User talk:Blablubbs/owepaidblock

How's this look?
Paging, , and : I just stumbled upon Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Archive 24, which raised an important issue but seems to have ended up not going anywhere. I've created a quick draft for a template here and some usage examples here, and would appreciate your input and feedback regarding wording and formatting before going further with this. I know the discussion was leaning towards implementing this as a parameter in existing templates, but I'm not great at writing these so I figured I'd start work in a standalone draft and then worry about the  statements for integrating with uw-upeblock in a second step.The template is cobbled together from bits of uw-upeblock and checkuserblock-account. I borrowed much of the wording from upeblock, but de-emphasised the "promotion" aspect of it, since some forms of UPE might not necessarily include promotional edits (e.g. paid AFC accepts without modifying the content, or "smear" and disinformation campaigns). I also added a  parameter for linking to VRT, as well as the   option from checkuserblock-account and wording about lifting these in a sysop-only div. Thanks in advance for any comments you may have. --Blablubbs (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Blablubbs I like it - particularly not emphasising promotion given that UPE can involve negative-PR campaigns too. firefly  ( t · c ) 16:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I totally forgot about that, thanks for following it up. This looks good to me. I've made a few minor wording changes.
 * Relatedly, is the guidance issued by ArbCom in 2022 recorded anywhere else? I don't think it's ideal that the policy basis for these blocks should be a note in an archive. Should we copy it to either Blocking policy or a new Special circumstances block? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Joe Roe: Thanks for the note, and for the copyedit! You make a good point regarding documentation in policy. The 2022 announcement is referenced as a footnote in WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE, but neither that passage nor WP:CUBL (or WP:NEVERUNBLOCK, for that matter) cover how those blocks are supposed to be marked. Accordingly, it's probably not entirely obvious to a non-CU admin who has read the blocking policy but not the announcement that they can't accept a UPE appeal if there's a ticket number in the block summary. I think the easiest way to rectify that would be to add some wording to the blocking policy (a sentence or two in BLOCKEVIDENCE would probably do the trick), and point WP:Special circumstances block there as a section redirect? Briefly referencing these blocks at CheckUser (and maybe in CUBL) might also be a good idea. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * An intent of the 2022 statement for at least some arbs was to make it so if someone accepted an unblock in these circumstances it wouldn't have to result in sanction as severe as reversing a CU block and in general for a Spam block to be easier to accept an appeal for than a CU block. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Accompanying my comments re:2022 intent, (speaking only for myself) I'd prefer that if we're giving them an email address to appeal to it's to the same paid queue the evidence is in rather than ArbCom. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That would be a change from the current procedure, no? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No? That just says when they can email ArbCom. It's true they could. However Blocking_policy makes clear that ArbCom is not the only option and so if we're going to direct them somewhere in a guided template, I think we can direct them to the checkuser team rather than ArbCom. This matches what numerous candidates said in this year's ACE so while I'm only speaking for myself, I also don't think ArbCom is going to get mad about having our email address given out less. But I'll make a not of this discussion on list. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I meant that, if someone's going to appeal to ArbCom, the current procedure is that they do so via arbcom-en@, not paid-en-wp@. As I read Blablubbs' draft, the intent is not to give them "an email to appeal to" exactly, but to specifically highlight that they can appeal to ArbCom. And while I can totally understand the desire to reduce the email load there, they are currently allowed to do that, and it doesn't feel quite right to obscure the option. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As a compromise, we could switch to
 * To appeal privately, you may instead email the checkuser team at ' with your username and your reasons for requesting unblocking. If all other options for appeal have been exhausted, you may also contact the Arbitration Committee at '? --Blablubbs (talk) 11:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We don't note that someone can appeal to AN in the regular unblock template. They are totally allowed to do that but we give them the lightest weight option. In this case that would be to appeal to check users. Barkeep49 (talk) 12:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As you note Joe WP:UNBLOCK notes that they can appeal to Arbcom if they want. But I don't understand why we need to start from the premise that they are going to appeal to Arbcom rather than, as Cabayi notes below, the group who holds the evidence. Barkeep49 (talk) 12:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I just think it's more fair to give people all their options up front. Ultimately it's up to the current committee, though. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 12:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't care that much about where we direct people in this specific template (and I'm happy to cut the wording at issue here), but just as an abstract take, I think lessening the functionary block appeal load on arbcom should probably start with making the existing guidance consistent and clear, and then move on to establishing new avenues of appeal.
 * CUBL tells people to discuss with the blocking CU, and then go straight to arbcom; GAB points people straight to arbcom if onwiki appeals don't work; XRV's header tells people to go straight to arbcom, as will many admins who work CAT:UNB and encounter a CU/off-wiki evidence block; none of these pages establish cu-en or paid-en as appeal venues, and neither does the arbcom guidance. Sure, people can appeal there, and sure, someone will probably review, but I feel like directing people to alternative appeal venues via template before we've actually ensured that written guidance and common practice are in line with that instruction is putting the cart before the horse. --Blablubbs (talk) 13:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I view this template as creating new appeal loads and making an existing problem problem worse. I also find calls that something needs to be comprehensively fixed before we can marginally improve something else not compelling. An attitude, I note, that you seemed to have shared Blablubbs when you opened discussion here. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Really? AFAIK these blocks have always been appealed to ArbCom. You guys overturned one of mine just last August. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, really. Right now we do a really poor job of helping these people understand how they can appeal because our templates don't cover it. By doing a better job of explaining and being fair to these users (which I 100% support) I anticipate we'll get more appeals, in total than before. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I might be being oversensitive, but I feel like that's quite a harsh and uncharitable reading of what I'm trying to do and trying to say here, Barkeep. The point I'm trying to make isn't "everything needs to be perfect before anything can be marginally improved", the point I'm trying to make is "I worry that if we create templates that give appeal instructions that are corroborated literally nowhere else, it will create confusion, which will create work; the guidance we give to appellants in block messages should be the same guidance we give them in every other place, so as to not make an already-confusing process more confusing than it has to be". I don't think that's an unreasonable argument, and I don't think it's somehow cause to frame things as if I were having this discussion in an attempt to be difficult.
 * I also don't see how creating a template that basically reflects what appellants would be told to do anyway as creating more work. The existing guidance, as it is commonly understood, is to direct these sorts of appeals towards arbcom (to give an example, here's how the last of my paid-en blocks that was appealed played out: User talk:MrAnmol). I agree with you that this isn't the best way to do things, all I'm trying to say is that if we make paid-en an appeals venue by creating a template like this, it should probably go hand in hand with updates to a) the guidance given to administrators and b) the guidance given to appellants elsewhere. --Blablubbs (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You state that you think things don't need to be comprehensively fixed and then list as preconditions. I suppose there are other things that would need to be fixed beyond those but I don't think I was being unchartiable in describing what you expect to see happen first as a comprehensive solution. And nothing in your response addresses the concern I'm laying out - this template will create appeals that didn't exist - and dismisses (unfairly I think) the very clear policy basis for what I'm saying (which also includes the same email address I am suggesting be used in this template). I'm not disagreeing with what you or Joe say about current processes. That clearly directs people towards arbcom, but there are other options already available to us now. Further, I'm also saying that there is a growing consensus among other arbs (1 of whom has posted here and a handful of others who've replied directly to me about preferring this point towards paid-en) that our current processes aren't working and I'd rather  not make the problem worse by introducing something new into the system when there's a better alternative supported by existing policy. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * " compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia" ~ we don't generally unpick whether an employee is the marketing director or the office cleaner. We don't ask for their contracts or their job descriptions. It would be good to forestall the appeals that try to split this hair.
 * It would be good to direct the appeals to the mailbox where the off-wiki evidence is held, whether it's at arbcom-en@ or paid-en-wp@. - Cabayi (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you have any alternative wording suggestions for the "compensated" line that might lessen the appeal burden? Regarding directing the appeals towards the evidence: I'd imagine that if the evidence is (only) with arbcom, it would (or perhaps should) end up being an arbcomblock, no? --Blablubbs (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Text: "to use" → "about whom, or about whose competitors or associates, you write on Wikipedia" (gah, sounds awful, needs polishing).
 * Appeals: No, not always. Arbcom sometimes receives reports which do not come under the committee's remit but which an individual arbitrator will handle in their personal capacity as an individual admin, checkuser or oversighter. Cabayi (talk) 12:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If arbs take action in an individual CU capacity because the submission does not in fact rise to the level of an arbcom matter, then the evidence should probably be made available to all CUs by forwarding the relevant bits to paid-en. I say this both as a matter of principle, and because I don't want to write additional #if statements if I can avoid it . --Blablubbs (talk) 13:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with this and have, in at least one discussion, encouraged someone to do that very thing. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)