Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2019-06-30

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Comments[edit]

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2019-06-30. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Community view: A CEO biography, paid for with taxes (873 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Discuss this story

  • Ah, thank you for those articles. I had noticed the Krugman link back then but didn't inspect it closely. Nemo 17:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes thank you for what you have done. We also need better mechanisms to deal with this issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, congratulations on withstanding these: if I was on your position, I wouldn't do it! Enivak (talk) 18:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well done! Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion report: A constitutional crisis hits English Wikipedia (21,846 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Several hours before this was published, ArbCom sent out an open letter to the board. --Yair rand (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good job, Bri. It must have been very challenging to write a column-length summary of this complex and voluminous crisis. It has been so polarizing that I was unsure whether an objective synopsis was possible but I think this was well-done for the limited amount of space that the Signpost allows. Liz Read! Talk! 16:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, it was challenging, and I tried to limit my involvement in the discussions to remain objective. Even so, the issue left out many important late breaking discussions, not the least of which surrounds the WMF Executive Director's comments on Twitter and her first ENWP edit since 2016.
Readers should know that any column is not really just the creation of the author with the byline; there is much back-and-forth at the Signpost Newsroom and elsewhere, including offline guidance from the Editor in Chief for which I'm very grateful. I'm sure the next issue will have important followup. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A bureaucrat recall motion against WJBscribe was initiated on 26 June"? Why the passive voice? Who initiated it? Someone from the WMF? Another 'crat? A well-respected veteran editor? An SPA and/or troll? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This appears to be the "bureaucrat recall motion", though I'm sure Bri can clarify, since they wrote that part. I agree it is a bit confusing to call it a "motion", since it gives it a bit more formality akin to Arbcom's motions (and one could assume it was Arbcom discussing the motion, as I initially did when I was reading it). I think adding a link to the archived discussion and a rewording from "motion" to "request" would be appropriate, especially since that was the actual discussion's section header. Retro (talk | contribs) 12:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (Pinging Guy Macon) Retro (talk | contribs) 12:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There was an overwhelming "Oppose recall" consensus (a consensus which would have been much larger had it not been closed after 8 hours) and the resignation that followed specifically says "and irrespective of the 'recall' discussion started above". I say we should remove this small part of the discussion report as being irrelevant. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Guy Macon: Since a consensus which would have been much larger is entirely a hypothetical, and discussions like this can easily shift one way or the other, I don't think anything definitive can really be said there. I do agree that mentioning the crat recall discussion may be undue weight and suggest a causal line that is not as clear as the actual reality of the situation. Retro (talk | contribs) 15:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The losses we have incurred in this incident are very serious. I do not want to say that they outweigh the cost of having taken no action, because that is far from clear, but it would certainly be a reasonable position to hold.
What, then, are the issues of concern?
Independence of the community
The Foundation was created, as much as anything, to be an entity to count beans, and protect the community from legal issues. It has grown into a behemoth, which has huge agendas of its own. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but the repeated failure to respect the community is a crying shame. Every time it happens we get promises to do better in future, which presumably works, until next time that it doesn't.
Hostile environment
There is no doubt that there have been many issues in the community which have been dealt with poorly. And certainly Fram is one of those - there are others that have not even appeared on the radar. Because of the timescales of some of these issues it is tempting to "let sleeping dogs lie" - certainly something I have tended to prefer. It's important though that we are prepared to put the work into resolving these difficult issues. One of my complaints in the past has been that we have preferred to ban one or the other party, and move on. This can contribute to the hostile environment rather than resolve it.
Way forward
1. Fairly clearly we should return to the Status quo.
2. The community and the Foundation need to negotiate a way forward for future issues. This could include, for example, Foundation input to community processes, in the form of evidence, or providing tools to analyse data, training or funding for clerical work to compile and analyse the mountains of evidence that come to ANI or ArbCom.
3. Last and least, but still importantly, make some progress with the case that triggered this.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • I find reprehensible the use of the word "safety" by Raystorm and women like her. I have come to learn that many women continually reassess how emotionally-stable, socially-connected, and physically safe they feel. Sadly, some women wrap up their feelings about the former two into the all-inclusive language of the latter, which is a mistake. I don't use language that impugns others for the discomforts I and everyone else feel. I would recommend to all women that when they don't feel comfortable with the tone of a discussion, that they eschew claims that they don't feel safe, as if someone has put a gun to their heads. Describing your unhappiness with conversations and disagreements as feeling "not safe" serves to silence and punish the majority of us who are trying to reason out a solution, while also discrediting the word of all women about matters of safety. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I find the comparison to GamerGate more worrying owing to the association of that issue with virulent sexism. The sex of Fram and whoever they interacted with had never been mentioned up to that point, and even now the consensus seems to be that sexism is not a factor here, being a red herring at best. Throwing out unsubstantiated and gratuitous claims of sexism only serves to help discredit people who're legitimately suffering due to it, whether on Wikipedia or anywhere else. #MeToo is good if the accusations are accurate. It's an albatross if it's used in a manner approaching reductio ad Nazium. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 21:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as that goes, I believe it reflects off-wiki stuff that targeted a single user as the sole alleged complainant (which we now know not to be true, as there were multiple complaints). So the link to examples of virulent sexism perhaps was less about what Fram did, but rather what others who support Fram did. And those folks are not helping their own position, let alone anything else. Montanabw(talk) 22:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would characterise the off-wiki people as less "pro-Fram" and more "anti-everyone-who-currently-edits-Wikipedia-and-the-WMF". —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 22:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • On Pharoah of the Wizards’ initial post to BN, the article makes it sound like they were acting in some sort of official capacity or had some advanced knowledge but presumably they just had Fram’s user page on their watchlist, saw the block and then opened up a discussion. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bri: - disappointed that the summary that I and others have contributed to at WP:FRAMSUM was not offered a link at the bottom. Early on, when I was the sole contributor, I had said that I was happy to share my work. starship.paint (talk) 02:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you look at the article history, you will find it in earlier incarnations. I and my editors were attempting to balance many competing imperatives. Sorry you were not pleased with the final product. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bri: - I'm sure you can see that Seraphimblade's summary after 12 June 2019 ended up focusing on resignations (in proper written form), while other events ended up being covered in very brief form. starship.paint (talk) 03:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Smallbones: - I see that you removed the link to the summary I contributed to [1] citing remove link to attempted outing page (no other links were removed, so it must be the summary). Where is the attempted outing? That would get me blocked, it happened once already. Please justify your comment, or publicly retract it. starship.paint (talk) 03:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the time I removed it from the article, the list had references to or links to outing of a board member and a very unfairly targeted editor. I think the outing of people in the early discussion of the Fram matter was totally shameful. Others may disagree or didn't see the links, but we never intentionally link to anything that contributes to outing. I'm not accusing you of outing, only that linking to your list would contribute to it. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smallbones: - acknowledged, so I'm guessing your edit summary instead meant "remove link to page that linked to attempted outing". If you agree, this matter will be settled. starship.paint (talk) 04:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to avoid any misunderstanding: when I said "my editors" it meant the ones editing the article I wrote. Not the possessive "my" or that anybody was reporting to me or anything like that. They weren't. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No misunderstanding from me. starship.paint (talk) 04:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, heck! I'm gone for a month and I miss some real shenanigans. Thanks for the detailed article, interesting stuff. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great job Signpost for summarizing this dispute. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks a lot for the summary! -- Luk talk 09:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice summary.--Vulphere 15:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expanding on Rich Farmbrough's comment, for anyone doubting the side Wales is taking:

My own personal view is that drama never helps, but making it clear (through strikes/retirements) that something is unacceptable is a totally respectable and useful way to move the needle in an important way. (...) "Our best administrators are writing essays about why this is wrong, and many of them have indicated they will quit" makes a big dent. Also: "The good people protesting are not, for the most part, defending bad behavior. They are asking the WMF to consider how this action undermines our efforts to improve behavior" is helpful. – Jimbo Wales

(The bolding is mine). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Signpost contributors for letting us know about this cluster****. WMF's "father knows best" attitude is really getting out of hand. Is it too much to ask that the community have input in the creation of a Super-ARBCOM body peopled by unelected non-Wikipedians? Come on WMF. Daß Wölf 02:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updates: there are now statements, issued in the last few hours, from the WMF Board and from the Foundation. PamD 08:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking as an editor ignorant of the internal workings of Wikipedia, this discussion is confusing and esoteric. What, specifically, did Fran do that was offensive? As Wikipedia edits are public information, why can't the offensive edits of Fran be identified? Or was his or her offense something else? Why can't the factors justifying the ban be presented in a concise and comprehensible manner? I see a lot of heat here, and little light. Is this mostly a bureaucratic power struggle? Smallchief (talk) 11:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smallchief: The community is clamoring precisely because it was given zero information as to what Fram did to get that year-ban. Some people (including admins) have been reading through Fram's Wikipedia contribs, and (as far as I know) nothing obvious was found that matches; however, the problem might also involve off-wiki conduct.
    There are plausible reasons for the WMF to keep the community in the dark. For instance, there has been some speculation that the ban was due to harassment, in which case giving the community a full account of what happened would expose the victim to more harassment from Fram supporters. On the other hand, some (including Fram) say the ban dropped because of Fram's criticism of the WMF, which could be true even if there was an underlying pretext.
    Pick what story you prefer between Fram getting their just punishment at the hands of a brave WMF honor-bound to silence, a political dissenter being wiki-eliminated by the secret police, or something in-between. My uneducated guess is that Fram did something bad-ish, the WMF decided to half-ban them either because it was not so bad or the evidence was shaky, and when the uproar occured the WMF decided to stonewall. (The problem is that if the WMF appears publicly to cede ground when the community is shouting at them, it encourages the community to shout louder next time, no matter how justified the shouting is in either case.)
    (Also, it's Fram, not Fran) TigraanClick here to contact me 14:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. Perhaps Fram should request that the Wikipedia Foundation publish the charges against him or her. Get it out in the open. Request full disclosure if you believe yourself innocent. Smallchief (talk) 14:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks User:Tigraan, a great and clarifying overview. Re User:Smallchief Fram should request that the Wikipedia Foundation publish the charges: that may be not the treshold. As Tigraan described: There are plausible reasons for the WMF to keep the community in the dark. The reasonable reason I can think of is: WMF Office explainig anything more would expose persons (those being harassed, possibly off-wiki). Not User:Fram themselves. For this same reason: WMF Office might have gagged Fram (i.e., silence Fram with threat of legal action or such) to prevent Fram publicising issues. It might be that WMF Office wants to prevent an off-wiki hounding. (todo: insert here the Maher post invoking Gamergate).
OTOH, last month dozens of enwiki admins have resigned as admin because, like: "If WMF Office does not trust enwiki admins & arbcom process, then what community we are?". -DePiep (talk) 16:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial Question about “Administrator Megalibrarygirl, cites her US Army experience and says it is.”[edit]

Hi Editor, or @Megalibrarygirl:,

Could you kindly share the link to where this statement comes from? I'd like to add a "citation needed" but not sure if it's appropriate to a Signpost. I am interested in understanding the reasoning of the statement and under what circumstance some of these governance approaches will fail

Thank you!

Xinbenlv (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not able to spend the time to create a diff just now, but if you look for the word "army" in WP:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Archive 7, you will find it. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Xinbenlv did you find the source that Bri pointed out? If you want to know where I was coming from, is that I was thinking of how our regulations for the unit came from up top. However, while we couldn't remove any of the up top regs, we could still add to them. So individual units had their own specific regulations, and therefore their own individual culture so to speak. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting aspect of military culture, that is, unit identity is persistent across time even though individual members are guaranteed to rotate through on a fairly short time interval – including leadership. How does identity and mission orientation relate to tradition and other intangible aspects of culture in addition to formulated policies and regulations? WPedians not familiar with this culture may be shocked to know that there is a great deal of small-unit latitude in interpreting orders, and demonstrating initiative is highly valued in the best units. Rigid uniformity across a force, though a popular stereotype, isn't really a thing. I think it's great that our perspectives on organization, leadership, and reward systems demonstrate our diverse backgrounds. MLG has offered hers, which I thank her for. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Megalibrarygirl:， I was able to find it, with help from @Bri:. Thank you! I think @Megalibrarygirl:'s comment makes quite good sense: an overall code of conduct plus local code of conduct. In conflict, follow the overall, just like how national-level laws vs local level laws etc. Xinbenlv (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From the archives: Women and Wikipedia: the world is watching. (2,544 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Discuss this story

Thank you!--Nattes à chat (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor is banned for harassment and it attracts a small encyclopedia's worth of comment. One of Wikipedia's most shameful failings is detailed and it attracts two words worth of comment. Oh my aching head. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope to attend the London Wikimedia Meetup No. 144 on Sunday 14 July 2019 in Penderel's Oak pub, London WC1, from 1300. Immediately I read this I was aware of an unconscious bias against female Wikipedians. (1) The Meetup is at lunchtime - many "traditional" women will be cooking lunch for their friends/families. (2) Sunday - often the only free weekday for many women. (3) the venue is a Wetherspoon's pub famous for its "real ale" & most real ale drinkers are still men of a certain age (including me! Mea culpa) Kirby Steve (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia should be using the 'non-gender' approach. Editors must not be identified and/or treated as being 'male' & 'female'. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GoodDay: It's easier said than done. Although there is consensus to have gender-neutral language across the main space, there is no restrictions on users' identification. I supposed it's a reflection of our real world - people just cannot exist without having a gender identity. Having a genderless society is a utopia. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just as important and relevant now as when it was first published, unfortunately. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 22:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery: Unlike the North Face, Wiki Loves Earth (2,481 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Why even bring up "The North Face"? It seems like the opposite of objective unbiased scientific discussion. Meanwhile it provides free advertizing to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericengle (talk • contribs) 18:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But advertising is not allowed on Wikipedia. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 06:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I"m confused. Since when is an internal newsletter bound to "unbiased scientific(?!) discussion"? – Juliancolton | Talk 19:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Juliancolton I share your confusion. When is anything associated with Wiki-anything totally without bias?Not Wilkins (talk) 11:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)NotWilkins[reply]

The article states "[brand name] does not love Earth" without evidence. Even if [brand name] does not love earth - say, unlike [brand name] it was a company known to be environmentally irresponsible - that would still be irrelevant to this article's topic. Unlike the editors who commented above, I think it is is fair, accurate, and on-topic to call out this brand as "not loving Wikipedia" but it might be wiser to to follow the paths of some media outlets that refuse to name murderers and others who appear to be "seeking attention" and just say "A company which we refuse to name here vandalized the following articles by putting images in them that included their brand, please review them and consider using some of the suggested images below instead." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that saying [brand name] doesn’t love the earth is going a bit far, but calling them out by name is absolutely necessary. Now that I know NF has done this, I’ll have a sharp eye out for their logo and products in new uploads to Commons. - TimDWilliamson speak 18:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In focus: WikiJournals: A sister project proposal (4,640 bytes · 💬)[edit]

  • This is a very worthwhile initiative. I recall various WMF efforts to shoehorn traditional knowledge from the Global South that has never been written down in reliable sources (e.g. oral citations) in a way that violates WP:NOR. WikiJournals is the proper way to do it - documentation of these cultures needs to be peer reviewed because it is original research. MER-C 17:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not an "extreme rarity" to have open access journals without author fees (sometimes called diamond open access). DOAJ alone lists 9847 such journals as of now, so they're clearly the vast majority. When approaching the open science community, I hope that we show more regard for what's out there already. Nemo 17:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point - There are many APC-free OA journals (see also). Also, APC journals sometimes offer waivers. However I think it is still fair to say that fee-free OA is rare overall. Most publications are still in subscription journals (Gold OA <15%). For OA articles, the majority are still published in journals that use APCs (gold or hybrid) [2] [3]. On the other hand, from what I've seen, humanities journals seem more likely to be APC-free [4]. I'll aim to be more clear in future. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 01:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. I'm not sure I understood your point, but if you're saying that APC-free articles are a minority of gold OA articles, or that the average APC among gold OA is high, or that the average cost per OA article is high, any such claim is very hard to prove if not entirely disproven by rather well known statistics. You can find a summary of the most important figures at Ten myths around open scholarly publishing. You can find some additional estimates at GOA4. Nemo 23:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think my biomed background skews my perception, since it has the lowest proportion of fee-free (30%, GOA4 table 4.4), but even that is way higher than I expected! Looking at the raw data from DOAJ it seems that the split is larger international journals (PLOS, BMC, etc) versus smaller region journals. Definitely changed my understanding of the balance though. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 11:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No mention here of it, but m:WikiLaw (3) is also being proposed! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the media: The disinformation age (6,664 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Unless I am mistaken, Aaron Mak "Donald Trump's Wikipedia Entry Is a War Zone", Slate, which contained some legitimate criticism of en.wp power-users by an en.wp admin and by the journalist, was mentioned neither in May or June. This is puzzling as it's very unlikely to have been an oversight: was it considered to be unreliable? impolitic? (I mean it does have someone making snide comments like: "It sounds like you have an issue with bold editing or perhaps the world is moving too fast for you." (The article mentions that the author would later be reprimanded for ignoring consensus.) I strongly encourage people to read that article to understand how reasonable outsiders view en.wp's problematic power users. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 19:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SashiRolls: It was an oversight. Feel free to include this in the next issue. Go to Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom, click "in the media", and present this however you like. This is a standing invitation and anyone would have told you the same earlier. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, BR, but I've actually just added it directly since that seemed much simpler and more timely.🌿 SashiRolls t · c 19:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @SashiRolls: it is a very good article. In my prep for this column there's a gap that you might help me fill. About 2-3 days before deadline I pretty much have to ignore new articles coming out, and for a couple of days after I take a break from reading about Wikipedia. It's just a time management thing. If you see good articles in that gap please let me know. I'll probably be going for fewer articles and more topics, as well as longer write-ups, (do we need 12 articles on The North Face?), so they may be harder to fit in. Also I have a bias toward newer articles, which means I forget about the gap. Any help appreciated. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SashiRolls: You said you "just added it directly" but I can't see that edit; perhaps you left the window open? In any case, it's probably better to mention this article in the July issue, while explaining it was missed in May and June. — JFG talk 01:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I enjoy this regular column and am usually surprised by how much media coverage Wikipedia still receives. I mean, it's not 2005-2006 coverage but still, magazines regularly find article subjects here within the editing community. Between this column and recent research, Wikipedia is continually getting scrutinized which I think usually benefits the project. Liz Read! Talk! 21:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realize it was right in the setup that this isn't quite 100% up to WP:RS standards, but I still had to laugh...

Male Wikipedia editors are deleting women, says Sandi Toksvig in The Times. Good try, but she gets a few facts wrong. "There are about 350,000 uber-volunteers..."

Wait, is she telling us that there are over three hundred thousand sad, basement-dwelling men with too much time on their hands, all gung-ho on editing Wikipedia?! Well, that's a bloody relief, I guess we can all relax and slack off a bit, with all those hands on deck! All those editors should be able to handle the workload and still find plenty of time for Cheetos runs, their misogynistic editorial pet projects, genital-scratching contests, and whatever else they typically engage in. ...I'd invite Toksvig to pitch in, since she's so misinformed about just how large a community there really is behind-the-scenes here, but if all of her sourcing is this fanciful then maybe that's a bad idea. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 04:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly (because she is a national treasure, for whom I have had the greatest respect for many years) this is not the only time that Sandi Toksvig has been badly misinformed, to use a charitable word, about Wikipedia in recent days. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#Mention on leading UK show: as well as repeating the claim that artices about women are being deleted, she has also claimed that articles about women are not being created, and that Wikipedia is 9% about women and 90% about men. 213.205.240.14 (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and yes. She is a national treasure (and OBE) from what I understand. Yes she was sadly mistaken. I didn't mean to make fun of her, but sometimes it's important to point out mistakes that good people make. I'm just wondering now upon review - should I have included this short blurb? Please let me know here. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a huge fan of Toksvig and I thought the blurb was still fair. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

News and notes: Mysterious ban, admin resignations, Wikimedia Thailand rising (6,784 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Fram[edit]

I support the abolition of the WMF. The WMF, however, cannot abolish us. Perhaps those caffè macchiatos enjoyed from the plush WMF offices convinced the occupants that Wikipedia content is magically created and WMF simply needs to find better ways to generate income. For some reason bitter internet seem unhappy with their enlightened masters. I guess the WMF just needs to order out for lunch and the problem will go away. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, but the loss of many experienced admins is serious and urgently needs to be halted (and if possible reversed). Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris troutman, while I agree with your general sentiment, the WMF are no longer in their big shiny office at 149 Montgomery Street, and the new, downsized, WMF offices look anything but plush. "Grim" would probably be a better word. ‑ Iridescent 18:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I'd describe their offices as "grim". I notice that whatever hack of an interior architect designed the workarea settled on the open plan model, which is all the fashionable rage at the moment for offices everywhere, yet countless studies have shown this model severely cripples productivity. In a way, this is a good metaphor for the Foundation. -- llywrch (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article is suggesting people resigned because they didn't agree with the T&S action. I saw at least one sysop stepping aside because they do not support actions that undermine the work of the T&S team. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is that not covered by in protest to the responses of others? ‑ Iridescent 19:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ad Huikeshoven: That was exactly what I meant by in protest to the responses of others, and for other reasons --DannyS712 (talk) 19:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyS712: Thanks for clarifying that. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just finding out about the Fram situation today and that sucks, a clear abuse of power -Gouleg (Talk • Contribs) 19:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No need for abolition of the WMF, a fork would be enough. The WMF would go one way (hopefully taking their Visual Editor with them), the humble drudges who actually do the work would go the other. Maproom (talk) 12:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand[edit]

Last time I was at a Wiki-event in Bangkok, we had roadblocks, demonstrations, sit-ins, occupation of government buildings and an ever-rising level of insanity. You had to go everywhere on foot because the roads were sealed off. I hope things have calmed down since then. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7, I would be curious to know what that event was. I've lived in Thailand for almost 20 years now, been a Wikipedian for about 14, and an admin for nearly 9. I enjoy an excellent, safe, modern, and inexpensive lifestyle here - please don't make comments that have absolutely no bearing on today's Thailand. Instead, compare the current chaos in Hong Kong where incidentally I attended a very disorganised Wikimania in 2013. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was the 2013 Asia-Oceania Wheelchair Basketball Championships. You're quite right about there being chaos in Hong Kong at the moment, although I don't remember Wikimania 2013 being disorganised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you weren't there Hawkeye7. The venue was good, the tracks were fine, the accommodation was OK, but the logistics were catastrophic (those of us who arrived by planes at midday weren't able to access the accommodation until nearly midnight after being shunted around in a group from one huge subway station to another for hours on end. The peripheral events were a disaster, the midday food was food was fine (if you got some) but wasn't enough to go round and by the time the 100m line had been served there was nothing left and the afternoon sessions had already started. There was no chance of getting an evening meal anywhere if you were in the provided accommodation, and there was only food for the privileged invitees and WMF at the official welcoming function. The closing beach party at which most of the attendees spent 2 hours standing in line for the food t& drink tent where there was also no food or drink by the time they got there, and it was time to get back on the bus to return to town. Some of The WMF staff on their regular privileged junket were rude to the volunteers and I wish I hadn't bothered going and saved my money. I have been to dozens of international conferences in my time, and organised some of them. This was my worst experience, although Esino Lario was also pretty chaotic but truly excellent food and accomodation. - alone worth going for! If I have anything to do with it (and I don't know if I will be asked), the Bangkok event will run much smoother. At least I live here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung, you know I was there because you spoke to me. (In Esino Lario too.) Hope it all goes well. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the main difference between a chapter and a user group is that a chapter is required to be a legal entity in its own right and is therefore subject to both local company laws in the places they operate in and bilateral agreements with WMF; while a user group does not need to have legal status and function under the auspices of WMF directly where a legal person is required. Deryck C. 16:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the bright side: What's making you happy this month? (2,535 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Discuss this story

  • I am happy that editors that are contributing new and improved articles and images to Wiki Loves Pride. Funcrunch (talk) 04:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy kitties to be pet, and bad dad jokes~ Cheers! Elfabet (talk) 13:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • New paleontological discoveries, such as Vespersaurus - it's always gratifying to see our images of ancient ecosystems become richer and more diverse. Zach Varmitech (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy mind.--Vulphere 15:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't want to be too persnickety, but your Latin question is bordering on gibberish. Leaving aside that in strict Classical Latin hebdomas was mainly a technical medical term meaning "seventh day of a disease", it's also a feminine noun, but you have it with hic, which is a masculine form of the demonstrative. And these two words shouldn't be in the nominative case. Beatus also shouldn't be in the nominative case, since it should be agreeing with the verb object. "Quid te beatum facit hac hebdomade?" is much more plausible... AnonMoos (talk) 07:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AnonMoos: thank you for the correction. I will make that change. --Pine (✉) 20:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks... One place to ask for language translation help (within reason) is the language ref. desk. AnonMoos (talk) 12:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Op-Ed: 2019 Wikimedia Affiliate Selected Board Seats Election Results (149 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Discuss this story

Opinion: Why the Terms of Use change didn't curtail undisclosed paid editing—and what might (17,941 bytes · 💬)[edit]

  • User:Harej has partly built just such a tool (one to allow those with a COI to more easily make requests). I think it is a reasonable idea. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Doc James, I was not aware that such work was ongoing. Harej, I'd love to learn more—check your inbox! WWB (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd point to WP:MMORPG and ask, regarding CoI editors, what's in it for me? I play this game based upon my chosen strategy to earn points. Sure, the SanFran front office will violate it's own terms of use if there's something in it for them, but where's my opportunity to cash in? The last CoI editor I dealt with followed all the rules and asked nicely on a talk page for some edits. At no point did they offer me anything, which is messed up. I shouldn't have to extort people that ask nicely. The time before that, I had a CoI editor eager to enforce their version of the truth; I pointed to WP:RB and they became indignant from my advice. Everyone wants to score points in this MMORPG but no one is willing to meet me halfway. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Part of a solution, is when you have a specific topic, you can developed specific writing guides and direct them to it. For example at WP:JOURNALS, we have our writing guide with a specific COI section. We link to this guide from all {{journal-stub}} templates, so it's relatively easy for COI editors that wants to update/create an article on an Academic journal to do so within the rules, and a guide that rather effectively curb-stomps their tendency to add a ton of WP:WEASEL/WP:COPYVIO stuff, not only by telling them what not to add, but also what is the information we are actually interested in. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is the actual discussion about implementing these changes? Be bold and start one! Merging all guides for COI editors and making them more accessible for their intended audience seems like an easy-ish first step that could be started this very moment. Same goes with creating a WikiProject. There’s no time like now, especially if this article sparks some additional interest. Trialpears (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have now started a discussion regarding the merger of COI guides at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Merger of COI guides Trialpears (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I frequently deal with COI editors, but I find the current system for COI editors to request edits suitable only for trivial corrections or updates; it is a hopelessly confusing way to write or rewrite an article, and leads to interminable negotiating over individual sentences. The only way I can deal effectively with the non trivial requests is to request the editor to propose a draft, and leave it to me to decide what to implement, and then to other non-COI editors to revise in the normal way. The problem is that this takes an inordinate amount of time & concentration on the subject, so I will do it only for subjects that I am personally interested in. Otherwise, it's asking me to do the work I would not otherwise do, so someone else can earn the money. I do not really know a solution, except for a general policy of limiting COI editors to asking for routine updates, and otherwise just suggesting sources on the talk page, and leaving the article alone. The most helpful thing a subject can do is to write a really informative and well referenced website, and give free licenses to appropriate illustrations. They have no right to insist that we work on an article about them. We do not exist as a place where individuals and companies can present information about themselves. If my friend WWB would like to discuss further particulars, I'll be glad to talk with him. DGG ( talk ) 03:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you find WP:JWG#COI useful, or does most of your COI involvement deal outside of journals? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is such a good idea that I very rarely need to do any COI work with articles on academic journals. Part of the reason it works here is not just the formulaic nature of the article, but the very clear standard of notability in those fields, which diminishes the need for puffery. (And also, the very close consensus of the relatively few editors here working in this field on the article standards) The practical problem with such articles is trying to find some way of avoiding copyvio and close paraphrase. I think this would be true for many other situations also where a formulaic article could be written properly by anyone even with COI. . I would agree completely with efforts to expand this to other fields, as you suggested above. DGG ( talk ) 07:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, DGG! You raise a very good point about the current system working well only for simple edits. Alas, I think there is no way around the fact that some pages need more work, and larger changes require more volunteer attention. That said, I agree it is less than ideal for volunteers to make content decisions on topics outside their interest, which is why I hope that a formalized WikiProject could help. Perhaps it could attract subject-matter experts to offer comment, which COI-focused volunteers might help to implemnt.
As to your suggestion that a subject should post a "really informative and well referenced website" off-wiki, can you point to any examples? I believe this was Jimbo's original advice to MyWikiBiz, but it never really became reality, and it raises a whole host of questions, including how to format it, and what CMS to use—which is why I have long used the draft in userspace approach. In any case, there would still need to be a mechanism whereby someone on-wiki brings the issue up for discussion. WWB (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the need for different tools for small versus large suggested updates. There's an example of a large suggested expansion at Talk:Medical Journal of Australia, where I manually went through and looked for eh diffs from the current article so that each sentence could be implemented/rejected individually. There could definitely be a tool to allow something like that of large updates or even complete rewrites. It could also give an opportunity for the original coi-editor to give additional references if a sentence was rejected because of lack of supporting refs. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 01:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Following up on one of your points, it's would certainly help if we were able to get volunteer editors in business fields--I think we've set the practical notability level for businesses perhaps too high, in an (successful) effort to keep out the incompetent paid editors, and this might enable us give us more realistic coverage. But unfortunately there will still be major gaps, as there are with academic faculty, a field where we have many volunteer editors--such gaps do a disservice to those really notable, leading university PR staff or hired editors to write the articles, which they generally do very poorly, not distinguishing between what counts for notability here and what is puffery. This is similarly true even with contemporary artists , musicians, entertainers--in spite of the very large number of interested WP editors in these fields. So there does not seem any real solution unless we end anonymous editing in some fields, which I certainly do not propose. DGG ( talk ) 16:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion would be: better training for writing articles! Imagine a "Wikipedia Article Writing School" supported by the WMF. And if they don't, maybe I will… WWB (talk) 14:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I attempted to detail that editor dilemma of investing volunteer time in (undisclosed) paid or promotional activity in WP:BOGOF. Widefox; talk 15:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You just took the words out of my mouth, Widefox. With all due respect, perhaps my very good friend DGG forgot about that, while I nevertheless have extreme respect for the dedication he invests (more than most) in quietly (more or less) going about his COI work. And while we're on the subject, something I always meant to ask you: was your shortcut an intended pun on a less polite we Bits have for 'Go away!' ? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good question, and I think Brits may assume there's a message in the name, when there was none intended. It may detract as it was a serious attempt to understand the good faith polarised opinions of dealing with the scale of COI (especially AfDs), and look into the (economic) drivers, so the name just came out naturally. I ended up just considering this a special case of the tragedy of the commons systemic bias, which may be a better name as the bigger topic. I originally liked the focus on the volunteer's choice to be part of a BOGOF offer or not. Garrett Hardin's quote seems apt "Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.". Widefox; talk 21:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Widefox, I think BOGOF makes a valuable contribution to the discussion around paid editing, and I certainly recognize the dynamic it describes, i.e. "subsidizing the market" for paid advocacy by throwing good editors after bad. And I'm sympathetic to the idea that if WP:TNT is needed to fix a borderline notable, promotional article, that deletion should be the result more often than it is now. That said, in my reading I find it focuses on enforcement against "unscrupulous, low quality" COI work more than it offers clear suggestions toward encouraging "quality paid editors". I acknowledge the essay is offered as one view, rather than a comprehensive solution. But I wonder, do you think the scenario I describe above is compatible with it? WWB (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hypothetically, high quality COI work is not an article quality problem, but that's by definition. What about in practice, though? Is it even a reality? Let's assume the perfect COI editing...there's a big but...it's still a systemic bias. That bias is multiplied when volunteers are drawn in, taking finite editors away from editing other articles, additionally tilting the balance. All undisclosed paid editing is a problem by definition, per the TOU, and that's more work for volunteers to flag and deal with disclosures and problem accounts. The question of a solution to enable/encourage quality COI editing may or may not be directly related to enabling the tragedy of the commons. At least in theory. My understanding of the economics is rudimentary, but there's been success with overfishing. Maybe there's a solution here Elinor Ostrom was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics for demonstrating exactly this concept in her book Governing the Commons, which included examples of how local communities were able to do this without top-down regulations ? Widefox; talk 20:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As to whether high-quality COI editing is a reality or not, you may not be too surprised to hear that I would hold myself out as an example. There are others, although not as many as I would like, and we tend not to edit client articles directly. Naturally, this requires volunteers to facilitate, but I believe the time they put in does more to improve the encyclopedia than COI/N whack-a-mole or BOGOF cleanup after-the-fact. I think there is also a good case to be made that it's more efficient, and helps to avert "tragic" outcomes. All in all, the theory is interesting, but hard data would be more so. Elsewhere I've begun to encourage independent research along these lines, but it may be some time before any of it comes to pass. WWB (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so much interested in the individual merits of one or more editors, edits or articles, more about the collective effect per tragedy of the commons a shared-resource system where individual users acting independently according to their own self-interest behave contrary to the common good of all users by depleting or spoiling that resource through their collective action. . Is is all about the scale of the systemic bias it introduces IMHO. That's an independent issue to that of lack of bias or NPOV due to a COI, which no doubt is possible to achieve, especially via edit requests or other best practice. It's a systemic bias (see WP:BIAS). Widefox; talk 16:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually wrote an essay proposing a solution over a year ago. User:Bri/Paid editing Chinese wall‎ would either use existing mechanisms, or create a new paid-editing space for inclusion to the regular enc. by non-paid editors. I think this is the crux of the issue because the instant gratification of high-ranking Google results has tilted the playing field in favor of the low-effort undeclared paid editors and those who hire them. Curious to know what WWB thinks of this. By the way we met in person at the 2017 San Diego wikiconference; one of the unheralded benefits of events like this is bringing together people who might have stood on opposite sides of an issue and prior to which (in my case) had not seen the other party as a real person so much. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bri, finally getting a chance to catch up after the long weekend. I do remember seeing your essay awhile back. I am skeptical that there will ever be community support to prohibit direct editing by COI contributors; I'm reminded of the 2009 RfC which roundly rejected the idea largely for fear of unintended consequences. And in this era of WiRs and other paid non-COI contributors, the line is too easy to accidentally cross. There is also extreme resistance to changing the infrastructure of the site, cf. the decade-long debate over "pending changes". And while Wikipedia's prominence in Google certainly creates an incentive for instant UPE gratification, that is beyond Wikipedia's control. The one thing that might change this would be raising the requirements for editing across all accounts but I'm sure you'd agree that will never happen, either. Instead, I think about how similar bad behaviors were culled in the past, for instance, illegal file-sharing. First iTunes and then Spotify created a different set of conditions, including a reliability and certainty the peer-to-peer networks could never provide, and which users were willing to pay for. It didn't end all illegal file-sharing, but it did put a huge dent in it. If we are concerned about the tragedy of the commons—and I suppose I'm speaking against interest here—perhaps COI actors should have to pay something to get a fair and timely hearing? WWB (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The ratio of promotional to non-promotional edits seems to be increasing. The proportion of PR money spent on updating public knowledge is growing too. A stable solution should channel some of the desire and funding for such edits into support for tools and editing that monitors the problem, and maintains neutrality and balance. It's good that a bit of that happens via WWB personally, but that's not nearly enough. We need to transform the market for these services by providing an alternative that primarily supports tools for review and CSB, and avoids BOGOF problems. – SJ + 15:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recent research: What do editors do after being blocked?; the top mathematicians, universities and cancers according to Wikipedia (440 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Discuss this story

That last one about the concept of reciprosity is an interesting take. I had some ideas of my own on the concept (armchair theorist), but having them factually confirmed, denied, or fed more information is nice. Elfabet (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Special report: Deleted article (58,911 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Discussion[edit]

  • I am not sure I have seen Fram harass anyone, but I do recall the name from an incident were a user was warned about banging on about the use of gender neutral pronouns, whilst Fram was not (even though he was making very similar, in fact more or less the same, points).Slatersteven (talk) 09:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please add the long form of the shortcuts, so people, who don't work often on enWP can understand the post better. Thanks.--JTCEPB (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yannow, is it appropriate for The Signpost to be a platform for such a "did this user break the rules" discussion? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two editors did not feel that he harassed them." You really thought it OK to write that, and to include it a Signpost piece? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • With the eleven total editors being referred to in the short paragraph immediately above that one it should be obvious that it means "Two of the eleven". I should note that Fram and I had extensive discussions on this article and he never mentioned that as a problem, and he had several chances to respond to the article (e.g. the green box immediately above). Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would anyone ever come forward to say "I'm being harassed" on this site, ever? The only thing that happens is that people get dragged before the court of public opinion and told that everything they feel and experience is invalid because User:Joe_From_RandoFuck doesn't think it's harassment, and then someone is going to write a news article about you to ensure your name continues down this path.
    If the English Wikipedia hopes to retain any sense of autonomy, it needs to seriously - seriously - start looking at how it deals with harassment, and that maybe needs to begin with a) taking the default position of believing victims instead of the accused, and b) not treating social problems like technical problems. --Jorm (talk) 16:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What is a problem? I feel I was being harassed, in particular, by Fram. As a result of this harassment I had to resign the tools and eventually to stop editing because I did not feel safe. Then I resumed editing, and, when I asked for the tools back, the same group of people (to be fair, not including Fram) opposed claiming I resigned under a cloud.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In the current dispute I am clearly not on the WMF side though, and I am glad to see Fram mentioned me as one of the editors they would think of as impartial and being trusted.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ymblanter: just to be clear, are you saying that you were harassed by Fram? If so would you give a bit more detail. As far as I can tell, everybody around here respects you, and it would be great to know more of your experience. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure everybody around here respects me, and I am not willing to dig the diffs, but I believe it started with Fram being unhappy with my crat activity on Wikidata (I approved a bot which eventually started doing smth else than I approved it for, and this smth showed up as spam here, which I was not even aware of). They started an arb case against me which eventually was rejected but because it took a long time for the arbs to decline I had to resign from the arbitration election committee where I was elected to. Essentially, at some point I was labeled as a part of the "wikidata crowd" (never mind that I have 140K contributions here), and in many cases I responded not in the most optimal way. One episode included Fram interpreting my reply to another user in a way I totally did not mean it to be. I asked them to retract, they said they know better. I went to ANI and got a consensus that Fram knows better. There were such episodes essentially every week for several months in the end of 2017 and beginning 2018, and somebody would from time to time remark that they are surprised I am not yet indefinitely blocked, not to say I am an admin, this must have been a mistake. Then I resigned the tools. Again, there were many users participating (and I remember all of them, though some have been blocked, and some apologized, and some considerably changed the behavior), and my response was often substandard, but probably without Fram the whole thing would go differently. Having said this, I believe that Fram's behavior considerably improved in 2018-19, and now I would probably not join an ArbCom case against them. (In 2018, I made a statement which was removed as a clerk action because the arbs apparently thought it had no relation to Fram's behavior). I also realize that many people see my behavior completely differently and in a pretty negative way. Since I got the tools back, I try to totally avoid all Wikidata discussions here, I am just doing my job.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ymblanter Thanks for that, I'm sorry that things get so rough around here. I've seen you around many places here and always though you are one of the nicest people around (in a let's-get-down-to-business way). We hear so much about having a toxic environment around here. Hearing about it helps everybody. I'd like to do a new article on the more general topic of the "toxic environment". If anybody has ideas on where's the best place to start (other than ANI!), please let me know. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Concerning the discussion place, there will be an RfC on civility/harassment. I actually believe it must be a series of well-prepared RfCs, with the first one probably more like free discussion identifying relevant questions. Then the question of the toxic environment would perfectly fit there. But now everything is with the arbs, I do not know what they decide and who will be in charge.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just as a note, I said that "We've butted heads in the past". I think if Fram had headbutted me I would feel quite differently about whether he'd harassed me... GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:53, 30 June 2019‎ (UTC)[reply]
        • @GorillaWarfare: sorry about that. I hope we're not going to either headbutt or butt heads at In the media over mentioning Breitbart. All the best. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • By golly, it would seem there is enough evidence available to start a (first) ArbCom case about Fram. Which, of course, has exactly nothing to do with WMF's procedural end run power play, the principle behind it, and the precedent it sets... Carrite (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes they are ultimately separate issues, but speculation about the evidence which led to Fram's ban has been widespread. So I think this article is useful in that it does shed some light on the scope of evidence that may have been presented to T&S, because while I haven't followed the wider debate closely, much of the discussion seems to have focused on one possible complainant when it appears from this piece that there were several. Gatoclass (talk) 17:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fram has elsewhere posted an extensive reply to the anonymous accusation that he posted a sexually harassing link. He says the Signpost would not link to his reply for certain reasons. Be that as it may, we should keep in mind that Fram is currently banned from responding to these anonymous accusations over here. I would be very upset if I were in the position of the Signpost posting serious accusations against me which I was not allowed to reply to. Haukur (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fram has had lots of chances to respond and told me to go ahead with the story yesterday. Perhaps he likes the attention, I don't know why, but he was very cooperative with the investigation. There are some pretty strict rules (both for journalists and for Wikipedians) that I have to follow, and lots of people are watching the articles. If anybody sees me breaking a Wikipedia rule, please do let me know. So there are things I can't put into articles and things I can't link to. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one thing you can do as a journalist is to verify accusations you get from your sources before printing them anonymously. The source says "Fram repeatedly posted a link to this depiction". Have you confirmed to your satisfaction that this is a fair description of the event in question which gives your readers an accurate impression of the incident? It seems to me, from a brief investigation, that it paints an utterly misleading picture. Haukur (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is eye-opening. One thing that I absolutely hated about the early discussion of the Fram ban was the targeting of one former editor, both on- and especially off-wiki, labeling them and their edits as the problem and subjecting them to unreasonable scrutiny. Despite some folks' suspicions, we don't know the specific editor who reported Fram to T&S and, after reading this article, it looks like there was more than one editor who complained. I think one can see this and at the same time, deplore WMF's inept handling of this issue with the larger English Wikipedia community and their lack of responsiveness.
I sometimes saw blunt and harsh behavior from Fram but I do not think I saw what I considered harassment. But, you know, none of us see everything that happens, even if we spend time going through someone's edit history. From the time I've spent on ANI, it's extremely rare for one diff or two to convincingly display a personal attack that the majority of editors will acknowledge is a personal attack. Unless a person uses specific words that everyone agrees are crossing the line, many editors commonly justify rude behavior by looking at the reputation and contributions of the accuser and the accused and basing their judgment on those factors, not on the behavior that is involved in the complaint. And if the harassed is an IP or newbie? There is a zero to slim chance that they will be defended against an experienced editor. Out comes the boomerang. That's just the pervasive bias that runs throughout Wikipedia and I don't foresee that changing any time soon. And it's why I advise newbie/IP editors never to come to ANI with their complaints because that action will most likely backfire on them. Liz Read! Talk! 20:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • How were the eleven editors chosen? Did they approach the Signpost to make a comment, or did the Signpost approach them based on comments made at WP:FRAM and other pages? Are the editors the Signpost spoke to a representative, random sample of a editors who interacted with Fram? Ca2james (talk) 21:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding this query. I'm a female editor who has interacted with Fram and was not approached to comment. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Smallbones: - I posted this in the newsroom talk, and didn’t get a reply to my latest post. Could you state how many of your sources (1) went to ArbCom only (2) went to T&S only and (3) went to both? This has ramifications when you keep it vague versus specific. Let's say, there were 4 editors who went to T&S, and 1 to both ArbCom and T&S. One can conclude that it seems that T&S is the much preferred route for editors to take (maybe even that community processes have failed to inspire confidence). Let's look at it the other way, there are 4 editors who went to ArbCom, and 1 to both ArbCom T&S - then someone might question with so many editors going to ArbCom, why was there further scrutiny warranted? starship.paint (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No I cannot be specific slicing and dicing the respondents into various groups 1) because of promises of anonymity and 2) because it is a very diverse group that gave me information in different ways using words like "I approached ...", "I reported ...", "(a or b) knew about". I decided to group them into one big box rather than interrogate them about their exact meaning and put them all into different little boxes, which would possibly threaten their anonymity. I certainly can't say anything about their individual motivations to go to either ArbCom or T&S because I didn't ask and I don't remember if anybody told me. You have to remember that many or all of these people have been traumatized and exposing them to public haranguing of the details of their harassment or even giving folks here the opportunity to better identify them is not ethical and no investigation of harassment would ever be possible if you demand such detail from them (or me). I sure you understand why I can't give more specific answers and won't answer more questions along this line. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was on arb com during the 2016 and 2018 cases. In 2016, I did not vote on the issue of whether or not to accept the case. I actually did want to accept the case, but I was the only one, and--I am ashamed to admit--I was not willing to be a minority of one on the matter, especially as I had been a minority of one in numerous committee discussions. In 2018, I had come to realize how important it was to record a dissent in such circumstances, and I voted to accept--the only vote to accept. My basic position then and now was that it is important to take action at even individual instances of rudeness, which is the beginning of the continuum than leads to harassment; the failure to do so encourages the person concerned to continue and leads to an atmosphere where such things are tolerated. I do not mean that we should take strong action -- a one day block is the sort of thing that I have in mind. But we should do it every time, consistently and predictably, and we should do it promptly. The purpose of sanctions at WP is not to punish, but to prevent--to try to make clear to the individual that they should not continue, and make clear to others that they should not do similarly. Occasionally there may be no way to prevent repetition except a long term block, but it is a failure of community process when it gets to that point. Our actual practice on arb com seems to have been not to take action until it is inescapable, and our actual practice on ani seems to be to make every instance a big deal, with results that are unpredictable. This is a system that encourages those prone to harassment to try to see how much they can get away with, because of the very unlikely chance that they might actually be banned.
How we should do this is a much more difficult question, and I am not implying that I think arb com as presently constituted is necessarily the way to do it. But perhaps the worst way is actions by individuals not answerable to the community, operating in secret , and not accepting the possibility of appeal. It's the exactly wrong direction. I can understand my colleagues on arb com not wanting to get involved; I cannot understand those in the WMF who thought their method would be an improvement--I can only assume they found themselves so frustrated by the current situation that they lost all sense of proportion. DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does the conclusion say "Eleven" when the main report says "nine out of eleven" and "two didn't feel harrassed"? (paraphrasing) Usedtobecool ✉️ ✨ 03:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, different sets. Total editors referred to in the article other than Fram 9 + 2 + 2 =13.
  • 9 respondents did feel harassed or saw harassment by Fram
  • 2 respondents didn't feel that way or see it that way
  • 2 were not respondents, but folks in prior disputes recorded on Wiki who did feel or see harassment.

So 9+2 = 11 who felt or saw harassment is one set of 11 and 9 + 2 = 11 the number of respondents is the other set of 11.

Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unto my experience, the sad truth of this matter is that "harassment" is a subjective term. One person's "harassment" on here is another person's "source your material" or "don't add copyrighted material" or "adhere to policy" disclaimers. As long as its subjective - and lets be honest, since everyone is unique it will always be subjective - both sides of any harassment claim will simultaneously always be right and wrong. Not that we can't take some action to prevent it, but dealing with subjectivity of this nature is by default a grey area on here. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Unto my experience, including 2 years of working actively on text copyright issues, including one without the bit, I've been accused of racist motives, being a rules lawyer, doxxed and threatened, but I was never accused of harassment, nor has, to my awareness, any of the more prolific text copyvio cleanup volunteers who did it far longer than me ever been (Dianaa, MER-C, Justlettersandnumbers, Moonriddengirl...). Mind you, I was one of the drafters behind WP:CCI, a systematic examination of a user's total contributions. So harassment may be a subjective term, but it's entirely possible to ask users to refrain from adding copyrighted material without it being raised. This is a false dichotomy. The vast majority of admins, including those who perform difficult blocks, don't display the behaviour described in this article, and I find it pretty insulting to insinuate that what is described here is par for the course for normal exercise of administrative duties, carried out in our name. MLauba (Talk) 07:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I withdraw the comment and will refrain from posting on this matter in future. Sorry to have wasted your time. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be extremely interested in the number of threads raised at AN and ANI which claim harassment, over, say, the past two years, because we need some sort of baseline for what is about to happen... You see, what is clear now, from the way T&S have fucked this case up beyond any possible recognition, is that every administrator is likely going to be repeatedly accused of harassment by any users who they warn or sanction for breaking our policies and guidelines. T&S have likely ushered in an era where generally vacuous allegations will become nothing more than a means to win various content disputes or to avoid editing sanctions. The desperately sad thing about this is that any new user reporting system will drown under these fake reports, and we risk witnessing the genuine, infrequent but significant and serious harassment issues that do occur going unnoticed and unresolved as everybody who is given a well deserved bollocking for repeatedly uploading copyright violations or frequently making BLP violations squeals harassment. Nick (talk) 07:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Nick. I once told an administrator that their actions towards me were demoralizing and and offensive, and the response was Generally speaking, I am profoundly disinterested in your feelings. I'll be reporting such comments to T&S in the future, as the WMF seem to want to move us to a Twitter or Facebook like communication and interaction platform. The encyclopedic content now plays second fiddle to user interactions. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can remember when I started out, back in the days when you could easily upload any old shit you found on the internet, being repeatedly shouted at for uploading copyright violations. I learned quickly, but it was incredibly demoralising, I do remember that. I do try and leave customised, friendly messages for users when I can to make it less demoralising. I think part of figuring out a proper answer to this whole mess will be to de-personalise things like warnings and sanctions for copyright violations or BLP violations - moving away from administrators leaving warnings and having educational content for copyright violations or generating citations included within the editing interface, so it becomes "Wikipedia helping you work out this problem" rather than "that cunt Nick is stopping me from uploading files AGAIN". Nick (talk) 10:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mr Ernie Did the admin's response restore your morale? Did it somehow make you a better editor, to be told that you could stuff your feelings? Did that reply improve the encyclopedia in any way? Or, with the benefit of hindsight, would an interaction such as Nick describes striving for produced the same effect in terms of influencing what you do without the offensive and demoralizing aspect? Is Nick's more thoughtful approach to user interactions detrimental to the quality of the encyclopedic content being produced? MLauba (Talk) 10:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously there was a better way to handle the communication with me, but that wasn't my point. My point is that it should not be considered harassment to correct someone's mistakes or prevent them from making more. We are starting to blur the lines between encyclopedia building and social media, with regards to interactions. Is harassment a problem? Of course, and we need to tackle it, but not everything is harassment just because someone thinks so. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly, and I don't believe there's any evidence that the definition of what constitutes harassment has changed since early June. MLauba (Talk) 12:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nick - T&S look at years of post history of both the complainant and the person accused of harassment. They don't only look at the complaint without any context. Wikipedia has tolerated abusive harassment for far too long and the WMF action is welcome. DanBCDanBC (talk) 10:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you still beating your wife? This is one of the most crass examples of trial by media I've seen. Fram has no opportunity to defend himself or explain his actions in specific examples, many of which have been stripped of all context and background. A more despicable use of a Spotlight article I can ever remember seeing. - SchroCat (talk) 10:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Fram has no opportunity to defend himself or explain his actions in specific examples is simply not correct. The article makes it clear that discussion with Fram was repeatedly contacted and engaged in discussion with each claim made against him. See Smallbones' comment at ANI (diff): OK, what people don't seem to realize is that Fram was given several chances to respond to this quote and didn't. He had the opportunity to respond to other quotes and to the whole article and did, as you can see in the article He cooperated very nicely with the investigation. Referring to the same quote that most people are talking about here he emailed me "No, feel free to post it (with that line removed as it was confusing, thanks)," where "that line" was a previous response where I thought that he had misread the quote so had informed him of it again. Fram's given me permission to post most of his emails, but there are a couple of exceptions. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 10:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to call horseshit on that. You have selected any responses, rather than allow full, clear and public explanation and examination. This is a trashy piece of nonsense I'd expect to see in the Daily Mail, rather than Signpost. It should NOT have been published. It breaches BLP on all the major policy points, and brings into question the decision-making process involved in allowing it to be written in the first place. - SchroCat (talk) 11:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if you've ever been harassed but some of the more flavourful ingredients in the experience include intense shame, fear and self-hatred. If you expect a harassed person to sign up for "public explanation and examination" then you will not receive any reports of harassment. This unreasonable burden on victims is a large contributing factor to Wikipedia's high rate of experienced users retiring, low newbie retention rate and toxic community. Our only methods of dealing with an unblockable are going to ANI to let the peanut gallery victim blame you, or going to Arbcom so that they can deny you a trial. The WMF are grossly incorrect to not allow Fram to know who his accuser was, but ArbCom were incorrect to deny the accusers a fair and safe trial. But back to the Signpost article: Fram was given many chances to respond to the article and did so. We are not in a position to investigate whether BLP has been followed because we haven't seen the private emails in question, but my presumption is that Smallbones is a responsible journalist who verified that the anonymous editor's statements were reasonable and reliable. The community is near-unanimous that WMF's actions were grossly wrong but that does not answer the question, "Should Fram be banned?" In order to answer that question, it would be a huge betrayal of justice to deny victims a voice, particularly given the severity of the harassment alleged and the sensitivity of (in particular) the sexual harassment claim. I don't think anybody's first choice of a method of resolution would be a Signpost article but due to the reckless and irresponsible behaviour demonstrated by both the WMF and Arbcom, that seems to be what we're left with, and the matter of getting to the truth is quite time-sensitive given that a large part of the community is deliberately tearing itself apart. The (alleged) victims consented to the article being published publicly and Fram also knew what he was entering into by having a continued dialogue with Smallbones. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 12:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Get off your soapbox and stop preaching to me. This isn't about harassment, per se, this is about Signpost breaching WP:BLPTALK. There needs to be some method of reporting harassment that can be done discreetly, but hanging anyone out to dry, as this shoddy piece of rubbish does, is unacceptable. WP:BLP is a policy. It needs to be followed everywhere; WP:BLPTALK clarifies that very point. Signpost is acting like the Daily Mail or National Enquirer with this dross. It shouldn't. The writers are not Bernstein and Woodward, Ben Bradlee is not steering the path of rights and wrongs. What you are doing to Fram with this article, essentially, is harassment. It's one-sided opinionated, unbalanced trial by media. I'm delighted you're up for stopping harassment, but by harassing another editor is not the way to deal with it. - SchroCat (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's absolutely about harassment. If the procedures we have aren't working then the community need to be informed of this so that we can establish new channels or improved methods of dealing with communication. If you grant me the assumption that WMF and Arbcom aren't working as they should, can you tell me what you would propose as a first step to identifying that problem? Personally I think a Signpost article is a very sensible solution, but any solution requires allusion to specific examples of situations where claims have been made against editors and those claims haven't been investigated. As for BLP, I'm unclear what exactly you're claiming is a violation of BLPTALK. The article contains nothing written in the Signpost's voice that I can see Fram disputing. The quotes made are genuine things said by editors. Fram was genuinely responding to each accusation where the article says he is. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 12:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate". I think that's quite clearly what we have here. As do several others. To deal with harassment you need a proper process, fully thought through and with sensible oversight, not crap on a page of a second rate internal newsletter. Now it's been deleted for a while, it's up to ArbCom to come to a decision on whether the ill-thought through rubbish should have been posted or not. - SchroCat (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oddly, Fram doesn't appear to agree with that take on it [5]. Black Kite (talk) 12:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Both the content of those comments and their very existence demonstrate that Fram did in fact have two types of opportunities to defend himself, firstly through discussion with Smallbones, and secondly through public posts on meta such as that. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 12:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLPTALK and Gamaliel and others. Enjoy ArbCom. - SchroCat (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? "Smallbones making baseless accusations" and "I don't like the kind of backstabbing you are practising here" seems to be rather clear on the point. But let's go round in circles arguing the minutiae, ignoring WP:BLPTALK and pretending Gamaliel and others didn't happen... - SchroCat (talk) 12:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • My issue is with deletion of a sourced article done by Wikipedia's "newspaper of record." Now if this was unsourced (which I can't say either way, given that it's been deleted) that is a different kettle of fish. However, if it was sourced, and it was only deleted anyway, that seems highly problematic to me. Transparency in such things matters, both from those who banned Fram, as well as from those who are defending Fram. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 13:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. The sourcing was dubious at best (anonymous "accusations"?) 2. Signpost isn't a newspaper, let alone a "newspaper of record". It's a semi-internal newsletter that has to fall in line with the extant policies, including WP:BLP. - SchroCat (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    1. From the discussion above, it sounds like multiple people were anonymous sources for the story. You may not like anonymous sources, but that's not nothing. 2. For better or worse (and it sounds like you view it as the latter) the Signpost absolutely is akin to the "newspaper of record" for the Wikipedia community. And it's a bad look for the community to delete an article in such an organ. That said, it is also a "bad look" for the WMF to circumvent the community to ban an administrator for a year without even consulting Arbcom--which the Signpost also did a good job of highlighting, so it's not as if they're somehow not being evenhanded in their reporting. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 16:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1. Did you read the article while it was still live?
2. Just repeating the statement with bits in bold doesn't make something true. I'm looking for anywhere that claims Signpost is a newspaper of record, and I can't find anything. Please note Newspaper of record actually means something: please don't cheapen the language by claiming something that isn't. - SchroCat (talk) 17:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1. No. I thought I made that fairly clear in my first post. 2. Stop being tendentious. Of course there's no place that literally uses the words "newspaper of record" in relation to the Signpost. You know very well I'm referring to the practical purpose it serves, given that there's no other journalistic endeavor here on Wikipedia that covers the project the way the Signpost does. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 21:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1. I find it interesting you're passing judgement on the sourcing without having read it. It was an attack piece about the level of the Daily Mail. It breached WP:BLP.
2. I'm not being tendentious at all. This is a newsletter, not a newspaper. It's not run by journalists or professionals who understand journalistic ethics, practice or standards. In the past I've run a publication with a circulation of a few thousand, and I know what a newsletter looks and feels like: Signpost is that and nothing more. - SchroCat (talk) 22:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1. No, I'm not. I'm commenting on how the sourcing is described in the above discussion. I couldn't actually read the article because it was, you know, deleted. 2. For better or worse (and you clearly think it's for worse), the Signpost is the only journalistic (or journalistic-adjacent, if you prefer) endeavor covering Wikipedia from the inside. And deleting an article like this (instead of, say, blanking it, for example) is not a good look. (Note: My comments here are not in support of the ludicrous, norm-shattering unilateral ban that T&S placed on Fram's account. I do not support that. I just also do not support what happened to this article.) Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 18:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1. Before you try and pass judgement next time, prehaps you should try and do so from a position of knowledge. Everyone else in the thread had read the article before commenting. (It was a BLP violation, and, as you may know, such infringemets cannot stand - that is one of our main policies.
2. It's not even close to journalism (except in the manner of a Daily Mail or National Enquirer opinion piece. The opinions of a very small group of WP editors is not journalism - it's only their opinion. You may not like it being deleted, but if people breach WP:BLP, then they shouldn't run trash pieces on fellow editors based on uninvestigated half-truths and innuendo. If you can't see what is wrong with that, then I doubt I'll be able to persuade you otherwise. - SchroCat (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hallward's Ghost: I've not seen anyone dispute that Smallbones' quotes were genuine quotes he received from email communications, so yes, in the sense you mean the article was sourced, and there were 13 different sources. SchroCat is being rather disingenuous by fighting to delete the article and then attacking people from having not read it, particularly by dancing around points you make that are factually correct ("it sounds like multiple people were anonymous sources for the story"). BLP does not apply to pages that aren't hosted on Wikipedia so I can safely tell you that this Slate article links to an archive of the Signpost article, if you want to take SchroCat up on their suggestion, Before you try and pass judgement next time, prehaps you should try and do so from a position of knowledge. You might also be interested in leaving a statement at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Disputed Signpost article, a potential Arbcom case about the Signpost article and its deletion. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "SchroCat is being rather disingenuous by fighting to delete the article and then attacking people from having not read it". Nice. And untruthful too. I'm not fighting to delete the article: it's already been deleted. I'm not attacking anyone: I'm questioning why someone has commented without having read the crappy unbalanced attack piece in the first place. Nice bit of soft canvassing, by the way. - SchroCat (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the ping, and for the link. I'll take a look at the Slate article, and will consider writing up a statement for that case. However it doesn't seem Arbcom is willing to step in, so perhaps it's a moot point now? As for SchroCat, given his last reply, I agree with your assessment of disingenuity, and will no longer be replying in that conversation. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 16:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, despite your slur, disagreeing with you is not "being disingenuous", despite the opportunity for a cheap shot. - SchroCat (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow. Just read that article, and it was quite fair. Smallbones included extensive quotes from Fram in replying to those who felt harassed. It wasn't one-sided, and I have no idea how it was ever considered a BLP violation. While I disagree with the WMF foundation's 1-year block, deleting that article seems like a fairly obvious attempt to obscure the very real issues that Fram has (had) as an administrator. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 16:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • PMSL! Yeah, sounds like you've "investigated" the background, context and events as deeply as Smallbones. If I say "I saw Editor X harass someone", then it be readily believed? Of course not (unless the reader is exceptionally gullible). None of those accusations (including two from anonymous sources) had a single diff by way of evidence. Yeah: if you can'tsee where unproven accusations (incuding from unnamed sources) does not breach BLP, you have no place writing anything of note on an encyclopaedia. - SchroCat (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The anonymous sources have clearly provided evidence to Smallbones but diffs would immediately reveal their identities. It is basic human decency to let a victim of sexual harassment, or even an alleged victim of sexual harassment, maintain anonymity for their own mental wellbeing. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. It is not clear what they have done at all. 2. You are ignoring the accusations from the named editors who neglected to provide diffs (or if they did, they were not published). Such important claims need evidence. I am in no way defending Fram in this thread: ArbCom will be taking this up shortly as the appropriate venue. The irregular newsletter, published by amateurs with no background or training in identifying or investigating harassment is in no way the place to try and hold a kangaroo court. - SchroCat (talk) 05:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Signpost is not a place to publish anonymous defamatory/inflammatory claims (regardless of how true they might be) and the article had multiple egregious violations of WP:BLPTALK. Giving Fram an opportunity to reply does not in any way alleviate those BLP violations. WP:BLPTALK applies to it just like it applies to every other place on Wikipedia. These would not have be tolerated in userspace, they would not have be tolerated in The Bugle or any other newsletter on Wikipedia. The Signpost isn't exempt from our policies for as long as it remains published (or distributed) on Wikipedia. While I don't doubt this was published in good faith, it is yet another example of astoundingly poor judgment from Signpost EiCs. Kudos to Jehochman for enforcing our policies, even when they are unpopular. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is the place then? Arbcom have refused to investigate the charges and WMF can't take action without causing half of the userbase to retire. Other avenues have failed. Our bureaucratic and deeply ineffective structures for dealing with harassment have failed to do anything to help the toxic and disgraceful atmosphere found on Wikipedia; there's no existing body of authority we have that is effective at taking a stance against harassment or that can do anything to help the waves of editors who are driven away by the abuse they face here. ANI, Arbcom and the WMF cannot be trusted; it's time to spread word out about the problem and time for the community to take a new approach. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Arbcom have refused to investigate the charges" is obviously false, they are investigating them right now in fact. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • have refused, not are refusing. A subtle point I should have made clearer. They've declined cases and ignored private confidences about Fram in the past. This is part of their consistent pussyfooting around issues of harassment. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • And given that we are not privy to what they received, we can't judge whether or not declined to take on the cases was the right call or not. It's not because someone complains that there is merit to the complain. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that's completely the point of the Signpost article! We are privy to it. The anonymous sources said what they reported to Arbcom, and Fram corroborated that the incidents happened but took issue with the specifics of some of the cases. The article quoted a person who in no uncertain terms said that they reported a serious sexual harassment allegation to Arbcom, and they just shrugged and ignored it. I cannot trust a body which declined this without further investigation to take a tough stance on harassment. I think anyone who can has been too heavily desensitised by the hostile, aggressive and unempathetic culture of the nastier side of this website's community. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 22:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That someone didn't get their way does not make publishing anonymous allegation any less of a WP:BLPTALK violation, or any more acceptable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a relevant response to someone saying "sexual harassment allegations are not being taken seriously on this website". This isn't a relevant response to someone saying "Arbcom cannot be trusted and here is evidence of why". It's absolutely callous to call a person who has spoken out about their declining mental health when editing this website "someone who didn't get their way" and to dismiss their story without further thought. Answer this point blank: do you think that if an editor is accused of sexual harassment by another editor acting in good faith then that should be investigated? If your answer is yes then you should be outraged that Arbcom did not do so in the past when presented with the opportunity to. If your answer is no then I don't know how to begin to convince somebody of why sexual harassment is bad. And note that you can substitute "sexual harassment" with "multiple accounts of different instances of harassment" if you prefer. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bilorv, you might wish to note that an arbitrator has already noted that the one alleging such grave stuff is mis-remembering the details. That's as close as she can get, w/o (outright) branding that as a falsification and an attempt at stoking up drama (which it is).
The allegations are easily recognizable to anyone, who was there during those times and the issue had been brought to general attention, earlier. The frivolousness of the allegations is the very reason, that nobody was bothered.
The alleger may feel otherwise but continuing to forum-shop is disruptive and indeed, reverse-harassment. ∯WBGconverse 06:11, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Winged Blades of Godric: Relevant though this is, you'll note that it wasn't the only case reported to Arbcom and turned down, and one of the cases that Arbcom turned down was serious enough for WMF employees to decide to ban Fram for a year. Now that doesn't mean the ban was right (and it certainly wasn't made and enforced in the right way) but by god it means the situation was serious enough for Arbcom to investigate. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 09:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bilorv, who told you that :- one of the cases that Arbcom turned down was serious enough for WMF employees to decide to ban Fram for a year? What led you to so-confidently determine one of the declined case about Fram, as the causal agent behind his ban? How do you disprove that the ban did not stem from any edit/action, that we might have missed in entirety or say, from something which might have made it to ANI but not to ArbCom or say Fram's long-term cumulative behaviour? ∯WBGconverse 15:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's no point in replying to each of these Gish gallop of questions individually, because each of them misses the thrust of my argument. If the WMF ban was a result of long-term cumulative behaviour then that's still something Arbcom should have investigated, as several cases were brought to them. I don't want to here about the lawyering pedantry of Arbcom's case filing rules or how no case without the exact same wording as those sent to WMF was brought before Arbcom. My point is that here's a case of serious and repeated allegations of harassment and Arbcom did not investigate it; thus, it cannot be trusted to deal with issues of harassment. You'd be better engaging your critical thinking faculties if you tried to look for more steel and less straw, and responded to the high level points I'm making rather than making cheap shots at my wording. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The point can very well be that someone thought Fram need to be pulled down but knew very well, that he was the one who (actually) ought be faulted, shall someone dig fair and deep. So, they bypassed ArbCom and forumshopped leveraging T&S. If you are free to assume, so am I. ArbCom did not investigate it, because they were determined to be not worth it, per ongoing community standards and that T&S have acted, does not in any manner, justify the worth, retrospectively either. Your arguments continue to make zero sense (you started off with sexual harassment and when pointed out of its falsity, quickly changed it to yet another wrong assumption) and piecewise bad arguments don't ever make a minimally good argument in totality, much less a high level one. Bye, ∯WBGconverse 16:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Amusing as your edit summary personal attacks on my intelligence are, they're hardly convincing. I moved away from the sexual harassment allegation because, as I said right from the first comment I mentioned it in, there are 10 other harassment allegations which also need to be taken seriously, and "debunking" one of the 11 cases does nothing to discredit my overall argument. What you assume disregards the broader context of Wikipedia's well-known hostile climate of harassment and bad behaviour, and assumes that 11 individual accusations of harassment are without merit, whereas I am simply assuming that one of them had enough merit to warrant an investigation—not necessarily even any action, but simply giving some of the people who feel they have been harassed a fair opportunity to put forwards their case. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 11:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Wikipedia has a policy against making such accusations. See WP:BLPTALK. They can either go to ANI and show proof of harassment, go to ARBCOM, go to literally any newspaper they want (as in actual newspapers, not bound by Wikipedia policy), or to the police. The Signpost isn't the place to publish anonymous, potentially libelous accusations and litigate them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As for whether or not I "should be outraged that Arbcom did not do so in the past when presented", that very much depend on what ARBCOM saw and had for evidence. You presume guilt as if irrefutable proof was provided and ignored. I presume the evidence was either lacking or insufficient. Neither of us know. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, go to ANI, very funny, but what would you suggest in seriousness? ANI is a toxic cesspool filled with harassers and people with popcorn waiting to laugh at you; it's no place for resolving harassment, and in fact one cannot go to Arbcom until ANI has already been tried. The police is an even funnier suggestion; they refuse to investigate actual death threats made by trolls who have found out your address, as Wikipedians should well know. They would do nothing but laugh if a Wikipedian told them they'd been experiencing harassment. And now that you've failed to suggest an avenue at which someone could get a harasser to stop their harassment, we're getting back to the point that you've been ignoring this whole time: ANI, Arbcom and the WMF cannot be trusted; it's time to spread word out about the problem and time for the community to take a new approach. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 09:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Consider that if you have issues trusting "ANI, Arbcom and the WMF", you might find your time is better spent elsewhere than on Wikipedia. One thing Wikipedia clearly isn't for is publishing anonymous and unsubstantiated accusations. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested in contributing to articles, unlike many of the busybody admins we have. I notice you are too, which makes this a very odd suggestion; surely you didn't join Wikipedia because you thought that its bureaucracy was excellently-designed. I see the point of this project as collecting the sum of all human knowledge, and to that end ANI, Arbcom and the WMF are all able to be reformed or replaced if they aren't effective in furthering this goal. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • So if it's not appropriate for the Signpost to publicly share anonymous accusations against Fram, why is everyone saying the WMF has to? Or do people feel like the WMF also needs to out the accuser(s), and thereby subject them to even more harassment? Kaldari (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Kaldari: why is everyone saying the WMF has to not everyone is saying that. Most are saying disclose it to ARBCOM, and they now have. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Technology report: Actors and Bots (0 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-06-30/Technology report

Traffic report: Juneteenth, Beauty Revealed, and more nuclear disasters (2,081 bytes · 💬)[edit]

  • I always enjoy seeing what articles are riding the highs of popularity as there are always some that are unexpected. Plus, this is probably the only appropriate time that I'll be able to mention that I saw Keanu Reeves' band Dogstar play in NYC and I can say that he is actually a decent bass player. Add that to his list of talents. Not as flashy as gun slinging though. Liz Read! Talk! 19:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that your chart does not properly characterize Juneteenth. Lincoln emancipated all slaves in the Southern states effective on January 1, 1863. The problem was that communication was poor and word did not reach black people in Texas until the Union Army arrived in June 1865 (which was after the surrender of General Lee in April 1865.) So, Lincoln freed the slaves in Texas in 1863, but it did not have a practical effect until after the Civil War ended. The extension of enslavement of 250,000 people for an additional 2.5 years is highly regrettable. Perhaps, the wording could be changed. Hlevy2 (talk) 03:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have my stupid head on. What's the connection between Aladdin and one of the champions who aren't champions? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dweller - Aladdin -> Genie -> Gini. Loose connection, admittedly, but champions who aren't champions have to rub it in wherever possible. Stormy clouds (talk) 12:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I missed a pun? Need more sleep. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single/2019-06-30&oldid=1125230772"