Hoi, Let me be simple. A friend of mine was banned for life by the WMF, there was no room for discussion so the notion that this is a first is not accurate.
It is well known that English Wikipedia is considered a toxic environment This has been known by all for a very long time. The fact of the matter is that the arbitration committee is not able to do something about it. There are many considerations possible but it is not this committee that is at fault it is the community itself. Many people are indignant that they are told that it has to stop. FRAM may be the "victim" in this but hey why not him? A point is being made. Your notion of toxic behaviour of the WMF is problematic. The point is that English Wikipedia behaviour is to change. It did not help that you all were told to mend your ways, now reflect and come up with what you consider will make for a more friendly environment. The good news is, you are not in a position that you can ignore this. The notion that the WMF has to bring you new rules is imho wrong. Roll your own. Thanks, GerardMM On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 15:39, WereSpielChequers <werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > > > > 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: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ 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: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>