I wish that it were. Unfortunately, it is actually the case. Todd
On Fri, Jul 5, 2019, 5:42 AM Michel Vuijlsteke <wikipe...@zog.org> wrote: > This is sarcasm, right? Right? > > On Fri, 5 Jul 2019, 12:16 Todd Allen, <toddmal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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 < > > 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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > 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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > 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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > 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: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
