UpTheOctave!

Talk?
Archives: 1, 2, 3
Click here to start a new section!

Thanks for writing your essay

I read your essay and it raises some good points. I'm always open to hear a calm, nuanced take on something. I hope this isn't overbearing, but I like to take notes while I read and I fleshed out my thoughts a bit. Don't feel obligated to respond to this (or even to read it, honestly) if you're done with this topic for now, but for whatever it's worth:

• I appreciate that the "labour angle" was not the rationale for signing—my fear is that a non-negligible portion of signatories cannot say the same, which would mean they've put this interest ahead of Wikipedia. That's where I go from disagreeing with a signature to feeling affronted by it.
• I fully agree with your counterargument to "signatories might vandalize". Only a few people have suggested active disruption against the project, and that was in the first few days. I worry that the people raising this point are only undermining what I consider more reasonable arguments.
• I don't see a meaningful distinction between saying one is willing to do something and saying one is making a commitment to do something. If the right to back out is assumed (and the essay's own commentary about autonomy demonstrates why it can be assumed), then these are functionally the same thing. I absolutely believe that most signatories would refrain from any action they felt was against their principles. I'm more worried about those who see this as an issue of "solidarity", which in most cases would mean that sticking with the group is the principle.
• I see the question of character as vitally important to the issue, and the essay comes across as a little contradictory here. At first it disagrees that "coordinating that decision changes its character", but later it says coordination is "materially different" and it "may change the political character of the act". I assume "character" is meant in a different sense, but it's a little unclear what position is being taken here.
• Coordination absolutely changes the character as I see it. The desired result of leaving during a strike—causing Wikipedia's maintenance and moderation systems to fail for an unspecified period of time—is fundamentally different than that of individually leaving and taking one's own contributions with them. I acknowledge the right to leave, including the right to leave at the same time as many other editors, but having the right to do something does not mean exercising it in a certain way can't be problematic, harmful, or unethical. That's true of many rights on wikis and in the real world.
• Overall I'm mostly just glad the essay distinguishes between the employee dynamic and the editor dynamic and that a "strike" doesn't mean the same thing between them. I don't disagree with "Editorial strikes wouldn't look like this, but that doesn't affect their legitimacy.", but I'd say it hurts the credibility of the strike if editors think that's what they're doing.
• Love the relevant xkcd, it makes as good a point as any (as xkcd often does).

I wasn't sure if you wanted the essay to have a talk page, and you can move this there if you do. I just wanted to lay out my thoughts. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:47, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi TBUA, thanks for dropping by. Not overbearing at all – I think you're right to push back on some things here, which has led me to make some alterations. Some judicious cuts may now have cleared a lot of this up: I posted this last night without the benefit of morning eyes, which I'm regretting when I look back.

• I can see what you mean here, but equally – although this wasn't my reasoning – do these editors not think that they're putting Wikipedia's best interests ahead of anything else? The CommTech team was behind some processes that myself and others deemed vital, and if they could be removed on a whim, others could too. I don't see how this is putting another concern ahead of Wikipedia, since our dependence on the WMF's support and maintenance of community-adjacent projects is fundamentally relevant to everyday editing. If some signatories are prioritising an external labour movement over Wikipedia's interests, that's a critique of those editors' judgement, not a black mark against the petition itself
• Yes. I completely agree here. That said, any engagement with signers of the petition should not assume that they are part of this vocal minority. If the base state is limited to passive action as I show in my counterargument, then there's no reason to dread the worst unless told to.
• I suppose there isn't a difference in the terms when considering what someone can be compelled to do, but like you say I'm not really sure this matters. You've dropped an important word here: "unconditional". That's what this section was really arguing against, the difference between a statement of willing and a suicide pact. Judging by where my name was originally (#100), some people have already removed their names. Again, I do agree there is a worry that some editors may go too far for our tastes, but these should be treated as special cases, not the norm. Merely saying you stand in solidarity with the WWU does not commit you to extreme action.
• Yeah, looking back this section was quite muddled. I've revised this part a lot, and think it makes a lot more sense now. My point is that there isn't really a contradiction when you separate the two intertwined questions here: you can believe that coordination changes the character of the act while also believing that this change doesn't alter the act's acceptability. I can agree with you that coordinated absence is meant to have leverage that individual absence doesn't, while still holding that leverage isn't inherently unethical.
• I somewhat agree with you here, and amended my wording slightly in the essay. Despite that, I think both of those are legitimate lenses, and reasonable editors will land differently depending on which one they think should govern. As I say in my now-extended conclusion, whether a particular strike would be appropriate will always depend on its proposed terms, and a reasoned balancing of the potential risks and rewards of withholding editing en masse. I believe that there is a potential to put pressure on the WMF to make positive changes: I know you don't, but that's another matter of opinion, not of right and wrong.
• Yeah. I think it's important to distinguish the two, and actually think the text of the petition does this well. It sets itself up only as a statement of solidarity with a union, not as a formalised labour action. Perhaps naively, I hope others understand this distinction.
• Thanks! I changed the image to better fit the content. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a big fan of Munroe.

Feel free to take another look and reply again if you want. I'll probably consider splitting this discussion to the essay's talk page if so. Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 03:03, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I think the main point where we disagree is whether a wikibreak versus a strike meaningfully changes its character. To me, intent is the critical factor. Not only is deliberate act of sabotage through inaction an ethics issue and more likely to cause directed harm than a tragedy of the commons situation with individual decisions to take a break, but it sets the precedent that this sort of thing can be brought back again and again, and the inevitable wave of press sends a very public message about Wikipedia's userbase not being dependable to moderate the website. The latter two are already problems just because the petition exists: the strike is now an option that's always going to be on the table in issues that aren't even tangentially related to unionism, and look at how much press the possibility of a strike got in the "mentioned by multiple media organizations" template at Wikipedia talk:Wiki Workers United solidarity.

Regarding motive and how other signatories see the issue, I suggest going back and reading the signatures at WP:WWUS. Take a mental note of how many signatures directly invoke loyalty to unionism as their rationale, and compare it to how many directly invoke the disbanding of comm tech and its effects on Wikipedia as their rationale.

I'll admit, this discussion is refreshing compared to what I'll call the less cerebral discussions over on my user talk page. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:39, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I've just gone through roughly the first quarter of the signatures and found that the vast majority (213) do not provide a motive; out of those that do, there is a clear plurality who are objecting to the WMF's actions (49), a smaller number expressed support for either the WWU specifically or unionism in general (34), some framed the two issues as interconnected (18) and a smaller amount expressed some other motive - notably support for Brooke as an individual (7). This may change as the list gets longer, but this is boring work, and I'm not sure how much more a complete picture would help. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:44, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Based on some of the replies I've seen, including replies to things I've said about WWUS generally (regarding understanding of the cause and potential implications), I think it would be beneficial. Condensing over 1000 signatures into cohesive groups may present some challenges however. I believe I said this on TBUA's talk page, but there should have been an allowance for those who do not support the idea to state as such in their own section for balance. This has already happened informally on the talk page of TBUA's essay. 11WB (talk) 09:53, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Aaaaand it looks like I've offended people by suggesting this discussion is less emotional than that one. 💀 Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:00, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

TBUA, I think calling it sabotage is going too far. To me, sabotage implies an intent to undermine or damage the thing being sabotaged, which has more nuance than you're allowing. We need to look at proximate and ultimate intent here: it can be true that someone has the intent to disrupt Wikipedia's function in the short term, but only do this because they believe that it will bring around long term positive change. Is this sabotage? I don't think so.

If you grant that distinction, then the remaining disagreement is one of moral judgement rather than conceptual definition. In the case of the WWU, I believe that better, more stable conditions for WMF workers would provide benefit to Wikipedia in the long run; by going on strike to support unionisation efforts and express my displeasure, I have the intent to further the goals of Wikipedia, as I believe that this act could potentially bring change that would benefit vital community functions. This is why I don't really think the nature of each signer's cause matters: I'd wager that most, even those purely focused on the union-aspect, follow this thinking, even if their version is as logically simple as:

Unions increase job security,
Worker layoffs at the WMF harmed the community,
If future layoffs were reduced, similar harm to the community would be less likely,
∴ Unionisation could prevent future harm to the community.

Your points about precedent and press coverage made me pause, but I think they also ultimately come down to an issue of morals – whether you believe the drawbacks of a strike make it worth it is again decided by a personal balancing of right or wrong. I'm also hesitant to acknowledge your slippery slope: as you show with the press coverage, the possibility of coordinated editor action is already publicly recognised. The important question now is whether any particular action is justified on its own merits; as long as each potential action is evaluated on its own terms, with a proper, rational balancing of the potential upsides and downsides, I think strikes can remain a legitimate tool. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 02:58, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough regarding "sabotage". Let's say "disruption" with the understanding that it's a means to an end.

I'm not opposed to WWU itself. I don't care for how it exists at the moment, but a stronger and more formal version of it would be a positive. With that said, I don't believe an editor strike would be effective in meaningfully strengthening WWU, nor do I believe it would be worth the potential risks if it did. This may be another disagreement at a fundamental level, both because we have yet to achieve precognition allowing us to see what benefits and drawbacks occur in reality for each scenario, and because different people will have different tolerances for harm to the project to achieve an external benefit. My tolerance for harm is significantly lower than what I believe the most likely harm will be, and I have yet to see an argument convincing me otherwise. I haven't entirely written off editor strikes as a means of leverage, but I have yet to think of any situation at all where I'd feel one was justified.

I believe intent matters for a couple reasons. Let's assume for a moment that a majority of signatories consider support for unionism their primary motive in signing. The reason this concerns me is because, if this truly is the motive of a significant number of editors as opposed to directly benefiting Wikipedia itself, that means the editor base is less stable and less reliable than I had previously thought. If that's the case, then yes, it still would have been the case before the petition, and this would just be when it was discovered. However, there's an additional risk that the existence of the petition has activated and primed that unreliability in a way that's here to stay at least until the next generation of editors, because like I said, the precedent is set and the option of intentional disruption through inaction is now one that has a spot on the table. I would've preferred if there had been a little more pushback to the idea of positive disruption, but I'll take what I can get with the fact that it lost traction very quickly and hope that it isn't put on the table next time. And there will be multiple next times.

The other reason I'm concerned about intent is that it compromises informed decision-making—that's a large part of my essay on the subject. I'm sure some of the signatories at least thought about the logic you're presenting—it's slightly more convincing than other arguments—but I just can't look at the signatures on there and find a conclusion that doesn't involve a huge chunk of them primarily engaging because they have been convinced of the WMF vs unions theory (I'm as of yet undecided whether it should be considered a "conspiracy theory"). They genuinely believe they're engaging in labor activism.

From there, they believe in a moral obligation to follow the orders of the union. After all, that's the point of solidarity. If you consider signatures referencing "solidarity" to be "directly invok[ing] loyalty to unionism as their rationale" per my previous comment and expressing a belief that they're engaging in labor activism—and that's the impression I get from them—the outlook becomes overwhelmingly grim. I believe you are in the minority in your understanding that this is primarily about commtech and that this is not labor action. I'll go even farther and say a majority of signatories wouldn't know what commtech was if you asked them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:22, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@UpTheOctave!, I read your essay. The third section makes it sound like advocation for a mass ragequit (not a Wikibreak), which now that I think about it, is pretty ridiculous on the surface. WWUS was set up simply because a bulk of editors don't like something the WMF has done? Regardless of the inner politics, which to be blunt, I don't care about and haven't followed for that reason, the entire thing is akin to a huff.

'Not only is deliberate act of sabotage through inaction an ethics issue and more likely to cause directed harm than a tragedy of the commons situation with individual decisions to take a break, but it sets the precedent that this sort of thing can be brought back again and again, and the inevitable wave of press sends a very public message about Wikipedia's userbase not being dependable to moderate the website.' This sums it up for me, and I'll add: shows the majority of editors are unwilling to accept change.

Somehow, the essay has managed to help me better form my opposition to the idea. 11WB (talk) 04:38, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

(As a sidenote, I'm not deliberately following you TBUA, I apologise if it comes across like I am. These RfAs have provided the opportunity to catch up and educate myself on what this whole "in solidarity" thing is.) 11WB (talk) 04:41, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

In fairness to the signatories, there is a desired end goal, as fuzzy as it may be, not harm for harm's sake. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:51, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I bowed out yesterday, but I do find this quite interesting. When I get time I'll read a few other perspectives (such as your essay). The concept is understood now, though the amount of editors that have signed this without weighing the implications that editors such as yourself or myself have shared is staggering. On the fence about opposing an RfA, but I suppose it was inadvertently an excellent way of bringing attention to the problem. (I would still put project contributions as priority for whether I support a candidate or not over whether they've signed the pledge—just as you did with TS69.) 11WB (talk) 05:01, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Please don't assume people are stupid just because they didn't write an essay or long explanation about their willingness to engage in a strike. And let's be real, a strong strike mandate like this makes it unlikely that strike action will be necessary. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 06:47, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

It would also be respectful to not assume what I haven't assumed. "Stupid" is a borderline derogatory term used to insult intelligence (and is a word no one in this discussion has used until your reply). 11WB (talk) 07:06, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Of course, you used less direct words to describe this, and perhaps you implied that people are naive instead, which isn't much better. You are insulting the intelligence of people who are willing to strike, by assuming that a 'staggering' number of people have not done their due diligence. There's no denying that's an insult. And that is not the behaviour I expect to see from you. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 07:21, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@Femke, just so we're clear, I said that I understand the concept of WWUS and that "the amount of editors that have signed this without weighing the implications that editors such as yourself or myself have shared is staggering." This is the fourth or fifth time in just a few days that something I've said has been requoted incorrectly or an assumption has been misapplied. It is getting tiresome. I've ceased replying to editors that have done this as it only serves to make the discussion unpleasant for the one on the receiving end.

I'm open to a discussion, but not if my words are going to be twisted to mean something I didn't mean. This isn't fun for me and others have commented on it. I've been respectful and have tried to explain what I mean. My behaviour has not been uncivil in any way. If it has, I'm sure @Thebiguglyalien would have already mentioned it, as we've communicated across multiple discussions on this topic now. 11WB (talk) 07:25, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, hello everyone! 14 talk page pings are lovely to wake up to in the morning, but I'd politely ask that any general concerns related to the WUU, but not to my essay, are discussed elsewhere in the future for the sake of my sanity. That's not to say "don't post on my talk page", not at all, but just that this is getting slightly out of hand for now: I'm more than happy to keep discussing pertinent matters, but let's keep it focused.

• TBUA – the crux of what I'm getting at here is that at its core, this is a subjective issue. We've both coalesced on the idea that it matters on a case by case basis, and is up to personal judgement. I agree that this is the fundamental issue, and think that it is unlikely (probably impossible) to resolve. Furthermore, if Grnrchst's analysis holds it would at least show CommTech-specific objections are as common as explicit union-solidarity ones among people who gave a reason, though it says nothing about the much larger group who gave none. I don't think silence licenses an assumption in either direction – I'm no more willing to assume they signed in ignorance than I am to assume they'd all read the fine print.
• 11WB – I'm not going to misquote you, so don't worry. I'm not even annoyed that you found the third section ridiculous. As I'm saying to TBUA, this is a matter of personal morals. I'm not going to convince either of you that striking is morally good: frankly, that's not what I've set out to do. Your comments actually led me to expand the essay with some points from here, which I think are pertinent, so thanks. I will add, WWUS was set up simply because a bulk of editors don't like something the WMF has done and the majority of editors are unwilling to accept change is pretty callous. People have lost their jobs, and for what reason? Unless one thinks the disbanding of CommTech is a good thing, I struggle to see how the layoffs can be justified. Also, your use of TBUA's "sabotage" framing would be more convincing if he hadn't already disavowed it. You may wish to read our exchange with regards to that above.
• Femke and Grnrchst, thanks for stopping by and contributing. Grnrchst, your count above in particular gave this discussion something concrete to work with, which it really needed. Aside from that, I don't really have much to say to you two that I don't have to say to the others.

Thanks to all of you for staying civil. Best, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 01:50, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

More than happy to drop the topic per your request. You're also entitled to your feelings regarding things I've said. It's important to remember though, it's based on factual observation and I'm not referring to individuals, but rather the "collective". On the second point, whilst I appreciate you're attempt not to misquote me, I need to point out that I didn't actually single out the use of the word "sabotage" myself. I agreed with TBUA's statement generally.

I agree though that these discussions need to remain civil (which has proven pretty difficult). I don't know of a good place to have these discussions civilly unfortunately, so I'm personally going to move on. 11WB (talk) 01:58, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I've unsubscribed from this discussion. Happy editing all! 11WB (talk) 02:00, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Apologies, I usually take agreeing with a quote to mean agreeing with the text rather than the sentiment, unless someone is explicit that is. Hope you're doing well. I agree it's often hard to see the person on the other side of the screen. Happy editing to you too. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 02:10, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for being willing to engage in an actual dialectic; it's pretty rare to find but really the only way I feel truly comfortable addressing an issue. And I'm sorry about the mess, I should've figured that I'd be followed here. Oh well. I'll think on some of the conclusions we reached, and where there might still be room to reach more. If the commenting continues, or just if you want to clean this up, moving it to the essay talk page is still an option. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:20, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I mean, I just like arguing as long as it's kept logical. I gather you're the same? I'm happy to leave it here until it archives if you have any thoughts, then I'll move it to the essay talk. See you then, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 02:25, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:GARC: Invitation to review Africa Explores

Hello, you have been paired at good article review circles to review Africa Explores. At the same time, another user will be reviewing the article you nominated. Please wait 24 hours or until all users have accepted their nomination before starting your review in case a user in your circle decides to decline their invite.

To accept or decline this invitation to review the article, visit WT:GARC#104.

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 04:42, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Leon Russianoff is under review

Your good article nomination of the article Leon Russianoff is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vanderwaalforces -- Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:25, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Articles for Creation backlog drive

Hello UpTheOctave!:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive in August!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than a month of outstanding reviews from the current 3+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 August 2026 through 31 August 2026.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 5000 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

• If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.

Your nomination of Leon Russianoff has passed

Your good article nomination of the article Leon Russianoff has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Please also consider reviewing somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vanderwaalforces -- Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:24, 19 July 2026 (UTC)