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 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,

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.


> > Hoi,
> > I am astounded that you write as if the WMF is at fault in this. What I
> > find is that in stead of pointing to the WMF, it is first and foremost
> the
> > community of the English Wikipedia who accepted the unacceptable and
> > finally has to deal with consequences. True to form, no reflection on
> en.wp
> > practices and the blame is conveniently put elsewhere.
> > Thanks,
> >      GerardM
> >
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Reply via email to