Dear Sydney, I came across your notices to a number of Portuguese languages admins. If you need any help with translation of such notices, please don't hesitate to drop me a line; I will be more than happy to help. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 23:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi there,
You commented a month or two ago on the discussion about partial blocks with an intriging comment on how Italian-wiki were using it. You'd noted that you could summarise it on the draft RfC talk page, but as it's not there I was wondering whether either you'd commented elsewhere or could say how they were using it here? Nosebagbear ( talk) 10:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
∯WBG converse 01:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi SPoore. There's currently much talk of tweaking English Wikipedia's enforcement practices as a result of Framgate. At least on this page, the current majority view seems to be in favour of more forceful enforcement & scrutiny against editors.
It seems to me this may be the opposite of what the data would suggest is needed for our community to become more inclusive. From my ~10 years of occasional conversations with the public about Wikipedia, the reason people give for stopping editing is the difficulty in getting their contributions accepted. Not one person has mentioned being personally attacked as the reason they quickly gave up attempts to edit.
So I'd suspect what is needed is not more force, but more gentleness. This may not be easy for our policy enforcement crew to accept, but tagging , reverts & deletions are often experienced by new editors as hostility. The fact they are typically delivered with sterile polite language, sometimes even with superficial friendliness, does little to soften the apparent antagonism.
Once the Arb's review of Fram concludes, it would possibly be helpful to the communities internal efforts if you could share the WMFs data on what drives contributors away. If there is data that supports significant numbers leaving due to personal attacks/cussing/ passionate outbursts, then that might be an easy sell, as there seems to be some desire to crack down more on those things.
If there is data that suggests benefits to slightly relaxed enforcement – e.g. when a new users makes an edit that's sub optimal but not terrible, it might be best to let it stick for at least a few weeks rather than immediately reverting - then this would probably need to be robust enough to stand up to hostile scrutiny, and presented with some tact if it is to be accepted by the quality control crew. Sorry if this is all redundant to what you were planning to do anyway! FeydHuxtable ( talk) 09:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
A year ago, you posted that you're "available to answer questions about the User Reporting System and the Universal Code of Conduct." I hope that's still the case?
I was wondering, do you happen to know if the motivations for such a Code are mostly about the smaller projects, off-wiki channels, IRL events, and organization interaction, or mostly about the very large projects where most of the editors work? -- Yair rand ( talk) 03:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Community health initiative/Per user page, namespace, category, and upload blocking. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 20#Community health initiative/Per user page, namespace, category, and upload blocking until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 ( 𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Dear Sydney, I came across your notices to a number of Portuguese languages admins. If you need any help with translation of such notices, please don't hesitate to drop me a line; I will be more than happy to help. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 23:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi there,
You commented a month or two ago on the discussion about partial blocks with an intriging comment on how Italian-wiki were using it. You'd noted that you could summarise it on the draft RfC talk page, but as it's not there I was wondering whether either you'd commented elsewhere or could say how they were using it here? Nosebagbear ( talk) 10:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
∯WBG converse 01:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi SPoore. There's currently much talk of tweaking English Wikipedia's enforcement practices as a result of Framgate. At least on this page, the current majority view seems to be in favour of more forceful enforcement & scrutiny against editors.
It seems to me this may be the opposite of what the data would suggest is needed for our community to become more inclusive. From my ~10 years of occasional conversations with the public about Wikipedia, the reason people give for stopping editing is the difficulty in getting their contributions accepted. Not one person has mentioned being personally attacked as the reason they quickly gave up attempts to edit.
So I'd suspect what is needed is not more force, but more gentleness. This may not be easy for our policy enforcement crew to accept, but tagging , reverts & deletions are often experienced by new editors as hostility. The fact they are typically delivered with sterile polite language, sometimes even with superficial friendliness, does little to soften the apparent antagonism.
Once the Arb's review of Fram concludes, it would possibly be helpful to the communities internal efforts if you could share the WMFs data on what drives contributors away. If there is data that supports significant numbers leaving due to personal attacks/cussing/ passionate outbursts, then that might be an easy sell, as there seems to be some desire to crack down more on those things.
If there is data that suggests benefits to slightly relaxed enforcement – e.g. when a new users makes an edit that's sub optimal but not terrible, it might be best to let it stick for at least a few weeks rather than immediately reverting - then this would probably need to be robust enough to stand up to hostile scrutiny, and presented with some tact if it is to be accepted by the quality control crew. Sorry if this is all redundant to what you were planning to do anyway! FeydHuxtable ( talk) 09:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
A year ago, you posted that you're "available to answer questions about the User Reporting System and the Universal Code of Conduct." I hope that's still the case?
I was wondering, do you happen to know if the motivations for such a Code are mostly about the smaller projects, off-wiki channels, IRL events, and organization interaction, or mostly about the very large projects where most of the editors work? -- Yair rand ( talk) 03:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Community health initiative/Per user page, namespace, category, and upload blocking. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 20#Community health initiative/Per user page, namespace, category, and upload blocking until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 ( 𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)