Wikipedia talk:Village pump (WMF)

To address concerns held by the WMF at the incivility that is sometimes directed at its employees, should the following text, modeled on the text at ARBCOM, be added at the top of the Village pump (WMF) and it's talk page?:

Behaviour on this page: This page is for engaging with and discussing the Wikimedia Foundation. Editors commenting here are required to act with appropriate decorum. While grievances, complaints, or criticism of the foundation are frequently posted here, you are expected to present them without being rude or hostile. Comments that are uncivil may be removed without warning. Personal attacks against other users, including employees of the Wikimedia Foundation, will be met with sanctions.

01:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support. If we want to have a productive and positive relationship with the WMF then we need to have significant communication between our volunteers and their employees, and given our collective reluctance to participate on meta that means we need them to come here, and we need to create an environment that they are willing to participate in. At the moment, "a meaningful percentage of WMF staff fear (emotionally) to contribute to conversations because of the concern of getting bullied or (unfairly) interrogated"; perhaps this change won't address that fear, but in my opinion it is worth trying, and even if it doesn't work we will at least be able to point towards it and say to the WMF that we are trying, and we hope they will be willing to try to. BilledMammal (talk) 01:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Frostly (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Frostly You did not give a !vote. Or did you strike yours? Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 20:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Awesome Aasim, thanks for the heads-up. — Frostly (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. General standards of civil conduct apply here, as they do everywhere on the encyclopedia. With respect to those being paid salaries at the Foundation who are too afraid to venture into talking to those they are supposed to be supporting, I am strongly opposed to threatening sanctions against volunteer editors who find the Foundation's actions opaque or detrimental to the project, and express that frustration in this forum. ETA I would not oppose a generic civility notice; it can do no harm and seems as if it is needed here. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Civility issues can be solved by dusting off our cobweb-covered civility policy. If an editor is harassing a specific person, that's already sanctionable, especially if it's over something that the particular WMF representative has no control over in the first place. Making special rules for this page at best encourages an already prevalent victim mentality and at worst actively stifles legitimate criticism of the group that is charged to make decisions about our funds. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This sounds like everything en.wiki despises about WMF - a ham-fisted, authoritarian crackdown on people calling them out for their routinely disdainful and antagonistic approach to its most valuable project. If any WMF employee doesn't like your tone, your comment "may be removed without warning". Talk about trying to silence and ignore legitimate criticism. No, we don't trust you when it comes to this sort of thing because you've consistently shown yourselves to be untrustworthy. This sort of proposal is exactly the reason we have zero reason to trust you. If WMF has a problem with someone's behavior, ANI is thataway. Make sure to bring your receipts, because although we can't technically ban you with a WP:Boomerang, we sure as hell don't have to respect you when you so blatantly disrespect us. VanIsaac, GHTV ^cont_WpWS 03:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Shit like this 👆🏽 is why they don't talk to us. Folly Mox (talk) 03:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Vanisaac this proposal was created by volunteers. And further it was, to the my knowledge, done without any input from foundation staffers (I haven't paid attention to recent conversations so if I'm wrong I hope someone corrects me with diffs). So not only is your comment angry in unproductive ways, it's based on a false premise. Please strike or substantially reword. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Why are you whoever had this horrible idea holding water for them then? If you whoever had this horrible idea have a problem with an editor's conduct, go to ANI like everyone else. Stop making exceptions to the rules for people who neither deserve nor apparently ask for them. This is exactly the kind of thing that breeds distrust of WMF, so why would you whoever had this horrible idea propose something so bafflingly tone-deaf? VanIsaac, GHTV ^cont_WpWS 04:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't propose it. In fact I said an earlier version of this proposal was a bad idea. So again I ask you to please strike or substantially reword your orignal post and will now also ask you to strike the extreme rhetoric and falsehoods of your reply. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Fine. Does that help you avoid taking any responsibility for this unsigned proposal that you inexplicably defend then claim to oppose? VanIsaac, GHTV ^cont_WpWS 05:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If anyone is having doubts about if this measure is needed, please read the above thread. – Joe (talk) 07:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree completely, Joe. Utterly bewildering. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That would be me; my goal is to improve the relationship between the foundation and the English Wikipedia, and that means acknowledging that we aren't entirely blameless here; at times, we have been too aggressive in our communications with individual employees, and that has deterred employees from communicating with us here. Maybe this isn't the right solution, but I do believe a solution is needed - as Ymblanter points out, WMF employees are not experienced editors, and that means we can't simply expect them to go to ANI. BilledMammal (talk) 07:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to be clear, this is not something the WMF is asking for AFAIK. Yes, they have expressed that it's miserable to come here when people will just blurt out misinformed-yet-hostile comments like the one just above, but they haven't requested an intervention like this, I don't think. In fact, in the drafting stage I don't think anyone other than the proposer even supported the idea. It's not that the purpose is bad (it's a fine sentiment) but this proposal is a bad idea for two big reasons: First, the proposal itself is just going to stir up hostility towards the WMF (which is already clear above), even though they weren't actually involved. Second, as I said on the drafting discussion page: It's pointless. The people who are most hostile towards the WMF have been around long enough not to know how to word things to avoid bright lines, and I cannot imagine anyone stepping in to issue sanctions for civility when the target of incivility was the foundation or a foundation employee (short of something truly egregious, which doesn't require anything other than a single admin action anyway). Clarification added afterwards: this is not a !vote supporting or opposing -- just a comment about the proposal itself. From the looks of things, I'm pleasantly surprised to see more support than I thought it'd receive. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think people appreciate just how triggering this kind of thing is to those of us who were around in those tempestuous days. Back when WMF employees asserted their right to unilaterally override consensus on en.wiki and would sanitize criticism of their actions from pages. And that's a good thing. It means that they learned from those horrible times so that the intervening turnover in editors and gradual attrition has meant that there are few of us around who can remember. But that trust was still broached with this community, and while it may not have been repeated, it was never repaired. Those of us who do remember don't really have the right to remain silent when we see mechanisms of that betrayal being proposed. We had to have an editor revolt to get them to start treating us as collaborators rather than as the enemy, and we lost some incredible early contributors due to that treatment. It was truly a disheartening time around here that we just cannot open the door to again. VanIsaac, GHTV ^cont_WpWS 06:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There are more of the classes of 2003-2005 still around than you might think. And as an editor from that era I have to say that it would be easier to maintain a working relationship with the foundation if people were a bit more diplomatic. In fairness this is hardly a problem unique to the english wikipedia. Commons has tended to have much the same issue.©Geni (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  In fact, in the drafting stage I don't think anyone other than the proposer even supported the idea. I thought something similar, but once I cut it objections to it being cut were made, so I re-added it with a reduced scope. BilledMammal (talk) 07:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Entirely unnecessary, since we already have general policies which cover such issues. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per AndyTheGrump. Why do we need this? We already have WP:CIV, which basically restated in the proposed change. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The message may not always get through to those who feel entitled to be uncivil, but it will help to remind the rest of us that such behaviour is inappropriate and not to be given free rein. JMCHutchinson (talk) 08:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as redundant to Wikipedia:Civility. Stifle (talk) 10:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support moral support since doubt this is going to pass. IMO the generally poor relations between the WMF and the English Wikipedia community goes both ways a lot more than many contributors like to accept. And the excessive hostility some contributors show to not just the WMF in general but to many individuals working for the WMF, especially those trying to work with the community has been a definite part of that. There is the internet wide problem of people forgetting there's a person behind that handle, the worldwide problem of people thinking because someone is paid they should just tolerate any shit their 'customers' throw at them, and to some extent the way wikipedia works means a lot of time we tend to just ignore stuff which we feel is wrong especially when we know calling it out probably won't achieve a useful result which we know tends to be especially the case when the other editor is established enough that few admins would take unilateral action. (Well some may throw the bystander effect into that too.) All these combined mean I don't see any harm in trying to find a way for us to do better no matter if we're just restating something we already say we're supposed to do. We're asking the WMF do better, so we should commit to it too. Nil Einne (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This is not redundant to WP:CIV: it's a stronger measure. There's a difference between civility and kindness, and in that gap is where people will refuse entirely to engage for the sake of their own peace of mind. Not uncivil are any of the uncomfortable questions designed to seek clarity on legitimately important topics like those repeatedly raised at other venues. Yet it's clear that engaging with them is going to lead to an unpleasant, confrontational conversation. If we want people to engage with us in deeper ways than the bare minimum required by global policy and individual job descriptions, we have to make that less unpleasant.
  Can't we have one safe space where we just treat each other kindly? Yes, the WMF have been non-transparent, and also taken some pretty authoritarian actions. It makes no sense to hold each person in the organisation individually responsible for all that. I feel like employing the common response to a person who complains about being topic banned or partial blocked from a single article they've been problematic at: We have 6,912,087 other articles; you're still free to edit those. This proposal is not an attempt to shut down legitimate or illegitimate criticism of the WMF, saying anything you want about them, etc. It's just a proposal to treat staff more nicely on a single page.
  One staffer did show up to the RFCBEFORE at VPI, quoted above, saying that WMF staff don't want to talk to us here because the atmosphere can be so unpleasant. That is our responsibility to fix. I know that if I trekked over to some other department in a company I worked for, on my own initiative just to share information, only to be met with someone browbeating me for the actions of someone in my department who left before I even joined, and holding me personally responsible for decisions I had nothing to do with and may not have even known about, I'd be pretty disinclined to swing by a second time. Folly Mox (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I originally wasn't going to vote on this, as it strikes me as a toothless/lukewarm measure. But reading VanIsaac's vote above, a toxic combination of ignorance and hostility, reminded me of what these pages can get like, and it changed my mind. Wikipedia needs to clean up these pages, I'll support this as a step in that direction. Levivich (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I've previously proposed something similar to this (or at least similar in regards to taking cues from arbcom). I am not small enough to refuse to admit that this directly addresses the issue way better than my proposal did. If this doesn't pass, then we need to just shut this board down. It doesn't work if WMF staff don't feel safe posting here. Personally, I've already given up on it.
  I question the logic of opposing this on the ground that we already have a civility policy. That policy doesn't cover situations that are frequently encountered by this forum (essentially where most of hositility is directed at an organization and isn't meant to be personal even if it comes across that way). (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I would prefer stronger enforcement of civility policies Wikipedia-wide, and maybe having this text in the miscellaneous pump, which is where most communication with WMF takes place, but this is a good start. Often we ignore attacks when they're ambiguous in their target (individual employee, team or WMF general). This makes clear that these are still unacceptable. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and this very suggestion is part of the problem. This problem is already handled by existing policies, which doesn't differentiate between WMF and everyone else, ie: the current policy treats everyone EQUALLY. To start adding new rules to turn the WMF into a new class of editor, a "some editors are more equal than others" type of editor is offensive. The desire to be treated "better than" everyone else just feeds into the stereotype of how disconnected the WMF is to the actual community. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I feel obliged to comment here, because this comment just seems inaccurate. The proposal text says, "Personal attacks against other users, including employees of the Wikimedia Foundation, will be met with sanctions." It thus explicitly places employees of the foundation on the same level as other users. Yes, it's calling specific attention to the user-ness of WMF editors, but that's because people seem to be forgetting that they are users too and have the same protections. Explicitly reminding contributors that "hey, these are users too, be civil to everyone" is a completely different thing from saying WMF staff should have more rights than everyone else. Tamwin (talk) 13:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per MJL; the Pump should be more welcoming than other pages, as hostility chills dialogue in a forum. I would leave off the last sentence: existing policy covers sanctions, which isn't the point. The language might be improved by framing it as a general civility mod (a page where anyone can remove uncivil comments), not overly specific to the WMF, being trialled here. – SJ + 18:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. All of our civility policies already apply, and I would hate for the WMF to interpret this to mean that they are entitled to additional protections or to punish those who are uncivil in special ways. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Common sense. I wonder if Wikimedia Foundation could be a community designated contentious topic, meaning all edits discussing WMF would be subject to discretionary sanctions. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 20:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per BilledMammal. Would be nice to pretend we have a fifth pillar for once. Gamaliel (talk) 22:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A reminder to be civil in a forum directed towards the WMF really, really wouldn't hurt (and the civility policy or "reminder" could even be added to the wording if it doens't make it clunky). The one addition that I see that isn't in policy in some way, removal of uncivil comments, I feel would improve discourse with the WMF, a benefit that outweighs concern. This page is a bit different than other pages. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 04:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The civility guidelines already cover conduct here. If a new special set of civility guidelines covering WMF interactions here are the same, it would be pointless, but if they're not, then it would be instituting a two-class system for civility, in which a class is carved out for special treatment. Say no to making èse-majesté a thing here.CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would like to support the principle, but this wording feels like putting the cart before the horse of tackling our perennial civility discussions. "Comments that are uncivil may be removed without warning. Personal attacks against other users, including employees of the Wikimedia Foundation, will be met with sanctions." is all well and good until something seen as a personal attack is not met with sanctions, which will happen, at which point it risks ringing very hollow. CMD (talk) 05:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I don't know if this will work, but I think it's a good idea and it's worth trying. Yes, our civility policies and normal dispute resolution processes apply to VPW just like everywhere else, but clearly they don't work very well, because everybody that VPW was intended to invite in has been driven off. And for that matter, VPW is hardly the only place where they don't work. ANI, arbitration, RfCs, this very section – if this works, I could imagine extending it as a sort of "discretionary moderation" system for important but currently-toxic venues. – Joe (talk) 06:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The civility policies already apply to the various Village Pumps, as they do anywhere. So, we don't need some special policy for that. What we ultimately need to do is figure out how strict we want civility enforcement to be. Obviously, if someone says "Good morning", that's not uncivil, and if someone says "You are the stupidest %(*)%(*)&@ I've ever seen", that is. The problem always lies in the grey area, where one person sees a frank and robust expression of a viewpoint, and someone else sees a personal attack. Unless we figure out how to solve that, just reiterating "Hey, really, be civil" once more really won't do a thing for it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support if it is performs as a reminder that WP:CIV is applicable even to the Foundation's staff. I think there is a general awareness of CIV, but I think some thinks that being paid by the Foundation means that CIV isn't really applicable or that the staff can tolerate abuse that isn't typically seen against other editors. – robertsky (talk) 09:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a restatement of our civility pillar is valuable, not redundant, particularly given how unpleasant discussions between the WMF and our community sometimes become. Jr8825 • Talk 10:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Partial support. The page could benefit from a reminder of the existing civility rules which apply to all similar pages, but not extra rules made up especially for this page. Certes (talk) 11:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - In a community that has already had its struggled with enforcing the civility policy, the answer to a desire to emphasize civility in a specific forum is not to turn around and then say "How dare you think you're better than us, asking us to be civil." To me, that isn't progress. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, principally per Nil Einne, Folly Mox, and Joe Roe. While this proposal has some overlap with WP:CIV, I think it's useful to reiterate those points here, since – as things currently stand – this is a space where there's a relatively high proportion of incivility and where relatively little is done about it. Even if it proves to be just a gesture, I think this proposal moves in the right direction. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I recognize that I do not have the full historic background on the interactions with WMF and the enwiki community, and I understand that WMF credibly seems to have abused its authority in the past. That being said, the status quo — where WMF employees are indeed afraid of interaction with enwiki — is untenable. A working relationship is important enough to justify slightly more specific and stringent measures beyond general civility guidelines. WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 17:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The men in the mines are distraught with unsafe conditions. Still, management will not hear of such complaint unless the workers remember to whom they speak. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - per a lot of people above (I'll single out Seraphimblade, and Dennis Brown : ) - If you want to try these rules for civil discourse, then apply them to all noticeboards (which would include all the Village Pumps), and really, would include all talk pages as well. In other words, if this is where we want to go for Civility, then it should be something that applies everywhere, not just one page. I fully support the idea that everyone - including WMF staff - should be treated with respect. So let's work on that. - jc37 20:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Dennis et al - WP:CIVIL already covers what's expected of you .... WMF employees are no different to the rest of us in that we're all human and should all irrespective of job title be treated equally and with respect. No need to protect WMF staff when we have WP:CIVIL that protects us all. –Davey2010^Talk 20:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. As said, we have people policing this, plus there are some interesting aspects I'll write in the next section. Herostratus (talk) 02:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Folly Mox. Sometimes a little extra can go a long way. Retswerb (talk) 05:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Therapyisgood (talk) 06:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Suppose We obviously should strive to be polite and concise when asking something of the staff. I think people sometimes have the impression of "hey they are getting paid for what I do for free" and it creates unwarranted hostility. It behooves us to remember that these people are at work and trying to do their jobs in a very complicated environment. I've disagreed with things the foundation has done and I, and many others, made our distatse with FRAMGATE and the poor messaging coming from the CEO at that time abundantly clear. That doesn't mean I or anyone else is or should be mad at all foundation staff all the time. Hostility like that doesn't benefit anyone, quite the opposite. However, I'd also note that we have behavioral policies that are supposed to apply everywhere, and this proposal doesn't go beyond what any of those policies already say. Poor enforcement of those policies is not restricted to this forum. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Folly Mox and Levivich. Edward-Woodrow • talk 21:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: the level of hostility shown on internal Wikipedia pages towards all people—volunteers, WMF staff and subjects of Wikipedia articles (to name a few categories)—is extreme and a factor in low editor retention. Perhaps it also exacerbates communication issues between WMF staff and volunteers. Nonetheless, this is instruction creep. — Bilorv (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral as written I've worked in arguably the most unpopular division of my state's government for long enough to have had my share of insults thrown my way, so I strongly support civility in all communication, so a friendly reminder can be useful. I strongly oppose the inclusion of the last two sentences. I believe that, with the power differential in this situation, including this language, while it is a given, would have the strong potential to have too strong of a silencing effect. -- Dolotta (talk) 13:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Incivility is sometimes directed to all editors, not just WMF employees. I see there are people claiming this proposal represents a change to our civility policies, while others say it doesn't. If it is the second case, then the proposal is pointless. Adding this notice is not going to deter people from making uncivil comments, in the same way the current policy neither does. However, WP:CIV already covers how to deal with these issues when they happen.

If WP:CIV is still not strong enough, we should change it, but the changes should apply everywhere, not only to this page. I feel like part of the incivility around the WMF comes from the belief (genuine or not) that the Foundation treats us as inferiors, and establishing special rules for when we communicate with them does nothing but feeding that belief. We should strive to treat every editor respectfully, including WMF workers, but they should be treated in the same way as everybody else. Any proposal that gives (or appears to give) them special protecion is going to increase the distrust some editors feel towards the WMF. —V27t [ T • C ] 14:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Seems obvious to me. Nil Einne, Folly Mox, Levivich and Joe Roe. among others have said it well. I'll also n ote that whatever we do here will send a message to WMF employees and I want it to be a positive one. I find some of the vitriol expressed above shocking - if we don't support this we may be seen as endorsing it. And I've had contacts over the years with many WMF employees and they've been nothing but friendly and helpful. What I do not want is replies to me with any horror stories. Doug Weller talk 15:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with sadness. Several people have pointed out that this isn't necessary because we already have WP:CIVIL. But the practical matter is this forum, more so that any other, attracts grossly uncivil behavior which generally goes unchallenged. It's like "No littering" signs you see in parks. Of course you shouldn't litter in a park (or anywhere else). But we live in a world where "of course you shouldn't" doesn't seem to be enough, so we put up signs that by any rational logic shouldn't be necessary. RoySmith (talk) 17:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I disagree with those saying this is already covered by general policies, if only technically. Discussion on this page aren't just with other editors, but also with employees of the WMF. Much of the hostility here comes off the same as shouting at the checkout staff in a store. Also I'd agree with others that are civility policies could be better enforced, or at least better pointed out in a pointy way. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I'd echo the sentiment that this is clearly an area that's more of an issue than usual. While there may be discussions to be had about better enforcement of CIV, and I don't think a mere reminder that it exists will resolve the issue, such a reminder seems to me well in order. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. First, it's redundant. Second, it's one-sided – the warnings target non-staff, thereby insinuating that they are trouble-makers. Third, "will be met with sanctions" is a non-specific threat of the kind that is likely to deter people from posting anything. EddieHugh (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on banner blindness concerns. No one has ever actually read the top of WP:ANI, not despite its size, but because of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mach61 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It is blindingly obvious this advice would be completely redundant to existing expectations, so the problem is obviously in enforcement (or indeed interpretation). Edson Makatar (talk) 09:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Doug Weller. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. We already have WP:CIVIL, we didn't need more instructions and rules to govern things that are already being governed. It's WMF's mistake to emotionally fear going into conversations, being that they are the ones who are getting paid and the contributors are the ones who are unpaid. Seeing that only strong actions spurned WMF to move, it's evident that WMF is the one that should regain the trust of the editors, not the other way around. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 14:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - largely per Folly Mox. Even if this change is just restating WP:CIVIL, it's a good move in the direction of addressing recurring civility issues in comms with WMF. Suriname0 (talk) 00:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as redundant and unnecessary. We already have WP:CIV. GretLomborg (talk) 05:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this is already covered by existing guidelines as others have pointed out. --Ita140188 (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - saying the civility policy already theoretically covers something does not automatically mean that supplementary civility reminders, as needed, must be banned as taboo. The proposal is perfectly reasonable in response to an issue raised. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Any actual, punishable violation should already be covered under Civility and NPA restrictions. Such a notice only serves to imply that this page is "specially" protected, which is not true. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support seems strange we have to tell people to be nice with one another, but having it in print will help, giving us something to point to if needed. Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Support I don't think the oppose votes are right here, the current policy is not enough and never will be in the current state of the Internet. Anybody with a WMF tag gets immediately flamed, that behavior is NOT AT ALL unusual on social media; it's one of the reasons general usage of the internet is going down. I agree with Aasim that this page needs sanctions as well. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 19:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It is clear the civility policy needs to be especially enforced in this forum for the good of our relationship with the WMF. And I don't understand the sense I get from some editors that just because someone is paid they should accept/ignore hostility and abuse. Galobtter (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Redundant per the numerous opinions already expressed. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 02:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - If the existing policies truly addressed this issue, we wouldn't be here. It seems like more enforcement on this page is necessary, and writing things out is a good start. Tamwin (talk) 13:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I'll grant this shouldn't be necessary by WP:CREEP, but it clearly is necessary, so make it a guideline anyway if we want productive engagement. For any "opposes" on the grounds this is already covered by the civility policy - fine, make the declaration on top include "as part of our civility policy...", or start actually enforcing that here. It is an unfortunate truth of unmoderated Internet areas that the 2% craziest people can sidetrack an entire conversation if they're dedicated enough, and having a policy that allows for fast refactoring and removal would aid collaboration. (Usual comment goes here that this is certainly not an endorsement of everything that the WMF does, but that makes it more important for WMF members to feel empowered to engage with the community, not less. Irrelevant flaming and conspiracy theory mongering distracts from the real issues.) SnowFire (talk) 21:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I could be fine with this if it applied to all noticeboards/discussion forums. I think it's fair to say that the concerns noted here apply elsewhere as well.

  What I think I'm seeing in the supports above, seems more a case where they feel that WP:CIVIL isn't being enforced as much as they would like on this noticeboard/discussion forum. If that's the want, then let's make it a rule, not an exception, and apply it to all such noticeboards/discussion pages in project-space.

  But having this here as a one-off exception doesn't seem like a good idea. - jc37 10:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean, it isn't a one-off exception, though. Civility is a rule everywhere, but such an additional warning on this page is merely acknowledging a real problem. This feels like saying that if articles on the Israel-Palestine conflict have a warning and extended-confirmed protections, we need to add the same warning and protection to articles on cell phones out of fairness. The policy is the same for both Israel/Palestine and cell phones at the end of the day, don't edit war in either place, but edit wars are significantly more likely in one spot than the other. This noticeboard is a similar "hot spot" for people being both terrible, and worse, being entitled about being terrible, where attempting to enforce civility policy will get you accused of being a WMF shill. It'll be the same rules as everywhere else but just with (attempted) additional scrutiny of them. SnowFire (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  But it would be - it would be a "one-off exception" to civility enforcement.

  And I disagree with your analogy.

  The easiest response to your comments and RoySmith's below is merely to shine a light towards the subpages of WP:AN. Tell me that those pages couldn't use similar enforcement. And RFA and XFD, among others, aren't that far behind. (Though the latter two's issues tend to ebb and flow in waves.)

  We've been watching these kinds of pages - and really, if we've been watching arbcom cases - these kinds of things are problems more than just here. So let's implement a change in enforcement that isn't a one-off. But rather one that can work throughout Wikipedia, rather than just look under one rock and say it's dark under here. - jc37 22:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that WP:CIVIL should (and does) apply equally to every page on the wiki. But this page is special in two ways. First is that the level of incivility seen here often exceeds what you see on other pages.

  But more important than that, this is a forum which we have explicitly asked WMF employees to use. If you want to rip me a new one on my talk page, I may not like it but at least I'm participating there of my own free will. Many of the WMF staff on this page are participating as a function of their employment. And they are doing so using their real names, unlike most members of the community who guard their real life identities behind fanciful usernames. RoySmith (talk) 14:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I would rather this wasn't necessary, because in a perfect world we'd all be nice to each other everywhere always. However, this page seems to get much more vitriol than most other places, and as Roy said above, this is one place where we are trying to specifically interact with Foundation staff for whom this is their job, not a volunteer position like the rest of us. stwalkerster (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The link to WP:General sanctions in the current proposal is a relatively well-hidden way of proposing a new community-authorized sanction topic area. That could be made more explicit, and the area should be defined. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict × 2) Oops; that was in the original proposal from when we were proposing that general sanctions be proposed. I thought I removed it, but obviously did not; I have done so now. BilledMammal (talk) 02:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, thanks and sorry for the edit conflicts ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @ToBeFree and @BilledMammal I think designating this as a contentious topic is not a bad idea to be fair. This would hopefully get people to be more mindful of WMF. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 20:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• One aspect which so far has not been reflected in the discussion is that the majority of WMF employees are not experienced Wikipedia users (and almost no one is an experienced English Wikipedia user). They do not necessarily know what ANI is, and they might not be aware of our basic policies. In this respect, they are more like new users. I guess if anyone at the TEAHOUSE starts attacking the new users in the same way as happens here on the daily basis, blocks would come immediately.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ymblanter: I personally don't know how available AN/I effectively would be to employee of the foundation (even if they knew about it). When I, as an individual, take someone to AN/I, then it's pretty clear cut that I don't need permission to do so. However, if someone communicates to me in my position as an arbcom clerk, and they hypothetically say things I normally would report them for... well I still wouldn't report it. At most, I'd bring the matter to the attention of Arbcom and would get permission before even responding on my talk page. That's because when I have my arb-clerk hat on, I'm representing Arbcom. If I say or do anything out of line, that'll reflect poorly on the committee.
  Now, this dynamic would be even more severe if I had (WMF) at the end of my username. If my AN/I report goes nowhere or is seen as baseless, then that reflects poorly on my employer. Hence, it's more common just for no one to report anything. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  ANI is already widely regarded to be the Greatest Shitshow on Earth. If a WMF employee with that parenthetical badge ahead of their moniker takes a regular editor to ANI - say, your garden-variety Frams, Tonys or Andys - then no matter what the merits of the complaint are, that ANI thread is likely to become a firestorm. You're right in that sense. It would almost be the equivalent of a disclosed paid editor complaining about an administrator giving them a hard time over WP:NOTADVERTISING issues on their company's article page.

  As one can see from reviewing the archives for this Talk Page, one WMF employee actually did complain about the seemingly uncivil environment, and asked for a "safe space". The response was not pretty. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, it could be said that WMF staff are a separate class of editors: newcomers exempted from the protections of WP:BITE. Folly Mox (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If a WMF employee is not familiar with Wikipedia and its processes, then they shouldn't be anywhere near a position that requires significant interaction with Wikipedia. You wouldn't hire a plumber who wasn't familiar with the different parts of a sink. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  [My own opinion as a staffer & volunteer contributor for ~13 years - but signed to my WMF account lest someone accuse me of obfuscation.]

  Plumber is a great metaphor, and I think it's precisely this type of interaction that tends to be the most painful: when a WMF "plumber" (i.e., someone with deep expertise in their specific field – whether that's accounting, grants, software, organizational management, etc.) is called into a discussion by the community when there's a perceived urgent issue or need. That person was hired because of their competence in their specific field, not because they also happen to have mastered the complex techno-social system that is Wikipedia (which only a few thousand people currently alive on earth know well enough to feel comfortable regularly and deeply contributing to). I can't think of too many professional contexts where a "plumber" like this – who is actively trying to figure out, fix, or improve something – would be circled by a group of non-plumbers and pelted with questions and accusations about their competence and motives, and made to argue about this on a web forum over the span of weeks, months, or years. Maryana Pinchuk (WMF) (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @MPinchuk (WMF): Some of us are "plumbers," too, though, and get annoyed when "plumbers" assume we don't understand what they're talking about. We are accountants, grant administrators, software developers, board members, executives, professors, lawyers, doctors, etc. etc. And yes, college students and teenagers, too, but not only. The person with (WMF) after their name doesn't necessarily have more experience or expertise than the person without (WMF) after their name. The assumption otherwise is noticeable and, in my view, a large contributor to the friction between staff and volunteers. Levivich (talk) 16:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a good point and definitely heard. Part of what contributes to this low trust all around, I think, is that since Wikipedia is pseudonymous & doesn't have much in the way of mechanisms for conveying expertise/knowledge that's outside of the wikis on the wikis, volunteers end up having to rely on proxies like "how [vociferously/lengthily] someone can argue about the topic" to decide who is competent/knowledgeable/correct – but this style of communication can feel very hostile from the POV of an outsider to Wikipedia (i.e., not a good-faith dialog you want to engage deeper in, but an interrogation that you just want to escape from).

  Resolved: we need expert labels like Citizendium Maryana Pinchuk (WMF) (talk) 16:35, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Lol :-) Yeah, and there's that old truism, that the loudest voices in the room are usually the most ignorant, which I think holds true on Wikipeida as it does anywhere else. As an editor interacting with the WMF, I often feel like some kind of Prime Minister, trying to negotiate with the "other party" while simultaneously holding back the "extremists" within my "own" party. Levivich (talk) 16:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That sounds like a tricky balance, and I'm sure it doesn't feel good when the nuance of that position gets missed/ignored. But I'll say that it's extremely appreciated when onwiki interactions do feel more like good-faith dialogs where we're listening to and learning from each other, whether someone is wearing the WMF hat or not – more than that: to me, one of the most rewarding things about the job and what's kept me here (and made me come back after leaving!) are those moments when a discussion really feels like we all care about this "repository of all human knowledge" thing, want the best for it, and are collaborating to make it better. Maryana Pinchuk (WMF) (talk) 17:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Axe-grinding, almost to the point of sealioning, is an issue I've seen when engaging with the WMF. What's the feeling there about the above proposal? Izno (talk) 00:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I personally see axe-grinding as hostile, as I suspect many who are its target might also feel. It's usually a superficially polite shorthand invitation to a drawn out argument only one side wants to have. On the other hand, I do sympathise with those who are unable to get the answers they want, and I don't readily have a better suggestion. Enough badgering eventually seems to result in some kind of response, but this is a very unpleasant process for both the questioner and the question-dodger.

  I don't really have a solution for people who would like to use this page to engage about topics that WMF folks don't want to talk about. So far all that's accomplished is lack of engagement here. Ask about it somewhere else? Folly Mox (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Speaking as someone who mostly just peeks in from outside this page and then decides that it's probably not worth the potential drama, one of the more common unsatisfactory interactions I feel like I see (for both parties) is when someone from the Foundation is assumed to speak for / be knowledgable about the entire WMF. I could give you my personal opinion about e.g. Foundation spending priorities, ad banners, or whatever, but my actual knowledge of it or power over it is pretty much the same as yours. (Whereas if you wanted to badger at me about something like technical decisions involved in why DiscussionTools works the way it does, okay, guilty as charged.)

  So if some general Foundation-related issue is raised and it's not luckily something that the WMF person is directly involved in, the WMF person's options then are either to ignore the question, respond with an unsatisfactory "I don't know anything about that", or go do some digging and see whether someone who does know about it wants to come and get involved (which will probably take a while even if they want to, because people are busy). None of those are great for the asker, who may feel like the uncaring edifice of the WMF is just shrugging their concerns off. DLynch (WMF) (talk) 23:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If you're directly replied to or asked, I recommend a combination of "I don't know anything about that" plus a reference to the appropriate team or a ping of person who should know. It's better than complete silence. Anomie⚔ 08:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Speaking purely for myself, as someone who's in the technical side of the organization, if someone veers into questions about something unrelated to what I'm here talking about (governance, spending, priorities, etc), I'm unlikely to know offhand a specific person to ping (and, honestly, might feel a little weird about pinging someone into a more-aggressive discussion; that's not very nice of me to do). Saying something like "you should talk to someone in WMF leadership about priority-setting" is technically valid but not incredibly actionable, and I think might still come across as me brushing them off. I freely acknowledge that I might be overthinking some of this. DLynch (WMF) (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC