Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ORCA user data disclosure incident

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Happy to restore into userspace if it will facilitate a merge of useful info into other articles, just ask. A Train^talk 09:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ORCA user data disclosure incident

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While the last discussion reached no consensus, it is glaringly obvious now that this fails the duration of coverage section of the event notability guideline. The investigation into Sound Transit is underway and absolutely zero coverage has mentioned this "incident", instead focusing on actual issues.

The article is still in sorry shape, with few references that refer directly to the subject. There are signs of source synthesis and other policy violations. Sounder Bruce 04:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An example of recent coverage of the mentioned investigation, which has zero mention of ORCA. Sounder Bruce 04:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There has been little recent coverage of this incident. The investigation in 2016 found no wrongdoing. Nothing about this is notable. The author of this article is the only person ever to use the term Orcaleak as this article was originally titled. At least some of the original inflammatory language has been toned down, so thanks for that. Danjryan (talk) 05:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The last news story I can find on this is from September 2016, and said a review board agreed there was no wrongdoing. I could see a possible merge of some content into ORCA card (which already has a subsection on privacy concerns) if someone wants to do that work, but this is not notable enough for its own article. Shelbystripes (talk) 15:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Washington State Senate Law & Justice Committee has requested records into this incident and will investigate Thursday. Example: ^[1] JosefAbraham 04:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC) JosefAbraham 04:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Also this reitrated promise from Senator O'Ban for Thursday's Round II of hearings on KTTH's Todd E Herman's show on September 27, 2017. ^[2]

^ Abigail Doerr E-mail to Sound Transit, March 6, 2016, retrieved October 1, 2017
^ Todd E Herman (September 27, 2017). "The Todd Herman Show Sept 27, 2017 - Hour 1 ~~~~" (Podcast). KTTH. Event occurs at 6:06. Retrieved Oct 1, 2017.

Original author attempting to use wikipedia page to create a political controversy. https://twitter.com/SupportST3/status/914711554141982720 Danjryan (talk) 05:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, Danjryan I advised Washington State Senator O'Ban's office as the State Senator is the chief investigator and others to watch the page to watch who's censoring factual information. Nobody here is debating cited facts and documents on my page. No, whether my page should exist or not. This reeks of censorship. There will be major hearings Thursday so the re-initiated attempt to censor the page before the hearings does not build trust or respect or credibility instead of after. JosefAbraham 05:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of the authors use of this page for his personal, and very idiosyncratic, political campaign. https://twitter.com/SupportST3/status/914712465228759040 Danjryan (talk) 05:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True. I have tipped off the media since you're attempting to censor before a major legislative hearing on Thursday: http://app.leg.wa.gov/mobile/meetingschedules/Agenda?CommitteeId=17548&Date=10%2F05%2F2017%2013%3A00 .

I'm not going to mince words any more: You and SounderBruce can't wait until AFTER the Thursday hearings to see if you're right this is a "idiosyncratic" campaign or a civil liberties violation. The fact you can't wait means I need to tip off folks this is going on and poke around. More censorship attempts give me credibility... and remember we're not discussing content. STAND DOWN. JosefAbraham 05:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

This sounds like an admission that you (the original page author) created this page for your political agenda. You do not understand how Wikipedia works. You do not get to create an encyclopedic article and use it to build support for a political cause. Your statement that you "advised Washington State Senator O'Ban's office" confirms you have a clear conflict of interest (COI) on this article due to your personal involvement in the subject, and your "keep" vote does not carry independent weight, and you failed to disclose your COI in your "keep" vote.

Wikipedia is for documenting political movements or other topics that have already achieved encyclopedic notability. Go use the ample free speech rights you already have, convince reliable sources that this is a topic of lasting notability, and then this topic will be worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. But (IMO) it isn't right now. You shouldn't claim "censorship" just because Wikipedia policy might result in deleting a page you care about, and it will not help persuade other editors to keep it. The only thing that can do that is demonstrating encyclopedic notability from independent reliable sources. I would recommend not yelling at people to "STAND DOWN" again, as a person with COI berating other editors into silence is what actually registers as censorship around here. Shelbystripes (talk) 14:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as I noted above, some of this content may be appropriate for inclusion on the ORCA card page, as long as it does not dominate the page or give undue weight to the issue. A decision that a subject is not notable enough for its own article is not "censorship", nor is it a ban on including content on the topic anywhere on the site. This topic just doesn't seem notable enough for its own separate page. That's all this AfD is actually about. Shelbystripes (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−

JosefAbraham here. Shelbystripes, let me begin by thanking you for wading in here. Danjryan, Sounder Bruce and most certainly I are all three very emotionally attached to lobbying for public transit in the Puget Sound region. I am assuming you are not.

I told my two compatriots to "stand down" because they are major contributors to SeattleTransitBlog.com (full disclosure I am very supportive of that website and have contributed not just comments but occasionally money and Page Two writings) and seemingly were trying to protect Sound Transit by covering up a major data leak right now under Washington State Senate investigation. I am a believer in civil liberties and believe tracking who owns a ORCA card and who does not is a violation of civil liberties.

That said, could I have been a bit more gracious? Probably. But the timing of this tag by Sounder Bruce clearly is questionable. Certainly since he has not added a section on his ORCA Card page about this incident - and deleted my attempt to do so. Censorship to not mention this incident on the ORCA Card page? Probably.

I have attempted and will attempt to keep the main page about the facts and just the facts. My vote to keep this page was so folks could come to the main page and see the facts. See who, what, when, where, why and how. Again, nobody here is debating specific content. I have in the past welcomed edits to make the content better, less emotional and easier to understand.

If somehow, against all the documentation in Washington State Senate Investigation on this page, the ORCA user data disclosure incident does not feature in that hearing Thursday, I will change my vote. All I have done is advise certain souls these WikiPedia antics are going on.

Furthermore, full disclosure I donated to Mass Transit Now and give Transportation Choices Coalition $5 a month. I also testified in front of the ORCA Joint Board Monday, 2 October 2017 advising them this incident may have breached RCW 42.17A.555 which prohibits the use of lists to further ballot measures like Sound Transit 3. As this is speculation, did not make mainstream media, did not get an ORCA Joint Board response, and I am not a lawyer; I do not think these personal views belong on the main WikiPedia page.

I think transit advocates need not be "yes men" or "yes women" to one another, but truly passionate supporters capable of criticizing transit agencies. This leak happened. It needs to be patched and its patching needs documentation.

I hope you and other disinterested parties are satisfied. Again, If somehow, against all the documentation in Washington State Senate Investigation on the original page, the ORCA user data disclosure incident does not feature in that hearing Thursday, I will change my vote.

JosefAbraham 03:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−

Delete OK, first of all JosefAbraham: keep your posts short, and cite Wikipedia policies to support your position. Also, if your posting on Wikipedia is part of your job (if your boss asked it, even if you are not paid specifically for it), you must disclose it per WP:PAID. Also, website X not having an article about Y for arbitrary reason is not censorship (even when X=Wikipedia) as long as it is not the government's decision (see [1]). If you try to argue about this, I will ignore you per WP:NOTFORUM.

I read the (long) posts above and what little policy-based argument I can infer from it is that this incident will be subject of a state senate hearing soon which counts towards notability. Except it does not: putting something at the agenda of a senate hearing is equivalent to a primary source written by senators and their staff; I have not looked at the rules for the Washington state senate so I do not know whether it takes one senator or more than half of them or whatever, but regardless it is a primary source and hence does not contribute to notability.

It might be that after the hearing there will be some media noise whose amplitude may or may not reach the bar of notability, but we do not base notability on speculation. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Timing of delete request not significant. This article was not newsworthy a year ago when the original author first started pushing the "Orcaleak" fake scandal. Repeated attempts to contact journalists and state senator offices that his article may get deleted are not appropriate. Senate office has declined a request from the author to testify on this subject. If topic is referenced in Senate hearing, that is still a one-day news story, if that, and not notable. "Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else." Danjryan (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now I have no job connection to the Washington State Senate, period. As to Wikipedia:Notability, let me quote at length from the article, ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." ""Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally."

Take a look at the References tab of ORCA user data disclosure incident. You will see RCWs cited, investigative reports cited and reputable media sources cited - Seattle Times (2x), KTTH and Everett Herald. Perhaps I am mistaken in preferring primary sources over secondary sources in citation.

I agree with Danjryan, "Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else." As I speak, the ORCA Card is being upgraded to a new version. Multiple pieces of state legislation will be likely introduced from tomorrow's hearing. Let's all wait until tomorrow's hearing and see what comes of it.

Perhaps a permastub would balance the concerns about notability and documentation. I would be open to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosefAbraham (talk • contribs) 20:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the "hearing" into this issue (buried under other election-related inquiries) has passed, it's pretty obvious that the media will not be giving it continuing coverage, thus it fails Duration of coverage. The prospect of lasting effects is also slim to none, so there really is no argument for keeping this article on the site. Sounder Bruce 23:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with possibly a very selective merge into the article on the card itself. The lack of coverage-duration is the major consideration here. In the event that something else comes of this (the wheels of government grind pretty darn slowly this side of the Pacific, and I assume the same to be true in the States), there's nothing wrong with a re-creation of the article with the appropriate context. The political inclinations and "extra-curricular" activities of contributors to this debate are entirely irrelevant, as is shouting at them. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think if there was a merge into the ORCA Card article by Sounder Bruce, I could support that. But I doubt Sounder Bruce will play ball.

That said, the message I'm getting from disinterested WikiPedia contributors is that may be the best route to take. The hearings did uncover most of if not all the unsavory details and a final report is coming out soon. Will anything come of the requests for further investigations? Sadly, unlikely. JosefAbraham 18:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosefAbraham (talk • contribs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[1] Abigail Doerr E-mail to Sound Transit, March 6, 2016, retrieved October 1, 2017

[2] Todd E Herman (September 27, 2017). "The Todd Herman Show Sept 27, 2017 - Hour 1 ~~~~" (Podcast). KTTH. Event occurs at 6:06. Retrieved Oct 1, 2017.

[1]

[2]