As a strong inclusionist myself, I'm a bit disappointed to see this. 

See also:

On Jul 5, 2019, at 3:15 AM, Todd Allen <> 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 <>
> 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
>> 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:
>> and
>> New messages to:
>> Unsubscribe:,
>> <>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> and 
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:, 
> <>

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Reply via email to