Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals): Difference between revisions

#'''Support''' as proposer. If one looks at [[WT:Harassment]], it is clear that the community has divided views about how to reconcile the importance of protecting private information about users, according to the [[WP:Outing]] policy, with the importance of protecting articles from material that violates the [[WP:COI]] guideline and the terms of use on [[meta:Terms of use/FAQ on paid contributions without disclosure|undisclosed paid editing]]. Editors need to be able to present evidence without being criticized for making accusations without evidence, while also not violating the harassment policy. This proposal grew out of the discussion [[Wikipedia talk:Harassment#Need for a better mechanism for private reporting|here]], and is a way to reconcile those needs without creating new bureaucracy, by using existing Functionaries. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 21:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

#:I've been thinking about the concerns among some editors about how this would create some sort of sooooper secrit process. It's worth looking at the existing policy at [[WP:Outing]], the last paragraph, the paragraph that begins: {{tq|Nothing in this policy prohibits the emailing of personal information about editors to individual administrators, functionaries, or arbitrators...}}. As things stand right now, anyone can email any kind of accusation to an individual administrator chosen to be sympathetic, and that administrator can go right ahead and block the accused user on the basis of the private email. The blocked user does not get to find out what the accusation was, and there is no other review before the block. That's expressly permitted right now, if an administrator believes that there is a serious COI problem. Isn't the proposal here better than that? --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 17:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

#:::I realize that there is no way this proposal is going to pass, but I would like to correct you that the proposal does not allow sending such material to admins who are not functionaries, and in fact expressly prohibits it. And it also specifies that users should not be blocked as a result of an email, but instead, the normal on-site processes should be followed. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 21:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

#:::: Never thought that. The difficult question is "what is a functionary?" [[Wikipedia:Functionaries]] is not very tight. This proposal was to solicit personal information sent to them, with unclear limits on the downstream controls on information supplied. It begs to be leaked with plausible deniability by each individual. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 02:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

#:::::Thanks for clarifying that. When you referred to "a group of admins", I thought that was what you meant. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

#'''Support''' My experience in dealing with these situations both as an admin. and as an arb has shown me that there is a real need for this. Most COI situations do not actually require this, but some do. There is no current way of handling the situation properly on-wiki; people attempting to have often inadvertently or in their enthusiasm run afoul of our rules about outing and similar policies. The only other potential resource at present is arb com, and as is evident from previous discussions, the majority of arbs do not want to deal with this problem. There are however a few arbs and other functionaries who are willing to deal with it. They are already authorized by the foundation and the community to deal with private information, and are accustomed to handling it properly. The only question is whether the available &willing functionaries are sufficient to handle the expected work: I think they probably are, because most COI problems are so obvious that no confidential information is required. This list will in such cases simply serve as a way of telling people that it is acceptable to go ahead on the basis of obvious content and behavior, but even this is helpful in giving them a safe place to send information and thus preventing them from violating policy. In those cases where private information is needed, the people on the list will be able to deal with it. If it should prove inadequate, we will find this out and be better able to suggest other solutions; if it is unnecessary,we will find this out also. Unless we try,we will not know. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 22:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

#:If there is a need for this, apparently by your words only in a small fraction of cases, let the Arbs take responsibility. The functionaries email distribution ([[Wikipedia:COI_List#Membership]]) is, to the community of editors, an uncontrolled membership, inclusive of a number of ex officio members, and in not subject to community scrutiny. The proposal is to invite submissions of private information from editors about other editors, and that is a dangerous thing. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 04:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)