Wikipedia talk:Village pump (WMF)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Untitled comment

Hey, Alsee! I saw the announcement of this new page go by on Signpost, is it live somewhere else? —valereee (talk) 11:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Are the WMF actually monitoring this?

The idea of a single point of contact is a good one to allow people with questions about Foundation policy to see if the question has already been asked, but are the WMF actually routinely monitoring this page? (User:Whatamidoing (WMF), User:Keegan (WMF), User:Elitre (WMF), this presumably means you.) If (the former) Community Engagement aren't aware they're supposed to be checking this page regularly, this just becomes a /dev/null to send people with awkward questions, and we're potentially going to annoy and upset a lot of editors if we direct good-faith questioners here but nobody ever answers. ‑ Iridescent 08:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not think anybody is actively monitoring this at the moment, at least I am not aware of any efforts to give this link to any WMF employee.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I think people over at WMF would prefer to sending all things at this noticeboard rather than finding the appropriate place to post each time. @Trizek (WMF), Volker E. (WMF), and Qgil-WMF: might want to know about this. I don't know if I've seen anyone else around recently. --qedk (t 愛 c) 08:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I suspect (with no inside knowledge, I hasten to add, but just going by past history) that they wouldn't prefer anything of the kind. The existing "if you want to talk to WMF people, post at Meta" setup may be a nuisance for us, but there are good reasons for it since their decisions tend to affect multiple projects and for en-wiki to have its own palantir would mean de-wiki, fr-wiki, Commons etc would all want one too, and thus fragment meta-discussions even worse than they already are. Unless and until there's a commitment from the WMF that they're actually going to pay attention to this page, I strongly recommend the link at Wikipedia:Village pump be removed; if we're deliberately directing people with questions for the Foundation to a page that no Foundation staff are watching, that's actively damaging. ‑ Iridescent 08:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Iridescent: It's possible that they won't. I meant it in the sense that communications from the WMF can be centralized at this venue at the very least. --qedk (t 愛 c) 09:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I am kind of doubtful that that will happen for the reasons I raised on the main page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@QEDK, if the intent is just a central archive of WMF announcements along the lines of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard that's one thing, but if that's the case it should be a noticeboard rather than a sectoin of the Village Pump, and that isn't what this is being sold as. It's being described as intended for communication, understanding, and coordination between the community and the Foundation (direct quote from the page header) and To post regarding issues of significance to both the community and the Wikimedia Foundation (direct quote from the Village Pump header). Any reasonable editor seeing that is going to assume that this is some kind of centralised forum for people to raise concerns with WMF management and developers.

If the WMF isn't watching this—or at the very least, someone from the former Community Engagement who'll forward messages on the the relevant people—then it's just going to lead to a lot of confused editors wondering why their good-faith questions are being ignored. (Have a look at just how many variations of "why are you ignoring my question?" there are on User talk:Katherine (WMF). This isn't just idle speculation as to what happens when the WMF neglects to monitor a page advertised as a means of communication with them; we have emperical evidence that it makes good-faith editors annoyed and upset.) ‑ Iridescent 12:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

This Village pump was created as an RfC result. It is entirely possible that, despite the RfC support, it is not going to be used, or WMF is not going to be engaged. I would just give it several months - and we know that several months is a typical time scale to have at least one WMF-related drama - to see whether it works. If it does not we would probably need another RfC to shut it down, or without shutting it down remove it from the Village pump template - and then in five years nobody would be able to find it anymore.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Huh. Which RfC was this ... I remember one that resulted in no consensus for this change. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: See Special:PermaLink/954764740#Proposal: New Village Pump Page. --qedk (t 愛 c) 08:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

That was the RfC I remember...seems like I misremembered the outcome however. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, just a note to say that the Foundation is aware of this conversation. We have also been discussing the objectives mentioned here: specifically a channel to follow Foundation announcements and a process to ask the Foundation questions. We will share more information soon. Qgil-WMF (talk) 08:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, for now the Foundation is not monitoring this page officially. We will continue posting English Wikipedia specific announcements on the relevant Village Pumps or other specialized venues with the aim of reaching a wider audience (see examples 1, 2, 3). When we announce an English Wikipedia specific initiative, we will continue to create pages locally, so people can watch them easily (for example, Growth features and the Talk pages project). That said, sometimes a team might decide that this channel is a good venue to reach their intended audience, and then they will post or cross-post here.

When it comes to asking the Foundation questions or providing specific feedback, the best venues to use are the ones referenced in each individual announcement. If the feedback is related to Movement-wide topics, we encourage the use of Meta-Wiki to collaborate with members of the Movement beyond English Wikipedia. For anything specific to the Wikimedia Foundation and not covered by announcements, there is a venue on Meta-Wiki to ask the Foundation public questions and another one explaining how to send us questions privately over email. Qgil-WMF (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Location of discussion of topics?

Assuming the space is retained, what are the rules for its usage:

Obviously posting WMF notices and actions here is helpful (in fact, without a single meta page for it, that alone is enough for it to be a plus).

And if the WMF asks us for something (e.g. our position on status labs), then that would also logically go here, along with discussion with WMF staff etc.

What I'm not sure of is if just raising a discussion on anything WMF related here would be viewed as messy or unwanted. I'd like to find more about the new end-run T&S they're doing on UCOC (side note, @Risker:, do you know anything on this?). One to one I can just ask @Yair rand:, but for a discussion it would make sense to be there. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Hello, in addition to what can be posted, and what not, we may also add some more possibly non-controversial but important information.

1. One thing I can think of now "This village pump is not a option to report emergency. Please follow the communication procedure mentioned at Wikipedia:Emergency.
2. We have some information at the top of the page. Most possibly the Foundation receives a lot of correspondence related to a large number of topics. I don't think this is a forum of non-editors/new-editors contacting WMF for various reasons. Should we call this village pump for editors with at least some on-Wiki experience, or should we further clarify the theme and objectives of the VP? – That's upto you, and all of us. With regards. --Titodutta (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Titodutta: I like the ideas of adding a link to the emergencies page and the contact us page; those both seem relevant. I can't support the idea of "experienced only" language — even though I agree that the page is not a good place for newcomers, saying "don't post here unless you're experienced" is just way too off-putting and contrary to our culture. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Welcome WMF template

Hello, perhaps we should create a template Template:Welcome-WMF for our WMF friends here. As a WMF account should not be massively editing articles here (of course they can use their volunteer accounts) the common links to "Your first article", "ask help at help desk" etc links won't be relevant. Perhaps specific links such as this VP, or other places might help? Regards. --Titodutta (talk) 03:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I know the intention is good but it will come off as very condescending, it's better to let it be, or a simple "Welcome to Wikipedia" without anything else if you really need to welcome an employee. --qedk (t 愛 c) 04:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Onboarding a new WMF employee is just such a different process than a normal user creating an account that I'm not sure the welcome system would function for it. Something along the lines of "On behalf of the Wikipedia editor community, I wanted to congratulate you on starting your new role at the WMF!" might work, but it'd be hard to identify new WMF employees since some interact with us way more than others. Ultimately, getting people from at the WMF to actively monitor this page isn't something we can do much about; it's something they need to decide to do and integrate into their workplace culture themselves. I'm glad to see a WMF reply above, and I guess we'll see how things pan out and whether this pump survives. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

As the WMF recruits a mix of people from Wikimedians who are active on this or other projects, to people who have never edited, and their involvement with this project ranges from significant to negligible, I really doubt if we could come up with a standard welcome for WMF staff. ϢereSpielChequers 14:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Highlighting WMF comments

The community replies so far on this board so far outnumber the WMF replies by a lot, which makes sense given the basic numbers and that WMF folks have to be more cautious when in their official roles. Should we have a template or something that they can use for their comments to help make them stand out a bit and easier to find, such as perhaps highlighting them with in a light background color? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe I've seen an official response from WMF wrapped in {{Ivory messagebox}} on some discussion page before. —⁠andrybak (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I thought of several different ways of highlighting WMF comments automatically without any special markup, but they all either didn't work or ended up breaking the (edit) links on each individual section. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Indeed, it would be helpful. Just now when I was re-reading the new posts , I realised I missed a couple of comments from them. --Titodutta (talk) 21:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• I'd like to bump this thought, given that I expect that ratio to get even worse once more individuals realise Maggie is actively answering questions on the CRC. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
• Someone should inquire into request that the highlighters scripts that are floating around out there support a group for the WMF. I think User:Anomie has one that can/could/does do it. --Izno (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

  (Alternatively, we can add a styles page to highlight the signatures in the same way that Javascript highlighters function. --Izno (talk) 18:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC))

  A Javascript highligher would be a bit more flexible, as it could look for signatures specifically, where CSS can't really differentiate sigs from other links. It could also try to highlight the whole comment (assuming, of course, that WMF people are careful to avoid WP:LISTGAP) rather than just flagging the signature link. The disadvantage would be that it would have to be a user script, gadget, or MediaWiki:Common.js that would run at least a loader on every page view, as (AFAIK) there's no way for us to add some JS only to one particular page.

  If highlighting any links to a WMF user's userpage or talk page (e.g. including pings as well as signatures) is all that's wanted, a TemplateStyles sheet could do a decent job of it with something along the lines of

  a[href*="/User"][href$="(WMF)"], a[href*="/User"][href$="WMF"] {
      outline: 5px solid magenta;
  }
  

  and would avoid the need for JS. Anomie⚔ 20:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

  That works. I created a stylesheet page at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)/styles.css but thinned the outline to 3px because 5px looked a bit garish to me. You can see the result at Special:Permalink/966730827 as I reverted the test pending further comment here. --RexxS (talk) 21:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

  The particular CSS style may have been for illustration's purposes and not necessarily for permanent use... garish is a nice way to put the use of that color and those borders. --Izno (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

  Indeed, Izno, but folks can now easily make changes to the stylesheet and "preview" the changes by looking at the permalink. It's open season on Skittlepedia! --RexxS (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

  How about something like an underline in the Wikimedia colors? Like this: Some Person (WMF)? border-image: linear-gradient( 90deg, #339966 33%, #0063BF 33%, #0063BF 66%, #990000 66% ) 1 0; border-bottom: 4px solid; --Yair rand (talk) 21:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

  I put that (at 3px) in the style sheet. --Izno (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  That looks pretty restrained but easy to spot. I'd go with that. I'm going to enable it and see how long before somebody complains. --RexxS (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  I like it, my only complaint is that I was confused whether it was a script I accidentally enabled or everyone from WMF chose to add it to their sigs - probably worth a mention somewhere, hmm. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, this is my personal opinion. I just want to note that this thread started with an idea about highlighting WMF comments, and now what is being highlighted are signatures of and mentions to Foundation staff. In my view, the result has very different connotations than the original problem this thread was trying to solve. The attention shifts to persons instead of content, even more when mentions to Foundation staff posted by anyone are highlighted too. I wonder what you would think about a script that would stylize your signature whether you like it or not. Casual readers unaware of this discussion and not reading the intro section may think that Foundation staff wants to be seen differently trough their signatures. If the intention of this space is to aid communication, understanding, and coordination, seeing signatures of Foundation staff manipulated doesn't help me feeling more comfortable here. While I cannot speak for my colleagues, I bet the majority will also feel less confident to participate here with such forced type of tagging. I would say that if a comment deserves highlighting, highlight it by all means. There seems to be enough surveillance in this page watching for new comments from Foundation staff. And maybe not every single word posted by Foundation staff is as interesting as to be highlighted. Please take this as a suggestion and as a different perspective. I'm not questioning the good intentions of the participants in this discussion. Qgil-WMF (talk) 09:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, I think I agree with that.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  And I agree too. I would really be upset if my chosen signature was changed without my consent, just because of where I work. Delphine (WMF) (talk) 09:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Qgil-WMF: I don't think there was any malintent in the suggestion but given your comment, I disabled it because there's not much point if the staff themselves don't approve of it (for whatever reason). --qedk (t 愛 c) 13:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  I think there's been a misunderstanding. The scripts won't "change" anyone's signature, just highlight it in a viewer's browser. And, considering the number of scripts and gadgets we have that do precisely the same thing—we currently have scripts that highlights users' post by age [1], that highlights your own edits [2], that identify administrators [3][4], functionaries [5]] bureaucrats [6][7] and one that highlights just about every user group we have [8] (that one lights a watchlist up like a Christmas tree). And all these, when in use, draw far more attention to individuals than the number of times a WMF account posts (which, realistically, is relatively infrequent, notwithstanding this latest palava). I further suggest that the use of these highlighters is felt to be useful for picking out, at a glance, holders of certain permissions; admins anywhere, but say, CU at a lengthy SPI, a crat on a cratchat talk page, etc, and I suggest that on the WMF noticeboard it might be convenient for seeing at a glance where the WMF has spoken. There is no evidence at all to support the suggestion that the use of group highlighters elsewhere on the project has led to discussions being personalised on account of them, and I'm unconvinced that this page would be any different. Put it another way: if this discussion can be accused of being personalised—and that may well be the case—then it did not need the encouragement of a script highlighter to do so. ——Serial ^# 16:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  The version of the page Qgil et al were commenting on displayed a WMF-colored bottom border underneath the signatures of the users commenting via template styles, not via personal scripts. I suspect that version is why the above comments were made. --Izno (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  H'mmm, I wish that were the case. But realistically, whether the highlighting is done through a script or a .css page is bizarrely meta: the viewer is not going to even know. Secondly, the two WMF editors who have explained tehir opposition to be based on fears of personalising discussion and changing signatures. The former, I have suggested is unlikely given the multiple occasions it occurs elsewhere on the projects talk pages, while the latter is based on a misunderstanding. Don't get me wrong, if I've misunderstood something and the WMF don't want their corporate colours associated with their Wikipedia accounts (which would certainly be ironic), then I'm sure the colour could be changed. Actually, I thought using the foundation's own colours was both apposite and respectful, but that could well just be me. ——Serial ^# 16:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  the viewer is not going to even know erm, no, the point I'm trying to make is that the script solution is something that you, and you alone as a single reader, opt into seeing (in whatever colors). It is not visible to everyone who visits the page. A templatestyles solution, OTOH, is visible to every visitor to the page. --Izno (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Does anyone want to save the little bit of CSS off in their userspace, or put another way, does anyone care if I were to WP:G6 this as a now-unused experiment? --Izno (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Civility and safe space

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.

---

Hi, this is an invitation to discuss the need to keep good standards of civility and safety in this newly created and unprecedented Village Pump. Feedback is welcome especially from the promoters and frequent participants of this space.

Wikipedia:Civility is a policy worth reading and keeping in mind when posting anywhere, here too. I like the good advice that page has. I always try to apply the principle of "Take a Real-Life check" expressed there. I use it to guide my actions, and my inaction too. For instance, imagine yourself sitting in a table with four more people. One asks a question about something you have published on social media that apparently attracted many visitors. The two persons sitting on each side tell you that such publication "seems a stupid idea" and is a "completely pointless idea", while the other person at the table asks you directly to answer. Nobody else seems to have a problem with the two people who have disqualified your work in such terms, without knowing anything about you and your work, before having heard any explanation from you, without providing a reasoning for their blunt disqualifications. What do you expect someone in real-life would do in that table? What would you do if you would be receiving such disqualifications from strangers yourself, about your own work?

Safe space. While this term is not mentioned in the policy, it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that if a space is created to aid communication, understanding, and coordination between multiple parties, all parties must feel safe in such space. I mean, most people would even expect proactive friendliness for such type of spaces to work. If you think this space should already feel safe to Foundation staff (the target group you want to attract), I invite you to start watching this page from a different perspective. If you believe that because (circumstances) it is our job to deal with incivility, then think whether waiting staff in a bar are paid to deal with abuse from customers. Hint: they are not.

I'm picking on this example only because it is the most recent. I'm not trying to argue whether those comments breach any policy, that's not the point here. I am only trying to expose a fact that in real-life would be self-evident. In real-life those comments would be considered disrespectful in any reasonable context, and they wouldn't encourage any safe and constructive conversation. Collaboration requires respect, and respect requires collaboration. If this space doesn't feel civil and safe for everyone, it won't achieve its declared purpose. Qgil-WMF (talk) 11:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Not in my real life. - Sitush (talk) 11:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Qgil-WMF: Thanks for taking the time to post here. I agree that the example you've shown there isn't nice; I'm not sure it breaches the bar of incivility, in the way that WP:CIVIL is enforced normally on enwiki, but it certainly breaches WP:EXCELLENT, which is my personal guideline. That being said, I do think there are definitely other examples on the page of other users breaching the civility guidelines, and I think it's incredibly important that those are addressed. What may be worth considering is how this relates to the rest of Wikipedia, as well; unfortunately, these sorts of situations do not solely come up with WMF staff, although they may be more common with WMF staff. Perhaps the implementation of the UCOC will be helpful in this regard.

If I worked for the Foundation, I'm not sure I'd want to come to this Pump, either - and that's a problem that's on us all to fix. I don't know if it's possible to do in isolation, though, and not looking at the Wikipedia environment more broadly; one might hope that Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC § 8. Relationship with T&S might help with that, but I'm as of yet unclear what will come of it.

All the best, Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To clarify, there is nothing wrong with robust discussion and when the W?F appear to introduce something without consultation that is what they can expect to get. Honestly, in my real life I get a lot worse than this and I also get a lot worse than this on-wiki. Some people do need to grow a thicker skin, sorry. I could couch what I said in that prior section in different terms but it would be fannying about, merely involving use of a thesaurus to make the same point. If people can't take a bit of criticism in an online community, they are in the wrong job. - Sitush (talk) 11:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sitush: There is nothing wrong with robust discussion, clearly, but that is a different kettle of fish to attacking individual staff members for organisational decisions, and shouting at people for things that they had no involvement in.

I'm not trying to assign blame in particular for this happening; it's understandable that when controversial management decisions take place, like the renaming aspect of the brand project (which, for the record, I've previously made fairly clear that I am against), people will lose confidence and trust in the organisation as a whole. However, that doesn't give people an excuse for incivility to individual representatives of the organisation. It's the equivalent of losing one's temper on the phone to a call centre representative of a company - WMF staff are just doing their jobs, and they deserve to be able to do so without fear of being attacked by community members who are (even justifiably) angry about decisions that their company has taken. You can express that anger without ending up crossing the line into incivility; it might be marginally harder, but we've spent the last however long building a free encyclopedia of digital content, accessible to anyone, anywhere, and editable by anyone, too. We've done a lot of things an awful lot harder than this. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

And my point is if they think they have been attacked in the thread referred to then, really, they are in the wrong job. It isn't about losing one's temper, it's about saying it as it is without going all around the houses. I wonder if some people in the W?F might not be better seeking careers in a diplomatic service, where hundreds of thousands of words are expended saying "I don't like that" or whatever. We all have more important things to do and, I say it again, the W?F's apparent idea of what happens in the real world (meetings, phone calls etc) is a million miles away from my experience and, I suspect from past discussions, that of most people. You can desire a "safe space" but if you try to have everything on your own terms, you'll end up with not a lot. We're human, we react; the W?F have consistently appeared to want something that is utopian and they are never going to get it unless they take over editing this thing. -

Ha! And just as I was typing that, this appeared. I don't disagree with it. - Sitush (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sitush: Vandalism on your talk page is not comparable to the work of WMF employees; it's just not. I'm more than sure that you can see that as well as I can. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 12:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

That is a matter of opinion. Giving massive publicity to an ill-prepared article is pretty damaging, imo. - Sitush (talk) 12:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sitush: It is not a matter of opinion to say that WMF employees are of far more value to our project, and to all the other WMF projects, than someone who is blocked as a vandal or WP:NOTHERE; that is not a matter that is disputable, and the suggestion that it is is exactly the sort of reason why WMF employees are unlikely to want to engage here, if that is the level of the discourse. If I were in your position, I would withdraw that comment, as it strikes me as highly uncivil - not to mention a WP:AGF violation, in my view. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 12:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The impact of vandals on a user talk page is also much smaller than the impact the actions of some WMF employees might have. Their "far more value" can just as easily turn into "far more harmful" than a vandal or a nothere blocked editor. "With great power" etcetera. Fram (talk) 12:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say it was vandalism. I said it is pretty damaging. If you like, I will amend that to could be pretty damaging. - Sitush (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and I didn't say someone was "stupid" in the earlier thread referred to. I said it seemed like a stupid idea - I don;t know if it was originated by an individual or a committee but, either way, it wasn't thought through (in my opinion) and if something isn't thought through then, yep, it very probably will be stupid. - Sitush (talk) 13:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Naypta, if you get unwanted calls from a call center, then the first two times you ask them not to call you again, but when you get the same call for a third time the same morning, you tell them to "get lost and leave you alone" (probably in more colourful terms). Yes, incivility shouldn't be the default reply, but neither should "I'm just a messenger" be the default defense. If someone is making false promises, procrastinating, ... or is defending these actions or other similar things we got used to over the years, then they shouldn't be surprised about the reaction they get. If you sleep with the dog, you'll get fleas. If, as has happened in some cases, the WMF does everything they can to get people angry, then they shouldn't then demand that no anger is directed at them. They have the power position to impose stuff; anger, incivility, backlash is a logical response from the ones subjected to said power when reasonable, calm discussion has no effect.

Take for example the rebranding; there has been a lot of discontent, expressed mostly in reasonable, civil terms. If the result now would be "we will continue regardless" or claims that the rebrand is overwhelmingly supported because only % of the active editors have expressly disagreed (the kind of tricck they already tried in the past), then it is likely that quite a few people will no longer react civilly but will start yelling. Perhaps not advisable, but what else can they do? Yes, people can always leave, but that's a big part of the problem: people being forced to leave a community project where they are a part of, because of the actions or words of an organisation created to support the community, not to rule it. Fram (talk) 12:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Fram: I think any reasonable person would agree that people being forced to leave a community project where they are a part of, because of the actions or words of an organisation created to support the community, not to rule it would be a bad thing. However, I disagree with you in saying they shouldn't then demand that no anger is directed at them - or at least, in the way that it's phrased. Clearly, people can be angry at the WMF without being angry at individual employees of the organisation, but actually, that's not the point. Hell, if it's merited, people can be angry at the individual employees if they've genuinely done something individually wrong - but you can express that anger without devolving into incivility. Not least because it's wholly unhelpful to whatever cause is being expressed to be uncivil, as it eases the portrayal of dissenters as an angry mob, rather than people with reasonable and justified concerns.

Using the rebranding as an example: there's a clear difference between saying something (as might have been said prior to the 'clarification' that a rebrand was not necessarily a rename) like The WMF's unilateral decision here seems to show a disrespect for the communities, and something of this magnitude should be discussed far more extensively; the communities should block any such decision until it's discussed further, and saying something like The WMF are a bunch of idiots who pulled this out of their arse; they're telling the communities to sod off. Much as the latter reaction might be tempting, it's wholly unhelpful for everyone involved, and ought to be recognised for the incivility it contains. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 12:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that that wouldn't contain incivility, I'm arguing that such replies often are helpful in such situations, and that an angry mob sometimes gets more done than the superficially reasonable and calm discourse. Basically, there are three levels: you can calmly explain why you're unhappy (good), you can go to the streets, protest loudly, even pull down statues (good, when used sparingly and when the circumstances allow it), or you can start looting shops or shooting at cops (bad, no matter what). If and when the circumstances (in this case, some WMF decision or action) warrant a type 2 response, because type 1 responses had no effect, then people should go for it. And if even something like this is used as an example of an unacceptable post, then basically all that is allowed any more is roll over and be happy that we get some crumbs from time to time. If, to get back to an earlier simile, you are a bartender and you get uncomfortable from hearing such a discussion, then you probably are in the wrong job. Or, to get back to the rebranding example: if the WMF would now declare that the survey shows most support for option 2, and therefor they will rebrand themselves as such, then yes, they would deserve to be called a bunch of idiots and much worse. We should treat each other with respect, but respect is something that needs to be earned as well, and if the WMF would show that they don't respect us by their actions (as has happened often enough in the past), then they shouldn't complain that we show similar disrespect through our words.

Mind you, I'm not arguing that there is now a situation or a WMF employee deserving of such reaction; but neither has there been a discussion worthy of concern yet, and claiming that the WMF article of the year section is somehow problematic seems to me to be serious overkill and stifling justified criticism. Fram (talk) 12:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Naypta's viewpoint on civility are perfectly accurate, what's inaccurate is your interpretation of WP:CIVIL. Firstly, it's not a policy that you subvert occassionally to get things done, it's one of the most important policies to ensure a safe and collaborative space, if not the most. It's quite obvious that any employee would feel "concerned", for what it's worth I don't consider the original comments to be breaching the civility policy's letter or WMF's own safe space policy for that matter, could it have been worded better? Probably. Given WMF's recent approach to branding, I find it quite natural for Sitush to have made that comment (not a statement about Sitush, a comment on the situation itself). My primary concern lies with the fact that civility policies can be left someplace else for a cause is unjustifiable, that's all. --qedk (t 愛 c) 13:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

If you don't get a safe and collaborative space to work in from the powers that be (in casu, the WMF), then reciprocating in kind is natural and justifiable, no matter what a policy says. If (and let's hope it's a hypothetical) the WMF would implement the renaming anyway anytimle soon (because hey, Wikipedia (not the WMF) is 20 years old and we paid a lot of money to some consultants), then I would expect people here (and at meta) to react with "The WMF and all its employees can go to hell, we'll fork and do better". If you or any other admin would block someone over that pillar breach, then I'ld argue for a desysop because of a total lack of clue and empathy. That's not arguing that the comment would be civil, just that the incivility would be understandable, warranted, probably even needed, in that situation. WP:IAR, if you like. Sometimes (not often, not always, not as the standard) the intented result simply is that the one addressed like this feels "concerned" and can communicate "shit, they aren't just disagreeing, they are truly mad at us this time". If serious, widespread concerns don't get taken serious (as has happened often enough in the past), then something else needs to be done. Again, I'm not arguing that this needs to be done now, just that excluding the possibility completely from some theoretical ivory tower "this is how one should react" position is wrong. And it is even more wrong when, as we see here, there isn't even agreement on what the limits should be anyway: you agree that the original comments didn't breach anything, but the WMF (or one WMF editor) already wants us to dial it down even further if we want them to participate here. Which nicely highlights the problems a UCOC will encounter as well. Fram (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Fram: I cannot disagree more strongly with the sentiment that it's "sometimes okay" to be uncivil. WP:CIVILITY does not have exceptions. When I wrote WP:EXCELLENT, I didn't write it saying "oh but it's okay to be awful to people you vehemently dislike". As far as I am concerned, there is never an excuse for incivility. There may be mitigating factors, that make a breach more understandable sometimes than others, but that's not remotely the same as saying the incivility would be understandable, warranted, probably even needed. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

And I wouldn't expect anything else from someone who wrote that essay, but I really don't come to Wikipedia to get lectured on how I should behave off-wiki from someone I don't know, and who seems to proclaim that if I don't agree with that essay, I am not a decent human apparently. Getting a sermon like wp:excellent is to me a lot more insulting than getting told to get lost. It's the kind of "be a good catholic / boy scout / groupthink / follow the leader / "normen en waarden" (in Dutch) " mentality I was glad our society mostly left behind since the 1960s. Fram (talk) 14:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Fram: I don't know why be respectful and kind to the people you are trying to collaborate with is equivalent to groupthink. I certainly wouldn't mean to suggest that you are not a decent human; I'm assuming that's a reference to the penultimate sentence of WP:EXCELLENT, which I very much did not mean to convey that, but I have altered it to avoid that impression. I do not mean to "lecture" you on how you or anyone else behaves off-wiki - that's none of my business, frankly - but how people behave on-wiki is a reasonable subject to debate on-wiki. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 14:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Qgil-WMF: The WMF routinely demonstrates organizational incompetence. If there were just a few isolated incidents, it could be forgiven. The problem is one of culture at the WMF. We, the editors, are the victims of this culture. The WMF blunders about creating havoc, people get upset, and then we're supposed to be nice about it. Understand; we have no power except the power to leave. Leaving does nothing to change the culture at the WMF. That culture treats editors like chattel. If we choose not to leave, then our only recourse is the text we type here. You want a safe space for people to have rational discussion? Then create it. You don't get it by asking us. You get it by you creating it. You do that by creating a respectful environment where people feel empowered, not where people are ignored and cast aside. You get it by having an organization that has a culture of respect, support, involvement, and professionalism. The WMF has demonstrated none of these. I am not suggesting anyone here has a right to sling incivility at any WMF staff member. Far from it. Rather, if you want change to happen, it starts with the senior leadership of the WMF. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  The topic I brought here is this "Village pump (WMF)" that according to its description "is intended to aid communication, understanding, and coordination between the community and the foundation". Sure, there is a bigger picture and a lot of history in the relationship between the Foundation and the English Wikipedia community. Now, what role does this Village pump (WMF) want to play in this bigger picture? If the desired role is that of the description, it is obvious that this VP needs to be civil and safe for everyone. If the desired role is different then, who knows, maybe hostility by default toward Foundation staff is the best tactic. Qgil-WMF (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Unless someone issues a threat of physical harm, of course people are safe. Are you appropriating the word for another purpose? If it is corporate-speak then it isn't going to work well in a voluntary community, is it? Just "surfacing" a thought. - Sitush (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but as far as I know the term "safe space" originated in the context of LGBTQ+ and Feminist activism. Qgil-WMF (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

And to be clear, by safe space I mean a space where people feel safe to express themselves. Qgil-WMF (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• And again, I note this starts with senior WMF staff. If the past is any measure, we can expect to be treated terribly by the WMF for expressing our opinions. Either that, or just simply ignored. Over many years of trying to get some sort of a response from the Foundation on a variety of issues, I've come to expect to be ignored. I'm not talking about being agreement. I'm talking about responsiveness. The problem isn't this board, Qgil. The problem is the gross incompetence of the Foundation and the culture of disrespect by the WMF towards the community. Show us that initiative, not a poorly thought out branding initiative. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @Qgil-WMF: I regret your seeming poor choice of words. Wikipedia is not a safe space and it shall not be one. If the point of your comments is that you despair the tension between the actual editors and W?F, I would suggest that W?F has over-stepped its bounds and outlived any mandate it thinks it has. I think that the editors (the folks who curate the encyclopedia generating your tens of millions in donations annually) have had about enough of W?F ideas and interventions. Sadly, we cannot remain as docile as your cohort prefers because W?F's actions now actively insult and belittle us and the community's reaction, while perhaps not conducive to collaboration, is the understandable result of W?F's continued bad acts. I would ask that you remind your colleagues at W?F that they owe editors an apology and should therefore close the office for the next six months so that your cash cow stays in your barn. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Re cash cow: it seems ironic that the "Donate" link in the sidebar leads to a plea beginning Today we ask you to defend Wikipedia's independence by funding the very organisation which is busily reducing that independence. Certes (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• I agree. Knee-jerk barbs at the WMF here aren't just uncivil, they're are best irrelevant and at worst damaging the stated aims of this page. We should be clerking the discussions here more aggressively to remove off-topic and uncivil comments. – Joe (talk) 15:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Any examples? Because the example given was, well, rather weak to say the least, and removing it would probably not be seen as constructive by many. Fram (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  I am not sure how well people using W?F in their replies realize that they make it impossible for WMF employees to reply to. Well, I am employed in the organization which typically uses an acronym TUD. If I sit in the meeting with people and one of them is consistently using instead acronym, say, TBD, addressing me, I would just stand up and walk out. Even if my organization considers rebranding (which it does not), and even if this person is a stakeholder and expresses in this way his/her frustration that they were not listened to.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  Exactly so. It's not the acronym itself that's the concerning aspect, but if any employee gets a hostile reaction from a third-party, even if somehow justified in some wicked sense, the first step is to ignore and disengage - in this case, that means that you won't get any replies from Wikimedia staff. If you (in general, not you Ymblanter) want to do all this elsewhere, feel free to, just don't do it at the village pump dedicated for communications with the WMF, you're ruining it for everyone who wants to have a proper discussion. --qedk (t 愛 c) 16:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  • IRL, I am paid to do stuff I don't like. What is the difference here? If I don't like it enough, I can (and have) changed job. - Sitush (talk) 16:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

    @Sitush: You might be paid to do stuff you don't like, but you shouldn't be subjected to abuse or incivility from those you're trying to work with. If you are, I'm genuinely sorry about that - it shouldn't happen anywhere. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 16:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

    • Depends whether that is part and parcel of the job. Am on mobile but have you ever heard of Alex Ferguson's hairdryer talks? - Sitush (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

      (edit conflict) @QEDK and Ymblanter: Lol. The same SanFran foundation that took away editor membership 15 years ago, that used superprotect to lock down pages, that blocked our elected admins out of process, might now refuse to be reasonable with us because a handful of editors creatively express dissatisfaction. You're doing a great job of negotiation with this foundation and so horrible for me in the past two weeks to upset your skillful negotiation. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

      @Chris troutman: Look now, if you want to engage in some mud-slinging with people from the WMF, feel free to. It's your "right" as an editor (that's what you feel). But, while you're here, you're bound by community policies and WMF's ToS, violate either and you're out - whether that's a protest or not is irrelevant. You might find it cool to not play nice on literally the one singular forum that was made for "improving" WMF-community relations but you're just ruining it for the people who want to see things turn out for the better. And whether you admit it or not, it's behaviour like this that also sets us back, along with the multitudes of WMF fiascos that have occurred. It's really that simple - just because something happened in the past does not and cannot justify your incivility now (not you specifically, in general). --qedk (t 愛 c) 16:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• I...I'm not sure that I understand the full context of this comment. But civility and safe space are not the same thing. I fully endorse the former, and fully reject the latter. Wikipedia, as well as her sister projects, are a sausage-making enterprise. It is a debate floor. You are free to present your opinions and your arguments for them, and by doing so, you must defend them on their merits. We do not engage in the mushy epistemological relativism that says that all opinions are important merely because someone has them. GMG^talk 16:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Try working as a teacher, a policeman, anywhere in the public sector. It's a fact of working life in lots of jobs. --RexxS (talk) 16:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

    Yeah we don't disagree much with our customers in the private sector, either. You don't get to speak your mind. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 08:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

    • Wrong analogy, both of you. WMF aren't our customers, they are (theoretically) our colleagues. And in all the jobs, sectors, you list, yes: colleagues do speak and interact robustly. ——Serial ^# 09:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• It would be a lot easier to be "civil" about this stuff if the WMF didn't keep Sealioning us about pretending to be Wikipedia, or try to speak for us. Just how many RFCs do you need before you hear that it is not acceptable to usurp our identity? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  "I will only be civil towards you if you act the way I want" is not, in my view, the way to actually get someone to act the way you want. It is easier to be civil when there are not underlying tensions (and speaking from the volunteer perspective, well deserved ones). That is true. But that doesn't lessen volunteers obligations to be civil towards foundation employees or their responsibility to be civil in return. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  See tone policing. You want more people to be civil to you? Then don't give them cause to be uncivil in the first place. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  I understand tone policing. And there's a reason nowhere in that article does it suggest "You want more people to be civil to you? Then don't give them cause to be uncivil in the first place." Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

You don't seem to, because you don't tell someone "Well since you're angry, I'm not going to listen to you" to someone who you've repeatedly not listened to and expect them to keep smiling and bend over for you while before you listen to them. 19:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Headbomb (talk • contribs)

• Let's say you and a group of other people have a house with a bunch of rooms. You all welcome visitors coming over and know which rooms visitors tend to go to and so you put extra time and attention into making sure those rooms are always kept clean and presentable (and make some effort to direct visitors to he nicest rooms in the house). Then you find out that your landlord went on social media and encouraged people to visit a room that isn't the one visitors normally go to. This isn't a problem necessarily - after all you welcome people to visit all rooms - you just hadn't tidied it up beforehand. Some housemates might grumble, perhaps even in not the nicest of ways, about why can't the landlord just direct people to the nicest rooms but most of the people in the house just want to know where the landlord is going to be directing people. What obligation do the other housemates have in pushing back against the grumbling people and to what obligation does the landlord have to just shrug off the grumblers in context of the overall reaction? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep lol, I'll play. So you set up a special room where your landlord can send her representatives to make sure they understand such stuff, and when they show up, you call them stupid and make fun of your landlord, using the term "landloafer," which is a funny name you made up for her, and after a while the representatives say they don't feel very welcome, so you tell them that's just how it is. Pretty soon they decide not to visit any more. —valereee (talk) 11:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

So your answer is that the landlord has little obligation to shrug off grumblers. I disagree. I also disagree that the housemates have no obligation in pushing back against rude grumblers. In a professional context the professional has some obligation to handle rude behavior. And that handling could be ignoring it in favor of the many comments which were not rude and asked questions or suggested reasonable things. P.S> Valereee Barkeep is a different user than me and I always feel a little bad when they get pings intended for me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• The comment "And to be clear, by safe space I mean a space where people feel safe to express themselves." by Qgil-WMF (along with the earlier comment "this VP needs to be civil and safe for everyone. If the desired role is different then, who knows, maybe hostility by default toward Foundation staff is the best tactic.", which makes it clear that what is being talked about is a safe space for W?F employees) is concerning.

There is a concept known a "punching down" that applies here. Punching down is when someone of higher power snd position -- basically a person who can ruin your day or maybe even ruin your life -- engages someone of much lower power and position -- basically someone who only has words and no actual power -- in a debate and/or argument. The W?F has all of the power in the relationship. The Wikipedia editor has none. It isn't the powerful who need a safe space, protected from criticism. It is the powerless. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Serious question. What power does Qgil-WMF or Ed Erhart (WMF) have over volunteers? As far as I can tell none. This isn't someone in the T&S line of authority where arguably (emphasizing arguably) that line of thinking is true. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

meta:Trust and Safety, WP:OFFICE, WP:FRAMBAN. When the English Wikipedia is given the power to kick an individual out of the W?F the way the W?F has the power to kick an individual off the English Wikipedia, then the power relationship will be equal. The fact that particular individuals aren't authorized to wield the power that the organization has does not change the basic power imbalance. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I...Think...there is an issue of perspective here. The Foundation wants to be leaders. But nobody really wants leaders here. We've got leaders. I've met a few of them in person. People who have volunteer thousands of hours because they believe in the cause. These...we...are the people who are "under the truck" and when we ask for a 9/16 wrench, we really just want the Foundation to hand us the wrench. GMG^talk 20:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Look I don't love the way the foundation handled either the inciting incident or this - it's why I wrote my house metaphor above. Except by that logic the power balance is indeed not equal. When foundation employees have the ability to harass and threaten volunteers at their places of employment then the power balance will be equal. The fact that particular volunteers in this conversation don't act that way does not change the basic power imbalance between the English Wikipedia community and individual foundation employees. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

In what way can either Wikipedia as an organization or individual editors "harass and threaten" W?F employees at their place of employment?" Please explain the exact mechanism. Can I just walk in there and yell at someone? I would assume that like most organizations they have security and the ability to call the cops. And most of us have employers, and W?F employees are just as capable of harassing and threatening us at our places of employment (which also typically have security and cops they can call). --Guy Macon (talk) 00:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

This is pretty much what you are doing now - harassing WMF employees by calling them names on the sole basis of them being WMF employees. We do have oir own security and our own cops, which, in principle, they could call - but we know that as far as WMF employees are concerned, and in many other situations, the cops are slow and lazy, and the security non-functioning. This is why we are having the arbitration harassment RfC right now - though the way it develops I am not looking forward to the results very much.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

That's quite a pivot, from "harass and threaten" to "call them names". Please provide a diff where anyone on Wikipedia called anyone names on the sole basis of them being a W?F employee. I will be glad to report that behavior at ANI and ask the Administrators to put a stop to it. Again, the W?F has all or the power in this relationship. They can change any page, block any user, decide to sell advertising, or even decide to sell Wikipedia to Google after giving themselves multi-million dollar golden parachutes if they wanted to and we would have no power to stop them. I am not saying that they would do those things, but legally, they can. They have the power. All that the editors have are words. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I am afraid we are not going anywhere. We are not quite ripe for arbitration, but I think I will try first ANI before movng to the arbitration.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I opened an ANI topic here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility towards WMF emloyees at Wikipedia talk:Village pump (WMF)--Ymblanter (talk) 07:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Lack of diffs showing that a single person on Wikipedia has ever called anyone names on the sole basis of them being a W?F employee noted. Why don't you just admit that you made it up, just as the earlier claim of harassing and threatening W?F employees at their place of employment by another editor was made up? Evidence, please. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure what diffs you want. I believe that replying to a WMF employee (or in the branch of the discussion this employee participates) using the acronym W?F is uncivil. You have done this on this very page several times. It looks like I am in the minority at ANI, and many people think it is ok. Too bad. At some point, it will be an ArbCom case, and the ANI thread can serve as a proof that community was not able to resolve the problem. For the record, I was not (am not) seeking any sanctions against you or anybody else, as I made clear at ANI. I think we can do better than this, but, again, I seem to be in a minority.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I think one thing that gets lost in these discussions is a very important distinction between talking about the foundation and talking about specific employees.

I think it's completely legitimate to be blunt when talking about the foundation and/or its actions, decisions, programs, or social media. As has been pointed out, the relationship is not an equal one. That's not to say the foundation holds all the power, but they do hold a lot of it, and they hold all the money. It should be expected that the volunteer community will speak frankly and even sharply about what the power/money is used for, especially when it affects their volunteer efforts.

Most of what I see in the thread about the AoTW tweet seems directed at the foundation, and I think it's safe to assume that, for better or worse, an employee of the foundation posting to a forum like this with their staff account can expect responses as though they are the foundation rather than as an individual member of the community. I'm not saying it should be that way, but it seems like a good idea to assume as much. So while I don't think "that's a stupid idea" is ideal, I think for us to be talking about incivility at all it would need to be directed at a person, and not at the foundation.

Using an analogy above, it's not people sitting at a table, with one person saying "I have an idea" and another person saying "that's stupid"; it's a meeting facilitator standing next to a table of volunteers, handing out official foundation communications and someone at the table says "this is a stupid idea". Doesn't make it any more fun for the employee, but the context is very different. If the discussion turns into attacks on the person, then I would fully expect WP:CIVIL to be enforced as normal, but it's just different when talking about the foundation, so I think some leeway should be allowed (and expected). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, yesterday I opened this topic with an invitation to discuss and... many people accepted the invitation. I think at this point we have compiled a good collection of opinions, reasons and expectations related to civility, respect and tone of conversation given the current context and circumstances. I hope everybody has learned something, I certainly have. Even if the discussion has been quite "robust", I want to think that it will be useful for many of us (staff and volunteers) to be more aware about how we express our ideas and intentions, and how differently others may interpret them because of their different experiences and perspectives. I feel some people have misinterpreted my words or my intentions, and I might reply to them with a clarification. Other than that, I consider the points I wanted to share addressed. Thank you. Qgil-WMF (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Qqil-WMF, do you realise how patronising this last note of yours reads? You were wrong. Please admit it without all the corporate/new age gobbledegook. - Sitush (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Tone Policing and Privilege

[ https://everydayfeminism.com/2015/12/tone-policing-and-privilege/ ] --Guy Macon (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Except that we're arguably the ones with the privilege, here. We can walk away at any time. It won't affect our livelihoods. The employee of WMF isn't the enemy. We should be welcoming, not hostile. We can engage in vigorous debate without namecalling. We can discuss concerns with things like the 'Article of the week' without being rude to individuals. Individual employees are not the enemy, and if we treat them like that, we might as well close this board down now. If I were a WMF manager, I'd be thinking twice right now about ordering one of my reports to interact on this board. —valereee (talk) 10:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Try reading the discussion and the related thread properly. It has already been pointed out (and now also at ANI) that I was not rude to an individual. I am becoming fed up of your sweeping statements. - Sitush (talk) 11:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I was just reading a comparison about how both the current US President and the current Supreme Leader of North Korea have both been complaining that they are the ones who are oppressed and that it is their critics who are speaking from a position of privilege. I couldn't help but think about this thread.

Because it appears that certain W?F apologists refuse to read the comic I linked to at the top of this section, I have prepared a short transcript of the relevant sections:

"What is tone policing?

Tone policing is a silencing tactic. That means it’s part of a set of tools used by people holding privilege to prevent marginalized individuals or groups from sharing their experiences of oppression.

At its core, tone policing suggest that people distance themselves from their own emotions of anger, frustration, or fear in order to be heard.

A key part of tone policing is that it allows privileged people to define the terms of a conversation about oppression in order for that discussion to continue.

Our emotions are valid. You don’t get to dictate the terms of our activism. You don’t get to dictate the ways we can talk about about our experiences.

It’s your turn to LISTEN now."

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

W?F apologists: Calm the fuck down, quit being a jerk and mislabelling people who oppose your viewpoint as if that lends weight to your argument whatsoever. --qedk (t 愛 c) 15:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

There are a large number of people who disagree with me on various issues, and a much smaller group of people who consistently support the W?F whenever it comes into conflict with the Wikipedia community. That later group are the W?F apologists. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: I hope it is not your intention, but you may wish to be aware of just how offensive the comparison between societal privilege and a dispute on Wikipedia over exactly what Tweets go out when is to people who actually have to deal with those issues in their day to day lives. I suggest you ought to strike that comparison. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 15:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted. I do not agree that one cannot compare things that are similar in some ways without implying that they are similar in all ways. In my opinion, your suggestion leads to a world without metaphor or simile, never comparing anything to anything else and noting the similarities unless they are identical in all ways. I personally think that it is acceptable for me to say "I am burning up" on a hot day or "let's eat. I'm starving" without having a new Tone Police Academy graduate accuse me of insensitivity to people who are actually on fire or who are actually starving. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy, you understand that you are not oppressed by the WMF in anything remotely resembling the way that, say, women are oppressed by men, right? So while women can tell men (or POC can tell white people), "It's your turn to LISTEN now", when you say it to the WMF, as if you were some oppresssed person standing up for your rights, it just comes across as you not understanding what women and POC go through, equating your experience as a Wikipedian to their experience as an oppressed minority, and, frankly, appropriating their culture and advocacy. Really, avoid comparing yourself to oppressed minorities. Imagine if you said "Editors lives matter"... it's really rather offensive... I hope that makes sense. You can use metaphors and similes, you just can't compare yourself to oppressed peoples. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, you said Guy could use simile and metaphor and then qualified that by saying that you don't like the ones he used. Next time, I recommend you just tell Guy that you find his comments in bad taste. I find your opinions and political beliefs in bad taste. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not perceiving the difference between what I said and what you think I should have said. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

The former seems (to me) to be instructions on what Guy could have said differently or what you think he's not allowed to say. It is a message intoning future direction. Simply expressing that you don't like what was said is only your opinion and most people know well enough to discount opinions they don't agree with. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

You're talking about the difference between saying you shouldn't do that and I think you shouldn't do that? I prefer to write in the imperative mood rather than the subjunctive. You can file away my writing style along with my opinion and political beliefs.

Sorry, I think you can file away my writing style along with my opinion and political beliefs.

(By the way, goes without saying, but you don't know what my political beliefs are. I don't think I've ever expressed any on-wiki.) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:16, 11 July 2020 (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.

Close this board

It is clear from the discussion above and the associated discussion at ANI that any criticism at all of WMF, its actions or its employees is considered unacceptable by WMF. This makes the idea of a forum to discuss WMF actions pointless, so it should be closed and WMF should admit that they are not interested in consultation with the community.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

If this board is closed, the foundation may interpret that as our being unwilling to communicate. If this board remains open, the foundation may view it as a forum for attacking them. And we have always been at war with Eurasia. ——Serial ^# 16:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm opposed to that. Regardless of whether the foundation engages with us (and the recent conversation with Maggie Dennis gives me hope that it can happen even around difficult topics) we need a place to discuss the foundation and alert editors to foundation news. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

alert editors to foundation news, otherwise known as fait accompli? - Sitush (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

The Foundation will just do what it wants to do anyway whether there is a forum to discuss it in anyway - just look at the renaming issue.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Even if the W?F decides to stop engaging with the community, there would still be a benefit to having a central place where we can discuss the W?F's actions rather than what we are doing now, which is discussing W?F actions in a couple of dozen places at once. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

But since WMF is making it very clear that criticism will not be tolerated, all discussing it here will do is risk getting people blocked - this is Hundred Flowers Campaign territory.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

(after edit conflicts) What is the point of this board? A foundation employee is told that an idea of the foundation is stupid, and rather than getting a reply to the accusation we get a lecture about how normal criticism of ideas amounts to a personal attack. There's no point to a board where no disagreement is allowed. If we have to walk on eggshells then just go back to the previous state where we didn't have this board. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

The board was created as a result of an RfC. If you want to close it, open another RfC and get consensus for the board to be closed. As simple as that.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Nigel Ish Hi, about "It is clear from the discussion above and the associated discussion at ANI that any criticism at all of WMF, its actions or its employees is considered unacceptable by WMF." This is not true. Please don't make such proposal based on something that nobody said and nobody is thinking. Qgil-WMF (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Let's see - here you started a discussion where you state that objecting to WMF ideas is uncivil and breaches son a called "Safe Space" and then when people disagreed with you, an admin brought the discussion to ANI with the implied threat of action against those who disagreed with WMF - there is a clear chilling effect here and it is unclear what nature of doublespeak someone would have to use to criticise the WMF without being threatened with being blocked or banned. I will not contribute to this discussion again as it is clear to me that this is not a "Safe Space" for editors like me who don't tow the line.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I was very vocal opposing all controversial initiatives by the WMF in the last 12 years. Specifically concerning rebranding, my signature is in the first 20 in the RfC and in the first 40 in the petition, opposing rebranding. I have made several dozen statements and I am probably one of the 10 top posters on meta on the topic. I had #Notmyfoundation tag at my user page and only removed it after the statement of the Board that they will look into the issue. It is absolutely ridiculous to imply that I seek administrative action against anybody who is criticizing the WMF. Especially since in my very first message of the ANI thread I said very explicitly that I am not seeking action against anybody.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Or even "toe the line". 2A00:23C5:E117:6100:30EC:33D0:A625:8B22 (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• What is it with the Orwell references today? You know, one time I hand wrote the entire last chapter of Animal Farm as part of an art project. Good times.

But yes, you cannot close something opened with an RfC without an RfC to close it. Regardless of what other people do, we still respect the rule of consensus and the consensus building process. GMG^talk 22:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

The paradox of the relationship between the WMF and the community

This is an observation prompted by observing many interactions between the WMF and the community, including the discussion QGil started above.

The relationship between the WMF and 'the community' is one in which both sides assume that the other has all of the power. From a 'community' point of view, I probably don't need to elaborate on this much. The WMF has the money and the technical infrastructure, so how can it not have the power? And coming from that is a genuine fear that the WMF is going to do things which However, if you talk to people in 'the WMF', often you find people who are genuinely concerned/afraid that they can't afford to do things they want to do, or believe they need to do, because 'the community won't let them'. Or who don't put their head above the parapet to engage with the community, because it is difficult and emotionally draining to do it.

Both of these sets of concerns have some basis in fact, though less basis than people think. There is rarely any understanding of the opposite point of view. The Land (talk) 19:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

All the WMF need to do is propose, explain and see what the reaction is. I don't understand the problem but will say again that if they can't take criticism then they are in the wrong job. And I would say that of any employee of any outfit, not just the WMF. - Sitush (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

On the W?F side, one simple change will remove all fear of the community.

Right now, if anyone other than the bosses communicates with the community and they attract a jerk or two, that employee is very likely to not get a promotion, not get a raise, not get the good assignments, and may even end up being fired. On the other hand, ignoring questions and criticism and doing things without asking the community first is richly rewarded.

Top W?F management should make a commitment to not punishing anyone who interacts with the community and pass that down to the supervisors. If an employee is clearly in the wrong, they should be gently guided, not punished. If an employee is clearly in the right, management should back them up.

On the community side, actual disrespect towards individual W?F employees should result in escalating blocks. In theory we do that already, but IMO the effort is being hindered by individuals -- many of them not W?F employees -- falsely claiming that criticism of the W?F is the same as threatening and harassing individual W?F employees. We encourage this behavior by allowing long threads where both sides snipe at each other. The community can fix this by shutting down those kinds of discussions as soon as they happen, while giving prompt attention to anything that even slightly resembles actual harassment of or incivility towards individual W?F employees. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there seems to be some sort of conflation going on where criticism is deemed to be synonymous with abuse. - Sitush (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Right now, if anyone other than the bosses communicates with the community and they attract a jerk or two, that employee is very likely to not get a promotion, not get a raise, not get the good assignments, and may even end up being fired. On the other hand, ignoring questions and criticism and doing things without asking the community first is richly rewarded.

This is a very serious allegation which you are making. What evidence can you provide for it? Staff not wanting to interact with people in the community because of a fear of the sort of reaction we've seen above and elsewhere isn't remotely the same as staff being punished by management for interacting with the community, and such a policy would be cause for serious concern, if the claim was substantiated. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 21:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I cannot provide evidence without the permission of a person or persons in the WMF who may or may not be in communications with me, and of course what one or more people reports to me may not be true -- I am not in a position to personally verify anything. For those reasons feel free to treat the above as you would anything that you don't have evidence for or against. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Whether or not you think they are already doing it, would you agree that top W?F management should make a commitment to not punishing anyone who interacts with the community and pass that down to the supervisors, that if an employee is clearly in the wrong, they should be gently guided, not punished, and that if an employee is clearly in the right, management should back them up? Those appear to be reasonable courses of action. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I would be very surprised if the WMF actively told employees not to communicate. Of course, it's possible that a specific person or persons has been told that way, or feels that way. But we have Quim Gil and Maggie Dennis for instance actively participating on this page and presumably not worrying about getting fired for doing so, so I don't believe this is the WMF's corporate view. Possibly it would be better to make a less sweeping statement about it? The Land (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will try to be more nuanced in the future. Thanks for explaining it so well. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The problem with "propose, explain" is that the WMF is doing too much stuff for the average person to keep to keep track of. They can propose and explain as much as they like but if they actually do anything there will be a bunch of "Why wasn't I consulted?" reactions. The problem with "and see what the reaction is" is that the community tends to be reflexively conservative so opposition only gives you a limited amount of information in terms of what is and isn't a good idea.©Geni (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Not convinced. I see the bigger issue as being too many failed or poor changes leading to cynicism. - Sitush (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

It would be more convincing if Geni could point us to some place where the W?F asked the community about rebranding, or about banners that imply that Wikipedia won't remain ad0free if you don't donate, or the fact that they wanted to create a knowledge engine, etc. I am open to being convinced that they attempted to consult with the community and we didn't listen, but fortunately every word posted to every page on Wikipedia is archived forever, so Geni can provide diffs of the W?F trying to consult with us if it actually happened. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

If you could stop trying to make things less accessible to out dyslexic editors it would be appreciated. Branding consult started in feb 2019 Banner discussions in theory happen here but engagement is limited. The Knowledge Engine resulted in those involved leaving the foundation so I'm not sure that's particularly relevant. However the department it grew out of (the Discovery Department) did make some efforts to consult about its activities.©Geni (talk) 10:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Those kind of things should be advertised much more widely - ideally with watchlist notices, not 'on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.' - MrOllie (talk) 14:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Then you are back to the problem that the amount of stuff they are doing would flood watchlist notices and people would just ignore them.©Geni (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense. You appear to be grasping at straws looking for reasons why the W?F should not even try communicating with us. They literally don't have enough people to overwhelm us with information. As of Wednesday, 04 December 2024, 14:43 (UTC), The English Wikipedia has 48,361,616 registered users, 122,038 active editors, and 847 administrators. Together we have made 1,256,395,259 edits, created 61,959,668 pages of all kinds and created 6,919,646 articles. We have more that enough manpower to easily handle as much communication as the W?F is able to send us. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• "However, if you talk to people in 'the WMF', often you find people who are genuinely concerned/afraid that they can't afford to do things they want to do, or believe they need to do, because 'the community won't let them'."

The mandate of the WMF is to support the community. If they find themselves at odds with the community... that's probably because what they want to do is a not desired, badly designed, or needs more time fleshing out an implementation/concept.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• I think first we should stop talking about "the WMF" and "the community" as if each was a singular entity with a singular mind. There is a big difference between WMF trustees, executives, and employees; they don't all think or speak with one mind. Similarly, "the community" is tens of thousands of people, the overwhelming majority of whom are not even aware of this discussion. Whenever "the WMF" interfaces with "the community", it's actually just a few WMF employees talking to a few editors. Even the 1,000 signatures on the petition right now at Meta represent a small minority of just the editors who have made 100+ edits in the last 30 days, and those ~5,000 editors themselves make up a small minority of all the people in the world that have edited Wikipedia in the last 30 days. We are, here on this page, a few people talking quietly in a corner of a giant museum. This small group of people is in no way representative of either of these two large institutions, as no small group of people ever could be. So, that means we shouldn't worry about a tweet "by the WMF", but rather worry about a tweet that somebody at the WMF approved. Similarly, we shouldn't worry about the civility in "the community" but rather the civility in the small corner where a few people are talking. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 04:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • At present we have a system which makes effective communication between the foundation and the editors of the various projects almost impossible. As far as I know there is no way to effectively communicate to the wider editing communities, and no way to communicate to the WMF in a way that ensures that the right person or group actually sees and acknowledges that someone has attempted to communicate with them. They make announcements at us in a variety of places where hardly anyone is looking, and we shout into the darkness, without even an echo. This does not facilitate a meeting of minds. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 13:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich - I agree, though I stuck with the simple version to make the point briefer. And @Pbsouthwood, yes definitely this is part of the problem (and this is an observation which the Movement Strategy recommendations are attempting to do something about). The Land (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Trustee recruitment

In my experience much of the conflict between the WMF and the volunteer community is a clash of worldviews, "the move fast and break things" disruptive revolutionary ethos of silicon valley versus the more gradualist evolutionary approach of much of the volunteer community. With the greying of the pedia, as our recruitment of retirees has partly made up for the younger generation being smartphone and tablet users who rarely edit; we now have a generational divide with young and impatient WMF employees in their twenties and thirties lacking the perspective and patience of some of our greybearded editors. Some of this clash could be mitigated by changing the WMF board, using the slots for independent members of the board to recruit board members from the GLAM and Further Education sectors instead of as so often in the past Silicon Valley types. Such a change in recruitment strategy would take a few years to change the board, but would IMHO help to bridge the divides between the WMF and the community. ϢereSpielChequers 12:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Who chooses the trustees? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 13:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

About half are elected by the community in various ways, one is Jimmy Wales as the founder, but about half, the "independent members" of the board who I referred to above, are picked by the current board, or a subcommittee of it. There have been allegations of places being "bought" by particular donors, but ignoring that, the current board picks about half of its successors. So yes, my suggestion would rely on the WMF board wanting to reducee the divide between it and the community. ϢereSpielChequers 14:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

We do. It's in the bylaws, wmf:Bylaws#Section 3. Selection. For anyone reading this who may not be familiar:

• 3 trustees are elected by the community in elections held every 3 years. The last elections were in 2017. The current community board members are Raystorm (who is also Chair), Pundit and Doc James (official bios).
• 2 trustees are elected by the affiliates, also every three years. The last election was in 2019, and the two affiliate trustees are Nataliia Tymkiv from uk.wiki and Shani Evenstein Sigalov from he.wiki.
• 1 trustee is Jimmy who gets a permanent "founder" seat
• Up to 4 more trustees can be selected by the other trustees. Currently, they are Esra’a Al Shafei, a human rights activist from Bahrain who founded and directs a nonprofit called majal; Tanya Capuano, a Stanford-educated CFO of a digital marketing company; Lisa Lewin, from St. Louis, who is Managing Partner of Ethical Ventures; and Raju Narisetti, formerly a Columbia U journalism professor, currently Global Publishing Direct Elect (I have no idea what that means) at management consulting firm McKinsey & Company.

The 3 community trustees, and 2 affiliate trustees, and Jimbo, select the 4 appointed trustees, and together the trustees control the WMF.

We were supposed have elections in 2020, but three months ago, the Trustees voted to postpone those elections, citing the pandemic (since these are online election, I do not understand why the pandemic would cause their delay). Notably, none of the community trustees cast a vote. See wmf:Resolution:Postponement of Community Selection of Trustees and Extension of Community Selected Trustee Terms until next selection process.

Five months ago, the Trustees voted to expand the size of the board, from 10 total members to 16. Currently it's 5 elected seats (3 community, 2 affiliates) and 4 appointed, plus Jimmy. Under the expanded board, it will be 8 elected seats (TBD how many from the community and how many from affiliates), 7 appointed, plus Jimmy. All the Trustees except Doc James voted for it. wmf:Resolution:Board Expansion 2020.

All of our problems with the WMF are ultimately the fault of the Trustees. It's the Trustees who select the Executive Director, it's the Trustees who set the strategic plan, it's the Trustees who decide how the money will be spent and how it will be accounted for. All of the solutions, thus, start and end with us electing good trustees. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 14:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Note that Doc James abstained instead of opposing. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I suspect that the community-elected trustees abstained more as a form of soft recusal, since their own positions are involved. Also, note that voting in opposition is extremely rare on the Board; since 2015, there have only been two resolutions that have had opposing votes: The controversial removal of Doc James in 2015, and a resolution amending the bylaws and some committee charters last July (no idea what that's about). --Yair rand (talk) 03:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

BTW, there's a clock ticking. We need to get a slate of good trustees before the next community election (sometime before FY21 ends, unless the current board extends it again), and ditto for the next affiliate election. Then those trustees need to select good trustees for the appointed positions. Under my definition, a "good trustee" is one who will commit to scrapping and replacing the current master plan, among other reforms. YMMV. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 14:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I find it bizarre that during a period when most of us have extra time to be involved online, we'd postpone online elections. This seems backward. I can't go anywhere or see anyone, and there's not a whole lot to watch except the news. I can, however, still get online. —valereee (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

An increase of 6 trustees is a good time to rebalance the board away from silicon valley, I had forgotten that was happening. My own view is that ten is close to the maximum functional board, 16 is too high, and both are even numbers, odd numbered boards are less likely to deadlock..... 16 wouldn't be so bad if the board had longer terms and the assumption that you'd on average have a couple taking a back seat for a few months, plus a couple of newbies observing and "finding their feet". The best organised board I have ever been a member of had eleven members, ten of whom were on five year terms with a two term limit so we usually had one new trustee a year. I suspect five years would be considered far too long a term for this organisation at this stage of its life, and 8 community trustees does give the possibly of some being elected each year. Of course a larger board can work if almost everything that matters is done in subcommittees, but that is a classic way of neutralising a couple of dissidents by keeping them off whichever subcommittee makes the important decisions. ϢereSpielChequers 15:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

WereSpielChequers, what do you mean by "rebalance the board away from silicon valley"? Nobody on the board is from Silicon Valley. I think you're using "silicon valley" as a metaphor for something but I'm not understanding what (nobody on the board is from tech startups either?). Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I guess this is just for North American business executives or former executives.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

(ec) As far as I understand, they had already difficulties to appoint trustees for four expert seats. I think this is virtually impossible to find eight functional trustees with the majority being business executives, and they will indeed have to expand the scope - which probably would be a good thing.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Without naming names, I think of three at least of the current board as being from Silicon valley, or big tech in its broadest sense. I think there have been more in the past. I appreciate I may be using a broader definition of silicon valley than some, and I note we do have one GLAM person and indeed one WikiMed person on the current board. ϢereSpielChequers 15:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Oddly enough, for the board controlling the world's most popular encyclopedia, what we have never had (correct me if I'm wrong) is anyone with the slightest experience of traditional "popular reference publishing" as the field we are engaged in is known in the industry. Johnbod (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Or perhaps a dictionary, travel guide, media library or any of the pre internet equivalents of the various Wikimedia projects. ϢereSpielChequers 14:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

All those would count as "popular reference publishing" Johnbod (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:VPW?F" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:VPW?F. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 14#Wikipedia:VPW?F until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Ymblanter (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Bot to cross-post (WMF)-account created threads or expand scope to all “News”

It may be useful to have a bot to crosspost with a link to any new sections created by (WMF) accounts at other pumps or expand the scope to WP:Village pump (news) and changing the meta:global message main delivery list target to there. Pinging Nosebagbear and Yair rand who help keep this board updated and do manual cross-posts. (Disclosure: I sometimes meet those criteria as Xeno (WMF)). –xeno^talk 12:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Adding it as a bot task would be fine. I don't think opening up VPN would be beneficial, but changing the delivery list from VPM to VPW would definitely be logical - and something that could probably just be done as a BOLD change. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The reason I’d didn't suggest a target change is non-WMF announcements also use the same list. –xeno^talk 13:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense, albeit being somewhat irksome. That yes, bot functionality is likely best route to go. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe the global message delivery list should be split by topic? --Yair rand (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Why were you keep reverting?

@Pokojni MareBG:, could you give us a reason what are you adding? Pavlov2 (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Some people can't accept their ban and being canceled on Wikipedia. Sadkσ (words are wind) 15:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

If only we had shadowbaning...

02:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)2600:1700:D0A0:21B0:598F:E2EF:C171:D89D (talk)