Wikipedia:Village pump (policy): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Discussion (BLOCKEVIDENCE): reply to Barkeep49: I agree with this reading of the discussion. Best, (-) (CD) |
→RfC: Updating BLOCKEVIDENCE: Closing discussion (DiscussionCloser v.1.7.3) |
||
Line 241:
== RfC: Updating BLOCKEVIDENCE ==
{{closed rfc top
| status =
| result = While this discussion could've been closed earlier due to a clear consensus against the change, the debate among editors was still ongoing. Now that it's slowed down, it seems a good time to take a summary of what was discussed (and it seems some others agree).
This proposal began after an update by the ArbCom called "[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 13#Special Circumstances Blocks|Special Circumstances Blocks]]", which specified that administrators were to "contact the appropriate group rather than issue a block" depending on the circumstances. This led to [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 49#Special Circumstances Blocks|a discussion]] in which users were divided on the wording of [[WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE]], specifically, what "information to which not all administrators have access" meant.
An initial wave of supporters noted that allowing administrators to block users based on off-wiki evidence (to be emailed to ArbCom afterward and to any admin that requested it) would be helpful in fighting UPE and sockmasters, while at the same time offloading some work from CUs. Some noted that these types of blocks are already commonplace and, as such, a good reason to rewrite the policy to reflect current practices.
While some opposing saw this as a breach of [[WP:OUTING]], the discussion eventually drifted away from this topic after explanation that using off-wiki evidence of misconduct is not prohibited, but should be sent to the appropriate functionary queue, where they can act on that information. But, even ignoring those !votes that were solely based on this reasoning, '''it is quite clear that a big part of the community feels uncomfortable with administrators issuing blocks that depend on off-wiki info, which should be done by functionaries.'''
Editors made it clear that, while administrators are trusted members of the community, they haven't signed the confidentiality agreement and shouldn't be the ones making blocking decisions based on that kind of information. Editors rejected the proposed rewording of the blocking policy presented here saying administrators should be able to justify their blocks using on-wiki evidence, even if it includes aspects only accessible by other administrators (eg., revdel'ed edits and deleted pages). Any block that depends on off-wiki evidence should be issued by the proper group of functionaries. This falls in line with the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 13#Special Circumstances Blocks|guidance]] published by ArbCom.
Considering this happened due to differing interpretations of [[WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE]], '''the following paragraph should be amended to clarify that blocks that can't be justified without the use of off-wiki evidence ''must'' go through the appropriate group of functionaries (CU, OS or ArbCom)''': "{{tpq|If a user needs to be blocked based on information that is not available to all administrators, that information should be sent to the Arbitration Committee, a checkuser or an oversighter for action. These editors are qualified to handle non-public evidence, and they operate under strict controls. The community has rejected the idea of individual administrators acting on evidence that cannot be peer-reviewed.}}" (no specific wording was suggested) <small>([[Wikipedia:Non-admin closure|non-admin closure]])</small> [[User:Isabelle Belato|Isabelle]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Isabelle Belato|🏳🌈]]</sup></small> 01:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
}}
Should [[WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE]] be updated to explicitly allow administrators to consider off-wiki evidence when making blocks for on-wiki misconduct, as long as that evidence will be made available to all uninvolved administrators and recorded with the Arbitration Committee? 21:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Line 455 ⟶ 469:
*I've commented substantively in this RfC so I am clearly not uninvolved. But in reading over the discussion I think there is a consensus to be had. It's not consensus for what was proposed by {{u|Tamzin}} and {{u|L235}} but there is a consensus none-the-less and I hope that whoever closes this discussion will note that consensus so relevant policy pages can be updated. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 21:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
*:I agree with this reading of the discussion. Best, '''[[User:L235|KevinL]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]] '''·''' [[User talk:L235#top|t]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]]) 21:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
{{closed rfc bottom}}
== RfC at [[Wikipedia talk:Categorization]] ==
| |||