Agreeing/asserting that the English Language Wikipedia has a toxic

environment is easy. Defining the problem and suggesting solutions has historically been rather more difficult. Just watch the latest threads at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility for examples. On the English Wikipedia this is clearer than on some projects because we have annual Arbcom elections, and a candidate can always criticise the sitting arbs by saying "of the cases accepted and rejected over the last year or two, ignoring those where we know there was private information, these are the cases where I would have differed from the existing arbs. I would have voted to accept cases xxxxxxxxxxxx,xxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxx and these are the ones where i would have supported a stricter sanction zzzz, zzzzz" Alternatively you can make suggestions as to how you would change the community to make it a less toxic environment, in the past I have argued for, among other things: 1. A different way of handling edit warring that doesn't go so quickly to blocks. 2. A pause in the speedy deletion process for goodfaith article creations so G3 and G10 would still be deleted as quickly as admins

them but A7s could stick around for at least 24 hours 3. Software changes to resolve more edit conflicts without losing

None of these have been rejected because people actually want a toxic environment. But people have different definitions of toxicity, for

some people think that everyone who loses an edit due to an edit conflict understands that this is an IT problem, and are unaware of incidents

people have assumed that this is conflict with the person whose edit one the conflict. Others just don't see deletionism as toxic, some

even consider inclusionism toxic and get upset at editors who decline deletion tags that are almost but not quite correct. My suspicion is that the intersection of "everything you submit may be ruthlessly edited" a large community where you frequently encounter

you haven't dealt with before, cultural nuances between different

of English and a large proportion of people who are not editing in their native language makes the English Wikipedia less congenial than some

Wikis. For example, someone who comes from a straight talking culture

think me as euphemistic and possibly sarcastic, even when I think I'm

nuanced and diplomatic. Specifically in the case of the Fram ban, the WMF should have

before their first 12 month block the specific behaviours that the WMF would no longer tolerate on EN Wikipedia. At least part of their problem was that their first 12 month ban was for undisclosed reasons. Some Wikipedians didn't want the WMF setting new behavioural rules on

But other Wikipedians might have agreed with the WMF if only we knew

the new rules were. It is a bit like enforcing speed limits, I might support lowering the speed limits where I live, but I wouldn't support empowering a traffic cop to issue traffic fines for an undisclosed reason where I and other motorists were having to speculate whether there was

an invisible but enforced stop sign at junction x, or an invisible but enforced parking restriction on street y. It is deeply ironic that in trying to combat toxic behaviour the WMF itself behaved in a toxic way. Jonathan > > Hoi, > > I am astounded that you write as if the WMF is at fault in this.

> > find is that in stead of pointing to the WMF, it is first and

_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Agreeing/asserting that the English Language Wikipedia has a toxic editing environment is easy. Defining the problem and suggesting solutions has historically been rather more difficult. Just watch the latest threads at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility for examples. On the English Wikipedia this is clearer than on some projects because we have annual Arbcom elections, and a candidate can always criticise the sitting arbs by saying "of the cases accepted and rejected over the last year or two, ignoring those where we know there was private information, these are the cases where I would have differed from the existing arbs. I would have voted to accept cases xxxxxxxxxxxx,xxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxx and these are the ones where i would have supported a stricter sanction zzzz, zzzzz" Alternatively you can make suggestions as to how you would change the community to make it a less toxic environment, in the past I have argued for, among other things: 1. A different way of handling edit warring that doesn't go so quickly to blocks. 2. A pause in the speedy deletion process for goodfaith article creations so G3 and G10 would still be deleted as quickly as admins find them but A7s could stick around for at least 24 hours 3. Software changes to resolve more edit conflicts without losing edits. None of these have been rejected because people actually want a toxic environment. But people have different definitions of toxicity, for example some people think that everyone who loses an edit due to an edit conflict understands that this is an IT problem, and are unaware of incidents where people have assumed that this is conflict with the person whose edit one the conflict. Others just don't see deletionism as toxic, some deletionists even consider inclusionism toxic and get upset at editors who decline deletion tags that are almost but not quite correct. My suspicion is that the intersection of "everything you submit may be ruthlessly edited" a large community where you frequently encounter people you haven't dealt with before, cultural nuances between different versions of English and a large proportion of people who are not editing in their native language makes the English Wikipedia less congenial than some other Wikis. For example, someone who comes from a straight talking culture might think me as euphemistic and possibly sarcastic, even when I think I'm being nuanced and diplomatic. Specifically in the case of the Fram ban, the WMF should have communicated before their first 12 month block the specific behaviours that the WMF would no longer tolerate on EN Wikipedia. At least part of their problem was that their first 12 month ban was for undisclosed reasons. Some Wikipedians didn't want the WMF setting new behavioural rules on Wikipedia. But other Wikipedians might have agreed with the WMF if only we knew what the new rules were. It is a bit like enforcing speed limits, I might support lowering the speed limits where I live, but I wouldn't support empowering a traffic cop to issue traffic fines for an undisclosed reason where I and other motorists were having to speculate whether there was now an invisible but enforced stop sign at junction x, or an invisible but enforced parking restriction on street y. It is deeply ironic that in trying to combat toxic behaviour the WMF itself behaved in a toxic way. Jonathan _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Well, inclusionism generally is toxic. It lets a huge volume of garbage pile up. Deletionism just takes out the trash. We did it with damn Pokemon, and we'll eventually do it with junk football "biographies", with "football" in the sense of American and otherwise. We'll sooner or later get it done with "populated places" and the like too. NN athletes and populated places belong on a list, not as a permastub "article". As for A7, it applies only to mainspace. It is the responsibility of any editor creating an article directly in mainspace to cite appropriate sources and demonstrate notability on the first edit. If one is not yet ready to do that, write a draft. A7 does not apply to drafts. But for an article in the main encyclopedia, the expectation should absolutely be to show sourcing immediately. Todd On Thu, Jul 4, 2019, 7:39 AM WereSpielChequers &lt;werespielchequers(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>