seeing this at WP:ORN (almost no uninvolved input), hence the current discussion on getting rid of ORN; we already have too many noticeboards as is. Though we should separate involved responses into a separate section; Tamzin tried it a few months back and it helped. DFlhb (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support. CR isn't an admin thing. Also, due to the negative connotation of AN and its length, I think it's better to have a centralized location. Clyde _{[trout needed]} 22:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Generally speaking, the more eyeballs on such "review" discussions, the better, else relatively small groups of motivated editors can tend to overwhelm an actual consensus process from more uninvolved parties. Deletion reviews, in particular, happen often enough that it makes sense to split them off (and they will generally get enough participation to prevent that phenomenon), but RfC close challenges are more rare, so I don't think a separate board for that would attract enough participation to represent a genuine cross-section of the community at large. If it starts happening a lot more often to the point it's overwhelming AN, we could revisit it then, but I don't see that as being a beneficial change at this time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  You bring a valid point but then the solution could be making the RfC review noticeboard a step in the dispute resolution process and the next step to address your concern could be AN. Why not AN directly? Because right now I don't see administrators interested in reviewing closures and a specific noticeboard would attract editors interested in reviewing closures. Check my post supporting the proposal. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  I already did "check (your) post for this proposal", as I generally read through existing comments on an RfC prior to commenting. It did not convince me, and I stand by what I said. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Firstly, I don't believe this needs to be separated from admin concerns. Admins are implicitly expected to be/become experts at closing discussions and generally at assessing consensus (It's a sizeable piece of Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list), and this is an evaluation of an assessment of consensus, so admin eyes improve the process.

Secondly this is WP:CREEP. An RfC is already one step away from the general process for achieving consensus. A formal close is yet another step away. Close reviews are a third step from our standard consensus building process, and indeed we already have a way of accomplishing them when deemed necessary. I guess this is to say, I agree with both HJ Mitchell and ToBeFree and others – either this will not be popular and not have enough eyes, or it will be popular and lead to too many close reviews. —siroχo 05:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The last thing we need is another noticeboard. The ones we have aren't well enough attended as is. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I gather that this proposal arose after this close review. That review was done in a reasonably expeditious way and so "if it works, don't fix it". The original dispute (whether someone was a journalist or not) seems quite lame and so did not merit the amount of attention that it was given. Making mountains out of molehills should not be encouraged as it wastes everyone's time. By keeping such activity at WP:AN, frivolous and vexatious disputes will tend to be discouraged per WP:BOOMERANG. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  There is a difference between making mountains out of molehills and satisfying proper due process. Trash for you may be the treasure of someone else. Also, I bemoan the lack of attention to detail that in my opinion permeates generally in society in favor of haste. Therefore, I support and favor attention to detail and quality. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, solution in search of a problem. Stifle (talk) 14:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
• Neutral - I can see the arguments on both sides of this. The strongest argument in favour in my view is that AN is an admin's noticeboard and should be kept for discussion amongst admins, whilst close-review might profit from a less cosy environment. On the other side we don't have many close reviews, and shouldn't want more of them. FOARP (talk) 16:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of proposed close review page

• Comment. I have made a quantitative analysis to translate into hard numbers the viability of this proposal.

item\proportion	views	watchers	recent watch	v/w	w/rw	edits	v/e	w/e	daily edits	rw/de
AN	41,000	5,265	489	8	11	1,174	35	4	39	12
DRN	5,077	1,249	76	4	16	433	12	3	14	5
NORN	2,968	916	82	3	11	93	32	10	3	27
AFD	10,109	1,900	107	5	18	3,482	3	1	116	1
DR	3,849	1,291	140	3	9	513	8	3	17	8
CR	2,425	580	71	4	8	222	11	3	7	10
CRRN	923	323	32	3	10	33	28	10	1	29

Interest in the pages can be measured as a function of views, watchers, number of edits. AN seem to have top interest in function of these parameters' numbers. Whereas the proposed noticeboard (CRRN) seems to be last. Although this may be true regarding raw views and number of participants, if we analyze deeper, we can see that AN turns out to be last if we sort by proportion of viewers/watchers. More views per watcher would indicate less interest and less views per watcher would indicate more interest, at least more than a passing interest.

CRRN in this measure has an estimated projection of top interest proportionally. It is estimated that CRRN would have around 300+watchers and at times 30+ watchers of recent changes. An estimated number of 30+ monthly average edits is projected or around 1 per day. Considering that "discussions should be kept open at least a week" per WP:TALK and RfCs may run a month or more, 1 edit per day indicates threads could stay regularly active or new threads started frequently. Having 30+ watchers of recent edits would indicate viability of the project.

On the other hand, if AFD has more than 40,000 edits average monthly per another counting mechanism, the proportion with its appeal noticeboard DRV (DR) would be 57 to 1, which if applied to the proportion of CR and CRRN would result in only this latter having around 4 monthly average monthly edits, which would mean not enough edits to sustain a discussion properly, rendering the noticeboard not viable. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 04:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC) 21:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Your number for AFD edits is way short; there were about 420,000 in 2023. I expect you're also only counting views and watchers on the daily log subpages, too; that's not the way AFD is set up. —Cryptic 19:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

For AFD I ran a query based on the code you shared with me for Deletion review. Why the discrepancy in the number of edits? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 20:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Look at the source of WP:Deletion review/Log/2023 January 2 and of WP:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 January 2. Discussion happens directly on DRV daily log subpages; AFD daily logs transclude an individual subpage for each discussion. —Cryptic 20:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Geeze! Thinker78 (talk) 20:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I got the number of watchers in the page info. Number of views in the page views in page history. Where do you recommend checking these numbers? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

To get a meaningful number, you'd have to count the views of each individual afd subpage; same for watchers, except you'd want to eliminate duplicate watchers (say, if I'm watchlisting three afds, you'd only want to count me once), and you can't because who's watching a page isn't published. People viewing or watching WP:AFD directly, or even daily log subpages, isn't meaningful, since that's not where the discussions happen. —Cryptic 20:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I see the number of views with this method do increase exponentially. It looks like AFD may be by far the most popular noticeboard in Wikipedia. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Notes

References

Too many noticeboards?

I find it curious how many people above state "we have too many noticeboards" or "we don't need another noticeboard" as a grounds for opposing this proposal that doesn't need further elaboration. Is this an established fact? There's some mention of individual noticeboards with very low activity (e.g. ORN), but since there are other noticeboards with very high activity (e.g. ANI), that doesn't seem to work as a general explanation. I'd be interested if someone could explain to me why many focused, low-activity noticeboards is ipso facto less desirable than few broad, high-activity noticeboards (if they think that's the case). – Joe (talk) 06:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

One factor is that only those with a particularly high fascination with wikidrama would be active in multiple noticeboards. Getting something reviewed at a noticeboard dedicated to that sole task would mean that only those with a particular ax to grind in that area would be likely to participate (along with relatively few exceptions that make the rule). Asking for a review at WP:AN would get attention from a much wider and more representative section of the community. Johnuniq (talk) 07:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what section of the community because for many years I thought AN was only for administrative complaints. In fact, I think we need a new noticeboard, Community noticeboard, which would be more about a wider and more representative section of the community, without the stigma of posting in a noticeboard that seems to be aimed to complaints and dissuades participation with boomerang. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The Confusion of Tongues

• I notice elsewhere on VP that there's a proposal to create a Editor Communication Feedback noticeboard. So, how many noticeboards do we have already? WP:Noticeboards has a list and then there's a separate category. This includes the Noticeboard proliferation noticeboard, which is a joke, and Discussions for discussion which isn't supposed to be a joke but is still laughable.

These lists don't include some noticeboard-like places that I watch such as WP:ITN/C. That has a fairly clear agenda, process and output and there's a crew of regular posters and admins who attend it. And then there's all the projects. So, the exact definition may need work. WP:Dashboard seems to be one place that brings it all together but I've never looked at that before and so need to understand that now. As I already have at least two other different dashboards (1, 2), I'm now wondering how many dashboards there are...

And this is just the English Wikipedia. There's a variety of noticeboard activity elsewhere including Discord, Meta, Phabricator, OTRS/VRT and more.

And, of course, we have a policy which forbids all this: WP:NOTFORUM. This vainly says, "Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia." See also: Parkinson's Law.

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes but what's the actual problem with having a lot of noticeboards? They're not forums. – Joe (talk) 09:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Proliferation will tend to generate empire-building, forum-shopping, passing the buck, turf battles, chaos and confusion. For example, when discussing news items at WP:ITN, we've been repeatedly told recently to take discussion of their images to WP:ERRORS. But that noticeboard is supposed to be strictly for errors, not for such general content issues. And the result is then forking of the discussion, repetition and confusion because the archives and process are split or done differently. See the KISS principle. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

That's probably a problem of not defining well what goes to ITN and what goes to ERRORS. Your forums are already there, it's that you should probably try to say something like: "If images are not erroneous but are otherwise objectionable, post in XYZ, do not post in ERRORS". Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Of course, I can and do say things; I'm here now in yet another forum telling you about it. And ITN has perennial discussions at WT:ITN which often propose reforms and reorganisations. But, like the Village Pump, they rarely result in consensus and collegial action. The more moving parts you have, the more friction you get and the more scope there is for things to go wrong. As Steve Jobs said, "Simplify, Simplify, Simplify"! Andrew🐉(talk) 11:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Or as Ken Thompson said, "do one thing and do it well". I don't see how having one big board that handles everything is necessarily more simple than many small boards that handle specific types of discussion. – Joe (talk) 12:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Ken Thompson's point is like KISS and Jobs in urging simplicity. But doing things well is easier said than done. ITN does one thing but doesn't do it well. The case in question here is the appeal process for RfCs, right? Does AN work well for this? How would a dedicated board work better? Wouldn't it have exactly the same process? The main way it might work better is by having fewer voices, right? But RfCs tend to attract vested interests and these tend to be noisy regardless of the forum. What's needed to shut them up is administrative power and that's most likely to be found at places like AN and Arbcom -- existing forums with established traditions and powers. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• I deplore this practice of using AN as the village pump. I really wish that we could use admin boards to talk about conduct. I wish we could move everything about content elsewhere. AN and ANI would still be very busy places! I can't understand the constant obstructionism about it.—S Marshall T/C 09:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
  • What about my comments at 07:52, 6 November 2023 just above? Johnuniq (talk) 09:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

    I think your point that discussions should have a broad and representative audience is something few would disagree with, but AN is hardly the only place we can achieve that. So the question remains, why is it acceptable to have dedicated noticeboards for some topics but not others? – Joe (talk) 12:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

    • • I think Johnuniq's point is about drama-mongers, and I don't see it. Separating content-focused discussion from conduct-focused discussion would surely reduce drama rather than increasing it.—S Marshall T/C 16:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Standardised templates

So after seeing so much bickering here, I thought that it would be better to make at least part of the proposal implemented. I need some help with workshopping and technical guidance and help with three templates that I just created, namely Template:RfC closure review, Template:RfC closure review links and Template:RfC closure review banner. The idea is copied from Template:Move review list. When you subst RfC closure review, you will have then something like Template:Move review list, followed by the banner and ===Involved===, ===Uninvolved=== and ===Discussion=== subheadings. Ideally I'd also want to templatise the heading ("Request for RfC closure review at #Article name#", as defined from page param. Ąny help will be welcome. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I think the template is ready to be deployed and can be used at AN. I made appropriate changes to WP:CLOSECHALLENGE so that folks can useit in the future. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I think the template will give a more official feel to challenges so editors are not so tempted to close such discussions with "improper forum" or the like and may encourage proper discussion. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Should the precautionary principle be policy?

In my opinion, Wikipedia:Precautionary principle should be policy. On Commons, the PCP has been long standing policy. There is little reason it shouldn't be policy here as well. It would help guide a lot of discussions at WP:FFD for one. — MATRIX! (a good person!)^{[Citation not needed at all; thank you very much!]} 10:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:NFCC already says:

it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created.

And WP:C says:

Images, photographs, video and sound files, like written works, are subject to copyright. Someone holds the copyright unless the work has explicitly been placed in the public domain. Images, video and sound files on the internet need to be licensed directly from the copyright holder or someone able to license on their behalf.

In other words, it already is policy, albeit using slightly different wording. WaggersTALK 12:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@Waggers: It is a bit indirect though. It doesn't directly reject any arguments unlike WP:Precautionary principle. — MATRIX! (a good person!)^{[Citation not needed at all; thank you very much!]} 13:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

But none of those are valid arguments under our existing policies. They wouldn't hold any water in a deletion discussion. Perhaps they should be added to WP:AADD but I don't see a need for any policy changes. WaggersTALK 14:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Some of this comes down to a philosophical idea. If you are operating from a generally American context, then you might think of the policies as our equivalent of the Constitution of the United States – all rights enumerated, etc., in a single Yankee Doodle handy dandy location. But if you are operating from a context more in line with the British constitution, then you might see them as less about the written statute, and more about the general principles. The principles hold, regardless of whether there's a single official document that declares the principle to be important. We hold these truths to be self-evident, and also to be so fundamental that we don't need to slap an official stamp of approval on every single different way that we've expressed them. We have no capital-P policy that says editors should Wikipedia:Write encyclopedia articles; this does not mean that we do not value encyclopedia articles or that we are writing news stories instead. In other words, the main idea expressed in Wikipedia:Precautionary principle is already a policy, with a lowercase 'p'. The tag at the top is not the important part. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

It is practically redacted as a short essay. There are already policies in Wikipedia that covers this. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good idea. The copyright restrictions we abide here are already much stricter than virtually any site on the Web; I do not think it's necessary, or desirable, or benefits the project, to sit around coming up with new hypothetical ways in which we could make the rules even stricter and make illustrating the encyclopedia more difficult. jp×g🗯️ 21:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• The proposition is mistaken in saying that "Someone holds the copyright unless the work has explicitly been placed in the public domain". It's wrong because copyrights are not perpetual and so expire. This has already happened for numerous historical documents and images and it will happen to everything in due course. There are also many orphan works for which it is impractical or impossible to identify the copyright holder. We should be pragmatic and proportionate rather than draconian and difficult. See also Avoid copyright paranoia. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

500/30 editing restrictions

In order to edit content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, an editor must have made 500 edits and have an account that is over 30 days old. Does this restriction take into account edits made by a user to Wikipedia in other languages? The issue does not appear to be mentioned at Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict Burrobert (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Only edits on the English Wikipedia count towards the total. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Right-ho. Thanks. Burrobert (talk) 15:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The page says repeatedly "extended confirmed". This is an automatic user right given to anyone with 500/30 on English Wikipedia. Animal lover |666| 09:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

That's actually an important point IMO. I think with the user right existing, any reference to 500/30 should generally be taken as meaning you need to have the EC user right. Mostly this is a distinction without a difference since it's automatic but the right can be revoked if it's felt the editor was WP:gaming to gain it, as just happened here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1141#EC permissions gaming. Editors who've lost the user right should be taken to not meet the requirements no matter that they may technically have 500 edits and been registered for 30 days. Of course this shouldn't be taken too far. If you know an account is a legitimate alternative account for someone with ECP EC, don't complain that the specific account doesn't have EC status. Yes they can request it at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Extended confirmed and in some cases it is technically necessary and can reduce confusion but it's also unhelpful to complain if you already know. (BTW in about a week it will be 30 days since the 2023 Israel–Hamas war begun so I assume we're going to get a bunch of relatively new accounts now having EC entering into the area.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC) 15:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's EC that's important. I don't care whether someone has over 500 edits. I do care whether they deserve the trust that we typically give by default at that 500-edit milestone but can be given early or revoked for cause. Certes (talk) 15:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Arbpia is still a thing but WP:ARBECR applies to the topic area. Selfstudier (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I understand your point but I think another issue is that rules and guidance vary from one Wikipedia to another. But I think if the editor is experienced in another Wikipedia, the 500 rule could be lowered a bit. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 01:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

EC access requirements vs arbcom remedies vs when any of these are technically/administratively enforced has always been a sloppy mess. Arbcom has attempted to clean this up a few times, but as pointed above there seems to still be lingering artifacts / inconsistencies. In general any "500/30" specific rules are safe to ignore when ECP protection is actually in place; and administrators may also discretionally grant ECP to anyone they want. In practice, early ECP grants are rarely done - especially if the reason is that someone wants to dive right in to contentious topics, they are a minefield and anyone not at least moderately used to editing on the English Wikipedia is likely to run in to issues contributing to such topics. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

NB an update was processed at Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict - clarifying that group membership not static numbers is the gating factor for that remedy now. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the actual remedy in effect is at WP:ARBECR which doesn't mention 500 edits/30 days at all. Galobtter (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#WP:RFCBEFORE discussion about proposed addition to Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion

Please see Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#WP:RFCBEFORE discussion about proposed addition to Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Cunard (talk) 23:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

About page reviewing

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.

---

Should Page Reviewer rights be merged with Extended Confirmed rights so that Extended Confirmed editors can review drafts and recently created articles. Even if the Extended Confirmed editor doesn't apply for Page Reviewer rights? CosXZ (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

My perspective is that this definitely should not happen. WP:NPR is a sensitive right that demands more compared to other rights such as pending changes reviewers. Allowing all extended confirmed editors to review would lead to more abuse by bad-faith editors/socks/disruptive editors, lower the quality of CSD taggings/draftications/AfDs, and cause more clearly deficient articles being marked as reviewed. VickKiang (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe that that is a very bad idea. NPR currently operates on a set of minimum requirements that are higher than the EC requirements, and even then it is not a guarantee. Also, EC is easily gamed. They should definitely not be merged. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Note that I notified WT:NPR and WT:PERM on this, with the following: Notifying that a discussion on whether to merge NPR rights with extended confirmed is currently being discussed at VPP. This would fall under WP:APPNOTE which permits the talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion. VickKiang (talk) 01:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

As someone recently given temporary approval to participate in new page patrol, I move against this motion. This is not a pleasant side of Wikipedia for anyone not fluent in WP:ACRONYMS. No one who does not explicitly request it should be exposed to this kind of technical bickering. (This with all due respect to everyone for all of their unpaid time and attention to Wikipedia—and also acknowledging that my own participation contributes to the problem.) Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 01:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

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

RfC: Standardizing ISBN formatting (and an end to editwarring about it)

Should the format of ISBNs be standardized (or be subject to a rule to not change format without consensus)?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

We have an ongoing problem that ISBNs are not subject to a formatting standard here, with the predictable result that different editors are going around normalizing them to one format and then again to another, at cross-purposes to each other, and without a clear consensus for any particular format. This is apt to continue unabated unless we settle on one format (or on a new rule to not change the format without consensus). Someone has created a {{Format ISBN}} template that forces hyphens into ISBNs, and AnomieBOT then goes around substituting this template, which makes undiscussed changes to the format difficult to undo (any intervening edits may necessitate tediously removing every hyphen from every ISBN manually since the edits to insert them can't be reverted without also reverting unrelated changes by other editors). A similar complaint could be made about manually going around and changing all ISBNs in random articles to use the hyphen-less format.

Background

ISBNs are often divided up by hyphens (or spaces), e.g. 978-1-7238-1802-8 or 978-1723818028 or 978 1 7238 1802 8, but this is not standardized and is entirely optional; the more concise form 9781723818028 is perfectly valid. From our ISBN article: A 13-digit ISBN can be separated into its parts (prefix element, registration group, registrant, publication and check digit), and when this is done it is customary to separate the parts with hyphens or spaces. Separating the parts (registration group, registrant, publication and check digit) of a 10-digit ISBN is also done with either hyphens or spaces. Figuring out how to correctly separate a given ISBN is complicated, because most of the parts do not use a fixed number of digits. Real-world treatment varies widely, but the hyphens (or spaces) are dropped by most bibliographic databases (WorldCat, Goodreads, LibraryThing, Internet Archive Open Library, Google Books, Project Muse, Copyright Clearance Center, Anobii, OverDrive, etc.), and major publishing companies (the majority of publishers' own online catalogs I've checked, e.g. Oxford University Press, O'Reilly Media, etc.), and many major libraries. Some retailer sites (e.g. Amazon.com, Chegg.com, GetTextbooks.com) use only one hyphen, between the 978 prefix of an ISBN-13 and the rest of the number (no hyphens in an ISBN-10). And many publishers typically include the fully hyphenated form on a book's colophon page (I could find one bibliographic site also doing it, Internet Speculative Fiction Database). A handful of databases like ProQuest don't seem to make use of ISBNs at all. So, usage is not consistent. There is no standard; the International ISBN Agency issued a manual preferring separation of elements, but defined more than 1,000 of them, making for a complex system that in practice has not resulted in actual standardization. (The {{Format ISBN}} template is presently enforcing some of that organization's formatting as if it is a "rule" adopted by Wikipedia, which is clearly not the case.)

Options to choose from

1. Option 1: Standardize on 9781723818028 format, and change {{Format ISBN}} to use it.
2. Option 2: Standardize on 978-1-7238-1802-8 format, and do nothing to {{Format ISBN}}.
3. Option 3: Standardize on 978-1723818028 format, and change {{Format ISBN}} to use it (this would have no effect on the short ISBN-10 format, only ISBN-13).
4. Option 4: Standardize on 978 1 7238 1802 8 format, and change {{Format ISBN}} to use it.
5. Option 5: Standardize on nothing; change {{Format ISBN}} to have parameter options for each of these formats; and add an instruction (probably at MOS:NUM and summarized at WP:CITE) to use a single format consistently in any given article, but not change from one consistent format to another without consensus (maybe shortcut this as MOS:ISBNVAR).

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Summary of known arguments

Feel free to add more.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

For concision:

• Hyphen-less (and space-less) ISBNs offer much more utility to the reader: a Google search on ISBN 9781723818028 immediately produces a wealth of useful results [46], but very often a search on the hyphenated form, ISBN 978-1-7238-1802-8, does not [47]; same with spaced format [48] (in both cases, often just a circular link back to one or more Wikipedia articles using that string). Not quotation-marking the spaced format yields wildly wrong false-positives [49]. The one-hyphen format may produce some very minimal correct results [50], but they have more to do with shopping than with finding a source in bibliographic databases, libraries, free-text archives, etc. Doing such a search is faster and easier than trying to use WP's built-in Special:BookSources/9781723818028 functionality, so readers will do it.

  Counter-argument: search engine behavior changes over time for reasons we don't know and have no control over, so optimizing to that target is a fool's errand; the built-in functionality relies on the same click-to-learn-more interface that the rest of the encyclopedia does, so readers will do it.

  Furthermore, Google does not consistently prefer the unhyphenated form. A GBooks search for ISBN 978-1-137-43098-4 brings up the correct result [51], while ISBN 9781137430984 does not [52]. A Google web search for the same ISBN gives better results for the hyphenated than the unhyphenated form [53][54]. Our policies should not be based on our predictions of what Google will do.

  Google searches with and without hyphenation create different results -- some overlapping, some unique. A person pasting the hyphenated version can easily create the non-hyphenated version to search as well. The converse is not true - it is not a trivial effort to create the hyphenated version from the non-hyphenated one. The example chosen above is poor; when searching for a hyphenated ISBN, one should not include the term "ISBN" in the search as false positives for the hyphenated version are unlikely and ones that display the ISBN without the term "ISBN" are common. (For example, this search for a 10-digit hyphenated ISBN without the word ISBN produces 8 web results, all on point; the same search with ISBN included in the search produces only three.) The example hyphenless search posted above is claimed to generate "a wealth of useful results:" in contrast to one which generates results that "have more to do with shopping than with finding a source in bibliographic databases, libraries, free-text archives"... when the hyphenless one also generates zero "bibliographic databases, libraries, free-text archives" but almost solely results to do with shopping (the exceptions being one blog and a Wikipedia page where it is used as a source). This result is unsurprising, as the book used as an example is a thin volume published using Amazon's self-publishing tools.

• The hyphens (or spaces) are extraneous and less concise. None of our tools (e.g. {{ISBN}}, and the |isbn= parameter of citation templates, and the Special:BookSources system they use, etc.) need them, and ISBN usage in independent sources demonstrates no widely accepted standard for how to do it.

  Counter-argument: Not every kind of concision is best for our end readers, and the fully hyphenated form is common enough on book colophons that we should adopt it, especially since International ISBN Agency advises it.

For hyphens:

• A hyphenated form is easier to read.

  Counter-argument: ISBNs are not encyclopedic content in the usual sense but functional identifiers; only under unusual circumstances would a reader of our article have a need to type or read one aloud character-by-character like reciting one's phone number, while the hyphenless form provably produces better utility. And there is no single hyphenated form, but conflicting ones.

  Counter-counter-argument: Checking whether the book that one is reading is the same book cited in an article is not an "unusual circumstance".

• We already have a template, {{Format ISBN}}, that is normalizing these to a hyphenated format.

  Counter-argument: The fact that someone created a template doesn't indicate community consensus that it is doing the right thing and should be "enforced". This doesn't seem to have end-user utility or other encyclopedic purpose.

• Both the hyphenated and spaced formats convey a bit of extra information for those who are ISBN aware. For example, the early digits indicate the country. The length of the last segment before the checksum strongly suggests information about the size of the publisher. For example, if that segment is two digits long, it means the publisher is buying their ISBNs in blocks of 100, so probably not a simple self-publisher who will buy them in 1s or 10s, but a very small publisher.

For spaces:

• It's another way to make an ISBN more readable.

  Counter-argument: See above about "readable", and using spaces makes it more difficult to recognize as a single identifier. Also poor searchability.

For no standard:

• We don't need to standardize something like this, and should just leave everything to editorial consensus on a page-by-page basis.

  Counter-argument: We need to, and do, standardize many things (especially when it comes to numeric formatting), both for consistent presentation to the reader and for ending editorial conflict, which is happening on this matter.

Survey (ISBNs)

• Option 1, both for utility to the end reader and for concision. Fall back to option 5 as a second choice. I'm strongly opposed to all of 2–4 because they are inimical to actual usability, and are an inappropriate attempt to force the preferences of a third-party organization (either Intl. ISBN Agency or Amazon), that the real world has not adopted, onto to Wikipedia. There is simply no question that [55] is a better result for readers than [56] or [57] or [58] or the wildly wrong [59] (brings up incorrect books). And none of our tools require any hypenation or spaces in ISBNs (even if one did, it could be fixed easily). If someone copy-pastes in an ISBN in one of the other formats, it's a trivial matter for a bot to clean it up later. Settling on the no-hyphens-no-spaces format in no way would impose a requirement on any particular editor to input it in that form. It's the same situation as someone pasting in <ref>https://BareURL.com/here</ref> – we tolerate it and clean it up later. (Remember that no editor is actually expected to read any of our MOS:NUM, WP:CITE, or other guidelines before editing here, just comply with core content policies.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 clearly the best option, as pointed out a large amount of organisations don't use hyphens, especially Worldcat, Trove and most libraries. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Uncertain about hyphens, but object to spaces. "Hard to recognize as a single identifier" and "poorest searchability" are each critical problems. And if it line-wraps, the former of them becomes even worse. DMacks (talk) 07:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 as it makes it easier to use in other applications. Also as there is no accepted standard, it makes sense to avoid using hyphens (and especially spaces!!) and only use the actual numbers --Ita140188 (talk) 08:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 for useability – see reasons given above about being easier to search for and the number remaining as a single coherent element rather than breaking across multiple lines. Also, if we required the spaces or hyphens, I expect people would end up putting them in incorrectly, which would be even worse. Mgp28 (talk) 09:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 for blatantly obvious reasons. There seems to be a problem with ISBNs almost all the time. I routinely see book citations with the warning "isbn= value: invalid character," despite the fact that, upon checking out the book's details, we see the ISBN number correctly copied. -The Gnome (talk) 10:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  (Side note: whenever you see that, try checking if someone automatically replaced the hyphens with en-dashes (e.g. Special:Diff/1178112453).) 2603:8001:4542:28FB:69D3:61CF:7C25:A2F8 (talk) 01:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC) (Please send talk messages here instead)

• Option 5 but without the need to change the format ISBN template. This is a tempest in a teacup and frankly a waste of time to set a formal policy on this. Just because a couple of editors have run into a disagreement doesn't mean we need to standardize anything. Ealdgyth (talk) 11:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option 5 Add an explicit mention of ISBN to CITEVAR and block editors who edit war other it or perform mass changes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  There's no real need to change {{format ISBN}}. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1: KISS principle applies. I think Wikipedia looks more credible when it is consistent, both within and between articles. I appreciate how nice some people find it to work in a world where they have all options and no limits, but this is a small change that will make things easier for editors and readers. SchreiberBike | ⌨  12:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1, there are external tools which allow you to add hyphens automatically if you really want to. Any standard is better than none, however, to facilitate looking up book citations Mach61 (talk) 13:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option 5 and endorse ActivelyDisinterested's recommendation to Add an explicit mention of ISBN to CITEVAR and block editors who edit war other it or perform mass changes. Indeed I would extend this to blocking everyone who edit wars or makes mass changes (without explicit prior community consensus) related to any manual of style matters - such behaviour actively hinders the improvement of the encyclopaedia. Any option here other than option 5 is implicitly endorsing the uncollegiate behaviour that brought us here and encourages more time wasting about trivialities. Thryduulf (talk) 13:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  I understand your frustration with mass-change style-warriors (and just took one to ANI a few days ago), but you seem to not address the evidence that one of these formats is demonstrably more utile for the end reader (for a common use case of Googling for what we said the ISBN is).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1 or 2 - basically either no hyphens (or spaces) or all hyphens. My preference is for 1. Lack of spaces and hyphens is more search friendly, and while hyphenated may be easier to read, when you are caring about the ISBN other than doing research/searching for it. Its an identifier, not a descriptive piece of prose. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 The hyphens create information for those who know, and as we generate search links for ISBNs, we've addressed the search problem. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  A search problem is solved, but another is not, as I've clearly demonstrated. How does "creating [the] information" someone somewhere might know, aid anyone in finding the source, which is the sole function of our citations (or case of us providing an ISBN)? WP is not a database of bibliographic trivia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  I disagree with your evaluation that "finding the source" is the sole function of our citations. During my editing I have found myself all the time looking at citations and using the information there to know whether spending extra attention on it may be worth my while for improving an article. Some of these are pretty obvious - if I see a citation from the New York Times, I'm less likely to think that I'd better check that than if it comes from something called the Fight For Our Truths Newsletter. A citation to a science publication's 1920 edition is going to need checking and probable removal in a way that one to a 2020 edition is less likely to. I may know nothing about the University of Worcestershire Press, but if they purchased a one-digit block of ISBNs, that will more likely have me digging into the question of whether this is a legitimate scholarly press than if they had a three-digit block. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  So, because probably the only WP editor in the entire world who would recognize and use that information finds it personally convenient to have hyphens in there to make that determination a little easier, all the other users who are copy-pasting ISBNs to use them for actual source finding (which, yes, really is the purpose of our citations, per WP:CITE and WP:V) should have their utility impeded?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  So far, you're "the only WP editor in the entire world" I've seen actually complain about the search ability, rather than discuss it in the abstract. You also seem to be quite hostile to people who have different knowledge or experiences making comments, so perhaps it was not wise for you to open up a "Request for Comment". Were you under the illusion that I had not read your earlier comments about searching even though I had reflected that in my comments, or are you just trying to bully me into agreeing with you? Or was the sole point of this to slide your claim of "sole function" before and pretend you'd said "purpose"? (For those who may wonder the difference: the purpose of a screwdriver is to turn screws, but if I also use it to open pistachios, then screwdriving is not its sole function; it is functional in other ways as well.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• 5 and don't change the template, per AD and Ealdgyth above. Second choice, 2 per Nat above. Also, hats off for the most un-neutral presentation of an RfC I've seen in a long time, where in the "summary of arguments," counter arguments are presented for every option except OP's preferred Option 1. I have not seen anyone try to prime the pump like this before. At least the RfC question is brief and neutral! 😂 Levivich (talk) 15:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  One of the arguments for that option doesn't have a counter, and everyone's invited to add one, and I literally can't think of one that wouldn't sound like some kind of parody/mockery of someone trying to make such an argument.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  You could just search by title, it doesn't have any of the issues searching by ISBN does, or you could search with the isbn special word.[60]. Both of these are more likely to return results on rare books. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  Nah. Lots of works have the same title, and lots of works are published in very different editions, while we are citing a specific one, and it is the one that the reader needs to find. And nearly zero of our readers know anything about a Google "special word" (meanwhile that is Google-specific, and the searchability issues with ISBNs actually apply across other major search engines).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  There may be more than one book that it is fine to find, as there are many books these days where a paperback and a hardcover have the guts printed at the same time, including listing both ISBNs on those pages; it is only on the cover where only the separate edition ISBN shows up, and any reference to interior material on the paperback edition also works for the hardcover edition, and vice versa. On the other hand, you can have two copies of a book that have the same ISBN but are different printings, and the newer one may have had errors corrected, so that creates verification problems; someone checking the first printing of that ISBN may not find the statement as claimed, someone checking a later edition with a different ISBN might be able to verify it just fine. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. It doesn't matter that some other source than the one the claim-making editor used might also be usable to verify the claim. The purpose of our citations is saying where exactly the claim came from and providing sufficient information to verify it with the exact work that is said to be the source for that claim.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 – I'm biased because I wrote the current version of {{Format ISBN}} so of course I prefer option 2. I prefer hyphenated ISBNs because at a glance they look like ISBNs ; otherwise they are just big-damn-numbers that require inspection. —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Preference for Option 2 or Option 5, because otherwise they just look like lengthy numbers when in option 1 format. Looks less high-quality that way. Would also like to see evidence of the strength of the edit conflicts that prompted this RfC. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option 5 and enforce "Where more than one style or format is acceptable under the MoS, one should be used consistently within an article and should not be changed without good reason." (From the lead to the MoS.) Especially re the bot. We manage to do this with a host of issues, from US v British English to serial commas, I don't see why ISBNs should be an exception. (Nor why they should be jammed into one particular house style, seems pretty unWikipedian to me.) Gog the Mild (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  Just for clarification, the bot isn't doing anything. Anomiebot is just substituting templates, which it does for any template setup to substitute. The change has to have been made by a normal editor. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• Option 5 I don't think this needs to be standardized, although I personally prefer and use the hyphenated format. (t · c) buidhe 16:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 - most reliable format for searches. Glendoremus (talk) 18:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option 5 as most flexible for both their reader and writer. Also with note to block the Citation Bot from FA pages, which it consistently edits despite WP:FAOWN and WP:CITEVAR explicitly advocating against this. Suggest proactive policing as to whether certain individuals fire up the bot even when NOBOTS is present, in gross violation of P&G. Serial 18:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option 5 without single format instruction. I have always followed Template:Cite book "Use the ISBN actually printed on or in the book", which may or may not be hyphenated. We should be going by how the book publisher presents ISBNs, not databases. If it doesn't show up in as many search results that's not our problem. I am not convinced that readers are unable to change formatting themselves if they happen to need different search results. I don't see why it matters if some are hyphenated or not. Some DOIs are very extensive and others are short. Other identifiers differ, so too can ISBNs. Heartfox (talk) 18:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option 5. If necessary change the gadget(s) that format ISBNs to enable them to allow click through to the various tools mentioned; it is definitely not a good idea for these formats to be mass-changed. ISBNVAR seems worthwhile; it's a pity we need it but having it would be better than mass edits to fix this. This simply doesn't need to be made consistent everywhere. The arguments against 5 given above are consistent presentation to the reader -- few readers will care, and fewer of those will agree on what the right format is; and ending editorial conflict, which ISBNVAR would achieve. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  Adding a note to say that I read option 5 as "no change" but if there's a substantive difference and "no change" gains consensus then my !vote can be read as a support for either. And either creating an ISBNVAR or clarifying that CITEVAR includes ISBNs would also be good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 - Usually the way it appears in the sources, and easier to proof read. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 5. 1 is the most efficient. 5 is the most accommodating. Senorangel (talk) 03:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 – Those who omit the hyphens are doing so out of convenience or laziness — which I get, we all have busy lives, but that's what bots are for. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  It's not "lazy" to want opaque numeric identifiers to waste as little space as possible. –jacobolus (t) 18:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  I don't believe that's a valid argument. There is no reason to "save space" on Wikipedia — this isn't AP style, where newspapers have to save space as much as possible because of their limited space. Hyphens are the proper formatting and make the long string of numbers easier to read. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  ISBNs are, to the vast majority of readers, an opaque numerical identifier without personally meaningful structure. Readers are not memorizing these numbers, writing them in their journals, or reciting them over the phone. They are clicking links or copy/pasting them from one computer system to another.

  Most of the time I personally would rather leave the ISBNs out altogether. I find them usually to be less useful than the author + title for looking up books, and they add quite a lot of noisy clutter to citations. But I recognize that some editors seem to really love ISBNs. The least we can do is make them as compact as possible. –jacobolus (t) 20:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  I suspect that a fair portion of the people who are actually using ISBNs from references are doing so in a way that the number is not going to be just copied and pasted. While certainly plenty of people get books from online sources, others go to their local bookstore or ask for it from their local library, perhaps as an interlibrary loan... and in those cases, it seems unlikely to me that they would be saying "go to Wikipedia and copy and paste from there", but bringing along a printout. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  Have you personally done this? Do you know someone who does this? Speaking only for myself, I don't know of anyone who has ever done this. The last time I can imagine someone taking a printout to the library to look up a book there was about 1998, and it wouldn't have been by ISBN. –jacobolus (t) 04:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I have personally printed out book information including ISBN and taken it to the library (not for finding the book on their shelves, but for requesting an interlibrary loan) and to the local bookstore requesting a book be special-ordered. I live a life beyond your imagination. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 07:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  If we best want to help folks taking citations to their local public library though, it would probably be more useful to add Dewey Decimal numbers instead of hyphenating the ISBNs. –jacobolus (t) 04:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• Eliminate Option 4 (spaces) as an acceptable format on Wikipedia, for the many disadvantages cited, including parsing and copy/paste searches. I prefer hyphens, as they are more readable especially when looking for errors, but can live without them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  I agree. Whether hyphenated or not, option 4 should not be supported on Wikipedia except as a target for cleaning. Izno (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• Follow the current guidance (not offered as an option above): hyphens are optional but preferred, and should not be removed if correctly placed. Bots use and help maintain WP, but our primary concern is human readers and editors, and chunking is useful for humans. Kanguole 09:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  +1 for this. Just noticed it now. Justifying what I also understand as the current guidelines is basically what I've tried to verbosely communicate in my other comments. Thx. Salpynx (talk) 01:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• Eliminate the 'Format ISBN' template – Using this template, especially within other citation templates, is a huge eyesore. If ISBNs need any kind of formatting it should be done automatically by the {{ISBN}} template or CS1 / CS2 templates (similar to the way they automatically standardize date formats). Personally I'd prefer the version without hyphens but this really doesn't matter. user:Trappist the monk has started disruptively littering these templates all over the place, and they should be told to stop. –jacobolus (t) 18:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  Update: I misunderstood. Apparently there's a cleanup bot that comes and converts use of the template to just the digits with hyphens. These still seem like distracting bikeshedding edits in violation of WP:CITEVAR (now twice as many), but thankfully at least the template name doesn't stick around. –jacobolus (t) 23:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 - If a book lists its ISBN with hyphens, it would be really annoying to have a bot come through and remove them. The hyphenated number is recognizable as an ISBN and adds a layer of meaning that would be lost. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1. The single long digit string is easier to select (via double click on a desktop UI or by tap-and-hold on a touch UI). Searching works better with this option. Select-copy-paste-search seems like by far the most common thing users will be doing with an ISBN. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 Although I think the terminology of the survey is misleading. I don't think 9781723818028 is wrong at all, but 978-1-7238-1802-8 is better. I find the hyphenation meaningful and frequently helpful when editing, as do others. Both are ISBNs according to the ISBN standard. Wikipedia doesn't need to invent an ISBN standard -- there is one and many editors seem able to work with it. We don't need to oversimplify reality. It's not that complicated. I do have a personal opinion/preference that we shouldn't use spaces because of the practical concern already mentioned "more difficult to recognize as a single identifier", which just seems practical for Wikipedia, but is anyone really suggesting that? The consistency argument just seems wrong to me. It's like arguing we need capitalization standards for personal names, and seriously suggesting all-lowercase would solve potential confusion. To capture the variable information available a better analogy would be publication date specification and insisting either everything on Wikipedia needs full year-month-day, or everything should have month and day stripped for "consistency". I do not understand why anyone seriously thinks correctly hyphenated ISBNs are a problem. (and I thought ISBN edit warring had settled down) Salpynx (talk) 21:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Options 2 or 5 I like the hyphens visible as I know how the digits are encoded by the hyphens. I often get nothing when trying to get the autofill function in the cite book template to work and have to fill in the the fields manually because the ISBN isn't recognized for some reason and the hyphens help me to ensure that I've transcribed them properly. We're not paper and I'm entirely unmoved by the argument that the hyphens consume precious space and typing time in the templates.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option 5. Standardise nothing; permit editorial discretion.
  I can't remember which publishers are which way, but I have definitely both needed to hyphenate an unhyphenated ISBN and separately to dehyphenate a hyphenated ISBN for different publisher's search queries.
  Personally, I copypaste whatever format is on the publisher's landing page, or type in whatever is on the copyright page of a physical book.
  I'm probably biased because I don't think I've ever noticed whether an ISBN in a citation is hyphenated or not (I'm just glad to see them), and have never thought to standardize their formatting even in one article, even if I've personally added all the book citations. Folly Mox (talk) 02:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• Options 4 and 2 in that order. Having grouping is the point; it intuitively identifies what is or isn't an ISBN. Spaces should always be preferred to hyphens, commas, and all other grouping characters. Ifly6 (talk) 02:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• ISBNs used to be fundamental to the markup, many years ago, and spaces didn't work then. For historical compatibility, and the fact that spaces break word selection, rule out any option that includes spaces. Other than that, on balance I'd lean towards what all of the other WWW sites mentioned are doing. It's the 21st century. We don't punctuate our ISBNs now, just as many of us don't punctuate our telephone numbers in our mobile 'phones now. Yes, there are house style guides for paper publishers that say "use hyphens". It seems like a step backwards to copy them when we started off Wikipedia by keeping up with modern non-paper WWW conventions. That said, we should be easygoing if an editor uses the old paper-style hyphens. The hyphen style should be acceptable, just recognized as not what the WWW has largely settled on. Uncle G (talk) 03:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option 5/status quo. This is a tea-cup storm. Let's not make it harder to use templates for those with editing issues and make countless pointless bot edits to clutter watchlists and edit histories. For clarity, I don't support the idea of standardising ISBNs even within a given article; it just seems like pointless make-work. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1; failing that: Option 5. We see that lots of sites with information about books use the compact form, with no loss in utility as an identifier. This actual use across the web is much more persuasive than what a standards body has said it wants. Introducing hyphens or spaces introduces more possibility for error (like the example where endashes created an error) and harder detection of error. Confirming that a string consists of 978 and then ten more digits is one of the simplest regular expressions you can make; (verifying the check digit is more complex but has to be done whatever format the ISBN is given in.) MartinPoulter (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option 5 for consistency with the way we as a project handle other issues of this type. Me, I like hyphens. I think they make a bibliography look more cyberpunk. XOR'easter (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 or, failing that Option 5. Practice elsewhere and ease-of-use argument favour option 1. Ease-of-reading arguments against this have some merit, but don't make a particularly compelling argument in favour of any particular hyphenated/spaced option - so option 5 second-choice. But to me, ISBNs have limited utility as human-readable information, and are much more valuable as machine-readable tags, which favours option 1. Charlie A. (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 for usability and concision. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 as first choice. Option 5 as a second choice (although I do not like to see spaces). I do think consistency is important here. --Enos733 (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option 5 Consistently inconsistent. Leave it up to personal preference/local consensus so long as it is consistent within the article. Curbon7 (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 – Unequivocally the highest utility option. Will begrudgingly support Option 5 if consensus for Option 1 does not eventuate. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 5 - per Sturmvogel 66. I'm not impressed by the arguments for either conciseness or consistency, and I find the spaceless version (as mandated by option 1) to be less usable. — Charles Stewart (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  "Less usable" in what way? What's an example use case in which the hyphenated form demonstrably has better usability (which is not the same as or even closely related to subjective aesthetics)?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• Option 5 per WP:CREEP. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  I disagree that that's applicable.; users still won't have to change their behavior or read any new rules if one of options 1-4 passes. Mach61 (talk) 05:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  If 1-4 won't have any effect then I'm not seeing the point of them. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• Status quo per Kanguole: hyphens are optional but preferred. No evidence has been presented that there is a problem here, except that some editors idiosyncratically prefer to copypaste ISBNs into a Google web search rather than use Special:BookSources. The advantages of hyphenenated ISBNs (viz. that they are human-readable, and that they convey useful information to those who know how to read them) outweigh the slight inconveniences suffered by those who are using them in unexpected ways.
  I second the argument by Salpynx below that the RFC is malformed; the question implies that there is no existing standard, which will naturally cause !voters to assume that Option 5 is the status quo (see for example the !votes by Mike Christie and Espresso Addict). In my opinion, every one of the options presented will cause more problems than simple enforcement of the existing guidelines. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 08:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
  ETA: if I have to pick an option, Option 2, but this is still a distant second to the status quo. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 07:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
  • FWIW my !vote for option 5 is not support for "hyphens are optional but preferred", it is support for "no option is preferred over any other". Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• Preferably Option 2 which looks like an ISBN. I find Option 1 and Option 3 acceptable, but not 4, since it doesn't get the pros of 1 (searchability) or 2/3 (readability, usability). Option 5 is a reasonable improvement if no standard is adopted. MarioGom (talk) 17:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2: It's the official standard and it's much better for readability than just an unstructured string of 13 digits. If that fails to reach consensus, my second choice would be option 5 with options 1 (9781723818028), 2 (978-1-7238-1802-8), and 3 (978-1723818028) as supported variants. The use of spaces (option 4) seems to be rare and non-standard and I can't see any good reason to support it even as a variant. Gawaon (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1: It's cleaner in the wikitext, which is complex and messy. Templates can reformat with dashes during rendering. Second choice is #2. Third choice is #5. -- GreenC 02:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 (looks like an ISBN, and is more common), or, less preferably, option 1 (consistency above all), enforced by all relevant templates, and oppose option 5 which will lead to bikeshedding. People who argue that option 5 will prevent arguments are ignoring the fact that ISBN formatting will become inconsistent in an article over time, thus leading to arguments. This should be 'set & forget'; we have more important things to do. DFlhb (talk) 09:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  Citation styles and national language varieties do not generally lead to bikeshedding, I don't see why this would be any different? Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  It's not that rare for ENGVAR, but its clear benefits make up for that. Even one debate about ISBN format is one too many, when around 1% of readers interact with citations, and much fewer will interact with ISBNs.

  edit: the debates in this discussion give you a preview. Some have opinions about how all ISBNs should look. Others will argue for changing some ISBNs to reflect various search engines or the style used in the book. Option 5 guarantees these arguments will occur, whereas tyranny of the majority will save us all boatloads of time on an irrelevant matter. DFlhb (talk) 11:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC) edited 12:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 looks like the better choice, Option 1 is also acceptable. Having dashes makes it look more organized and easier to understand. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 13:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 – Hyphens are used by the vast majority of sources, and they facilitate line breaks which is useful for multi-column footnote sections. Additionally, I would very much be opposed to mandating that the hyphens be removed (as in option 1). Graham (talk) 06:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  Are they? As pointed out in the proposal Worldcat, which is probably the biggest record of ISBN on the web doest use hyphens or spaces. My wife's latest read Rod The Autobiography doesn't, neither does my read by Jack Dee. And if you look at the back of books where the bar code is, they are only spaced as per the bar code. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  Quickly grabbing the four closest books, all of them from different publishers (DK, Andrews McMeel, Running Press, Center Street) and published in 2022 or later, all four of them have the ISBN with proper hyphens above the bar code. The Center Street one does not use hyphens on the copyright page, but the other three do. Pulling up an Amazon listing for the hardcover edition of Rod: the Autobiography. I see a picture of its back cover which does included the hyphenated version over the bar code (although there do seem to be multiple editions off hardback out there.) Finding a listing for the UK paperback edition on eBay, it does not use hyphens on the copyright page but does above the bar code. Searching "Jack Dee" on Amazon and pulling up the first result, then using the "read sample" version (which shows the ebook version), the copyright page there shows separated ISBNs, although using spaces (grrr) instead of hyphens. Pulling up a copy of that same Jack Dee book on eBay, I can see it uses hyphens above the bar code on the back cover. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  I find them hyphenated on copyright pages the vast majority of the time. Of course, the style used in bibliographic databases (such as WorldCat) might differ from that, and I might feel differently if we were discussing the style best used in a database. Graham (talk) 02:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• Option 5 per the above arguments. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
• Status quo (not quite option 5). As with Espresso Addict above, I don't think this is something that's worth standardizing even within a given article. I'm not being given the indication that one way is preferable to the other or that this is such a common, reoccurring issue that a rule needs to be laid down (as opposed to this being a WP:LAME edit war or otherwise incidents that require individual sanctions). (Personally, I find that hyphens make a citation look more complete, and it's easier to remove them than to add them if you don't know where they go, but it's not such a big deal that I change from one to the other arbitrarily.) Oh, and this !vote applies to both ISBN-10 and ISBN-13. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 18:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
• Status quo / Option 5. But I disagree with the idea that even within an article there needs to be consistency. It doesn't matter. If one editor wants to have the hyphenless version and another uses hyphens, who cares. The rare times ISBNs get used, they're going to an ISBN lookup website, which should be able to handle any format. Furthermore, to the extent any format should be preferred, it should be the format read out of the book itself - which usually seems to be the hyphens format in my experience, so I'm surprised Option 1 is getting as much traction as it is. But basically whatever is written in the book itself is what should be used for any one citation, and if for some reason different books within the same article had different styles, then oh well. But really. This is WP:CREEP - it doesn't matter, let people contribute ISBNs however they like. SnowFire (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
• Status quo /Option 5. For the reasons given by SnowFire and others. I don't see how forcing any change is going to improve Wikipedia. - Donald Albury 23:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1, easier to copy and transfer. Stifle (talk) 10:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (ISBNs)

The searchability issue favors no spaces. But it's even more important that the ISBN be correctly entered, and in many cases this must be done by the editor looking at a paper book and typing the ISBN. The hyphens reduce the likelihood of an error in the manual copying process. Jc3s5h (talk) 10:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

But this won't be affected, because nothing about this RfC (no matter what its outcome) would have any requirement for particular input. There isn't any suggestion anywhere in here to do something to disallow anyone inputting |isbn=978-1-7238-1802-8 or {{ISBN|978-1-7238-1802-8}}. All the options presented above call for ensuring that {{format ISBN}} will auto-convert whatever format, as needed. And |isbn= and {{ISBN}} already handle all these formats anyway and convert them internally (to 9781723818028 style) for use with tools like Special:BookSources/9781723818028). AnomieBot would take care of {{format ISBN}} regardless of the input, automatically, since it's already substituting that template (the bot is completely agnostic as to what the template's output is). Even Option 5 wouldn't impose on someone an entry-format requirement, just permit other editors to re-normalize the format to whatever was already dominant on the page (the way we do with normalizing divergent citation formats, date formats, English variety, etc., to conform to the rest of the page). If we settled on a particular format (instead of option 5), a bot could actually more directly just replace divergent formats with the canonical one, without relying on {{format ISBN}} as an intermediary.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

|isbn= and {{ISBN}} already handle all these formats anyway and convert them internally (to 9781723818028 style) – wouldn't the obvious solution here be to have these templates which "already handle and convert" these variants also standardize the displayed output throughout an article? A global standard would in my opinion be best, but if there's no consensus on a global standard format, it could be subjected to a per-page preference similar to date formats, defaulting to the just-the-digits format since that one seems to be most popular to date. There does not need to be any kind of stardization of the hyphens/spaces used in the template parameters in the page markup, so readers who want to type an ISBN from a paper book copying the format exactly could continue to do so. –jacobolus (t) 18:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

This is basically what Option 5 is about.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

No this is entirely different from your "Option 5". Changing the {{ISBN}}, {{citation}}, and {{cite book}} to standardize the output ISBN format would solve the problem once and for all in a single place in a way which would require no article edits and no significant editor effort. Changing {{format ISBN}} and insisting on a standard hyphenation (even per article) would require a bot to go touch some proportion of citations on most articles throughout the project, which would be hugely disruptive and annoying, and then would be just as much of a pain if anyone ever later decided to standardize on a particular hyphenation variant. –jacobolus (t) 13:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Note AnomieBOT doesn't do anything special to subst {{Format ISBN}}. It does so only because someone has placed {{Subst only|auto=yes}} on the template's documentation page, causing it to be in Category:Wikipedia templates to be automatically substituted. Anomie⚔ 11:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• The issue of intervening edits making changes harder to undo is just a standard part of Wikipedia editting, I'm not sure it's mentioned, and {{format ISBN}} doesn't enforce anything, it's a tool you can use if you wish to format the ISBNs with hyphens.-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  If you're working on an article and want to make sure everything is presented in a standard manner that's great, as per the exception to CITEVAR that covers such work. However if your going from article to article to just impose your preference on such things you should find something actually useful to do. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  It was "drive-by" changing of the format to the hyphen-laden form, by different editors at unrelated articles, twice in the same week that inspired me to pose this RfC question, though it had been on my mind for some time because of previous but more spaced-apart incidents.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  If editors are ignoring CITEVAR (and I think it would already apply), ask them to stop. If that doesn't work report them for disruptive editting as with any problematic editting. Introducing CREEP to solve the issue isn't the way to go. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  If we already all clearly agreed that CITEVAR applied to this, then this discussion and the events which led to it would have have happened. And not all ISBNs on Wikipedia are in citations; that's just the most common use case.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  The events that led to this was one editor systematically mass editting their own personal preference into articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Some history:

• 16 March 2020 – {{Format ISBN}}, Module:Format ISBN, and Module:Format ISBN created
• 6 June 2020 – template made substable
• 18 November 2022 – nominated for deletion
• 25 November 2022 – template and modules deleted deleted as a result of the TfD
• 22 April 2023 – template and modules recreated as a result of this discussion (permalink) at WT:ISBN

Above Editor SMcCandlish wrote: And |isbn= and {{ISBN}} already handle all these formats anyway and convert them internally (to 9781723818028 style) for use with tools like Special:BookSources/9781723818028). Not wholly true. Yes, |isbn= and {{ISBN}} handle separated and non-separated ISBNs and, yes, for ease of check-digit validation, hyphens and spaces are stripped, but when creating a link to Special:BookSources, both use the ISBN string as supplied in the template:

|isbn=978-1-7238-1802-8 → https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-1-7238-1802-8.

Editor SMcCandlish also wrote: Given that "most of the parts [of an ISBN] do not use a fixed number of digits", some of the output of this template may be arbitrary anyway, without corresponding to meaningful ISBN identifier fragments. None of the {{format ISBN}} template output is arbitrary. The data in Module:Format ISBN/data is created by Module:ISBN RangeMessage xlate which takes as input a local copy of https://www.isbn-international.org/export_rangemessage.xml (that's a direct download link; the local copy that created the current version of Module:Format ISBN/data can be seen by editing Module:ISBN RangeMessage xlate/doc (edit link). The range data are inside the <!--...--> tags.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, if it's Special:BookSources that does the parsing instead, it's the same ultimate point in the end: it doesn't matter what input format some editor wants to use. I stand corrected on what {{format ISBN}} is doing (and adjusted the argument above to compensate); it's more clever code than it looked at first. But the same question remains: what utility does this provide? It seems to be clever geekery for clever geekery's own sake. We don't have any encyclopedic need for it, when a 9781723818028 works perfectly fine (as does Amazon's format 978-1723818028 for that matter). How is the end reader helped in any way? How are editors (doing anything actually productive) helped in any way?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• question Would it be possible to do for ISBNs what we did for geographic coordinates, and display the value with hyphens while lilnking through to a page that allows passing the unhyphenated value to the various book search services? Mangoe (talk) 15:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  Are you asking this question of me? Are you asking for the citation templates to take |isbn=978-1-7238-1802-8 as input and have it create https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9781723818028 as output? When creating links to Google books, Amazon, Worldcat, etc, Special:BookSources does strip hyphen and space separators (float you mouse over any or the source links at Special:BookSources/978-1-7238-1802-8 to see that).

  —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) We're already passing the value through to various book search services: when you click on the linked ISBN (in, e.g.: Title Here. ISBN 9781723818028.), you get to a page like Special:BookSources/9781723818028. One of the problems here, though, is that this is not a particularly convenient way to find a book at all, and it is much more expedient to (i.e., users will) just copy-paste the ISBN and Google it. I've outlined in detail above what the results are with different formats, and the only dependably good one is the no-hyphens-no-spaces format. So, I suppose a possible kinda-sorta solution would be to display the ISBN visually as hyphenated (or with spaces, whatever someone chose) but make it copy-paste without that formatting. That would require some CSS ::before stuff, probably. But someone might object that people shouldn't be surprised by what they copy-paste. And then others might counter that we're already doing things like this (without anyone evincing any confusion) with small-caps templates so that {{sc|abc}} ABC copy-pastes as "abc" (the caps are only visual cosmetics). And so on. Is that really a debate worth having? I'm not sure.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  I use Special:Booksources exclusively for the templates that produce it, because copying the digits, typing out https://books.google.com/, selecting the entry box, typing isbn: and then pasting is a stupid amount of work when I have two links so easily available (one from article to Booksources and the other from Booksources to Google).

  And to be frank, using Google Web Search is a bad idea for book searching. Use the tool they provide for the reason they provide it. Izno (talk) 02:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  That's kind of a straw man, since I suggested no such tedious process, and going through it is entirely unnecessary. Just copy the "9781723818028" ISBN, open a new window or tab, type isbn , paste the number, press Enter. The entire process takes a couple of seconds, and instantly brings up the book you are looking for both in biblio databases (including your favored Google Books, which is not favored by everyone) and at vendors. Well, unless the ISBN has dashes or spaces in it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  Even this process takes longer than two clicks. I presented the whole of what one might do to ensure it was clear that I wasn't strawmanning - it's really how I do it to ensure that I get the data I need immediately (a user story). If we take your workflow (I was fairly certain you were using this shorter flow, so that's the second reason I wanted to make clear how people were getting from point A to B), you still are using Google (or other search service -- I use DDG, so your flow is not sufficient to account for that - I'd need to type !g also) in a way they don't intend ultimately, and thus you get the imprecise answers that you claim are the fault of one particular style of entry. Using Booksources eliminates this issue and also provides the normal ways to get at the bibliographic data, including Google Books, OCLC, and Amazon.com (or .ae, .au, .br, .ca, .cn, .de, .es, .fr, .in, .it, .jp, .mx, .nl, .pl, .sa, .se, .sg, .tr, .uk). Those are all present on the "front page" matter of Booksources (with access to other options below that). The only thing Booksources doesn't do is give me a direct link to the publisher's website, and that is even more trivial than your search (select, right click, search for -- but I'm not usually searching for the ISBN at that point anyway, I just plug the title in).

  Then you're just left with hand-input ISBN numbers which are no longer hand-input since a while ago since they all (were supposed to) lost their link to Special:Booksources, for which we now have {{ISBN}}. Izno (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  That you personally prefer a longer search process and/or using our Special:Booksources feature is rather irrelevant. It's faster to not. Booksources is something good to have in existence, but is actually quite tedious to use, and can be intimidating/confusing to a lot of users who have no idea what any of those databases and things are, so don't know what to click on when they get there. Even experienced users like me who do know what they are may find it much more convenient just to do copy-paste-click in Google. It's much more efficient. Unless the ISBN is broken up. Even then, I find it more efficient to copy-paste the ISBN and remove hyphens from it than to futz around in the Booksources list.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  It's faster to not This is a statement in your reality, but not a fact. Don't present it as such. Izno (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Is there any data on how widespread of a problem this actually is? If this issue is truly causing editors to catapult fireballs at one another, that's one thing, but the opening statement says the issue is that different editors are going around normalizing them to one format and then again to another, at cross-purposes to each other, and without a clear consensus for any particular format. So one editor pastes an ISBN in without hyphens and another editor adds hyphens to it. If it isn't actually impacting one another's work, who cares? (I'll also say I must agree with Levivich: it is very evident reading the RFC background which option SMcCandlish is personally vying for, and even though that would be my personal preference too, that and the utter lack of a "leave everything as is" option strike me as a tad concerning.) 2603:8001:4542:28FB:69D3:61CF:7C25:A2F8 (talk) 01:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC) (Please send talk messages here instead)

So, should I rewrite the backaround material to hide basic facts and maybe inject some blatant lies about utility of or a globally standardized requirement for dashes or spaces? What would please you? It's not my fault that the actual reality leans strongly in a particular direction on this. Yes, I strongly favor option 1, but I included option 5 anyway, knowing full well it would strongly appeal to regulars at WT:CITE and probably cause option 1 to fail. And I included all the other options even though they are terrible ideas, because I knew at least a few people would want them anyway. There is no rationale for a "leave everything as is" option when there is an issue to resolve. If people believe no issue exists they can say so and suggest to do nothing, on their own initiative. Or someone can go add that pointless option to the option list. But I left it off on purpose, because "do nothing" is not constructive in problem-solving. "No change" is only a sensible option when someone wants to make a subjective change that is not addressing any actual objectively definable issue (like a proposal to reword a guideline for alleged inclarity in how it phrases something). Option 5 is already the "permit everything" option, which is probably what most people actually have in mind when "do nothing/no change" is their gut reaction but a poor phrasing/conceptualization of the "permit everything" sense that inpired them to feel that way in the first place. And "fireball catapulting" is not a magical requirement for there to be an issue to address. Any unproductive editorial conflict that is recurrent and predictable and also unnecessary is something that should be addressed one way or another.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Here's one editor who generates much more than their share of fuss by repeatedly messing with valid ISBNs. Others can probably link to more. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

And not even one of the ones whose activity in this regard inspired me to open this thread.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

{{Format ISBN}} is a tool that editors can use to hypenate ISBNs as specified by the International ISBN Agency. It is always subst'ed – the bot is merely subst'ing cases where subst: does not work due to a MediaWiki bug. The template is not enforcing anything. As such, the suggestions to have {{Format ISBN}} simply remove hyphens, or just add one in a fixed position, or to have options to do these things, are pointless.

As noted by the IP above, the omission of a status quo option is a major flaw of this RFC. That status quo (reflected in WP:ISBN#Types and {{cite book}}) is that hyphens are optional but preferred, and should not be removed if correctly placed. Kanguole 09:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

IMHO, we need Option 6: use the ISBN format in the source. That solves the problem of where to add spaces or hyphens. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Option 5 is more or less the status quo option. Re option 6: which source? The printed copy of the book? The publisher's web site? Google Books? WorldCat? There is no reason to expect these all to use the same format as each other. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Obviously, from the document being cited, whether it is, e.g., a dead tree, a PDF, a web page. I suppose that there could still be ambiguity if it is a reprint with a different ISBN, but the rule of citing the copy you're looking at should resolve the potential ambiguity. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

So if I happen to be using a print book I have to go to the trouble of finding the ISBN printed on it and manually typing it in rather than looking up the same book on Google Books and copying the ISBN? And then, because the version I used was a print copy, I am forbidden from providing publisher links to electronic copies of the same book, typeset exactly the same, because that would be citing a different version? And I have to cite the reprint year of the copy I have rather than citing the year the same book was originally first published? This is taking "cite the version you used" to a ridiculous and obstructionary extreme. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Please stop attributing to me things that I never wrote. Yes, you are allowed to use, e,g, |chapter-url=, |orig-date=, |url=. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk)

I don't think the "ISBN agency" statements in the Background which appear to diminish the status of hyphens here are correct. "There is no standard" is false. From the ISO 2108:2017 standard under section 4.1, General Structure of an ISBN:

When an ISBN is displayed in human readable form (i.e. a form meant primarily to be read or written by a person, in contrast to a form primarily meant to be used by data processing equipment), it shall be preceded by the letters ISBN and each of the elements of the ISBN should be separated from the others by a hyphen as in the following example. EXAMPLE ISBN 978-90-70002-34-3

(since last I checked the bit about spaces appears to have been removed; this is good.) Comparing database forms to the Wikipedia form which is clearly meant to be human readable is not a fair comparison. Usage is not consistent because the usecases are not consistent. The standard has clear guidelines for both. If editors are entering ISBNs from the imprint page we shouldn't have such a problem with missing hyphens (un-hyphenated ISBNs in my experience are a sign of shortcut referencing by scraping databases, and a ISBN with m-dashes and other extraneous symbols is a better sign of good faith by-the-book referencing. Either way both can be tidied later). Adding hyphens is a little computationally expensive and having them pre-populated for display (the main purpose of a wiki-page) is preferable to doing it on the fly (could be done with bulky js). Stripping hyphens is less expensive, and that is done efficiently where and when needed. I'm willing to tolerate un-hyphenated ISBNs for practicality's sake, but I'm not going to like or prefer them. Also, unthinking Google searches as an argument for usability aren't really valid either. Google search doesn't tokenise ISBN or ISBN-like strings that way for general search... but they do for their book specific service Google books: isbn:978-1-7238-1802-8 will produce useful results. The usability argument on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tartan&diff=1182749582&oldid=1182729804 doesn't make sense since the used templates provide links to Google books in a way that handles hyphens correctly. If your usecase really is to use general Google indexing to maximise ISBN like results, you have to do more work get get all possible variants that may have been indexed on various kinds of online documents, but that's not what Wikipedia ISBN templates offer to do (nor should they; they currently do a reasonable job). I lack the terminology or links to argue that ISBN-hyphens are more than merely a style like UK or US English. It's more like page numbers in references. An article with 3 out 10 refs having page numbers would not be fixed by deleting all page numbers. Also share some of the frustration + storm in a tea-cup comments expressed above. Perhaps the problem could be solved with better ISBN documentation on one of the many pages: what is acceptable and why, and set expectations on how to reasonably use ISBNs for search and other valid and important purposes. Anti-hyphen editors seem to miss some of these. Salpynx (talk) 23:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Something that an organization wishes would become a standard, but which has not been widely adopted and has not resulted in anything like standardization, is not a "standard" in any meaning of that word that Wikipedia (or much of anyone else for that matter) needs to care about. In point of fact, usage of the no-hyphens-no-spaces form has increased exponentinally over the last 20 years or so, through adoption and usage by all these databases and most vendors; any hope that either the hyphenated or spaced forms would ever become a standard was lost long ago. Next, the idea that they're all using the bare-numeric format as just some kind of internal identifier not intended for human reading is not correct at all. Every single one of the databases and such that I linked to as using 9781723818028 format does so in way that is reader-facing content. I clearly identified the outlier using the hypenated form, and the one I could find that did not seem to use ISBNs at all. If I had been able to find any major bibiographic site using bare-numeric for internal data-munging reasons (e.g. in its URL strings) but hyphenated or spaced form for human presentation I would have listed it. Feel free to find one and add it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

While this RFC has been going on, User:Trappist the monk has suddenly begun making huge numbers of edits replacing ISBNs with the format template, with the edit summary "cite repair;". I think Wikipedia:Fait accompli is relevant here. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

This sounds like something that needs to be brought up at ANI sooner rather than later. Thryduulf (talk) 01:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Not true. Not true. Not true. I have been adding {{format ISBN}} to articles for months. Here is a manual edit from 1 June 2023. I included {{format ISBN}} in an awb script I was using to clear Category:CS1 maint: uses authors parameter on 1 October 2023. Here is the first edit from that run to add {{format ISBN}} to an article. I am currently working on Category:CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list using another awb script that also adds {{format ISBN}}. I included {{format ISBN}} in the scripts because the nominally preferred form was (and still is) hyphenated; see WP:ISBN and Template:Cite book#csdoc_isbn. Until this discussion started there had been nary a peep from anyone about my use of {{format ISBN}} to hyphenate ISBNs. Since this discussion began, I have modified the current script that I am using so that it uses a crude counting scheme to determine if the article uses a mix of hyphenated or non hyphenated ISBNs. Only when the count of hyphenated ISBNs is greater than or equal to the count of non hyphenated ISBNs will the script apply {{format ISBN}}. The script does not undo hyphenated formatting because that is not a functionality available in {{format ISBN}}.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 02:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

All of Trappist's recent edits labeled "cite repair" that I have examined are ones I would consider to run against the spirit of WP:COSMETICBOT and WP:CITEVAR. These edits are in my opinion a pure distraction, pointlessly cluttering up watchlists for no reader benefit I can discern. –jacobolus (t) 07:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I strongly feel that WP:CITEVAR has no impact on ISBN hyphen preference. They are not two equally valid alternative styles, one is preferred over the other This happens to be my personal preference too, but I honestly believe it has been discussed and some version of that truth is settled upon consistently every time this issue comes up. I and other editors have been editing in hyphens like this for years, without any editwars. Hyphenated ISBNs are the preference.

Can we add ISBN hyphenation to "Generally considered helpful" WP:CITEVAR because that is my, and others', understanding of what the guidelines are in fact now? Stating it there might clear up some of the misconceptions around ISBN edit-wars. I'm somewhat surprised that WP:COSMETICBOT seemingly puts these hyphen edits clearly in the substantive category because they do make a visual difference, and assistive whitespace changes are also included. It seems ISBN hyphenation is clearly Help:Minor_edit, and seems reasonable to group with punctuation and italicization of non-English words. I'd totally entertain the idea that bot edits only doing punctuation, non-English word italicization, or ISBN hyphenation "are a bit annoying", but I can't even see a warning not to. According to that page marking the edit as minor is sufficient to avoid watchlist noise. Is there are real guideline against making repetitive minor edits? Salpynx (talk) 08:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

No, because if this poll is showing anything it is a clear lack of consensus that adding hyphens to ISBNs is "generally considered helpful" on Wikipedia. The leading option right now appears to be no. 5 (permit multiple styles), and running second is removing all hyphens and spaces.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

That's the leading option of the options presented. I wasn't going to participate in this RfC myself because I don't agree with any of the options; but I'm concerned now that a "no consensus" close will be interpreted as "no consensus that hyphens are useful", simply because there is no option that says "hyphens are useful but we shouldn't mandate them", i.e. status quo. I suspect this is what many people !voting 5 actually mean. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 09:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I have not been paying close recent attention, but was aware that User:Trappist the monk has been making this kind of edit arising from events and discussions months ago on various ISBN pages. I see no problem with these edits and strongly agree with his "Not true" x3. I'd characterize these pre-and-post RFC edits as entirely in line with all current guidelines including CITEVAR and the current guidance (as stated by User:Kanguole "hyphens are optional but preferred, and should not be removed if correctly placed.", and also consistent with "consensus" as there was quite a bit of discussion around it months ago, and some of the ideas and concerns have been around for years on various ISBN and bibliographic pages, and this work arose naturally out of a long history of discussion and other ISBN related work. The fact that he has made some concessions in his script seems a politeness not even warranted by this RFC. Various editors have tried to express the "what is this?" nature of the RFC, from its obvious favouring of option 1, "if it's not broke don't fix it", lack of status quo option, lack of concrete examples of the disruptive edits or edit war that prompted it. Four of the 5 options, and even the 6th suggested options are all things have have been taken into consideration with the current status-quo guidelines, which is a practical compromise that takes into account the main features of ISBNs, publication practicalities, and the goals of Wikipedia. Some or most of the details can easily be dismissed as ISBN or bibliographic "geekery". The problem is that all the editors who seem to care about this geekery have a shared understanding of what it is, or actively contributed to the existing guidelines, and can see how it can be apllied consistently in many situations. Editors who expressly _don't_ care about the details seem less willing to understand, and it's sometimes difficult to explain all the relevant factors. This problem sorts itself in practice by the editors who do care, do the thing, and editors who don't care don't have to worry about it. Option 1 barely makes sense with its "and change {{Format ISBN}} to use it." -- I don't know how or why this could be used in practice, and the very suggestion seems to betray a lack of understanding of what the template is for, and how it got here. The basic premise of the RFC is flawed: "Should the format of ISBNs be standardized (or be subject to a rule to not change format without consensus)?" -- The format of ISBNs is standard, it is reflected in "hyphens are optional but preferred". This may not be strict enough for you, but people who care, care, and there are reasons behind this, which lead to its quo status. There is a consensus rule that relates to whether ISBN formats should be changed: "hyphens are optional but preferred, and should not be removed if correctly placed." In my last comment I posted a quote from the ISBN standard, and User: SMcCandlish responded with some sort of No true Scotsman response. I don't want to argue whether an industry body responsible for the spec of the industry standard we are talking about is entitled to author that spec or should be taken seriously -- that seems like madness. You have been provided with:

• Specific claims from Wikipedia editors who claim to find hyphenated ISBNs useful, and multiple use-cases to show how (some listed above)
• General principles outside Wikipedia that suggest chunked-numeric ids are more suited to human use, and Wikipedia principles that articles are for human use over machine use, made concrete by the specific claims above. It's not just theoretical. We should at least pay lip service to the idea that Wikipedia isn't written by-bots-for-bots. Also, Wikipedia is not other websites.
• The ISBN spec that succinctly supports the above specific use-case claims and principles, although maybe we can dismiss specs?

The one concrete use-case to apparently "counter" the pro-hyphen human readability is the "quicker to click and Google search it", which as others have hinted above runs into search-engine blackbox / monopoly territory, and you yourself appreciated Special:BookSources and Google books as a beneficial clearly "different" use-case, so agree that it's not a replacement for the Wikipedia specific solution to useful bibliographic searches that other editors are able to competently and successfully use. Your argument use-case seems to explicitly distance itself from the provided Wikipedia method to achieve a Wiki-goal via templates and special-links, so your single "As a user who doesn't want to look at ISBNs, I want to click on them in my browser and search a general-purpose search engine for results relevant to my interests" sounds more like a use-case for you favourite browser-and-search-engine corporation, and self-admittedly less relevant to Wikipedia.

The beauty of the pro-hyphen view is that you can still do this if it's important to you. The counter to this seems to be "but think of the machines! What reasonable person could think an automated tool could reliably strip hyphens from a string?" Turns out machines are very good at this, in a way that human eyes aren't at adding them when viewing multiple 13 digit numbers on a page. Consider a browser plugin that removes hyphens from text so you can send it directly to search engines if that's an important use-case.

The consistency "argument" does not conflict with the current status-quo. If we are to take both at face value we can conclude that consistently ISBN hyphenated articles are preferred to consistently un-hyphenated articles. It's not clear what we should do in an inconsistent state though. Hypothetically, since we don't have a good example from this RFC, suppose good-faith-ISBN-hyphenating-editor trying to follow status-quo guidelines correctly hyphenated 28 out of 30 ISBNs in an article. Should a bystander editor say:

A) "Thank you for improving that article! You missed two, could you please hyphenate those too, or is there a reason you didn't, or show me the tools so I can do this!"

or

B) "You have made my carefully crafted machine readable references inconsistent! I swear I have copy-pasted these ISBNs accurately, and have not incorrectly duplicated any, or swapped ISBNs to a different publisher's book, or accidentally auto-translated a German title copied from de.wiki in ways that might be obvious at a glance to ISBN geekery editors with hyphenation! And you are just making up these examples because you hate machine readablity, they're not real!" Revert!

A. seems the more reasonable approach, but if B occurs, the page will be protected until the next editor with a internally consistent view of how to apply current ISBN related guidelines will make the same "mistake" perhaps during other reference related improvements, and the page will need to be "defended" again.

It's fun to disparage disruptive edits; above there's a mention of an editor who, ironically, had been making the same kind of ISBN hyphenation reversions -- deleting correctly placed hyphens -- as the author of this RFC. When these things are discussed on ISBN related talk pages, historically it goes round and round and the consensus of different editors who care about ISBNs and adjacent things is "don't remove correctly placed hyphens from ISBNs -- this kind of edit is always wrong, it removes something many editors find useful, and adds nothing". Either the lone hyphen remover gives up, or perhaps takes some of the advice on board and improves their editing, all in accordance with existing guidelines, consensus, and specs. I thought the last editor who brought this up did learn somewhat and their edits improved. How is this RFC different? Why does anything need to change? I'm waving my hands defending a status-quo that doesn't need defending. When the next editor complains about ISBN hyphenation, will the status-quo guidelines change then? Is there anything inconsistent now that needs changing? There wasn't in the past, I see no reason for it to change now.

A concrete example relevant to this RFC is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tartan&diff=1182749582&oldid=1182729804 -- where the author of this RFC removed correctly placed hyphens from an ISBN. For clarity I consider this according to current guidelines and past history and consensus, an unhelpful reversion that does not add anything, and reverts a minor constructive edit which is completely in line with all current guidelines. Why do we need an RFC to justify it after the fact?

Adjacent points which might have merit are:

• Making the Special:BookSources more useful if it is lacking in some concrete respect?
• What to do about minor but technically constructive according-to-current-guidelines edits at scale? There could be a valid but subtle point to make somewhere in here, but this RFC topic doesn't have much to do with it, and hopelessly confuses things.

On reflection this RFC misrepresents the reality of ISBN guidelines and formatting standards in a way that makes it difficult to succinctly engage with. It falsely equates the 'adding hyphens' and 'removing hyphens' rogue editors in way that makes it very unclear whether a particular side exists or is the main problem. There _is_ a standard and preference, there are guidelines and they seem consistent and un-problematic. It's not clear what problem the RFC is meant to solve, other than those caused by the originator's own edits, which don't align with the current guidelines as other editors seemingly agree.

Salpynx (talk) 06:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Can you summarize this into a statement that won't take an hour to pore over? Homing in on a diff I can see in there, that was me reverting a change to the established style in the article, and with a clear rationale (though one person has long after the fact attempt to refute it, on the grounds that search engine behavior may change). If you want to fall back on WP:CITEVAR as the principle (and it seems you do: "in line with all current guidelines including CITEVAR", though it doesn't actually say anything about ISBNs, and ISBNs are not used on WP exclusively within citations), then that guideline is entirely on my side in that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC); revised: 07:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:CITEVAR does not support your edit, and this should be clarified there as it appears to be a common misconception. Adding ISBN hyphenation under Generally considered helpful should suffice.

Hyphenation has been discussed on Wikipedia_talk:ISBN for over a decade, and hyphens always win. It is the house style of Wikipedia via consensus not because it's a arbitrary choice, but because it has real advantages in line with Wikipedia principles like WP:READABLE. The human readable display form is well defined. Many editors have expressed their appreciation of this human readable form for practical and aesthetic reasons. Current guidelines can be re-phrased as "human readable ISBNs are preferred". The optional part is really just a concession to practicality, one that some editors aren't happy with, but are willing to tolerate, primarily because tooling is not perfect. {{Format ISBN}} is an improvement here. "I'm a human who needs machine readable ISBNs" does not counter all the human readable cases, and can be trivially accommodated by stripping the hyphens. Arguments for Option 6 express why the un-hyphenated format is objectively inferior for a human readable wiki. Inferior ISBN formatting is not a "style" choice to be consistent about. Salpynx (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

But there is really clearly no consensus that adding hyphens to ISBNs is generally considered helpful. Your entire argument depends on that being true, and it demonstrably is not.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

You haven't demonstrated anything. Evidence to support claim of consensus that ISBN hyphenation is helpful:

• Two main ISBN related templates I'm aware of have stated unchallenged for ages:
  • "Hyphens in the ISBN are optional, but preferred." Help:Citation_Style_1#isbn
  • "Use hyphens if they are included, as they divide the number into meaningful parts." Wikipedia:ISBN
• A decade of discussions on Wikipedia_talk:ISBN consistently favors and explains the merits of hyphenation.
• Documented and linked history of editors regarding hyphen removal as 'disruptive,' with swift corrections.
• No strong anti-hyphen argument has emerged or withstood scrutiny.
• Editors have made thousands of uncontroversial hyphen additions, indicating a widespread acceptance of hyphenated ISBNs.

I may be in a bubble, but my own standing edits, along with thousands of others (from bots, IP editors, and others I'm aware of over the last year), supports my view that there is a consensus favoring hyphenated ISBNs, evident in current guidelines and real edit histories.

If you have a valid question or argument about ISBN formats you should make it clearly and appropriately.

User:SMcCandlish Could you please withdraw or close-as-invalid this misleading and malformed RFC? Salpynx (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Some random user creating a template and offering their opinion it its documentation means jack-squat. That's not a guideline or policy, is not any other kind of site-wide consensus, and is noticed by virtually nobody. See also WP:CONTENTAGE: the fact that something has sat around unaddressed for a long time does not make it right. Discussions among the same tiny number of editors at a page like WT:ISBN that virtually no one knows or cares about? Exactly the same. VVPOL exists for a reason. I can also diff me and other people reverting injection of hyphens swiftly, also as disruptive. There is no agreement on this matter, as proved by the input at this RfC. The closest thing we have to a consensus about this, judging from how the RfC is proceeding, is that ISBN formatting should be treated as a WP:CITEVAR matter (which is about what I expected, though not what I hoped). The only argument that has presented any "scrutiny" of the anti-hyphen-anti-space argument is the idea that because search engine behavior might change we shouldn't take it into account; but search engines' different handling of strings like 9781723818028, 978-1723818028, 978-1-949996-57-9, and 978 1 949996 57 9 has not changed in any way that anyone has detected, for around 20 years, so there is no reason to expect that it will. That argument against no-hyphens-no-spaces is quite weak and in no way an actual refutation of the utility argument in favor of 9781723818028. The other arguments against it boil down to a combination of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and argument to authority (claim that Intl. ISBN Agency has produced a standard, when what they have produced is a would-be standard that is almost completely ignored in the real world and has no hope at this point of becoming an actual standard that gets broadly adopted; it's in a much, much worse implementation position now than it was a generation ago). Editors have also made thousands of uncontrovered hyphen removals; "my side is doing stuff" isn't proof that your side is right. Yes, you are in a bubble: you are ignoring or outright distorting all evidence that doesn't agree with your predetermined preference. Most obviously, if there were "a consensus favoring hyphenated ISBNs", then this RfC would not been leaning heavily toward treating it as CITEVAR matter. So, no I will not rescind an RfC that's making you unhappy because it contradicts you. I have no control over the fact that actual reality leans strongly toward favoring one particular format, falling back to treating them all as valid options, and leans strongly away from treating either of the hyphenated forms or especially the spaced form as preferable. The RfC looks "misleading" to you simply because it contradicts your desired outcome.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

almost completely ignored in the real world – Not sure this is fair. This is a pretty common way for ISBNs to be printed in physical books. –jacobolus (t) 14:17, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

As a publisher who purchases ISBNs, I can tell you that they arrive (at least from the US broker) in hyphenated format. Doing a quick Newspapers.com search for ISBN without any filters and looking at the first thirty results, I see about an even mix of hyphenated and non, with examples of each in both editorial and advertising. Checking publisher catalogs, I find examples that use hyphens and ones that don't, and that's three imprints from the same publisher! Now, whether the publishing world has anything to do with the real world is another question... --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Sure, okay. Then "almost completely ignored in the real world for any purposes that Wikipedia has any reason to care about". Hyphenated forms, found primarily on book colophons (and by no means all of them, just commonly) can be entered in that format, and would still continue to be able to be entered in that format, under every possible result of this RfC. But that format is not necessary for any purpose anyone can identify, is not a real-world standard, and provably impedes reader utility. This is why I favor option 1 but can live with option 5 (since at least I can provide that better utility in articles I create and someone else will not be empowered to willy-nilly undo it later; it's sad that people doing unhelpful things, to satisfy their own aesthetic urges or their own misunderstandings of what a standard is for practical purposes, will also be enabled to impose an unhelpful format on articles they create, but I can't lose sleep over the fact that the world contains problems I can't address, and I'm actually confident that given a longer span of time to mull this over, the community will actually standardize on the hyphenless format anyway).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Wait, you're saying that being able to get better results from newspapers.com and from Google aren't things people who might be using an ISBN from Wikipedia would care about? Wow. That seems inconsistent, considering your first in the list of arguments focused on getting search results from Google. It seems to me that finding more information about the material being cited is something a fair portion of those copying the ISBNs would care about; I have trouble seeing why one would assume otherwise. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

There is no possible reality where "Hyphens in the ISBN are optional, but preferred." and "Use hyphens if they are included..." can exist in those two templates and Wikipedia ISBNs not tend to become uniformly hyphenated through ongoing quality edits. Those words exist there now. We don't even need to talk about why. We could talk about why we would want to change them.

• No reasonable editor should be edit-warring over ISBNs. Given the lack of evidence, I see no problem.
• You are correct that to avoid circular edit wars we need a standard. We have one: it's the current status quo, it's hyphens.

If you give an example of a real world edit we could determine which version was correct and why. No correctly placed ISBN hyphen removal is ever justified, unless there is another factor at play. Under status quo I'd class any ISBN hyphen removal as either disruptive or unhelpful depending on the scale. I can't defend a hypothetical non-example. The only workable alternative to status quo is to change the ISBN template statements to say the un-hyphenated version is always preferred, and hyphenation is discouraged even if printed at the source. There is no reason other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT to change to this. The only argument put forward is your newly presented and poor one from search-laziness, being rebutted by others. The RFc framing is so bad it's hard to hone in on what we are actually talking about here. Salpynx (talk) 19:43, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Salpynx that is not the only workable alternative, which is that presented by option 5: "none of hyphens, spaces or neither are preferred. Do not change one for the other except to maintain consistency in the article, or with explicit consensus on the article talk page." i.e. treating it the same as US vs British spelling or citation styles. This appears to be the option supported by the majority of participants in this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Personally I couldn't care less about whether the ISBNs have hyphens or not, and I would guess the same is true for the vast majority of editors and readers. I just find it pointlessly disruptive to have bots or bot-mimicking humans come through and reformat the ISBNs every time someone tries to add a citation anywhere in Wikipedia, and/or have bots mass change the hyphenation site wide. This is why I'd really like to see normalization handled automatically by the output of the {{ISBN}} and CS1/CS2 templates, instead of by modifying the template input. Can someone who is knowledgeable about these templates clarify whether this is feasible? –jacobolus (t) 22:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

This is concrete, and I sympathize. If otherwise valid current guidelines are being applied in a problematic way, let's fix forward. It appears that ISBN hyphenation and the repetitive en-dash style bot edits (example, but incative: DyceBot) fall into a similar category with no apparent guidelines against. The suggestion to hyphenate ISBNs on save could satisfy both pro-hyphen and bot(like) users and eliminates the need for bots to do the work. I don't know of any template that modifies input on save. Are there downsides; technical, or editing confusion? ISBNs can be consistently and deterministically hyphenated. Invalid cases are already detected by the templates (invalid registration group would be a new case). Periodic updates for new ISBN groups would be necessary (bots and ISBN code libraries have to do this). Client side and on-request hyphenation are wasteful. Hyphenation on save seems like a really promising approach. Salpynx (talk) 04:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

"suggestion to hyphenate ISBNs on save" – this is emphatically not the suggestion. I am suggesting that we should not care at all about the source markup (input) hyphenation, but should instead make templates which are smart enough to normalize their HTML output, so that readers can see a consistent style irrespective of the input formatting. This would entirely eliminate the need for bots to come modify the source hyphenation. The CS1/CS2 templates already do this for date formatting. It seems to me like it should be just as easy to similarly normalize ISBNs. "wasteful" this can't possibly be a significant resource problem. –jacobolus (t) 04:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, sorry I misunderstood. I meant wasteful in a relative computational sense and didn't mean disrespect. The data to make the split is unfortunately kilobytes in size, and is a conditional with about 256 parts. Doing that for every ISBN in an article for every page load could add up. Maybe I'm overthinking it. I don't understand why display consistency is good but source isn't. I thought wiki source was somewhere between database content and human readable, but I don't know. Salpynx (talk) 06:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Why is it so complicated to hyphenate ISBNs? How many possible places can the hyphen breaks be? There are only a few digits involved here... In any event I still wouldn't expect the expense of this to be a practical problem. Computers are pretty fast nowadays (hundreds of billions of operations every second). –jacobolus (t) 22:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Without use-cases to clarify the problem we are trying to solve, or to clarify the option's specifics, I'm going to struggle to express why 5 might cause more edit wars or other problems than it solves. I'll be either constructing strawmen or attacking castles in the sky.

The worst problem with this RFc's 5 is it's not clearly defined (see concerns raised by User:Sojourner in the earth). 5 sounds like a good compromise compared to the total anarchy claimed by the RFc, but that's not the status quo. The two alternatives I mentioned above were an attempt to contrast two well defined alternatives since User:SMcCandlish is providing nothing concrete. For that argument, no hyphens is just as workable as hyphens, so why change? 5 is less workable than either because it is more confusing, has format proliferation for no clear benefit (other than a misleading placate-all-the-sides of an equal argument implication), and provides more territory to war over with many potential grey areas, more than status quo now. Is consistency set on a first-come basis, or critical mass? Having an objective standard helps. I honestly can't tell if User:SMcCandlish is claiming no-hyphens is a better standard than hyphens, or that there is objectively no standard. He is not clear. To mesh with my argument, what are the #5 clear template guidelines? Use the article's current ISBN style if obvious, otherwise ... . I could provide specific use-case based arguments against interpretations of 5 to illustrate why it will likely be inconsistent and increase strife but I'm afraid people are getting tired of this. I am. Salpynx (talk) 01:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

What is actually tiresome is this pretense that the RfC somehow can't be understood. No one else is having difficulty parsing it, just you. You keep droning on about not being able to understand or recommend anything without a specific use case, but every use case is the same: An article either has has hyphenated ISBNs (mostly or entirely), or it has unhyphenated ones, and someone comes along and changes them all to the other format. The end. There is nothing more to investigate. The fact that this is not a dispute type that is happening at every page and tearing the community apart doesn't magically make it a non-problem. You keep asserting that we effectively already have a standard and that it is hyphens (specifically the multi-hyphen version; Amazon's format also uses a hyphen, and is quite common on WP from copy-pasting, but no one here seems to actually favor it). But this is not a "standard" or a consensus that the community agreed on. It's an incidental skew introduced by one or two template editors who decided to make their templates use the multi-hyphen format, and by a few editors (with overlap with that first category) going around robotically injecting hyphens (including while this RfC is running, which is disruptive). This is WP:FAITACCOMPLI, not a consensus. Whether you find my own personal position "unclear" (and it certainly isn't) is irrelevant; an RfC is not about one particular editor's preference, it's about finding out what the aggregate editorial preferences is.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

At this point, without an example, I think you are grossly misrepresenting any current (or past) hypen-stripping incidents. You dismiss my picking two arbitrary templates as relevant to the discussion -- are there any other templates that use ISBNs on Wikipedia? I don't know of any more, but you haven't been clear. I think 100% of the ISBN use-cases on Wikipedia currently have clear instructions on how hyphens relate. Am I missing one? Again, falling into the trap of trying to be clear about my side, I believe guidelines exist that placing bare ISBNs in a template is helpful, not disruptive, but who knows? Do you understand that the people who add hyphens to ISBNs at least think it is being helpful? I think it's written somewhere that ISBN hyphenation is useful, but a task best suited to bots for doing correctly and achieving the all important "consistency" . I've provided links, a spec (Argument_from_authority) and attempted to show what I (mis?)interpreted as consensus (randos on the internet × many/a few). At least my links demonstrate that a pro-hyphen argument exists and can be stumbled upon and picked up like a nasty disease. Where were we supposed to look to get the correct view on ISBNs? Was it always obvious but unexpressed, and you are trying to get it written down now for literally the first time to help the bibliographically inclined? Has something changed recently? Hyphens made sense in the olden days, but books are so last century, and no-one can own an ebook now anyway, so reality is just what leaks out of search engines and Amazon? A number of people have expressed support for the status quo as the option with fewest problems and most benefits. Is that a meaningful option to you? The RFc appears to deny it's existence, but I think the meaning is clear enough. It's a slightly nuanced version of the terrible anarchy you claim, with specific justifications for various parts of it which could be critiqued or defended specifically, but that's not happening here. Salpynx (talk) 03:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

editors stripping hyphens from fully hyphenated articles I've seen this happen, actually; Srich32977 used to do this prolifically. After numerous complaints at his talk page, he was eventually brought to ANI, where there was pretty much unanimous agreement that these edits were disruptive. To me, this is a example of the existing standard being correctly applied to admonish an editor who is editing against that standard. I don't know of any examples of editors being admonished for adding hyphens.

I would support a proposal to disallow drive-by ISBN reformatting, perhaps by explicitly classing such changes as cosmetic, but that's not what this proposal will accomplish. Every option in the current proposal will result in a tremendous amount of watchlist clutter as editors try to enforce whatever standard is agreed upon here onto every article in Wikipedia. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 06:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

TL;DR attempt: Sorry User:SMcCandlish, I had assumed you were presenting Option 1 as a serious alternative to current guidelines, but that's not how this is framed at all.

This entire RFC is fundamentally flawed, and I can't see how anything productive can come of it. There is no concrete example to clarify exactly what problem you are talking about, there is no evidence of the emotive "edit warring". It's not quite clear if the possibly implied both-sideism is real or a hypothetical scenario extrapolated from false premises. The background and text of the RFC are so oblivious to the current ISBN reality it's hard to engage with productively, it's not even wrong. I can't imagine any edit you've seen that can't be explained and justified by current ISBN guidelines, but I guess I don't even know what you are talking about because you haven't been clear or accurate. Complaints raised by others seem to concern minor bot edits on previously agreed upon consistent-with-guideline improvements which have been discussed long ago and been in progress for ages. Again I'm making up arguments to defend because there's nothing real presented here to discuss. We're just accumulating an opportunistic grab-bag of ISBN related complaints in unconnected comments. The misleading nature of this RFC which clearly pushes option 1 is concerning because many people are engaging with it at face value. It's not clear how any presented option will make things better, because what things and are they real? All presented options are oversimplified, and don't relate well to current reality. I fell into discussing ISBN hyphenation details and possible common misconceptions, but perhaps the correct thing to do is shut down spurious and unwarranted RFCs that are constructed in such a way as to be unfortunately unhelpful? Salpynx (talk) 06:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I trust our editors to have the intelligence to make up their own minds, and that clearly seems to be happening. The leading option at least for now is 5 not 1.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm surprised by the number of people extolling the utility of pasting plain ISBNs into Google searches – I've always just clicked on the ISBN for directly relevant book searches. Are all these people really doing that, or are they just taking the proposer's word for it? Kanguole 13:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• I can only speak for myself, but as someone who regularly uses Wikipedia articles as the starting point for further research, I have always copied and pasted the ISBN (and been forced to remove the hyphens or spaces where they exist). I find the built-in search function is clunky and very inefficient. I can copy and paste the ISBN into Google and determine basically immediately if the book is archived, in a library, or needs to be sourced some other way. If I were using the built-in function, I have to click through several screens only to end up at WorldCat (useless in 9/10 cases) or Amazon. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

We've been discussing Googlability as if one would only want to engoogle the ISBN with no hyphens, because if you Google with hyphens, you don't get the results that have a no-hyphen version. While that is true, the converse is also true. Forgive me for using as an example an ISBN for a book I publish, but I already had it in an open window to copy and paste. If I Google for it without the hyphens, yes, I get a few bookstore listings... but I don't get any of the results that I get Googling with the hyphens. If I'm looking for information on the book, I may want to Google both versions. If I have the hyphenated version, it is trivial to figure out what the non-hyphenated version will be... but the converse is not true. If I've copied the non-hyphenated version, I have no simple system for knowing where the hyphens will go. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

You just need to make it clear to the search engine that you're searching for an ISBN, not for an utterly random character string: [61]. (This is pretty basic search engine usage; I think we all know that if you put in a string without adding some indication what class of thing it pertains to, the search engine will produce a river of false positives in other categories of things, and this is regardless of what kind of thing you are looking for.) If you do this, you get provably better results without the hyphens (or spaces) in the numeric string, with or without quotation marks around the ISBN. The hyphen and space formats (if they work at all) will only match for results that contain those separator characters, but a search on the bare number will pull up not only many more results (including in resources like bibliographic databases that the user is going to care about, most of which use the bare number) but also will match sites that use the hyphened or spaced form (the very top result of the link just above proves this: it's Amazon, but Amazon gives the ISBN as "978-1949996579" with a hyphen).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The things you make up or assume aren't always the truth. A Google search for an ISBN is not always going to "produce a river of false positives", unsurprising as it is a long string, If you had checked the example links I put in, well, I can't promise your results as Google customizes itself to the users in ways, but I get three web link results on each before the warning that any other results are similar, and all six of those links are genuine positives, references to the book in some way. The example link you provide, however, while it does pull up for me six results, is pulling up for me the same three results as my no-hyphen search (yes, that detects the Amazon page, for other reasons than you suppose) plus three false positives. That makes it a notably worse result than the plain no-hyphen result, and it's not catching any of the three results I get for my hyphenated search, including missing a Bleeding Cool article specifically about the book's release. Now, you may believe there's some large contingent of people who use Google in the same poor way you do and that there's some large overlap of those with people who cannot use Booksources, but I certainly find no reason to believe that. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Article subject potentially directing the content of article

I have just been made aware that a press release has been put out by the Women's Rights Party that is written by the founder of the party Jill Ovens complaining about how the Wikipeida article on the party and her is written. Complaining about its content with the content then being replaced or removed in line with the complaints in the press release. Can I please get some help and advice on how best to approach this potentially contentious subject. The article talk page is also full of parroting of the press release complaints and legal threats being thrown around like 'defamatory' for including the complained about content.

• Press release by Womens Rights Party
• Jill Ovens
• Women's Rights Party
• Talk:Women's Rights Party
• Edit contributions for single IP address making favourable changes to Jill Ovens Page

PicturePerfect666 (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm as ignorant about sexual issues as one can be, but I hesitate to call anybody a name, any name, including transphobic, unless I have a reliable source (and maybe two or three sources) explicitly calling them that name. Instead, why not quote the following description of the Women's Rights Party and Jill Ovens from your Mathew Scott reference: "The [Women's Rights] party platform is mostly based around upholding binary views of sex and gender, preventing trans women from accessing female spaces and resisting language that portrays gender and sex as a continuum." If that quote about the platform of the Women's Rights Party and Jill Ovens is sustained by reliable sources, the quote is far more explanatory than is the word "transphobic."

Regarding the criticism of Wikipedia, I take it as a compliment to the importance of Wikipedia. Smallchief (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

+ North8000 (talk) 20:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree DFlhb (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree. FOARP (talk) 17:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

My two cents is that, with regard to the content, Smallchief is right. If sources don't use the word transphobic, even if the stances fit your own definition of transphobic, you can't use the specific word (and FTR I agree that the party is transphobic personally, I just can't find a source that says so).

With regard to the off-wiki campaigning that may or may not be going on, you may consider WP:RPP and failing that, escalating to AN/I if the behaviour reaches disruptive/edit war levels. For now, I'll slap a COI template on the TPs of the IP, WP:LEGAL for the guy who shouted defamation, and maybe a template on top of the article talk page as well. Fermiboson (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

To the end claimed parties described as racist and fascist aren't typically expressly called that in sources yet Wikipedia calls them what they are. The statements are dogwhistles of transphobia 101 and should be recognised as such. The whole platform is transphobic...dedicated to the removal of trans rights and uses the language of that. No rasict is going to say they want specific things out loud they go at in couched language and inflame with common tropes of 'protecting children' and allusions to a threat to society from a certain group. This is not a place for not being honest about these parties. rthe party also being founded in support of a woman who wants to eliminate trans people also adds significant weight to it being transphobic. Just more explanation here.

This information is all contained in this 'manifesto' PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, for the record there is no need to direct the virtrol towards me because I agree wih you. However, parties described as racist and fascist definitely have a source behind them - and if they don't, rest assured the RfCs will come at you like hell. WP:SYNTH is pretty clear on this. We can, however, definitely say "upholding a gender binary, preventing transgender women from accessing safe spaces..." etc, which is just the WP:V way of saying transphobic. Fermiboson (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

What vitriol are you talking about? There is none in anything written. It is a description of the party and its positions. Not sure what you are on about with claims of 'no need to direct the virtrol towards me because I agree wih[sic] you.' PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh, also be careful about WP:1RR. No point in getting sanctioned for fighting dirty. Fermiboson (talk) 20:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I share your frustration, but it is not for us to decode the dog whistles ourselves. Look for Reliable Sources that do the decoding for us. If we don't have an RS saying "transphobic" then the word should be removed until we do. Don't worry. Anybody with an ounce of sense can see that it is transphobic from the rest of the article's content whether we use the word or not.

As regards the Press Release: Just ignore it. Lots of people don't like what is written about them on Wikipedia. So long as what we say is true, and proportionate to their notability, then that is not something they get a veto over.

As regards legal threats, WP:NLT applies. People who make legal threats and don't withdraw them when the policy is drawn to their attention get blocked. DanielRigal (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Do we use the word "transphobic" to describe something that's transphobic? Of course we do. (Disclaimer: I saw this discussion off-wiki.) LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 20:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree 100% call things what they are. Wikipedia is not a place for using wording to avoid saying the obvious. That is not synthesis. Starting a party in support of a parroting a transphobe (who has saluting Nazis at an event in Melbourne show up), who wants to eliminate trans people is also not synthesis to say the obvious. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Dare I say the sky is blue? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Considering the contentiousness of the topic, there must have been a past RfC on a similar descriptor of TERFs as transphobic hidden in some talk page. Fermiboson (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Do we use the word "transphobic" to describe something that's transphobic? Per MOS:LABEL, transphobic is included with similar labels that are best avoided unless widely used in reliable sources, and then only using in-text attribution.--Trystan (talk) 23:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Here is a source that uses the word transphobic to describe the activist that the party was apparently founded around (which, btw, is sourced to substack which is WP:BLOG un-RS, so that's another thing to fix). I couldn't find a source that refers to the party itself. Fermiboson (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• There is a discussion on the article's talk page, though it was just started quite recently. Input would be appreciated there. I'm going to remind everyone commenting that WP:BLP applies everywhere on Wikipedia, so if you're going to start calling people names on here it will be noted in your block log. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  Hold on. There is a point I think we've all missed here in the heat of the moment - is the subject even notable? Newsroom source is in list form so is kind of borderline passing mention. The party receives virtually no support in polls and no votes, and everything else is either self-published or a primary source. Fermiboson (talk) 21:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  Google search of "women's rights party" with quotations gives the party's website and several unrelated foreign or historical organisations, but no RS coverage. Fermiboson (talk) 21:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  Then I think in that point a deletion discussion is needed. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 21:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and start one. Fermiboson (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  I think the party and the person should be nominated together neither appear to have general notability. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 21:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  The person is a more borderline case, since she appears to be a former MP and the NZ Herald counts towards GNG. Fermiboson (talk) 21:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  If she was an MP, then it's not even borderline -- she meets WP:NPOL. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  As far as I can see stood a few times and never got elected…perennial/nuisance candidate at best. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 00:34, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  I can't figure out what the NZ parliamentary source on her is supposed to be. Did she just speak in parliament or something? Fermiboson (talk) 00:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  She responded to a public consultation because she was desperately trying to keep lgbt+ conversion therapy AKA torture and pseudoscience legal in NZ PicturePerfect666 (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

   Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Ovens. Folly Mox (talk) 03:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The person who is the subject of a wiki page should have the right to have their page removed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a snowball's chance in hell that this proposal will be adopted. That is, as a general matter no subject of a wiki page has or will have a veto right over their articles, and there is consensus against changing the policy in this respect. This outcome is clear, so I will close the discussion before it takes away more community effort. Dr Luchins may try suggested alternatives to have an article about them deleted through our standard processes. See e.g. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and WP:BIODELETE. (non-admin closure) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

---

This is my opinion RogerSni (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• OK. Maybe, after having this pointed out to you a couple of times, you can read the actual policies, and have the subject read WP:BIOSELF. Drmies (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  He is aware that this is policy. He is here specifically because he wants to change policy, and I told him this is where one would discuss such a change in policy. (I should note here that I have a slight COI when it comes the page the individual is seeking to have deleted, David Luchins.) I did also warn him that such a suggested change in policy would be unlikely to gain traction. He should not be criticized for bringing a request to change policy to the place where we discuss exactly that. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• I cannot agree with this suggestion. Allowing everyone to have pages about themselves deleted would vastly weaken this site's quality. If you think of, say, a big name politician who has done some disreputable things, for example, we can certainly understand why he might not want an encyclopedia page that includes his various misdeeds showing up on search results before, say, his official biography on his campaign page -- but it is in the public good that it does. While we generally allow people of marginal notability to have the page about them deleted upon their request, it would be a vast problem to extend that power to anyone who is the topic of a page. (There may be some argument for expanding the range of who qualifies as "marginally notable".) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. Imagine if that was the case with any book, news article, documentary, opinion. Your proposal runs against basic principles in free countries. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

See WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Curbon7 (talk) 00:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• I've opened a discussion at the article talk. Valereee (talk) 12:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Please give link. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC).

Talk:David_Luchins#Discussion_about_Luchins'_preference_to_have_the_article_deleted. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• I disagree. I'm OK with the current policy re people of borderline notability, but I wouldn't give deletion rights to people who have chosen to be high profile in public life. Imagine if you will two scenarios, firstly we have deleted the article we have on a prominent terrorist, not because we want to deny the terrorist publicity, but because they have given us an instruction that we are following. Secondly a high profile individual, one who you would expect Wikipedia to have an article on, drops us an email asking us to give less prominence to a scandal they are involved or delete the article about them. If we make the proposed change in policy, neither scenario ends well. If we want to retain our neutrality we have to be willing to publish articles that are not as hagiographic as our subjects might like. They are welcome to supply a good quality, flattering photograph, but otherwise we need to fairly sum up what reliable sources are saying about them. ϢereSpielChequers 21:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I have often supported deletion of BLPs of people of borderline notability that made one or two silly mistakes. But this policy proposal would force us to remove legitimate and informative biographies of highly notable people, just because many reliable sources report their misdeeds. This proposal is, in my opinion, contrary to the purpose of this encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 10:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - A stalker once created an attack-page about me on Wikipedia, I had it speedy-ed. People absolutely 100% should be allowed to do something about articles about them on Wikipedia if they are problematic. However just as obviously there are people out there who legitimately did something wrong, and that can be seen from reliable sources, and they should not be entitled to simply remove that content. FOARP (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
• @RogerSni: question: would this "right" extend after death or would it only be for the living? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
• Dr Luchins is a Jew who's receiving death threats, folks. He's at direct risk of harm and has obvious and weighty grounds for wanting his page gone.—S Marshall T/C

But do we have any reason to think that those death threats or the direct risk of harm are because they have a wikipedia page? Also note that unless I'm missing something death threats weren't because of their religion but their opinion on Jonathan Pollard so I'm not really sure what "naming the Jew" does to improve the conversation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

No, I have no reason to think Dr Luchins' Wikipedia page causes any of these things. But I think that he's at risk, and I think we have a basic duty to consider the risks and problems to article subjects that their Wikipedia page might cause. Certainly there are super-notable or notorious people who should have a page even if they don't want them. But I don't think Dr Luchins is necessarily in this category.—S Marshall T/C 22:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you have reason to believe that he has received death threats lately? The article does cite him having gotten threats, but the source is a 2002 article talking about earlier events. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

What leads you to believe that the subject is currently at risk? Am I missing something here? Also still unclear what his religion has to do with anything but you appear to think its significant so please explain that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

There's been a massive rise in antisemitism violence across the globe due to the events in the Gaza strip, so there is something to consider if they are receiving direct threats of violence now. Masem (t) 01:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

If you read the page, you might think otherwise. It is true that antisemitism is on the rise, however the threats described on the page do not appear related to that. JMWt (talk) 07:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Are they receiving direct threats of violence now? The editor operating on their behalf doesn't appear to have made that claim, as far as I see only S Marshall has. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• Generally oppose an individual's veto on a page, however if they have good reason to think that the presence of a WP page is leading to death threats, they're not likely to get much help here. They need to contact the legal department of the Foundation. JMWt (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
• The David Luchins article doesn't receive a whole lot of page views [62] (minus the recent influx due to this ANI thread). From 11/2/2022 to 11/2/2023, the article averaged 3 page views a day. If he wants his page deleted, I believe he'll have to go through the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion process, similar to the other WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE ones [63]. FWIW, I wouldn't be opposed to his deletion request. Some1 (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: BLP policy already allows for this if a person is borderline notable. However, if Donald Trump or Joe Biden said that they did not want to have Wikipedia articles about them, this would be unworkable.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Current policy suffices. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC).
• Oppose: Ridiculous. Public figures can't expect control like that over what is said about them pbp 20:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, pending further expiation from RogerSni. I do not think that living people should be able to request the deletion of their article other than by questioning its notability. That applies doubly to representatives or likewise of the dead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Unthinkable for an enclyclopedia. Addressing the stated death threats, they are not started or ended by having or not having a Wikipedia article. Which by policy, for anything that is challenged, contains only published public information on WP:notable topics. North8000 (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

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

RFA process reformation

As @Lourdes case happened, it showed us that banned editor can become a sysop, or even getting higher privilege for years without being noticed. It will definitely shock common editors on this project if cases like this happened numeric times. Also, a banned editor became a sysop will lead more troubles for desysoping them or requesting global ban against them.
I'm inclined to propose an amendment to currently RfA process, for example, every successful RfA candidate should be checked by checkuser or Arbcom members before granting tools for them, if there is something uncommon, e.g. using a specific User agent related to a well-known LTA, IP matched a banned user on checkuser wiki or Arbcom wiki, Arbcom need to be noticed.

We mainly focus on remedy when case pointed out by on and off-wiki evidence, ignoring that we can avoid this from the starting point. -Lemonaka‎ 08:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Lemonaka: Well, I'm clearly out of the loop. What happened? Cheers, Edward-Woodrow • talk 17:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Woah, okay, I see the AN discussion. For others like me, here's a link: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#A recent row at RfA. Edward-Woodrow • talk 17:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Ehh, Lourdes (talk · contribs) get to become sysop just after Wifione (talk · contribs) banned away, that's satirical a banned user can become sysop until recent, though declined case on Arbcom found they are someone banned. They have hidden their identification for nearly, eh, my math is terrible, 6 years? -Lemonaka‎ 17:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it's very concerning a sock passed RfA, and so on, but I really don't think CU-needling every candidate is the right approach. Edward-Woodrow • talk 20:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

For the patient LTA, it's also easily bypassed by waiting for the CU information of the blocked accounts to become stale. Certes (talk) 21:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

every successful RfA candidate should be checked by checkuser or Arbcom members before granting tools for them is called "fishing" and is not compatible with the local or global CheckUser policies. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Here's a question I would like a checkuser to answer: Would the current private evidence, along with Loudres's edits around the time of her RFA, have been likely to cause the connection to the previous account to be known? Animal lover |666| 22:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not a CU so haven't seen the private evidence, but based on how it has been described and assuming that the private evidence visible now is similar to the private evidence that was visible at the time (which is unknowable) then it is extremely unlikely that CU at the time of Lourdes' RFA would have revealed a connection to Wifione. Thryduulf (talk) 10:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

As the saying goes,  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I am a checkuser, but also haven't seen the private evidence. To answer the question generally: such a check would be against policy, and almost certainly would not reveal anything. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

This has come up before (Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 260#CU as a matter of course for RFAs was the last time), and the consensus is always that it would be both a fishing problem and simply ineffective. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Bad idea. Overtly in contradiction to global privacy and CU policies, which supersede any local policies. And also very, very unlikely to reveal any socking. Risker (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll tell you how we can avoid it: have everybody holding advanced permissions registered with the foundation under their real name. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

You're joking, right? Edward-Woodrow (talk) 12:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Its not a silly suggestion. That doesnt mean its ever likely to happen, but in the list of potential solutions, having people with access to advanced permissions identify their real identity and have it confirmed would eliminate some (but not all) problems with editors-turning-out-to-be-someone-else. There are actually two issues here, Lourdes was claiming to be someone they are not (identifying who you actually are would prevent this) and being a sock of a banned user (which wouldnt be prevented unless the WMF actually knew the real identity of the banned user in the first place, assuming they knew how to avoid the usual CU traps). CU and socking is largely a red herring here, because Lourdes got away with basically purporting to be someone else (which was highly improbable to start with, honestly, if you believe them I have a bridge to sell you) and editing activity that was highly unlikely to be in line with that identity's persona. All it really would have taken is at RFA time, someone doing a deep dive on their past editing activity and the asking pertinent questions. Thats completely possible *now* under the current RFA process. Only everyone is so aggressively nice and refuses to even suspect that a candidate might not be on the level. The Lourdes issue was a lack of skepticism in the participants, not a fault of the RFA process. The signs were there only if people would open their eyes and look, AND then actually ask the difficult questions. Ultimately all CU would do at RFA is catch people who dont know how to go on the test wiki and learn for themselves how CU works and what they need to guard against. Actually forcing people to identify to the WMF would have a far greater chance of surfacing any discrepancies. Never going to happen though. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Registering with the WMF under what looks like a real name wouldn't make much difference. Verifying that identity in some way would certainly make a difference, but at a price. To prevent a similar Wifione/Lourdes scenario simply verifying identities wouldn't suffice, the WMF would have to verify details and then store those details and compare them to new registrations. We have projects across the world, including in countries where the governments are more than a tad dodgy, and if past experience continues, there will be current admins who think their country is free and will remain so, but who are in for a shock in the future. We also have problems with the Public relations industry and various litigious subjects of Wikipedia articles. Having the shield of anonymity between our editors and spammers is an essential part of us remaining neutral. Of course we could operate with admins avoiding contentious content. But IMHO, the defence against spammers and other bad faith actors is that they can sue the WMF, but the WMF can honestly say they don't have real world details for all but a handful of editors. As someone who has received an email on my real life work email address from a banned editor, I think the price of preventing future Lourdes type scenarios through verification is much higher than the cost of risking further incidents of this type. ϢereSpielChequers 13:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Only everyone is so aggressively nice and refuses to even suspect that a candidate might not be on the level. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ScottishFinnishRadish doesn't seem to agree with that statement. I feel that people are more than willing to express that they think there's something fishy going on at RFA. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• CU isn't going to pick up a sock from years prior. Not how the tool works. Without getting into a BEANS level of specificity, it's just not how the tool works. GMG^talk 13:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
• Do something - Check user isn't a totally dumb idea, it at least may dissuade some people from even trying as they may not be sure whether they'll get caught or not. Lourdes is hardly the first case where this has come up recently. I also don't think registering under your real identity with the foundation is a crazy idea, though obviously I am aware it's a risky thing for some admins who live in dictatorships. FOARP (talk) 14:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  The problem with checkuser is the ones who aren't certain fall into two types - those who are going to be caught through other means anyway, and those who will wait until they are certain they can't get caught. Registering your real identity with the foundation is risky for everybody, not just those who live in regimes that are currently dictatorships (c.f. Pierre-sur-Haute military radio station#Controversy over Wikipedia article as just one example). Thryduulf (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  The obvious short-term outcome of requiring admins to declare their "real" names to the foundation would be a mass walkout of admins. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Given that there have been security leaks with ArbCom before, and there have been problems with the WMF, I have no intention of identifying my personal identity to anyone on this project, now or ever. If I, as an admin, were required to do so, I'd give up being an admin. It's hardly worth it. I also think it would be an active disincentive to people running for RfA, and that's the last thing we need. As to checkuser, it's been commented elsewhere, and by Maxim in great detail here, checkuser isn't a solution at all. If someone wants to skirt around checkuser, it's just not that hard. Let's look at this from a different perspective; how much damage did Lourdes actually do? I haven't followed the situation closely, though I am aware of it. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware (and I don't know how up-to-date I am), no egregiously bad admin actions have been discovered, although there were some that were dubious or poor (in the now-known context). There were bad actions but most of those could have been done by any extended confirmed editor, and the incident that lead to the arbitration case request is (as I understand it, it was all over before I was aware of the drama) probably best characterised as an abuse of admin status but didn't involve misuse of the tools. The majority (possibly even the vast majority) of their admin actions (at least those that have been examined) were correct either objectively or by being within the bounds of the "any reasonable admin" test. So, although they definitely should not have become an admin, the actual harm caused by being one was low.

Anyone attempting similar has two possible strategies - bold or quiet. Those that choose the bold option live fast and die young - they don't get to become admins in the first place because we spot them with existing processes and structures and they get blocked. The quiet option relies on not making waves, and repeatedly or egregiously making bad actions causes waves. Thryduulf (talk) 01:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• I would support check-usering admin candidates; even if the positive benefit is minimal I'm still convinced it will outweigh the harm. However, I would oppose requiring candidates to disclose their real identities; privacy is too important for such a requirement to be imposed. BilledMammal (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  That's the on-wiki equivalent of the search before you enter a concert or sports stadium. Security theater with no real benefit. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  Sometimes, the perception of security is more important than security itself; it may serve to deter a breach attempt before it is ever made. Further, while it's unlikely there will be a technical match, there are tools available to checkusers beyond just comparing IP's and user agents, such as linguistic analysis which may provide a hint that further investigation is warranted. BilledMammal (talk) 23:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  The only effective part of that doesn't need CU tools. I disagree that security theater is effective. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Policies for reducing frivolous complaints

I would like to raise a concern regarding the increasing instances of editorial process abuse, where some editors are extensively engaging in procedural complaints and unwarranted investigations, rather than focusing on constructive content contribution.

This concern stems from my personal experience of being subjected to a baseless sockpuppetry investigation, despite my long-standing record of unblemished contributions on a variety of topics (including highly controversial subject areas) over more than 15 years. The investigation has ended with no finding, however the experience of having to face a baseless complaint was painful and a big turnoff.

The core issue at hand is that editors who dedicate themselves almost entirely to 'wikilawyering' in the various noticeboards, are acting in direct contradiction to Wikipedia's ethos of bold editing and good faith collaboration.

It's also important to note that there is a need to acknowledge the possibility of 'false positives' in administrative actions, which can occur due to human error, and if sufficient false complaints are filed against a victim, we might be blocking good and constructive editors (which I believe is happening in practice).

Community Questions:

1. Is this recognized as a significant issue within the community?
2. In your opinion, should there be a limit on the number of complaints an individual can file in a period of time?
3. In your opinion, should there be sanctions for filing repetitive, meritless complaints?
4. Are there other suggestions to address this pattern of behavior?

This is my first post on village pump, so please forgive me if I'm not aware of some discussion rules. Marokwitz (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I think that if a user makes repeated baseless complaints on some forum, they should be banned from that forum with the exception of replying to complaints against them. If a user gets banned from multiple forums, a site ban may be necessary. And, of course, there is always the interaction ban if a user makes several complaints against the same user. Animal lover |666| 06:43, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Do we have such policy currently ? And if not, what would be a good way to propose it ? How would 'repeated' and 'baseless' be defined in such a policy? Marokwitz (talk) 10:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Under current policy at WP:CBAN, the community can ban any user for any behavior they deem wrong; the details of the ban are generally written by the proposer, and the community votes on it. This can be used for the purpose of dealing with what the community deems to be "repeated baseless" complaints. There is no such ban currently, but we do have a ban against SashiRolls, whereby SashiRolls is prohibited from commenting on AE requests where they are not a party. Animal lover |666| 10:44, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Because the language of topic bans is tailored to the specific situation it's not always easy to pick out themes, but Celestina007's topic ban includes restrictions to prevent frivolous complaints, Mbz1, Gilisa, and Factsontheground are all prohibited from making complaints related to any of the others, and Lurking shadow is limited in the complaints they can make regarding copyright infringement. There have also been other restrictions in the past that have now expired or successfully appealed. Thryduulf (talk) 04:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

In order of you questions, 1. I've certainly seen it happen, 2. No, 3. Yes, and I've seen editors sanctioned for doing so, 4. I wish I did.

This is probably currently covered by WP:HARASSMENT (if its targeted at a specific editor) and WP:DISRUPTIVE (if it's a general pattern of behaviour). It's not given as a specific example in either case, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't apply. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. What if the editor is not being disruptive, but rather very litigious? I believe we shouldn't encourage the over-use of these tools . Some individuals deploy these tools too readily, mainly because there are no consequences for incorrect use. This enables them to hound others and catch them on technicalities, which goes against the collaborative spirit of this project. Marokwitz (talk) 19:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

If an editor keeps raises false or petty issues they are usually dealt with. There may be cases where new editors do it and are dealt with a bit more leniently as part of a learning experience. There is also definitely consequences for such actions, and very definate consequences for the misuse of tools (I'm guessing you mean admin tools in this case). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

In some cases newer users get blocked (e.g. per WP:NOTHERE) rather than topic banned if they keep raising such issues after advice and warnings and they have few to no contributions outside that sphere. If the reports from a new account (almost) all relate to a specific area and/or dispute then it's not uncommon they turn out to be socks of someone blocked for disrupting that topic area (the history of Eastern Europe topic area has experienced this disproportionately). Thryduulf (talk) 03:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Re: if the editor is not being disruptive, but rather very litigious: if they're repeatedly bringing baseless complaints to drama boards or spi, about one or more persons, that is in fact disruptive editing. It wastes people's time having to deal with that kind of thing, which all by itself is disruptive.

The way to deal with it is to open a case at WP:ANI about them making repeated baseless complaints and -- crucially -- to in that complaint provide diffs/links of the evidence that they've done that. I say crucially because without these diffs that show the complaints were baseless and that they've done this multiple times, you're likely to be seen as making a baseless complaint yourself. Be aware also that if they've made 50 complaints and 47 of them were valid, no one is going to take three bad reports as evidence of disruption.

With regards to the SPI you were called to, the closing admin found not only no evidence of sockpuppetry but apparently evidence there was not sockpuppetry, so yes, a baseless complaint. But unless you have actual evidence the editor in question has done this kind of thing repeatedly, I'd take the win. Valereee (talk) 12:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not unusual for complaints to backfire – see WP:BOOMERANG. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Who decides what is frivolous? A cap on complaints would have waaaaaay too much potential for abuse, abuse far worse than any "frivolous complaints" could represent. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting a bright line numerical cap on complaints. And the community decides what is frivolous. Valereee (talk) 13:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)