Wikipedia talk:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archiving and unclosed straw polls

The settings for the archiving of this page (i.e. WP:FRAM the front page that this page is the talk page of), and the lack of pinning some of the proposals, has ended up with some of the proposals/straw polls or whatever they are, being archived by bot rather than being closed by someone who can assess consensus. A good example is here where 7 discussions got archived. Can we discuss the best way to handle this and keep the page manageable? Carcharoth (talk) 12:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Is no-one else bothered by this? Archive 7 (thanks to some moving around of content by Starship.paint) has most of the proposals, though the earliest one appears to be here in archive 6. Why are we letting a bot archive these discussions before they are properly closed? The proposal with the most support is The WMF was wrong to ban Fram, and we reject this overreach and have no confidence in the WMF's handling of office bans (63 to 22). But it should never have been archived in the first place, as it is distorting the discussion and some people coming late to this (or who have not yet put their name down) will not see these proposals. Carcharoth (talk) 10:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: Shifted the oldest proposal to 7. Missed it. 7 only has proposals now. We could move the page. starship.paint (talk) 11:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for moving it. Attention seems to have shifted to the current proposals, which is strange as the bot-archived proposals had more support. The focus should be on consolidating around a consensus position and either communicating that to the WMF, or using it as a stepping stone to draft a plan of action and accompanying statement to put to a wider and more, ahem, structured (and less chaotic) community discussion. There was notification at WP:CENT, as seen here. The community health initiative has now been advertised there as well. Carcharoth (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Carcharoth: - I've moved Archive 7 to Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/General proposals. Hopefully that applies. starship.paint (talk) 14:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Do you know if the bot will continue to attempt to archive threads to archive 7? I still think the proposals that had a lot of support should not have been archived, but it is also difficult to justify keeping lots of proposals active on this page (and selective archiving will distort the levels of support). Carcharoth (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

    @Carcharoth: - I recreated Archive 7. Hopefully the bot will continue to work. I'll strike my earlier comments as they are now inaccurate. You may need to edit yours. starship.paint (talk) 14:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

MJL see Carcharoth’s comments above as my rationale for the unarchive starship.paint (talk) 00:23, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Ah, thank you! That explains it. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖

Summary of speculation

There's been a lot of speculation about why the WMF took these actions, with numerous different explanations given over the course of these discussions. (WMF becoming hostile/having different values/opposed to project-self-governance, corruption leading to instituting the ban as a favor to someone, bureaucratic incompetence, WMF infighting, maneuvering to increase T&S budget/influence, WMF wanting to silence a vocal critic, a confused WMF thinking that everyone wanted this, Fram actually having done something dangerous but the WMF somehow not being able to let anyone even know that anything severe happened, and a lot of other ideas...) Anyone want to try to build a list to summarize them, group them into similar categories, link to the areas where they were suggested, and note a few of the most significant bits of evidence and counterarguments? I feel like if we're going to wildly speculate, we might as well do it well. --Yair rand (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I would just point out that your last item in the list is not mutually exclusive from the rest. More generally, "Fram had it coming", "T&S botched this", "WMF had an ulterior motive" could be true or false in any combination. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll try, but I'm going to stick to the ones that seem most realistic (i.e. don't have any convincing evidence against them).

• Theory 1: Someone asked T&S to sanction Fram for behaviour months ago in responce to actions Fram took against them (whether as an admin or an editor). T&S took them at face value (i.e. they did not do even a cursory investigation) and monitored Fram while giving them vague warnings which didn't explain what Fram was doing wrong; after Fram's "Fuck ArbCom" post (which was made in responce to the Rama case, if I'm not mistaken) they were banned with that as justification. (Just who reported Fram is academic here.) This theory is backed up by T&S's behaviour with the Treasurer of Wikimedia Belgium, documented in the Wikimedia-l mailing list (linked to on FRAM) and by Jan Eissfeldt's words.
• Theory 2: T&S took it on their own initiative to sanction Fram, with the warnings mere formalities. Fram is a noted critic of the Foundation's behaviour as far as tech policy is concerned. This theory is backed up by the unusual bans taken on de.wp (where the targets were already indef'd/community banned and unlikely to come back anyway) as well as T&S' own words, where they explicitly state they do not trust the en.wp commmunity to address the issues.

As to the debunked theories:

• debunked 1: This ban was taken at Fae's behest. Fae has outright denied this and has been critical of Fram's ban.
• debunked 2: The ban was requested by someone higher-up in the WMF. Raystorm has stated that the WMF Board was not aware of anything involving T&S' interactions with Fram, and Doc James and Jimbo's reactions to the news corroborate this.
• debunked 3: The WMF is intending to take a more ruler/serf role with the various projects. This is ludicrous considering what we know about the WMBE incidents and in light of Raystorm confirming that the board had no idea.

Hope this helps. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 06:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I completely disagree with classifying #2 and #3 as debunked. Just because the board did not know this, this doesn't mean that other higher-ups in the WMF weren't involved. There is probably more than one level between the T&S lead and the executive director, we simply do not know if any of them were involved. #3 is also certainly not debunked. The WMF might want to take a more ruler role without having discussed it with the board, or they might have discussed the general approach with the board and just not told them about this specific case (dealing with specific cases like this would not be the responsibility of the board anyway). Personally, I think that #3 is quite likely because the involved persons from T&S are former editors/admins, know the communities well and are certainly not stupid. --Tinz (talk) 13:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Theory 1 becomes a little more interesting if you introduce the suggestion that it was actually a member of ArbCom that reported Fram following the "Fuck ArbCom" post... Black Kite (talk) 14:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, that is entirely possible (surely people were aware of that from the start?). Trouble is, I can think of at least two candidates. One key point is that the vast majority of Wikipedians were unaware that T&S were a credible way to get rid of a trouble-maker. Arbitrators (and possibly other functionaries), particularly those who are or have been liaising with the WMF, are different in that they were fully aware that T&S actually takes such complaints seriously, and also that Fram was on their radar (this is something that it seems only arbitrators knew) and that maybe one more complaint would see Fram banned, and that T&S would be obliged to keep the identity of the complainant confidential. It is entirely possible that the WMF and other members of ArbCom know that something like this has happened, but have to keep it confidential. I would hope that if this (frankly disturbing) speculation is true, and any arbitrators are aware of this, that they would examine their conscience and do the decent thing. Maybe this speculation has not been discussed more because people were afraid of the possible consequences? Carcharoth (talk) 14:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that most Wikipedians were aware that T&S had the ability to disappear troublemakers, and in the case of such things as child protection or off-wiki harassment I'm sure they wouldn't disagree with that. What most didn't know were that bans such as Frams were possible for purely on-wiki issues and by bypassing ArbCom. The members of ArbCom, of course, would be far more likely to know that. And now we have a position where if this is the case then T&S are totally unable to name that person because the backlash against them (and, possibly, against ArbCom as a whole) would be horrific. Black Kite (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

They should "have the ability to disappear troublemakers". There are clear T&S reasons why they would need that. So are we (in the scope of this page) upset about that power? (I think there is little support for this) or about their choice of Fram as target? (there seems to be more support) Additional issues are about their opacity, then and ongoing. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, that's why I said in the case of such things as child protection or off-wiki harassment I'm sure (the community) wouldn't disagree". Black Kite (talk) 19:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

So in this case, we need to not derail the pitchfork mob into, "T&S are too powerful". That's not our complaint. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

How can someone debunk a theory by simply gainsaying it? "We have a theory that Joe Schmo robbed the bank." "No, he debunked the theory by saying he did not do it." "Oh, shoot, I guess we'll need to find another suspect then." 24.166.9.252 (talk) 09:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

My apologies; I was signed out. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

At no one in particular, why is it assumed that once Fram was 'on the radar' that another complainant was necessary to act, that is, the report was made when he saved a comment here? (I just typed 'he', people keep saying that like it is known). cygnis insignis 19:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The WMF's own explanation was this ban has been triggered following your recent abusive communications on the project (my emphasis). I'm still waiting for anyone to reply to my challenge to go through his recent contributions and point out these "abusive communications on the project". ‑ Iridescent 19:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

There is no need to because they pointed to a specific diff - this one (per Fram). I'm looking through their last 500 edits right now (that diff is within them, if only just) and thus far I'm not seeing anything that looks like harassment. That may change, though. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 19:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Possibility 1: Amitamitdd. Fram moved three of their articles to draft space (Draft:Hyderabad Custody, Draft:Wetalwadi, Draft:Anand Vidyalay) and criticised them for creating pages in mainspace that were not up to snuff ([1]). They would later take them to AN/I (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1010#User:Amitamitdd), where Lourdes indef'd them due to their total and utter uncommunicativeness. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 20:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

No, that wasn't it, if only for the reason you gave: "totally uncommunicative" cygnis insignis 20:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm operating on the possibility that the third strike wasn't specifically reported. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 22:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Possibility 2: CyrilleDunant. Cyrille took the opposite position of Fram in the Rama arbcom case, and appeared to be convinced there was a conspiracy to sanction Rama (WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Evidence#Evidence presented by CyrilleDunant, WT:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Evidence#Comments by CyrilleDunant). Fram directed four comments on the talk page to their allegations both on the evidence subpage and the talk page of same (WT:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Evidence#Comments by Fram), but did not submit any evidence in the case that I am aware of. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 22:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Possibility 3: The gendering dispute with Fae. While we know that Fae did not ask for a ban, it's not unreasonable to assume a T&S user (or someone unrelated, given T&S did not investigate the issues at WMBE) saw the conversation and interpreted it (in good faith) as harassment. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 22:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Possibility 4: The totality of the edits Fram made to WP:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard on 04 May, of which the "Fuck ArbCom" post was only the first. Fram made 9 posts to that page (not counting the T&S-cited diff: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]), all of which were scathingly critical of ArbCom and the new deopping policy. They also got into a bit of a spat on BU Rob13's talk page, with Fram's opening edit summary there being "Perhaps shouting will get the message thru?". —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 22:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

[ec Excuse me Mr Couriano] Granted, but my point is that an assessment by the 'office' [right or wrong, I'll say wrong to avoid the backlash] need not be a response to a later report. cygnis insignis 19:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

speaking for myself, I can't imagine as a past arb getting really angry at anything said about arbcom, and I'd been surprised if the present arbs did either (though it is possible some one of them might have felt otherwise). If we didn't want to be insulted we wouldn't run for arb, it can't possibly affect what we do as a committee, if we think it's really toxic the clerks will remove it, and if we for some reason wanted to penalize someone about it, we hardly need the WMF to help us do it. Personally, I think it was something like: we have this big sledge hammer, here's a small nail no one has bothered dealing with, so let's use it and not worry about whether it would harm the work. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Considering that the most likely candidates for the actions that got Fram sanctioned were not reported by the people on the other side of the dispute (and we've no reason to doubt them) I'm operating on the theory that someone else reported Fram for those incidents. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 01:07, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Question: Can we restructure the page?

• Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram

As of this version, there are 591,442 bytes of content on the main page. Can we get consensus to do the following:

1. Copy the first 8 sections (currently pinned) to /Statement from Jan Eissfeldt, Lead Manager of Trust & Safety
2. Rename that subpage /important statements
3. Update /topbox with a link to /important statements in bold and such at beginning.
4. Either (A) Archive the first eight sections and remove the remaining pins or (B) [Not recommended] Remove first nine sections and transclude /important statements onto WP:FRAM.

Please, can we just cut back on this page's size already? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's that important to do that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The page is only about 600kB. What's the problem?- MrX 🖋 23:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@MrX: It unnecessarily difficult to navigate? I pretty much can't access this page while on mobile. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

It's working fine for me on mobile, though I use the "desktop version" option. I certainly do not think the proposed solution makes navigation easier. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I usually use a desktop or laptop, but I just tried native mobile and had no issues navigating. The table of contents worked much better than some tiny links to various subpages would.- MrX 🖋 00:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

• I'd say it's currently okay. If we start escalating back to our previous size and there aren't any inactive discussions to archive, then this could be done then. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Placed by WMF Office

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Placed by WMF Office. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)Template:Z48

View from the outside

I've been silently following this explosive topic. It seems the WMF Office is under the impression they can act without consequences and that may be true to a certain extent. I suggest this discussion and community rejection of Fram's ban be solemnized by a formal statement (perhaps even a POLICY STATEMENT) that Fram's ban violates the community's consensus and only serves to further the divide between WMF and the largest project it claims to run. I am a user and not a bot so please dont confuse me with a bot (talk) 12:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

It does not claim to run Wikipedia. --Yair rand (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Used to edit a few years ago, been following it for a few days due to a link from RationalWiki's backpage, and to any involved in the process who see this, I really appreciate everything you are doing and I hope this doesn't end up costing the community the Peace Prize. Thanks for standing up for what I feel is one of the best things human beings have ever constructed. 206.53.88.85 (talk) 04:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Other warnings

Apologies if this has been discussed already, but I note that Fram reports having two warnings (or a warning and an interaction ban) before the ban. Does anyone know how often these are issued by the office? Does WMF report statistics? Has anyone else reported receiving one? Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 22:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any available information. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Asking for Eissfeldt's resignation

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.

---

I've been holding my tongue and waiting to see how the board, WMF, arbcom, Jimbo, et al, are going to respond. It's been two weeks, and no acceptable response has come forth.

I am at the point where I believe it is appropriate for the community to ask for Jan Eissfeldt's resignation. Eissfeldt's initial handling of this matter, and the unvarnished arrogance of his responses to the community, demonstrate that he is wholly unsuited for a paid leadership role within WMF.

We can then discuss specific proposals, bridge the divide, and find a way forward with his replacement.

UninvitedCompany 20:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support I said right from the get-go that this was incompetence from WMF of a magnitude never witnessed before, regardless of the detail. In any other walk of life, this would result in a career-changing decision. Eissfeldt should go. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• I strongly oppose a community request for Jan to resign. This is exactly what the purpose of a role account is: to prevent individual employees from being assigned blame for actions of the WMF Office. This is not something one can blame on a single employee, especially not when they are restricted by laws and WMF policy from going through with what most community members request of them. Jan has been doing a great job as head of T&S, helping myself and many other community members in significant ways that cannot be ignored. This is a learning opportunity, not a firing opportunity. Vermont (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• EDIT: I have some sympathy for him (he was willing to step forward and speak under his own name), but this isn't the first time he screwed up like this, and ultimately, the head of T&S needs to be someone the community trusts. Eissfeldt doesn't meet that criteria and seems unlikely to regain that trust in the foreseeable future. I don't like the idea of going after one person like this, but it's really, really important to get the T&S role right; given his history, Eissfeldt isn't the right person to be doing it right now. --Aquillion (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose This puts too much focus for the mess on just one person. North8000 (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral. I was going to say that I think this goes too far, but I've just realised that Jan was the person who used Superprotect on dewiki in August 2014 ([10]) to keep MediaViewer enabled by default against the community consensus expressed in a request for comment (see Q&A). Apparently the lessons from that regrettable incident have not be learned. It does make me wonder whether his holding a senior WMF role is compatible with respect for the autonomy of local communities. That said, we still know very little about who did what behind the curtain of the WMF role account. WJBscribe (talk) 20:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I was unaware of that, and that does change things from my statement above. Once might be carelessness, but twice (coupled with the tone of his responses here) gives the impression that he has a degree of contempt for Wikipedia's longstanding principle of self-governance. As the head of T&S, he's the one who set up their process, and I think it's fair to ask him why he seems to have made no effort to keep the community involved - even given the privileged information problem, there's plenty of room to eg. have a community-selected representative like ArbCom sign an NDA and then have a role in the process or provide a venue for appeals. He seems dead-set on opposing any appeal process, but hasn't really articulated why he holds this position; and it's something he really, really needs to answer at this point, especially if T&S is going to continue with bans of this nature (which, inevitably, will eventually result in an outright mistake, regardless of the merits of this particular ban.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• The users in the chain of approval for Fram's office ban have done far worse things than Jan has. They are the ones who should be forced to resign, not him. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• Jan would have ultimately had to sign off on it if he leads T&S, and his statements here have only served to rile us further. The last thing we want is someone who seems so disconnected with the community's demands writing messages. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 21:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• (ec) I have no opinion on this either way so far - I suspect we have a systemic problem more than a personal problem. But according to File:Trust_and_Safety_Office_action_workflow.png, Jan, as Lead Manager of Trust & Safety, is in that chain. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• I think this is completely unacceptable. In the same way we do not want WMF to tell us who may edit and who may not, we do not want to give them advise whom they hire and whom they do not hire.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• No, no, no. He’s just a kid who was put in a bad position due to poor leadership of the organization. Don’t blame him. Blame his bosses. Jehochman ^Talk 20:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

  But Jan is the mouthpiece, he's the one calling the responses (or not). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

  • This was my initial reaction, but Eissfeldt is the head of Trust and Security, not just some PR flac - he is the "boss" you're referring to, so he is the one who set the policies that led to this debacle. When he says that T&S decisions are not subject to appeal, for example, that is entirely his decision. And more generally, as I said above - the head of T&S absolutely needs to be someone who the community trusts to handle delicate, dangerous, complex situations using evidence they often won't be able to share with us. Eissfeldt clearly doesn't have that trust. Someone who did have that trust could have diffused this entire problem with just a few statements, rather than enflaming it as Eissfeldt has. --Aquillion (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, silly request. Volunteers can request WMF trustees put questions to senior management, including pointy questions about specific employee actions, and have lobbied for trustees to resign because they should be accountable to us, but Wikimedia volunteers should not be attempting to interfere directly with the CEO's HR decisions. --Fæ (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• This is not in our province, besides which I would never support terminating someone for making a single error or communicating poorly without first trying to correct their performance. According to the flowchart, the buck stops at the ED. Her employment status is the business of the Board of Trustees. In short: what Ymblanter said.- MrX 🖋 21:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

  It seems that it's not their first, thus not their single error, and their attempts at correcting their performance have been demonstrably disastrous. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Regardless of what other people think, I think Jan has done the best job he possibly could given how tied back he is by policy. Also, what kind of message does it send to WMF that we are going to point our pitchforks at the one person offering the least bit explanation to this affair? Besides the point, he is in charge of the T&S team, but it's hard for users here to get a good picture for all the good work they do behind the scenes. No one is exactly going to be awarding public barnstars that say "Hey you did a good job referring me to Arbcom that one time someone [insert something here] to me. Thanks!" Let's worry about something more productive than trying to get people unemployed.. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

  ... Jan has done the best job he possibly could ... then time to close the shutters and call it a day. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

  "given how tied back he is by policy" - do we know how these WMF policies were created in theory and in practice? I.e. who wrote the drafts and the proposals, and who decided to make them official policy? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, we are better than this, although I can understand the frustration and protection of the community. Asking for a person's job is a bit much and doesn't allow for the completion of the learning curve. Put him in the stocks for a few hours in the hot sun, that should be enough (livestream please). Randy Kryn (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• (ec) Strong Oppose: I wouldn't fuck with a person's real life based on what little information we have. I love Wikipedia, but that's just not the way to go. At best, this proposal is premature. That being said, the fact that we have seen some radical proposals receiving support here, including this one, might be a signal directed at WMF and T&S and ArbCom and Jimbo and and .. that people who care about this encyclopaedia, and prove how much they care on a daily basis, are more than just worried and upset. I, too, will probably abandon this project should no satisfactory explanation be forthcoming. Small loss, but I'm sure I'm not the only one. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• I agree with this. Jan is not competent and should do the honourable thing here and resign. It remains to be determined whether he should be the only person to resign (i.e if the ED should also find a sword and fall upon it) but Jan's an appropriate point in the chain to stop at first. The outcome of the T&S local one year ban and permission removal was entirely predictable, all but the dimmest of the dim would know what to expect when you come on to the English Wikipedia and usurp our own, locally elected (if deeply ineffectual) ArbCom. That's strike one. The defensive, arrogant, antagonistic approach undertaken by T&S since the imposition of the ban, the refusal to properly involve the local community in what is clearly a local community matter (else, we would have a global ban) is disgraceful and that is strike two. The heavy implication now from Jimmy and others that there has been errors, that the ban may not actually be correct, that T&S haven't conducted themselves correctly throughout the whole case, that's strike three, and given previous inappropriate use of WMF permissions in contravention of community consensus (Superprotect) that's a fourth strike. He needs to go. Push. Jump. Whatever, he needs to depart. And we need someone to run T&S who respects the community, that will engage and connect. Nick (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• Look at his LinkedIn page. He’s just a kid. The flowchart says the executive director signed off in this. That’s the person to blame for ineffective management. If they agree to reforms that would be best. Jehochman ^Talk 21:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think it is inappropriate to seek to affect someone's career in this way. The proposal also blurs the lines of demarcation between community and Office responsibility that we are trying to better delineate. Finally, we are not in a position to evaluate to what extent any particular individual is responsible for any misjudgments that may have been made. That being said, as an attempt at a bit of a fresh start, the WMF might wish to consider asking a different individual to speak on the Office's behalf to the communities on these issues from now on. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• Strong oppose—the WMF finally has a real person post something instead of that stupid role account and this is your response? Though the responses are the same tone-wise between the two accounts, it’s still significant that the WMF is letting a real person make these statements, and to call for a resignation sends the wrong message. WP:SNOW —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't trust the guy, and he has a previous screw-up with superprotect, but he should get real credit for stepping out from behind the role account, and trying to engage with the community. Right now I'm not sure if heads need to roll, but Eissfeld's is not the first head I'd look at. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• I don't believe there is enough information for us to properly assess accountability - that should be done by the Executive Director. I would certainly encourage the ED to have a long hard look at how we got to this point.--Mojo Hand (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - At least Jan has willingly put his name to the boilerplate. I do believe that Jan should stop giving us boilerplate responces, but barring any further escalation I would rather let WMF deal with it. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 22:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm not, by a long shot, defending his handling of it. But it's a very big deal to talk about ending someone's employment. Ban an editor from Wikipedia, and you've just ended one of that person's hobbies. Fire someone from their job, and they might face any number of real life emergencies. For all we know, someone higher in the WMF is the one who really screwed this up, and this younger staff member is getting thrown under the bus. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. The ED, on the other hand....71.86.140.226 (talk) 22:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, he's not the highest in the chain of command here. Ultimately, responsibility for this lies with the ED, and responsibility for holding her to account rests with our community Board of Trustees members. And them, we have every right to hold accountable come election time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. While I share some concerns regarding Jan Eissfeldt in his role as T&S lead manager I do not think that it is helpful to ask for him to resign (or anyone else working for the WMF). It is the job of the WMF board of trustees to sort out this mess and to find a path forward. I also find the delay quite unfortunate but we should take into consideration that some time is required to organize meetings with people who are living across the globe in very different timezones. And given the complexity of this case, more than one meeting is possibly needed to give it due consideration. Some status updates would be appreciated, though. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Jan has posted as much as he can, or at least as much as he is willing to. I applaud him for his continued efforts to engage with the community in the face of such a shockingly inappropriate reaction on our part - personal attacks, attempted outing of a victim of alleged harassment, and a completely uncompromising attitude. If I were in his position, I would want to interact with such a group as little as possible. It is very reassuring, however, to see the vast majority of the community standing up against this proposal. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose unless he signed off on this on his own. Looking at the chain of command here though, he probably didn't. We don't know who did, and - you know what - I'm willing to bet we probably never will. I do wonder, though, after SuperProtect, whether Jan is actually the human shield that the WMF is throwing at the community to attempt to deflect their own bullshit. If so, I actually have some sympathy for him. Black Kite (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose at the present time. Shearonink (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Vermont, Randy, and several others. Such a proposal only strengthens the argument that we are not capable of having a measured and proportional response and dialogue with the foundation to press for responsible self-governance and to resolve critical issues affecting our community. Mkdw ^talk 23:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
• Conditionally oppose I strongly sympathize with what Newyorkbrad has said. But with that, Jan must admit that he has made some serious mistakes (superprotect, and now this), and honestly I think that his statements on behalf of WMF are pouring gasoline on the fire and that there are others better apt to make them. --Rschen7754 00:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Pointless They didn't give a damn what the community thought when they took action, and took action at dewp, what makes you think they will give a damn what we think now? All I could do is hand in my bit because I don't want to be the mop boy if they want to treat us all as surfs, so that is what I did. They obviously do not care what the community thinks. This has been shown over and over, it is just this time it is slightly more brazen. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support, though oppose as written. Ask for resignation (or symbolic demotion) of all involved. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose As the chart for how a ban is enacted lays out the WMF as an organization is responsible for this action. So, the WMF as an organization needs to take responsibility for fixing this problem. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Whilst Jan's responses so far have been less than satisfactory I genuinely applaud them for atleast having the balls to come here under their own name unlike the rest of the T&S team, I also don't agree with someone losing their job over this. –Davey2010^Talk 01:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose and SNOW close I'm actually pleased with some aspects of his response, coming out under his own name and giving something more than boilerplate. We should focus discussion on less unrealistic and antagonising proposals. – Teratix ₵ 01:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a really, really bad idea and I endorse Ajraddatz's analysis. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose mainly per Ajraddatz - it is a systems issue and at least he made an attempt to communicate. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:59, 25 June 2019 (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.

Trust person

I created this RfC on meta: m:Requests for comment/WMF-community trust person. WMF peoples have been following that and may be interested.

In order to move forward, more input is needed. - Alexis Jazz 08:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Interesting stuff

A platform, comprising Blog and Discuss hubs, that will serve as a single hub of coordination among movement organizers, affiliates, contributors, partners and the Foundation. ∯WBG^converse 12:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

There’s so many mentions of "safe space" on that page it's going to be very difficult not to draw some conclusions. Triptothecottage (talk) 13:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm actually more concerned by it because I get the feeling that's the setup of rules (the rules are generally okay, it's the implementation that's concerning) and enforcement that they want to make common across all wikipedias. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

RE: Another proposal for work stoppage

This is a comment to those suggesting that ignoring or not doing part of our 'job' is somehow wishing harm on the project. It's called a strike. You stop working during a strike. Does it cause harm when pilots strike and someone can't get to their family's funeral? Yes, but we don't blame the pilots for not wanting to fly the planes. Does it cause harm when actors refuse to act? A lot of people get joy out of movies and TV, so the argument could be made, but we don't blame Actors for it. This isn't something as vital as keeping someone alive or preventing crime. This is a single webpage on the internet. It's okay. You can strike. You aren't a bad person for striking. 2001:4898:80E8:9:8982:6499:5069:211A (talk) 23:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, more to the point, this is a website, not a factory full of machinery. Worst case scenario if a bunch of people stop editing is some easily reverted vandalism. Jtrainor (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

No, it is a far worse scenario than that - copyrights, BLP issues, the collapse of sensitive topic areas into a mass of warring edits (eg: my speciality of caste, which implodes very quickly and few people know how to fix). - Sitush (talk) 09:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps air traffic is not the best way to sell this idea. Wnt (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fram controversy

The BuzzFeed News article has already sparked an article, but I have nominated it for deletion considering it fails the GNG and NOTNEWS. – Teratix ₵ 03:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• Well if the article ends up being kept I sure hope it has a section on the sub-controversy over the SANFRANJANBANSFRAM redirect. The public has a right to know. EEng 03:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • There is no longer a controversy, comrade. Triptothecottage (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Kudos to The Signpost

In the lack of a proper community response where ideas are fought and rebutted again and again, I believe everyone at The Signpost deserves a ton of goodwill for the effort they put into pushing this issue out and carrying out their journalistic duty. I believe BlueRasberry (along with a couple of editors and me) stated this earlier but we only thought it fit that the "Signpost" of the community carry out their duty of forming a response along the lines of the feelings in the community. I'm sure even about today's pieces, people are divided on the fundamental issue of it, but it is undeniable that The Signpost has done what it is supposed to do. Kudos to Bri (talk · contribs) and team (DannyS712 (talk · contribs), Smallbones (talk · contribs), Chris troutman (talk · contribs), Pythoncoder (talk · contribs), et al. sorry if I'm leaving some people out but them's all I know). --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

+1. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

+2 Miniapolis 23:12, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@QEDK: No problem. Glad I could be of service --DannyS712 (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@QEDK and Tryptofish: - I know we all appreciate your comment. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Just giving credit where it's due. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. In particular, Smallbones appears to have worked very hard to present a piece that gives airing to many parties, with their permission—and importantly to Fram himself. Tony (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

A request for arbitration has been filed regarding this Signpost article and allegations of BLP violations within.--WaltCip (talk) 12:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

And the article has been deleted. FWIW, Fram has objected to the article as can be seen here. There are messy principles conflicting here. May be best to let ArbCom sort it out. There is a danger of the gamergate disputes being re-ignited here. BTW, the main report here is a good one, hopefully that won't get overshadowed by the other one (the one that got deleted). Carcharoth (talk) 13:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Having read the draft of the particular article, I had a very "meh" feeling the last time I read it, not much of a hit-piece. I wish I could comment on the article itself but I'll admit to have put that up for later reading after I finished with the Signpost main report. Not trying to take credit away from anyone on the team, and I hope the issue will be resolved. Either way, I would still say that The Signpost did the correct thing to atleast voice the community. --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

IBM Watson Tone Analyzer

(Moved section to talk page per "tangentially related sections may be moved to the talk page" at the top of main page. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC))

At User talk:JEissfeldt (WMF)#Foundation is hosting a homophobic, racist, tool it was decided (correctly, in my opinion) that a particular tool that analyses comments for aggressiveness and personal attacks should be removed.

That being said, the general idea of such a tool seems like it might be useful. Might I suggest that we experiment with the IBM Watson Tone Analyzer service at [ https://tone-analyzer-demo.ng.bluemix.net/ ]? In particular, how does it do with the comments we are discussing here?

The tool is under the Apache License 2.0,[11] so if we like it we could duplicate the tool at WMFlabs. Documentation is here:[12] --Guy Macon (talk) 03:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Not necessarily unuseful, but seems overly tangential to the topic of this page. We need to build a fence around this at some point. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll do the honours. I will focus solely on "anger" hits as those seem most relevant. Note that the tool only outputs ranges.

• "Fuck Arbcom..." - >75% (Also scores tentative)
• "Just crawl into a corner..." - Does not score on Anger (Tentative)
• "But don't give us any more..." - >75%
• "...loads of evidence..." - Does not score on Anger (Sadness)
• "...again give themselves powers..." - Doesn't score on *any* metric, likely due to it being a fragment
• "...don't try to rule enwiki..." - Also does not score on any metric
• The diff as a whole - "Fuck arbcom..." at 51-75% and "But don't give us any more..." at >75% (Also scores tentative)

This help? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 03:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

And as an addendum, literally none of the other 8 diffs scores anger when their text is plugged into the tool. Analysis, tentativeness, and sadness, yes, but no anger. This seems no better than the Detox tool. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 03:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• It seems more likely to me that T&S is using the tool described here. After all, they sponsored the R&D and are presumably in possession of the list of editors with the highest "toxicity" score. It seems to me likely that Fram ranked high on that list.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• From what I understand they are not using that tool, nor is anyone using that tool, as it is still in development. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you. But they plan to? And are they using the toxicity score list that was generated?--Wehwalt (talk) 04:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• I think we should focus on converting our policies and procedures into workable systems rather than finding flashy tech tools to do it for us. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• Agreed. If there is one thing AI and machines cannot do, it's nuance. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 03:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• Is there evidence these types of tools were actually used by T&S in their investigation? If not, maybe this discussion should be moved elsewhere? – Teratix ₵ 04:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• If there is evidence, it would be on the WMF's side, and they're not about to give us any information anytime soon. But given they cited the "Fuck arbcom..." diff as justification for the ban and that Detox and the Watson tool both flag that post (and specifically that post) as aggressive/angry, I would presume they are using a tool that outputs results similar to those tools. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 04:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't understand how you're concluding that the WMF is using some sort of sentiment analysis tool just because they cited that particular diff. I could spin around and point at printouts of Fram's edits on the wall and land on that one, but that doesn't mean that T&S spun around and pointed to choose a diff over which to ban him. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• At least three of the other diffs made on that day were just as, if not more, aggressive/toxic than the "Fuck arbcom" most - one had yelling, the other two cast aspersions. Both Detox and Watson seem to think those diffs aren't aggressive/toxic at all, when any reasonable observer would find them so, and I don't doubt that any other tool along those lines would fail to rate them as aggressive/toxic. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 04:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• Well, this tool at least is an improvement in that it doesn't flag "I am gay" as an attack (it says it has "no tone"). However, "You're a homo", a statement very likely to be an attack, isn't flagged either. A statement I tried earlier with Detox that would be a dead-obvious personal attack to a human reader, "I'm not certain if you even have the intelligence of a rock", is flagged as "Analytical" and "Joy"(!). "I would say you're as smart as a brick, but that would be unfair to bricks" has "no tone". Seeing if this still flags swearing as uniformly hostile: "Fuck you", as a baseline, scores a 77 on anger, which seems within reason. But "Fucking brilliant work getting that done so quickly" is also flagged as anger (66), even though that isn't really an angry statement. So, it does indeed seem that this tool still thinks any swearing is angry, even if used to emphasize praise, or in a relatively neutral statement ("I don't know what's fucked up here, but I'm trying to figure it out."). They did at least apparently bother to solve the literal Scunthorpe problem: "I will visit Scunthorpe on Sunday" is rated as "Joy". However, if you refrain from swearing, you can seemingly call people names: "You are a dunce" and "You are a rather dim bulb" do not apparently have any tone, despite being pretty clear attacks to a human reader. And of course, a semi-cultural reference is not understood: "You didn't put many points into the intelligence attribute, did you?" is rated as "analytical" and "tentative". So, this still goes back to the same point Detox showed: Tools like this are not very good at detecting tone and intent of statements, outside of extremely obvious cases, and have a large number of both false positives and false negatives. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• AFAIK, any connection between the ban and the topic of this sort of automated sentiment analysis is speculative. That said, while I agree that such tools are notionally interesting and could be useful in certain cases, I don't think they'd really be the important part of any sort of effort to improve how we handle harassment. The real changes need to be cultural and social, which requires updating our community policies and impressing them on the project's editors. Of course, the idea that this incident stemmed from the WMF thinking we can't handle stuff ourselves on a policy / cultural level is also speculative, but it's a bit less speculative than this - a clear statement from the WMF or T&S about what they want to see from enwiki would be useful here. Tools can be useful, but we're not going to solve the underlying issues with the sort of AI / sentiment-analysis stuff available today. --Aquillion (talk) 07:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• If I understand this correctly, I do not see much of a problem. Let me give an example. As a professor, I am required to run the final reports of my bachelor, master, and PhD students by anti-plagiarism software and sign that there is no plagiarism. The anti-plagiarism software is stupid. For example, it counts references as plagiarism. If a student published a paper and then included it in the thesis, it counts it as a plagirism. I have got reports with 50% plagiarism on this basis. However, I only use this percentage as an input ang go and look at the reports. Similarly, here, the system will flag something. Fine. If there is a competent human being behind the system using these flags to look more carefully and further investigate the issue, perfect. If there is no human being, or a human being is incompetent, and the score will be the only basis for sanctions, this is unacceptable, but even at the current level of incompetence I do not expect this to happen.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

  Ymblanter: Heh, I took a class that ran all the assignments through one of those. When one of the assignments was to edit an earlier paper based on peer review, the computer marked it as nearly all copied despite being from the same class and author (in big letters at the top!). I mean, it's not wrong, exactly... For how accurate computers are at doing calculations, they can have rather silly output sometimes! —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 03:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• We already did this once so let me tell you what will happen — the tool you're talking about is going to analyse a controversial but innocent sentence and perceive it as angry or take a particularly blatantly insulting statement and call it fine and we are going to raise our pitchforks against it. To clarify to the naysayers, if you want 100% accuracy, you won't get it, if you want 75%, hire an English major, if you want 50%, hire me and rest you can leave up to the (or rather, a) tone analyzer. --qedk (t 桜 c) 08:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The tool is missing the mark, but then 3/4 of the stuff generated in that WMF ivory tower does and will. The most vicious part of Wikipedia is people cleverly mis-using the system to harass or "get" people. Indeed, that seems to be what Fram was accused of. So your robot would need to look for people "enforcing rules" in such a way.North8000 (talk) 10:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• I do not think that humans need a software tool to "analyze" the tone of a conversation. Gestumblindi (talk) 11:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

  But humans might need a tool to point out to potentially problematic conversations, which they subsequently may analyze themselves.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

  Aye, which is important on big websites where nobody can keep track of everything. On the other hand, if such a system is biased it might result in humans missing problematic conversations that don't trigger the tool, or end up monitoring (and prosecuting) certain people unduly frequently when the tool is triggered frequently by these people. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

  Over time, the tool that James tells us is still in development will learn from editor interactions not involving T&S, whether a block is administered or not, from editor complaints considered by T&S and T&S's decision re that, and from the reports it itself makes to T&S and T&S's disposition of same. So it will acquire T&S's biases.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• Tools like this (see also, Sentiment analysis) are very much in their infancy, and represent the cutting edge of AI. I have no doubt that over time, they will improve. The current state of the technology aside, there are two things attractive about this. One is that it will provide a first-cut filter, which can be used to direct human eyes to evaluate (although, even humans can't seem to agree on what WP:CIVIL means). On the other side of the coin, it has the potential to be less WP:BITEy. If I, as a newbie, write something that I believe to be entirely innocent and get back a negative response from a person telling me I've broken a rule, that immediately gets the new user experience off on the wrong foot. On the other hand, if I get an automated response, pointing out that what I wrote might be offensive, it might lead me to alter what I wrote on my own. People might get frustrated by computers correcting them, but not in the same way that they get annoyed by humans correcting them. People are already used to spelling checkers, grammar checkers, and other automated writing aids. Everybody makes fun of them, but they are indeed useful tools. A tone analyzer might eventually (when the technology improves a lot) fall into that same class. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll believe that when a machine can tell me, after being fed with the line 'Man stole the fruit, but I must climb the Tree', that the speaker is in the anguished toils of torment, or that 'Shape nothing lips, be lovely-dumb', is not some toffy lout telling a girl to shut up and just pout with a sexily cute muteness, but an ardent prayer to have one's eloquence die, and in the ashes of its silence, allow God's presence to arise. Purely hypothetical. I won't, thank Allah, be there.Nishidani (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

So far as humans liking computers rather than humans correcting them, I think Clippy is a cautionary tale there. That's not uniformly true. For me, I would much rather have a human do it, so that if I don't understand or don't agree, I know who to discuss it with. I can't ask a computer "What exactly is wrong with that?". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Tone is in any case a misnomer for a project. It is a cliché that 90% of what people are thought to be really saying in traditional communities comes from the way they read the body language of those whom they are speaking with. That discourse now is mainly digital, twittering/tweetering over blank space to anonymous interlocutors, changes things radically in one sense, but still, tone implies audibility, to register cadence, pauses, etc in context, the context being afforded by the empirical grammar spoken. The syntax of any statement doesn't give you tone, so machines that analyse it will miss a huge amount. 'Have a nice day' can be a mechanical act of courtesy signaling,'Move on. We're done. There's a client behind you'; a decent farewell to nice people met briefly, or, as often, with irony, a politically correct euphemism in context for 'Fuck off.' Hamlet's 'get thee to a nunnery' is as much 'get rooted, whore' as it is 'hie away from me and my mad importunities, and take sanctuary in a cloister', as we all know. I've heard numerous times naïve people smiling happily after a chance conversation, only to be told by third parties that the person's blandishments were actually pulling the mickey out of the woman flattered. Of course, the machine mentality will win out. The world of genuine absorption in the art of listening is, together with reading books closely for uninterrupted hours, on its last legs, though I am not the only one to be somewhat heartened by the quality of attentive intelligence, resonant with a considerable cultural depth, displayed by hundreds of people I never met on articles, in discussing this brouhaha. I fail to see any trace of it in the comuniqué style of the said Office, apart from that admirable intermediary Doc James. It is living proof that, contrary to the rumour mill, this place must rank as the least toxic and most productively generous virtual community on the webNishidani (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

It is a cliché that 90% of what people are thought to be really saying in traditional communities comes from the way they read the body language of those whom they are speaking with – There's no doubt in in-person communication body language adds a lot (though the 90% figure is absurd). But people have been communicating in writing for millennia – and effectively communicating their tone when they do it – yet a lot of people act like the written word has only recently been invented, presenting brave new difficulties humanity has heretofore not faced. EEng 03:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I read that over 5 decades ago. I censored the higher than 90 figure I recalled and thought while writing, that the source was Edward T. Hall’s The Silent Language, Doubleday 1959. I cannot find mention of it there, on checking rapidly underlinings in my copy. However, while

The most frequently cited view is that non-verbal evidence accounts for 70% of what is communicated. This approximate generalization has been challenged as an overestimate. Adrian Furnham, Body Language at Work, 1999 p.17

more refined studies has suggested that ‘messages between individuals are conveyed 55% from the body, 38 percent from the voice—inflection, intonation, volume- and 7 percent from the words’, taking one back to the over 90% figure. (Henry H. Calero, The Power of Nonverbal Communication, Silver Lake Publishing, 2005 p.5; Wang, Victor C. X., Encyclopedia of Strategic Leadership and Management, IGI Global 20 p.850.

The source for this goes back to studies, as late as 2013, by Nemi C Jain, Professor emeritus and Hugh Downs School of Human Communication at Arizona State University.

You can achieve pitch-perfect fluency in any language, but if your body language, on speaking any of these foreign languages, hasn't absorbed the physical texture accompanying speech, you will be often misunderstood. You gloss your thinking with highly expressive hand and facial gestures in Italian. In Japanese, mastery involves repressing that sort of thing.Nishidani (talk) 11:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding "what is wrong with that?": People who don't know the inner workings of machine learning may be surprised to find out that many "black box" ML systems are notoriously hard to interrogate for why they make the decisions they do. It's often difficult or impossible for even the programmers/trainers to explain. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid I consider all such tools to be disastrous in a multi-cultural environment with a lot of speakers of English as a second or a foreign language. As a tangential aside I ran a very aggressive and vitriolic attack against myself and two other editors through the tool; it was a fairly long text with seriously offensive phrasing that would make me feel rather intimidated in real life - and it scored high on "joy" while almost none of the text had an "anger" score at all. (To be clear, this is a situation that was efficiently dealt with by our current procedures - the attack was made by a blocked editor on their user talk page, and TPA was removed by one of our many hard-working administrators as a result of it.)

Communicative text does not exist in a vacuum. Posts that harass, intimidate or offend have an audience that is harassed, intimidated, or offended by it. If a tool decides that a piece of text is harassing but the audience doesn't experience it as such, what have we gained by that? Improve reporting tools and make sure that significant human resources in the shape of people with appropriate understanding of language and a high level of trust within the community are available to investigate the reports. Try to get rid of the argument that some people just have to develop a thicker skin, and instead try to foster a deeper understanding of the fact that people are different and interpret the same language differently, and that as a result it is usually better to err on the side of caution. Accept that there will be language based conflicts from time to time. But don't treat this like a problem that can be addressed by bots evaluating strings of text with no context. --bonadea contributions talk 09:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Good job Fram doesn't live in Scunthorpe? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

"We are sending you to Coventry, nobody will talk to you any more" = 0.72 tentative. DuncanHill (talk) 10:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

"Now be a good little boy and do as you're told" = 0.56 joy. I think IBM have managed to build a tool that is very nearly, but not quite, as bad as the Foundation managed. DuncanHill (talk) 10:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

But for IBM it probably is a revenue center, for the foundation it's a money sink... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Finding harassment doesn't seem to be the problem; the above examples of rocks, dunces and corners are the sorts of things that show up all the time at ANI and are routinely dismissed as non-actionable. When we talk about long-term unaddressed harassment, there's almost always a trail of noticeboard and ARBCOM discussions where concerns were raised but not acted on. Software might play a limited role in finding red flags in one's edit history, but our effort would be better spent on responding to harassment when it's brought to our attention. –dlthewave ☎ 20:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

What the hell?

I'm shocked by the number of admins, buros, checkusers, oversighters and others of high privilege that have been lost this month. There are twenty-seven names listed as having one or more rights removed (both self-requested and otherwise), and no new promotions. Many of them are people of high regard in the community. Where is the good in that? This whole debacle can only harm the encyclopedia - both short term and long term. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Plus a slew of retirements. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I hope that these editors will feel able to return once the WMF has clarified its position. I am sure that the Wikipedia community would echo the Board's statement that We do not consider any of the admin resignations related to the current events to be "under a cloud" and extend it to retirements and other inaction by non-admins. Certes (talk) 08:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

By far an large, yes, not under a cloud as far as I'm concerned. There might be exceptions, but those are at ARBCOM right now. So short of ARBCOM kicking them out, there's no cloud. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Is it time to archive the pinned statements?

They are taking up a lot of space on this page and I think everyone interested in this issue has read them at this point. I recommend archiving them and creating a section at the top of the page that has links to important statements from the WMF, ArbCom, and Fram. Anne drew (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Anne drew Andrew and Drew: I made the same suggestion. I therefore agree with you here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

There's no hurry. This is about community discussion, not about sweeping up. With the Signpost out today, there will likely be numerous editors looking here for the first time and wanting to get caught up. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think everything should be archived, something giving new readers the basic facts before launching into the WOT discussion is definitely needed. I just added the latest comment from Jimbo which seems to be a highly significant development and needs to be given some prominence. SpinningSpark 14:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Eventually this will stop being an active discussion page. I think it would be helpful to have the key developments retained for posterity then, rather than buried in an archive. – Joe (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello big bosses, someone asked below, and so I created a dedicated subpage for official statements and linked it in the topbox (found it myself from the code and the guessing ). I think I got'em all. So, please review and provide mild admonishment and major guidance if I did something wrong. Then, I think you can go ahead and archive the pinned statements.

@Joe Roe:, I think when the discussion is over, we can always redirect the most famous shortcuts (possibly WP:FRAM) to that subpage instead so your concerns about posterity are addressed. IMO. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 15:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Anne drew Andrew and Drew: "I think everyone interested in this issue has read them at this point." Not true. I, for one, an an example. And I assume others like me are comparatively less likely to comment here, so you should account for that. Benjamin (talk) 10:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

+ 1 admin to leave

User:Voice of Clam has handed their admin tools in and imposed a 3-month selfblock. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:41, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Official statements

Could someone please collate all the official statements (with diffs) on one page please? They are in one place here (mostly) but with discussion separating them and some in archives. The ones I can think of are the series from Jan Eissfeldt, the ArbCom Open Letter, the WMF Board statement, and the statement from Katherine Maher. By this I mean statements that have clearly been prepared for formal publication, not responses made on-wiki. I might do this if time, but maybe someone else can do it if they have time? The diffs are in the excellent timeline here. Carcharoth (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

And please include some kind of summary of Jimmy's statements, such as this summary. - Dank (push to talk) 13:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I started it here. Anyone's welcome to contribute. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 14:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Carcharoth (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I made the following two administrative edits: [13] and [14]. Carcharoth (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Main page archiving and context (e.g., w.r.t. board statements)

It looks like the main page is subject to automatic archiving of quiet sections. However, in some cases these sections start with context-relevant content including significant statements from the WMF board. I feel it would be prudent to leave these major statements on the page itself for those just joining the discussion (to provide additional information, context, a history of statements, etc...), rather than leaving them in the archives and having users potentially miss them. However, I'm not sure if there's a clever way to do so without looking as if 'discussion is open' on these statements, rather than leaving them as historical documents. (It may also be that these are being archived in a different place and I'm just being blind) 2001:410:A010:D4:2569:F5BF:9468:E6F3 (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm just being blind, oops https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram/Official_statements 2001:410:A010:D4:2569:F5BF:9468:E6F3 (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Off-wiki coverage

{{Archive top}}

• This section was re-opened due to a dispute regarding the RFC below.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

As a companion to

• Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Summary

and

• Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Official statements

I have created

• Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Off-wiki coverage

Please help to expand that page as new sources are published/discovered. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Do you intend to include the two Breitbart pieces or are those not to be mentioned?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

There's two? – Teratix ₵ 08:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I only found one.[https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/06/28/wikipedia-editors-revolt-over-sites-ban-of-veteran-administrator/] and only the one is listed at [ https://www[dot]breitbart[dot]com/tag/wikipedia/ ] and [ https://www[dot]breitbart[dot]com/tag/wikimedia-foundation/ ]. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 08:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC) ( "." replaced with "[dot]" because those pages are on our spam list and cannot be linked to.)

There is https://wwwDOTbreitbartDOTcom/tech/2019/07/03/google-toxicity-detection-tool-rated-wikipedia-comments-to-women-as-more-hostile/. I have no opinion on whether they should be listed, I was simply asking.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The breitbart article you posted above is about Google Detox, and makes zero mention of Fram. Like I said, there is only one breitbart article about the fram ban. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Let's do a straw poll and see if there is a consensus for inclusion: --Guy Macon (talk) 08:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion: not a reliable source. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion: a bit like sourcing an interview with the Pope to Playboy magazine? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

But ... but ... the articles ...--Wehwalt (talk) 08:41, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion not a RS. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• Include, it's not being used as a reference within an article so RS is irrelevant, the more coverage collated the better. Fish+Karate 08:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• So would you also include:

• Wikipediocracy?[15]
• Wiki Review?[16]
• Hacker News?[17]
• Reddit?[18]
• Twitter?[19]
• Gender Desk?[20]
• Reclaim the Net?[21]

Or is it only some unreliable sources that should be included? --Guy Macon (talk) 09:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

No (forum), no (forum), no (forum), no (basically a forum), no (tweet), don't care (blog), yes. Who are you to censor a talk page? Fish+Karate 10:27, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

More fuzzy thinking. "Who are you to censor a talk page?" makes it sound as if I am deciding on the criteria for inclusion when instead I am asking the community to form a consensus regarding the criteria for inclusion. More light and less heat, please. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I am also interested as to why you think that forums should not be allowed and yet wish to allow Breitbart, an alt-right website famous for publishing lies, conspiracy theories, and intentionally misleading stories. Could you please tell us exactly what your preferred criteria for inclusion is? --Guy Macon (talk) 11:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure, Guy. My preferred criteria would be an article/opinion piece published in article form to a website. Not a forum post. As it's project space, I'm not particularly concerned about applying article space norms to what is and is not included. All that being said, I don't care about this anywhere near as much as you seem to do, and will find something else to do rather than pointlessly argue. Fish+Karate 12:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

And again, the term '(un)reliable sources' is only a term that applies to article space. This isn't article space. Fish+Karate 10:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

And again I tell you you are wrong. The term "reliable sources" is NOT a term that applies only to article space, and you repeatedly claiming that it is does not make it so. Project space pages are allowed to set criteria for inclusion, with the criteria decided by the consensus of the community. The community can decide to include everything, only include what is notable or the community can decide to only include reliable sources.

I have no idea, but I'm reminded about the story of the woman who congratulated Dr Johnson on not including dirty words in his Dictionary. Given that three articles, including the Breitbart, are linked at the head of this page, I would suggest a MfD as unnecessary.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• Include everything. Are we seriously debating this? This is project space. Benjamin (talk) 09:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• Project space pages are allowed to set criteria for inclusion, decided by the consensus of the community. So would you include all of the links I listed above, including Twitter and Reddit? That would mean that anyone reading this can add anything they want to the list simply by posting to Reddit or Twitter. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:41, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• I agree. Are we going to link every post on every media outlet, regardless of how poor they are at fact or source checking or doing their own research before going to print? What about sources that just copy and paste reliable sources? Of what benefit would that be to our discussion of this issue? We should set the bar for this at what would be ok for an article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, for what it's worth, I think it would be useful to have a comprehensive list, if for no other reason than to keep track of which sources are good and bad. But also, the various forums are a convenient gathering of links to discussions that I'm sure many people will find interesting or useful. If you don't want it on that page, fine, whatever, just link it to a user page or something. Benjamin (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Hmmm. Additional section, clearly labeled, that includes all sources, even of they are just Reddit posts? Might get too big but we can deal with that if it happens. And of course we cannot link to a source that vilates WP:BLP. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• I'm sure you'll come up with an appropriate trigger warning.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• I originally whitelisted the Breitbart article (in my admin time; a decision that has been overridden). I !vote to include it, but clearly noting that it is not written by an independent observer and possibly that it is on a site on which we generally regard material to be unreliable. It is however material that is 'out there', and people will run into. Not listing it here is like 'hiding' the piece.

I also would include a list of other notable material related to this like tweets or facebook posts by either WMF members or involved editors, or by notable people. Feel free to group the material and/or 'classify' them, and give prominence to the really independent, reliable material. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

That could work. I need to get some rack time, so I will get back to this tomorrow or the next day. No hurry deciding what to do here. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion: per The solution to online 'harassment' is simple: Women should log off and Gay rights have made us dumber, it's time to get back in the closet, if you are really arguing that Wikipedia project space needs entirely pointless Breitbart bigoted ranting as a source, then maybe you need to take a long hard look at WP:5P4. No, don't just glance at it, go back and actually think about it like your goal is to write an encyclopaedia in positive collaboration with everyone here. --Fæ (talk) 11:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• That's not what's being debated here. Benjamin (talk) 17:27, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• It kind of is. Those are actual Breitbart articles (other gems include "Birth control makes women unattractive and crazy" and "There's no hiring bias against women in tech, they just suck at interviews".) I am rejecting Breitbart as a source for a good reason. [unsigned comment]

• No, this has nothing to do with anything. The author (The Devil's Advocate) has never written anything even remotely resembling the things you've put in quotation marks above in the time I've read his articles at Breitbart or on Medium. Let's not be smearing folks... Incidentally, farther up I saw a list of forums, one of which is long dead (Wikipedia Review), though the history has not been deleted. Wikipedia Sucks and wikirev are two that missed the reductio ad absurdum list of places where you can read more about the case (if you really needed to). The GenderDesk blog has also done some reporting on FramGate (and Fae for that matter).🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 08:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Include it The entire point is to show what people outside of Wikipedia think about this mess. We shouldn't toss some sources simply because some of us don't like them. Jtrainor (talk) 14:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion per Fæ. Miniapolis 15:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• Maybe a compromise solution is to mention those articles without linking to them. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• Done. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Am I right, this discussion is only about whether to include the Breitbart article in the Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Off-wiki coverage subpage? If so I find it a little weird we may exclude/include it from there but do something different in the Template:Press. Especially since at the moment we are excluding it from that subpage but including it in the template. And frankly I suspect but have no evidence that people are more likely to see it in the template. But if that's how people feel so be it. Nil Einne (talk) 03:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  I see that besides being on the template of this page, it's also at Wikipedia:Press coverage 2019 Nil Einne (talk) 03:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

This is now the topic on an RfC (see below). Please respond there. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see that it is, the way you've phrased it only covers whether BB is a RS.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

(Reluctantly responding to someone I don't want to interact with to correct a false claim about what I did and did not write)

No it doesn't. The RfC question is quite clear. If I had wanted it to ask whether Breitbart News is a reliable source I would have written that. Please stop stuffing words in my mouth. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

{{Archive bottom}}

WP:SNOW closed RFC neutrality follow-up question closure?

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.

---

Was this edit proper? I reserve the right to propose another RFC to, for example, petition the board to allow Arbcom to see T&S's full evidence if they withhold it. EllenCT (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Most definitely. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Please drop the stick. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes and this should be snow closed as well. We seem to have a WP:NOTGETTINGIT situation here. MarnetteD|Talk 20:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the close was entirely proper. Open your fucking ears and listen to what your fellow editors are telling you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I know you think that I have done something bad, but honestly I do not even understand why you think I've been patronizing. I am sorry I missed Jimbo's announcement that Arbcom was permitted to unblock. I can not see how to believe that T&S are acting in good faith when they have a longstanding agreement to share secret evidence but still insist on providing them only redacted evidence against Fram. Why are they doing that? And I for one refuse to ignore the multiple COIs and history of the involved parties. In any case, why do you think this situation is such that personal attacks are called for? EllenCT (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Commenting post close but fuck it - Which part of my close (specifically "Ellen I'm sure the time and effort spent here could be better spent on articles.") was not understood ?,

Not everyone will share my view but personally I think your template is childish and does nothing but shit-stir here,

There are means and ways to create change and gain the consensus of the people but to be frank your ways aren't it,

Like I said 2-3 days ago drop the stick and focus your time and energy on one of the 5 million articles we have. –Davey2010^Talk 02:36, 7 July 2019 (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.

Wikipedia:SANFRANJANBANSFRAM listed at Redirects for discussion

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.

---

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:SANFRANJANBANSFRAM. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 01:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• Hard to know whether to laugh or cry.

Ritchie333, I couldn't find the picture of the cat saying, "THIS IZ SERYUS BIZNEZ!". EEng 02:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Business cat

I have to do everything around here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Hawkeye. Don't forget to participate in the deletion discussion – to vote keep click here and to vote delete click here. EEng 05:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

And business cat? - Alexis Jazz 13:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh what the hell? WP:G10? Really? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

"G10. Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose". I don't see where the disparagement, threat, intimidation, or harassment is. If something like that is widely considered harassment (even though consensus seems to be to the contrary), maybe T&S might have a point.--WaltCip (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

It's the implication that Jan was the one who banned Fram as opposed to it being a joint decision by multiple people in the WMF. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 23:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I suppose it can be difficult to convey satire in a redirect, since the point of EEng creating the redirect seems to have been to take advantage of the opportune alliteration rather than to directly attack Jan. But policy is policy.--WaltCip (talk) 23:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Indeed it is, but it doesn't fit this situation; see my comments at Special:Diff/904308919. Anyway, I came up with something better: WP:CANSANFRANBANFRAM? EEng 09:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

EEng wins again. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me, but Wikipedia is not about winning. It's about WP:WHINING. EEng 09:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Sheesh. And now a thinly disguised attack on the Human Rights of all right-minded San Francisco residents. I think a United Nations resolution might be the only answer here. Resign now! Martinevans123 (talk) 09:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I did not know there were right-minded people in SanFran. I thought they were all left-minded.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

EEng was that "to vote "delete" click..." bit a John Oliver reference?Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 18:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll never tell. EEng 18:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Alright then, keep your secrets! Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 18:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CANSANFRANBANFRAM? listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:CANSANFRANBANFRAM?. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Anne drew (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• It's like deja vu all over again. EEng 22:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• @Anne drew Andrew and Drew: This is beginning to get annoying. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I annoyed you. That wasn't my intention. Anne drew (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

You've wasted more of a lot of people's time in a situation where a lot of people's time has been wasted already. You should have proceeded more carefully, and especially after the speedy was declined you should have thought twice. Three times. Four times. EEng 22:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

So long as we're handing out unsolicited advice, you should relax EEng. Having a deletion discussion really isn't the end of the world (especially when it seems to be going your way). Anne drew (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

next, WP:SANFRANJANMANPANSCANSANDBANSFRAM--Wehwalt (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

oh thank you, now I can't get rid of the horde of Vikings singing that in my head. Bloody Vikings. --bonadea contributions talk 09:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

You've got a lot of nerve copping a cavalier attitude about wasting others' time just because you can. You made a speedy nomination that was instantly declined because it made no sense at all, then immediately followed up with a RfD that made even less sense. Cool your fucking jets, get your finger off the trigger, and start paying attention. EEng 06:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

My jets are cool. You on the other hand need to move on. Anne drew (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

"You on the other hand need to move on" - Or perhaps you need to stop blindly nominating redirects?, Just a thought. –Davey2010^Talk 13:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I have no intention whatsoever of adding any more redirects, but it occurred to me that WP:Editors for deletion would actually have a certain logic to it, in terms of the various ways this debacle has affected various members of the community. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

It was bad enough when it was just one WP:Editor for deletion. —Cryptic 19:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, at this point we may need to be using rollback. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Anne drew Andrew and Drew: Regarding the link box, WP:2SHORTCUTS redirects to a guideline that stated they generally should list only one or two common and easily remembered redirects. - in 2012. I refer you to the fact that the very section describing that guideline had 4 links... Ironic. The current wording is they generally should list only the most common and easily remembered redirects.. Framgate is certainly easily remembered. Further, regarding WP:CANSANFRANBANFRAM - I think that's reasonable to keep for humour purposes. The box is adjacent to a bigger box, so it really doesn't look bad, or indeed cause any harm at all. Talking of looking bad, being the RfD nom for that link, then removing it from the redirect target, that is bad optics. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 00:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

You've now had a declined speedy and a SNOW closed RfD against you, and you continue the crusade. The behaviour is verging on POINTy. Triptothecottage (talk) 00:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm just reinstating this edit by a different editor that shortened the link box to two entries. I'll let someone else weight in on which of these redirects are "the most common and easily remembered". Anne drew (talk) 00:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Drop the stick and get a grip. Hey, that'd be a good redirect for this section. Triptothecottage (talk) 00:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CANSANFRANBANFRAM listed at Redirects for discussion  

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:CANSANFRANBANFRAM. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 08:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Now closed with a unanimous Keep !vote. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:10, 7 July 2019 (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.

Wikipedia:CIVILWAR listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:CIVILWAR. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Fear for Opinions

I wanted to share my opinion on this crisis, but I held back TWICE due to fears that if I stated my opinion, I would get pounded into a pulp with hate and harassment.... James-the-Charizard (talk) 11:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Go ahead, James, what's up? - Dank (push to talk) 12:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Dank: Based on what I read from on online article (it managed to catch me up on this complete disaster)... I think Fram was acting seriously disruptive, and with concerning conduct. I understand why the WMF banned him, however I disagree with the length. I feel 1 year would cause more harm than help, and I would’ve preferred that he be blocked/banned via a community discussion (because then we could've judged conduct more accurately and had more opinions than one). So while I don’t support the WMF here (I felt they were outreaching here), I also am not in favor of any protesting. (As in, I will keep going my normal stuff on here.)

Thanks for listening. James-the-Charizard (talk) 12:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

James-the-Charizard, thank you for your opinion.

If you read these discussions, you will see that not many people loves Fram much but nearly all agree that he should have been subject to a fair trial held by the community :-) ∯WBG^converse 12:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: I wanted to shed light on the situation by looking at this from a unique angle (as an extended confirmed user, whom also has likely the least edits of all the people involved in this discussion lol.) but the reason I didn’t share my opinion until now was due to how heated things got on the main page. I was afraid people would misunderstand my opinion. James-the-Charizard (talk) 12:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

It's no good that you felt you would be harassed if you posted on this page. Is there any behaviour in particular that you felt prevented you from sharing your opinion? – Teratix ₵ 13:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Teratix: I may have overdone it by saying harassment, but I still feared the possibility negative opinions. I think what prevented me from posting on the MAIN PAGE (not the talk page) was the fact that emotions were hot, and some people were openly outraging at the WMF. I just didn’t want to risk saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. James-the-Charizard (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

That's fine. There's no obligation to jump into the metaphorical volcano and post your opinion if you don't wish to possibly receive negative feedback. I agree it can be a good idea to wait until heads cool. – Teratix ₵ 13:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

My opinion is out of the way now. Thanks for understanding. James-the-Charizard (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Better to say something and get it off your chest then to say nothing at all and regret it. Now Keep Calm and Carry On :) TomStar81 (Talk) 11:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Can't say I agree. If getting something off your chest means you later your life is hell because of what you said? Many people have found to their peril particularly when you are connected to your real life identity, saying something (or whatever) can come with massive risk. I've said before, while I think the WMF didn't handle this well, I'm not really in agreement with most commentators of this discussion on many aspects. Especially at the start of this, I very reluctant to share my opinions, having seen how people can behave on the internet including on wikipedia, worse on sites outside wikipedia which comment on wikipeida. (This was especially in the very early days when there were some vote/!votes which to that point in time were all support. I only dared vote/!vote oppose when others had already done so. Although even after I always greatly considered what I was posting least it cause problems for me.) While I feel I understand the anger about what went on here, I'm not sure if people understand that some of what went on here scared the shit out some of us (I suspect most of those who feel that way are who didn't really agree). Whether it was comments like 'scabs' (in reference to strike action), the nasty personal shit about the L editor and their relationships, or just tone etc of some of the comments. There is nothing wrong with having strong feeling about something, but unfortunately those strong feelings can sometimes cross the line into behaviour which has a strong negative effect on others. And frankly you only really need one person to make life hell for someone, although it is greatly amplified when the get some mob on their side (which sadly often isn't that hard and could easily be people who have nothing whatsoever to do with what it is). Of course, this is never one sided but when so much of the feeling is in one direction, you have far greater comfort that you are unlikely to be the target when what you're saying is in that direction. Nil Einne (talk) 02:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

P.S. And yes that did include wondering dare I post this for the above post? Nil Einne (talk) 03:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Any time you post in Wikipedia you run the risk of someone attempting to intimidate you. As I use my real name and other details about me are fairly easy to suss out, I am aware of the risk. I have received threats to sue me and threats of physical injury and death. The only times I have been the subject of such attempts at intimidation, though, have been when I was taking action against clear violations of policy, but never for !voting or voicing an opinion in a discussion. Maybe I haven't participated in the right discussions, but that is my personal experience. - Donald Albury 13:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

What a sorry state en.WP has reached. After 14 years and 170,000 edits, I find myself fading away because being here is so unpleasant. Tony (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Last month on the Italian twitter alone there were 40,000 attack posts on prominent people's 'pages' (if they can be called that). Relatives and friends who actually use other social media tell me abuse is a daily matter. I worked in the most 'toxic' area of Wikipedia for 13 years, and must have been formally reported for some rule violation about 30 times, yet my impression is that Wikipedia, generally, despite mother-lodes of bullshit artists, is a relatively tranquil pond. It looks litigious if one religiously follows AN/1, AE and related pages. If you just focus on article creation, even in demented areas, it strikes me as more than manageable, and, at the end of the week, each article is improved, with satisfaction outweighing the fact that one has to push a fair amount of loose crap up the north face of the Eiger, with slippy fingers. Wear a gas mask, check your crampons, ropes and deadman devices, and you will eventually breathe fresh air.Nishidani (talk) 12:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, now i'm afraid this thread that I started is turning into a war zone... James-the-Charizard (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:VPI#Scope of Wikipedia self-governance

I've started a thread for figuring out where the boundaries of Wikipedia self-governance should be at WP:VPI#Scope of Wikipedia self-governance. Please comment there. Thanks. --Yair rand (talk) 06:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:HOWMANYFRAMSCOULDASANFRANBANIFASANFRANCOULDBANFRAM? listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:HOWMANYFRAMSCOULDASANFRANBANIFASANFRANCOULDBANFRAM?. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: was snow closed as delete. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• God forgive me, this is all my fault. EEng 22:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

  I'm taking bets on who will be the first editor to reply "I forgive you." --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

  There are four or five editors I think we would both would agree are likely candidates for stepping into that role. EEng 22:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

  Surely if WP is going to have a deity / ruler, the obvious candidate is a wise and benevolent goddess / dinosaur... EdChem (talk) 04:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

  Don't call me Shirley. EEng 05:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC) I invite any editor named Shirley to ping me.

  I forgive you. (/aside If only he’d had a proper education this never would have happened.) Jehochman ^Talk 18:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

  I would suggest as a starting point that any deity we choose should have a three-letter name starting with "G", such as God. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

  We can establish a redirect at WP:GOD / WP:God (I hope those are redlinks... :( one of them isn't!) to user talk:Bishzilla, my proposal for our benevolent Goddess Dinosaur and Overlord... EdChem (talk) 04:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

  Good God (pun very much intended), EdChem, I had entirely forgotten that ANI discussion that spiraled off into silliness. But it was certainly fun at the time. I didn't know someone had actually memorialized it somewhere. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

  Could I please take the current odds. Might be worth a fiver. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• I was still thinking of complementing CANSANFRANBANFRAM with FRAMFANSSLAMSANFRAN... Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

  I think that might need tweaking, as it is not only fans of Fram's who have issues with what happened, Fut.Perf. Maybe something more like SANFRANSLAMMEDFORFRAMSLAMBYFRAMFANSANDUNFANSALIKE... or maybe FRAMFANSANDUNFANSBODYSLAMSANFRANFORFRAMBANSLAM? EdChem (talk) 04:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• I'm starting to get the idea that EEng has created a new way of communication. Perhaps a new language: FRANglish. I think, in the future. any concept could be expressed using the canons EEng developed for the SANFRANBAN redirects. Dr. K. 02:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

  Poor, poor Fram. See also User:EEng#Museum_of_Dr._Seuss_Meets_the_WMF. EEng 04:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Brilliant. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I can see the possibilities: "I AM SAN FRAN AND I CAN BAN FRAM. SAN FRAN I AM. CAN I EVER BAN FRAM. BAM! MAN!". This may well be the first example of linguistic contagion. It has become viral. Dr. K. 08:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

For future use: 'you have been WP:FRAMed' (should be one of the block-reasons)? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Lol. Not sure about the verb form though. It could also be "You have been WP:FRAMMed. Dr. K. 09:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: there was some cynicism in using the verb form. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Not to spoil the fun, but "Franglish" was what my grade 9 French teacher (who was also my grade 7 English teacher, yay Catholic schools) called it when a student mangled their work so badly that it was incomprehensible in both languages. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I thought that was Froglish. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

And Brits of a certain age will always have a soft spot for Miles Kington's "Let's parlez Franglais". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Yay! 'You have been WP:FRAMished ...' or 'You have been WP:FRAMgled ...' ?? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like a lot of editors have been hitting the Framboise. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

What is the point of this article?

Seriously, why is this even here at this point? It was supposed to be an index of reactions to the Fram incident, but now has degenerated into endless meta-threads about whatever complaints people have about Wikipedia in general. You tell me how, for instance, the definition of the word "toxic" and the appropriateness of its use, has anything to do with the supposed topic of the page. This has gone so far afield that this page is useless to anyone actually interested in the alleged topic.—Chowbok ☠ 21:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Do you want the crapflood on AN, ANI, or VP instead? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes. People who want to change our policies should follow the normal method of changing our policies. Not attempt to use this page and its focus on a specific issue to push forward their policy goals. nableezy - 21:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Wasn’t intended as a yes/no question. Really, where should it go? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

How about Jimbo's talk page?—Chowbok ☠ 21:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Why there? So nothing can happen? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Underlying the events with Fram is the WMF's opinion that policies about harassment, civility, etc. should be made more rigorous than they have been. Editors here at en-wiki have responded that it is essential that we play a central role in defining any policy changes, rather than have them dictated to us by WMF. Consequently, it is entirely appropriate to be discussing how we feel about what is or is not harassment or incivility. Nobody is going to actually decide on a policy here, because that will come later, probably via RfCs at policy page talk pages or at the Village Pump. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

+1 —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Well for starters, efforts to change WP:CIV should start on WT:CIV. And if those discussions merit it, then an RFC at WP:VPP I think would be the usual method for proposing and adopting any change of significance. nableezy - 21:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I see what's going on here as being more like Village Pump (idea lab), than Village Pump (policy). At this point, no one is or should be anywhere near to formulating any kind of specific proposal. It's just brainstorming. It doesn't need to be at a policy talk page yet. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

This. And related, this would be one of those weird places where I think WP:NOTBURO is apt. We’re just talking and brainstorming at this point. There’s no need to go so far as to require it to take place at a dramaboard or proposal board. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• why is this even here – Why is what even here? There's a zillion things going on. What exactly are you referring to? EEng 21:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

  Why is Wikipedia itself even here? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

  I'm trying to be serious. Here. EEng 23:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

  Why? – Levivich 01:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

  I ... I don't know. A momentary lapse. But I can assure you now, very confidently, that it's going to be all right again. I feel much better now. EEng 01:55, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• That's like asking the guests of a party to move from the kitchen to the living room as the more appropriate place. It's superficially reasonable, but for some reason it almost never works. (Unless it's meant to make people start thinking about going home.) Hans Adler 04:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Automatic archiving

Discussion seems to be slowing, so I propose that automatic archiving of threads happen after 4 days instead of 2 days for the main page, and 7 days instead of 3 days for this talk page. --Pine (✉) 01:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I support that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Support, but on a related note, please stop unarchiving your email megathread when you want to resume the discussion. Just use hatnotes to link to the past ones when and if a new section discussing a new email is warranted. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

+1 -- llywrch (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I've archived Pine's large sub-section (to Archive 12). AGK ■ 21:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

That's OK with me. Something else that I can do is, after a new message goes into the archives, I can archive it with the previous messages. I'm trying to keep all of them together. --Pine (✉) 18:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Your thoughts about Community Health

The Wikimedia movement strategy Community Health Working Group on Meta has designed a survey "to gather information from the Wikimedia community about community health." Here is a link to it. Jonathunder (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

FYI for other people interested in taking the survey: It consists almost entirely of open-text response fields where you can write whatever you want. To fully, thoroughly, and thoughtfully respond to the questions will take roughly half an hour. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Wow. Using Google docs for something that could easily be done with Wikimedia software. See Privacy concerns regarding Google. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The WMF regularly uses m:Google's software despite the issues with our principles. It's a problem. Bringing the WMF back to the wikis is going to be difficult. --Yair rand (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm guessing that google docs offers rich analysis of the responses and that was why it was selected, but I'm also reluctant to respond using that service. cygnis insignis 00:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I doubt that this was designed by any group on Meta. In fact, it appears that those activities and discussions are done practically entirely off-wiki, guided by the WMF and affiliates. --Yair rand (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Weren't those surveys created by these working groups on meta? The Community Health working group gives links to their activities and reports. Vexations (talk) 00:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, the first page says you can send your responses by email if you prefer. The other surveys in the series all use Qualtrics, which isn't necessarily any better. If you want both anonymous and free text, a wiki isn't really the best solution. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Can I ask why this is here? What connection does it have with Framgate? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

  Good point. It has nothing to do with Fram. I am partially at fault by responding without thinking about relevance. I think this section should be hatted as being off-topic. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

  On second thought, the top of this page says "Off-topic discussions and tangentially related sections may be moved to the talk page" so I will do that now. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not so sure that it has nothing to do with Fram, or more accurately with the behavior of the WMF/T&S. My guess is that they are looking for some sort of validation for their moving into the individual project administration areas. But perhaps I'm off-base with that thought. — Ched :  ?  — 04:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
• There have been a lot of thoughtful posts on this page about the relationship between the WMF and the English Wikipedia, and how to encourage positive behaviour in our community, and how to structure dispute resolution processes that can improve on what we already have. All of those things are actually very relevant to the strategy process so please do feed them in, it is relevant. And @Ched:, don't worry, I can really assure you that the strategy process is not about validating or justifying what the WMF are currently doing ;) The Land (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2019 (UTC)