Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Ally Skills Workshop at Wikimania

The Wikimedia Foundation has given a grant to the Ada Initiative to conduct an Ally Skills workshop at Wikimania this July as a pilot scheme. Valerie Aurora of the Ada Initiative recently wrote to the gender-gap mailing list:

"The Ally Skills Workshop teaches men simple, everyday ways to support women in their communities. This workshop will be laser-focused on techniques that work specifically in Wikipedia and related projects, including how to use existing policies and suggestions for advocating for new policies. It will also teach people about the mindset of trolls and what strategies work best for foiling them."

The pilot scheme emerged from the proposal I made last year to the Foundation's IdeaLab based on experiences at the GGTF. Thank you to everyone who supported it.

The aim is eventually to extend the scheme in the hope that it will make things less fraught for women involved in dispute resolution. Editors of any gender are welcome and can sign up here. Active admins willing to help women are particularly welcome. Sarah ^(talk) 01:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

This would have been most interesting. Unfortunately funds were lacking for trans-Atlantic trips this year (or indeed last year or the year before). All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC).

You were one of the people I was hoping would sign up, Rich. Perhaps you could apply for a grant for next year. There's talk about whether it could be an online course, but it's not clear how to set that up. We would need some kind of virtual classroom. Sarah ^(talk) 18:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Close some gap

1. Josephine Casey (1 January 1878?-27 January 1950), labour organizer and leader, women's rights advocate
2. Emily Borie Hartshorne Mudd (6 September 1898-2 May 1998), sexual and marital counsellor, birth control advocate
3. Elias Neau (1662-7 September 1722), religious educator
4. Joy R. Simonson (16 January 1919-24 June 2007), women's rights advocate, federal government official

These are the only April 2015 additions to ANB that don't have an article on en:WP as far as I can tell. If you need gender to get you going, they are three quarters women, and the remaining one is the son of a woman.

Emily Hartshorne Mudd is also the only Benjamin Franklin Medal recipient without an article.

Note: If these links turn blue, it may just be me putting a stub in, so don't hold back!

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC).

Joy Simonson has had an article since 2007. Redirecting the R. --GRuban (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC).

Greta Christina

I got a source for her self-identifying as bisexual. See here: She is an American atheist blogger, speaker, and author, as her Wikipedia page says.

But I don't want to sign up with Wikipedia for an account. Can somebody add her to the List of bisexual people (A–F) for me? It won't let you add anything without an account. Thanks so much. 108.36.70.221 (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

-Thanks!108.36.70.221 (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Sexual harassment policy

There's an RfC here about whether we ought to have a gender/sexual harassment policy. Sarah ^(talk) 22:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

This is now a thing: Wikipedia:Sexual_harassment I think the consensus is that we should have a sexual harassment policy, so now it's time to get to drafting. --ScWizard (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Book grants available

Keilana reported on the gg mailing list that Wikimedia DC is offering book grants to editors in the United States. More information here. Sarah ^(talk) 06:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Sarah! :) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 15:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

It's a great idea, Keilana, thanks for organizing it. Sarah ^(talk) 16:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

WikiWomen's User Group

The Foundation has recognized a new user group for women and allies, the WikiWomen's User Group. The group aims to provide a space for women to collaborate, and will be organizing conferences, edit-a-thons and meet-ups. Anyone interested in participating, please go to that page and add your name. Sarah ^(talk) 17:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, please spread the word to other women and allies who may be interested in joining. The WikiWomen's User Group is a global group so reach out to people that you know in other language WMF wikis. Use social media to invite other people. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 15:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

FloNight, I wonder if we could organize watchlist notices on all the other wikis. Sarah ^(talk) 16:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it would be a good way to notify cross wiki. Let's suggest it on the meta page. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Bystander approaches to sexual harassment

2012 Australian Government report:

• Encourage. Support. Act. Bystander Approaches to Sexual Harassment in the Workplace.

It suggests that "organisational approaches which rely exclusively on individual complaints made by targets of harassment are unlikely to be successful."

This report could be worthwhile reading for participants here. It has concrete suggestions and recommendations for organizations about "Principles and strategies for developing and implementing bystander approaches to sexual harassment" on p. 36-41. --Djembayz (talk) 20:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the link to the publication. The Ally Skills Workshop given at Wikimania as a pilot project is based on the same thinking. I like the word bystander to describe an ally since it makes it clear that anyone can be one if they witness the problem. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 18:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Adding template:gender to the editing toolbar or something?

Just an idea I came up with while half asleep, thought I'd bring it up here to see if anyone thinks it's something worth talking about. The way I see it, people dont like being misgendered. On Wikipedia (and the internet in general) people tend to assume someone is male unless told otherwise. This could be offputting to female editors who could feel out of place and unwelcome if constantly referred to as "he." (I am not a female editor so I obviously can't speak from experience as to whether or not this is the case, apologies if this is not in fact true for most female editors.) It's the case that a lot of people lazily automatically go for he. Adding template:gender to the editing toolbar could make lazy folk more likely to go for the template, quickly fill it in, and thereby avoid misgendering. Thoughts? Terrible idea? Potential other solutions? Bosstopher (talk) 00:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bosstopher, I have no idea how to organize that, but it's a good idea. Would be great if we could point at a user name and see the gender. Sarah ^(talk) 18:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

SlimVirgin Thanks for the feedback. Do you mean something like the hovercard feature for usernames? I wouldn't support that if it only displayed gender, because I believe it would encourage defining editors first and foremost by their gender. Perhaps something which fed info from userboxes, or preferences could work? As for the adding the gender template idea, I guess I'd have to bring it to the technical village pump? I just wanted to raise it here first, to see if it made any sense as an idea before discussing the intricacies of implementation. Bosstopher (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Bosstopher, I thought I had replied to this. Yes, something like a hovercard that would show whatever the user wanted it to show: gender, how long here, how many edits, etc, or nothing if they prefer. Perhaps we could have a form somewhere we could fill out. I have no idea how difficult that would be technically. Otherwise info could be taken from preferences, again with user permission only. Sarah ^(talk) 00:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

SlimVirgin after completely forgetting about this for a while, I've brought it to the Village Pump idea lab for more feedback. Brustopher (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Great (but enraging) article about discrimination by agents

This article by Jezebel Nichols really stunned me. I would have expected that hardnosed commercial agents of all people would see beyond bias, and even if they made assumptions about a female book market it would only be reflected in lowball prices... but she quotes an 8.5-to-1 ratio in acceptance letters for her writing using a false male persona vs. a female one. Since the Wikipedia editing process - for example, whether to keep or revert an edit - has some things in common with this, I think this is relevant data.

More interestingly, it suggests that if people on Wikipedia could effectively analyze the true sources and methods of bias, we could not merely improve Wikipedia, but provide useful and commercially valuable anti-discriminatory advice to the publishers and agents of the world. Wnt (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Each time I see additional research or first hand experience showing a preference for men over women I feel stunned that it continues to happen.

The best way to overcome subtle gender bias is to acknowledge the bias happens, something that is not currently happening on Wikipedia. So, as a first step, we need to keep pressing for acknowledgment that it is occurring on Wikipedia. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 22:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Female mentorship

Can anyone see a way to rescue the Female mentorship article? The current article either (AGF) gives the impression of being a piece of blatant spam from a single-purpose account or (ABF) is a piece of blatant spam from a single-purpose account; normally I'd WP:PROD this, but I'm well aware that will lead to a chorus of "Wikipedia demonstrates bias by deleting article!". Does anyone want to take a stab at at least removing the worst of the advertorial from it? – iridescent 17:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@Iridescent: I've add some sources and cut it back a bit, though it should probably be cut back some more. It's a valid topic, but it does need to be written differently. Sarah ^(talk) 18:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I know it's a valid topic (although I'm not entirely convinced there's enough of a difference to justify a stand-alone article rather than a paragraph in Mentorship, since there seems very little in there that's specific to women. (I can certainly believe there's a valid point to be made about female students being more confident in all-female environments, as well as potential negatives regarding all-female environments not communicating the necessary skills to work in mixed environments, but at the moment neither is even being touched on. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that Rhodes Scholars are not exactly a representative group.) ‑ iridescent 18:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Second-generation bias

I've started a stub about second-generation gender bias in case anyone is interested in developing it. Sarah ^(talk) 23:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of which, see this astonishing ad for National Women's Day in South Africa from Bic, the pen company: "Look like a girl, act like a lady, think like a man, work like a boss." Sarah ^(talk) 17:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there actually a difference between SGGB and Indirect discrimination? I have a feeling the former may be a US-specific term; I can honestly say I have never heard the phrase other than on Wikipedia. ‑ iridescent 17:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: I'm not finding sources on this subject specifically, but maybe you can help. There is this classic paper by S. Sturm, and also this, but they deal with both gender-based and racial discrimination. I also found the term used in this book from 1989 which deals exclusively with race. Remarkably, indirect discrimination just redirects to discrimination and unconscious discrimination doesn't exist. Unconscious racism redirects to racism and there is no unconscious sexism. There is an article on micro-inequity, but it is poorly-developed. (I never cease to be amazed that people think that the reason Wikipedia is growing at a decreasing rate is that its contents are already nearly exhaustive of all things.) --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Iridescent and Sammy1339: yes, it's probably the same idea, except that this focuses on gender. Sammy, thanks, those are good sources. I agree it's odd that we have no articles. I created this one because I saw it being discussed on WP and was surprised we had nothing, then when I googled around I found one woman express surprise in 2013 that WP had no article. [1] Sarah ^(talk) 14:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC on community portal and female scientists

There's an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Community portal#RFC on call to action for missing heavily cited female scientists on whether this call to create articles on female scientists should be restored. Sarah ^(talk) 17:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

And here's a list of (probable) female space scientists, derived form the TR most cited researchers list

1. Stephanie A Snedden is a researcher in space science at Apache Point Observatory, US.
2. Emanuele Daddi is a researcher in space science at CEA Saclay, France.
3. Michele Limon is a researcher in space science at Columbia University, Princeton University, and the University of Pennsylvania, US.
4. Patrizia A Caraveo is a researcher in space science at INAF Istituto di astrofisica spaziale e fisica cosmica, Italy.
5. Neta A Bahcall is a researcher in space science at Princeton University, US.
6. Gillian R Knapp is a researcher in space science at Princeton University Observatory.
7. Andrea Cimatti is a researcher in space science at University of Bologna, Italy.
8. Alice E Shapley is a researcher in space science at University of California, Los Angeles, US.
9. Constance M Rockosi is a researcher in space science at University of California, Santa Cruz, US.
10. Eva K Grebel is a researcher in space science at University of Heidelberg, Germany.
11. Judith Cohen (scientist) is a researcher in space science at California Institute of Technology.
12. Christine Jones (scientist) is a researcher in space science at Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
13. Gabriele Ghisellini is a researcher in space science at Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica.
14. Laura Maraschi is a researcher in space science at Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica.
15. Isabella Gioia is a researcher in space science at Istituto Nazionale di AstroFisica - INAF, Italy.
16. Deidre Hunter is a researcher in space science at Lowell Observatory.
17. Chryssa Kouveliotou is a researcher in space science at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center.
18. Laura Ferrarese is a researcher in space science at National Research Council of Canada.
19. Nancy Boggess is an unaffiliated researcher in space science.
20. Corinna von Montigny is an unaffiliated researcher in space science.
21. Stefi Baum is a researcher in space science at Rochester Institute of Technology.
22. Judith Young (scientist) is a researcher in space science at University of Massachusetts Amherst.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC).

Draft

Draft:Cara Ellison was abandoned by Morwen (talk · contribs) after she abandoned Wikipedia because of its rampant sexism, homophobia and transphobia. (She wrote a few articles about it in the press). It's got notes and could be resubmitted if anyone was interested. The article was rejected for no good reason I can see (a ton of cites about her apparently are not sufficient), but there are definitely articles directly interviewing her out there. I did a little work on the page, but I have not included http://gamechurch.com/we-dont-necessarily-need-religion-an-interview-with-cara-ellison/ or any of the other articles that might super underline she has WP importance. Ogress _smash! 19:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

AfD: Stop Bild Sexism

There is currently a discussion on whether to delete Stop Bild Sexism. Link to discussion. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 11:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:THREATENING2MEN: Misogynist Infopolitics and the Hegemony of the Asshole Consensus on English Wikipedia

Just making sure you've all seen this article in the Signpost by Thebrycepeake, first published in Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media, and Technology in April. He describes some of the effects of sexism on Wikipedia – the inadvertent and the deliberate – very accurately. It's a long piece but worth reading to the end. Sarah ^(talk) 17:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I had not but now I am doing a little dance of glee, holy cow. Ogress _smash! 21:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ogress, he really nailed it. Many thanks to the Signpost's editors, Gamaliel and Go Phightins!, for publishing it. Sarah ^(talk) 01:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin, Gamaliel, and Go Phightins!: Gott im wHimmel, just - as usual - don't read the comments. Christ. Ogress _smash! 02:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Ogress, yes, the comments always have to be avoided. :) I'm really hoping this article will make a difference, in that it may cause a few lightbulbs to go off. Sarah ^(talk) 02:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

SlimVirgin So far it's howling outrage and misogyny. Ogress _smash! 02:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

If lightbulbs are what you are after, a good strategy is to not open by addressing your target audience with "First of all, you are all implicated in a misogynistic hegemony of assholes." As rhetorical techniques go, there are better ones.

On a mostly unrelated note, the author's usage of "misogyny" doesn't appear in our article on the term, and I've never heard it used in this weak sense before. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Sammy1339 You know what? We are implicated in a misogynistic hegemony of assholes. Including me and you and everyone else. It's called structural inequality and it's basic theory. What usage of misogyny is that? Ogress _smash! 15:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Most people overestimate the political relevance of reality.

Re "misogyny", he writes "... misogyny is the use of [male privilege] in acts of domination." --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Politically speaking, reality is overrated... what? And how is "the use of male privilege in acts of domination" not a definition of misogyny? Are you saying misogyny is only "hating women" and full stop? Ogress _smash! 18:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if that was too cryptic. I meant that regardless of what's actually going on, this paper, because of its hostile tone, is not likely to win hearts and minds. I don't think it was written for the purpose of converting sexists, though, and it was interesting for other reasons.

Re misogyny, I was wondering if this academic sense of the word is used elsewhere. And yes, I have always understood it to mean "hating women", and to be distinct from sexism or male chauvinism, which seem to be close to the way he's using it. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Sammy, a good overview is David D. Gilmore, Misogyny: The Male Malady, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009 [2001]. Sarah ^(talk) 18:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The preface, part of the introduction, and 11 pages of Chapter 10 (Gynophilia) are available on Google Books. There are some useful cites to male genital cutting there, including sub-incision, which I had been looking for references to for some time. There is a copy on Alibris for about £6, I suppose that's $10, but its in the US.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 07:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC).

worldcat.org should show you the nearest library where you can find this book. Interlibrary loan is an option, though I know many places in the UK charge for that, which astonishes this US librarian. Gamaliel (talk) 12:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Once upon a time you just had to pay for the stamp for the postcard to tell you the book had arrived - but they took a long time and sometimes they had to be returned very quickly. Currently for most books, unless you happen to live near a really good library and can gain access - its cheaper to buy than get an ILL. If the book is not held by the library system (local authority) it costs £4.50 to borrow it. There is only one copy in a local authority public library in the UK as far as I can see. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC).

Ogress, I mentioned to Peake via email that I noticed a similar dynamic to the one mentioned in the paper where he received private support but editors were unwilling to support him publicly. We've received a lot of positive feedback regarding this article via private channels and other talk pages, but the talk page of the article itself is dominated by negative voices. Gamaliel (talk) 12:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Did this guy ask for help anywhere when he was having trouble keeping the information about campus sexual assaults in those articles? I would have helped with my input if I had known about it. I suspect one of the reasons the admins went delete-happy on him is because he was a newbie account. Cla68 (talk) 00:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't get your hopes up. His proposed solution amounts to "Rip all the policies up and make new ones." Not because the substance of the existing policies is at fault in any way, but because the way they are currently used enforces male hegemony and changing them would shake up people's thinking. If there's no inherent problem in the current policies, what makes him think that other policies will be used in any other way? GoldenRing (talk) 11:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

WikiConference USA 2015, Washington, D.C.

A reminder that scholarships for this are available, and that applications close on 31 August, in case anyone would like to apply. Details here. Sarah ^(talk) 20:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

"How to be a feminist"

There's an interesting discussion here, held as part of All About Women at the Sydney Opera House in March. Given how often we've discussed on WP what it means to be a feminist, I thought people here might like to watch it. The panel consists of Clementine Ford, Celeste Liddle, Roxane Gay, Tara Moss, Anita Sarkeesian and Germaine Greer. Chaired by Geraldine Doogue. Sarah ^(talk) 18:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Enough respect to go around

Can we explore ideas for changing the culture towards distributing "respect" (in a general sense)? If somebody decides to become a serious Wikipedian, the first month or so after joining is often quite traumatic. You get hit by a load of policies that you have to master, fight patronisation from experienced editors, figure out who is who among them, overcome the hurt of getting your edits reverted and figuring out how to find reliable sources, in addition to the basic mechanics of how to edit, how to write talk page messages properly etc. etc. Helping hands are needed.

• There are welcome messages, but I am surprised how many experienced editors don't bother to give them, even admins. (I have to my credit 640 user talk pages created as per XTOOLS, all of which would have been welcome messages. Plus there might have been around 100 or so other users who never got welcome messages, sometimes even after years.) Twinkle tells us when a user needs a welcome message, but most editors probably ignore it. We should try and make it a rule that the first message a user gets is a welcome message, not a warning. Or, perhaps, Twinkle can alert us when we try to give a warning or even automatically convert a warning into a welcome message.
• There are also thanks notes, which are quite easy to give, and immediately bring up red flags on the recipient banner bar. How can we get users to use it more?
• WikiLove is also nice, but it seems a bit to hard to use. One has to wade through a whole bunch of WP pages to find the right one. Some WikiLove can be added to Twinkle, and we can make templates that make it easy to find WikiLove messages.
• As users get experienced, and pass through milestones, they are left to themselves. But we can have bots that post congratulatory messages on their talk pages, as well as try to induct them into higher-level tasks of the Wikipedia community like, for example, thinking about gender bias, putting them in touch with WikiProjects, getting them to read SIGNPOST or whatever. We could come up with levels of awareness we expect from users as they "promoted" from one level to the next.
• Experienced editors need respect too. Recently, I ended up having to tell a newbie editor not to brush off suggestions from an experienced editor who has more than 10 good articles to his credit. The newbie didn't listen. There is in fact a growing backlash against experienced editors (as seen in Liz's RfA run recently) and little groups of newbie editors trying to gang up against the experienced ones. We can say the experienced editors know enough to fend for themselves. True, but can we also say that such backlash won't affect their own reactions against other newbie editors?

Most of this doesn't have anything specifically to do with women editors. But I think that is its virtue. Making the place more welcoming and respectful is definitely the first thing we need to do to retain women editors. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Happy Women's Equality Day!

Everybody should celebrate this day. It may technically apply only to women in the United States, as it celebrates the 95th anniversary of of the certification of the 19th amendment to the US Constitution (women's right to vote), but everybody should celebrate it. It does apply to Wikipedia, if you simply refuse to accept unequal treatment.

There is something special to celebrate this year. "Harassment of an editor on the basis of race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, religion, age or disability is not allowed." (WP:Harassment)

It may only be a half-step, but it is a half-step in the right direction.

Sincerely,

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, although having the right to vote is not the same thing as having legally-protected equal rights. Not that receiving the right to vote isn't worth celebrating - it's definitely an achievement and deserves recognition for its own sake. I agree that the changes to WP:HARASSMENT are a step in the right direction. Ca2james (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Women of color were still denied the right to vote long after the 19th Amendment too... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe the US system bars prisoners and in some states felons from voting, which discriminates against some ethnic groups among other things. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC).

Incivility

I find it very disappointing that people are "doing a little dance" when the community are referred to as "Assholes". It appears that the acceptability of behaviour is dependent only on whether the actor is one of "us" or one of "them".

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 05:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC).

Every single Wikipedia editor is "them", including me, the person you are talking about (I did the little dance above.) There is no "us" to laugh at the "them".

No, I'm doing a dance because this dude did the research and wrote the article that threw down in detail the actual problems we have as Wikipedia. We. There is no outside. He is not even outside. We are all part of the asshole culture. I suffer from the asshole culture but I am also a participant, as is every editor. There's no free pass just because you identify as a woman. He discusses that in the essay. And engaging in misogyny is, as the article tries to point out, unavoidable unless we recognise and make changes to our collective behavior.

You are misreading this as incivility. No. Incivility is the culture that he's discussing in his essay. Right now it's baked into how Wikipedia works, how every editor works.

And you know what? The community is assholes. It really, really is. It's so unpleasant. It's grinding and relentless. I've watched women leave Wikipedia because of it. I've seen women forced off Wikipedia because of it. The other day, someone very active in a project dedicated specifically to countering the lack of articles about women mocked me because I mentioned an editor said she left Wikipedia because of sexism while suggesting we should pick up a draft of hers and run with it. He directly suggested I was a sockpuppet of Evergreen because of something someone else said that I was quoting.

So yeah, we're in an asshole culture and sexism really happens and sometimes it's blatant and sometimes it's by women and most often it's subconscious and systemic. He said it, he wrote a peer-reviewed article about it, and it got in the Signpost and I'm doing a dance about it because maybe something will change now that we're talking about it. Ogress _smash! 05:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we are an "asshole culture". Even if we are, it solves nothing and only serves to exacerbate the situation to call it that. You may not be aware of the several year long flame war due to an editor saying "If you don't want to be called a cunt don't act like a cunt". I thought that was a stupid thing to say, as did most of the community. It appears, though, that you are saying the same thing. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 06:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC).

As I was informed some time ago, "If you don't like something, but the majority are fine with it, you don't go around changing it. That's selfish ... For a minority to impose their will on the majority is selfish and inconsiderate". Good luck explaining second-generation gender bias to that kind of "asshole". Alakzi (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I read your link and another that was posted on the article page. Oh geeze, where will this all end when the phrase "give them enough rope..." could "certainly be viewed as harassment, and as an attempt to signal that African Americans are not welcome" (Djembayz), and to mention drinking beer creates a locker room atmosphere? Gandydancer (talk) 12:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Gandydancer, it wasn't just about drinking beer. It was a comment about having a beer before watching a video of a rape reenactment. And when a woman objected to the atmosphere on the page she was told to watch her mouth. Sarah ^(talk) 20:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

You're saying it appeared to some observers as if Bus stop were suggesting they might enjoy the video as entertainment? I remember watching the page at the time (here) and that whole exchange went over my head. I thought A21sauce was a little nuts, and was offended because beer is a "masculine" drink. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Sammy, the editor who posted the comment meant no harm, but it was a locker-room comment. There's a sex tape to watch – have a beer before watching it. There had been previous comments too; it didn't stand alone. When a woman objected, she was told (by someone else) to watch her mouth and that she had a problem with men. Then someone else pointed out that the complainant was "a female," which emphasized that being male was the default on that page. That kind of atmosphere had been prevalent on that page for some time, and admins hadn't stepped it because no one thinks to do that on WP. That's the problem. We're expected to tolerate it, and complaints are taken seriously only when it gets very bad. Sarah ^(talk) 00:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

ThanksSarah. And right there, Sammy1339, how do you get from the "whole exchange went over my head" to "I thought A21sauce was a little nuts"? Isn't there a point where you could wonder instead of drawing a conclusion because you don't understand? My drinking preference is not stated anywhere. It's the atmosphere on that page that you and Bus stop think is fun and funny but pretty clueless in context.--A21sauce (talk) 02:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@A21sauce: I just couldn't figure out what was going on, and because I didn't get it the vitriol of your reaction seemed bizarrely out of place. It was offensive and inappropriate that you were referred to as "a female", although in fairness this was in response to you very derisively referring to the two of them as "bros". I think Bus stop obviously didn't mean for that comment to be understood the way you interpreted it. There is nothing fun or funny about that page, though, and I don't know what I could possibly have done to indicate to you that I've ever been amused by anything that happened there. I didn't participate in the conversation in question. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the humor started to emerge big time when Mandruss said: "This is a big mess, it's mostly my fault, and I sincerely apologize." At that point I was probably laughing like a hyena. I tried to comfort him but there was really nothing I could say.[2] Bus stop (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, no, using a sexist slur is specifically not what I'm doing. "[I]t solves nothing and only serves to exacerbate the situation". Also, I literally dropped my jaw when you said "I don't think we have an asshole culture" did you read that article, have you never had a conversation with a woman editor? Listen, we've got like 10, maybe 15 percent women and when Ada Project tries to run wikimediathons to sign up new editors, there is actual backlash. An experienced, reliable editor I've known for a while (I've been here since 2004) had a conversation on their talk page wherein they stated that every person signed up should be considered meatpuppets pushing a political philosophy and treated as such for the purposes of closings.

I got in a recent tiff because an editor had been single-purpose accounting about a particular religious movement in Buddhism for three months, improving an existing article, and I tagged the current page weasel, peacock. He responded ... badly, I'd characterise it, and demanded evidence, so I said he was obviously an adherent and it just sounded very hagiographical but otherwise was good work, you know we have to say things from a neutral point of view when it comes to religious dogma. He responded ... badly again and demanded an example of any demonstrable bias in his writing. So I mentioned that not a single woman was mentioned in the article. The 35k-character article with 47 solid, reliable sources on a prominent Buddhist religious movement never mentions women at any point. (I've read a relatively popular book about a woman who lived as a renunciate within this tradition, for heaven's sake.) He then proceeded to yell about how unfair women were to demand x and y, going into remarkable detail about women practitioners in the tradition and serious crises of authority and gender within the teachings at some length, thus demonstrating he just didn't want to write about women, forgot about women, or whatever. Who cares, the end result is the equivalent of "women in red", except they're not in red, they're not even mentioned.

And the Arbcom discussion about Caitlyn Jenner was a travesty; if it didn't disclose the thunderous transmisogyny on Wikipedia, I don't know what will. Actual trans women talking were shouted down, harassed, dismissed, had to listen to people call trans folk "it" and "perverts" and "biological confusions" and had their concerns dismissed as "well you are trans so your opinion is biased" over and over and over.

In short, I think you are tone policing a very visible callout about very visible behavior and it's ridiculous in the face of the rampant sexism (and racism, and transmisogyny) that has driven women (and men, and nonbinary folk) away from Wikipedia. And if you don't see it, maybe you should listen to the people who do experience it all the time. I'm sorry you don't like it, but you know what? I don't like it either. Ogress _smash! 17:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

To add an alternate POV, I've not seen the rampant sexism and racism that Ogress has seen. Sure, certain news events do bring a flood of every sort of "asshole" that there is to our articles and there are a group of sexist, racist, and other bigots that regularly contribute, but for the most part I have found that our editors are extremely fair minded. I love Wikipedia, I honor Jimbo for his revolutionary idea to start an information source free for all, and I have learned and contributed a great deal here. If I really thought that people here were just a bunch of assholes, I think I'd decide that this place is not for me. 19:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I've not seen it either, quite the opposite but I'm sure that if it's said often enough some people will believe it. I'm not surprised the editor on the Buddhist article was annoyed, if you want to add information from another perspective, it's up to you to do it, not demand others do it. When male editors disagree with you it is not misogyny, nor is it incivility but unfortunately that's how it's characterised by editors with an agenda. I'm not in favour of groups of editors demanding special treatment or indeed editors attempting to push their political agenda. J3Mrs (talk) 08:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I think this kind of debate is not very productive. It seems to be an established fact that women left Wikipedia in droves over the last decade. And, the women that are left complain that they face sexism, harassment, hostility etc. So we shouldn't be arguing "I am ok, you are ok," but rather be making an effort to understand what is going on and explore ideas for making women feel more welcome. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I would second Kautilya's comment. Until somebody comes up with a better explanation for why the site is massively male dominated, I for one am going to base my actions on the idea that sexism and harassment are pervasive. And for those people who will start screaming "civility police!"; this is not about civility for its own sake. It is simply that if we want to build a comprehensive and reliable encyclopedia, the editor population needs to reflect the general population at least to a first approximation. Our coverage is skewed; and our content is skewed; there's no arguing with either of these facts. The most simple explanation is that one is causing the other. If we want to improve the 'pedia, we need to make female editors (among others!) feel more welcome. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I can't see the point of arguments that say "I can't see sexism; therefore it doesn't exist." We know that there are people who don't see it, and there are others who do see it but don't care, and others again who are doing it on purpose. The question is how to reduce it. Sarah ^(talk) 20:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. Where is it established that women are leaving in droves? Where is all this rampant harassment and hostility? These sweeping statements are not based on fact. Nobody knows how many women there are so how does anybody know they left? I want to build the encyclopedia too and I do that by adding content not demanding that somebody else does. J3Mrs (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Gandydancer: If I really thought that people here were just a bunch of assholes, I think I'd decide that this place is not for me.

Somebody should put that on a plaque.

I have seen behavior I suspect to be driven by sexism on Wikipedia, and nobody can reasonably deny that it exists. However, given the magnitude of the gender gap, and the fact that gender on Wikipedia is usually anonymous, it's implausible that it's the main driver of the problem. Rather, there's something about the culture of Wikipedia that is less welcoming to women than it is to men. I don't think it's hard to see what that is.

There's an interesting essay by Roy Baumeister called Is There Anything Good About Men? wherein he discusses certain universal aspects of gender roles. I'm skeptical of a lot of what he says (particularly the normative claims) but the broad strokes of it are undeniable. Basically, girls are socialized into relatively safe environments, where risks are low, opportunities are limited, emotional support is available, and they can expect at least some degree of respect - meanwhile, boys are told that nothing is guaranteed and everything is possible; they are told to be distant and repress their emotions, and that they have little or no worth until they prove themselves somehow. In his words, "All-male groups tend to be marked by putdowns and other practices that remind everybody that there is not enough respect to go around."

Wikipedia's culture is one where there is not enough respect to go around. For starters, look at what happens to new users: a few missteps, and hellfire rains down forthwith, in the form of three reverts, two templates, and a block. No attempt is made to afford them any sort of dignity. If you don't have a username and fifty edits, you're not even a person. Beyond that, there is a completely impersonal, combative atmosphere, where "consensus" is formed, not by calm discussion aimed at persuading a person with whom you have some disagreement (usually a minor one - we fight over all sorts of little things), but by a sort of abstract pissing contest wherein the goal often is to make one's opponent look stupid to the third person who will wander over and create the "consensus." And why do we cite policy so much? Partly it's so we can fall back on a familiar argument that the third party is more likely to easily take to without real thought, but partly it's to establish that we are valid members of the community because we know the arcana - it's a way of announcing seniority and demanding respect.

I think it often happens that women on the site perceive that they are being "harassed" just because they are subjected to a never-ending barrage of brutal criticism, accusations of various types of misconduct, and high-and-mighty declarations of authority. And the men doing this think they are having a conversation.

Of course there is sexism on Wikipedia, because there's sexism everywhere. But I hope we won't make the mistake of assuming that this is the root of the problem, because that might stop us from doing some of the very possible things we can do to change this harsh, impersonal culture. Mainly by ensuring there's more human interaction between editors, more "wikilove", and more recognition of the difference between argument and aggression. Since things won't change overnight, we also have to make sure people understand that editors who seem to be persecuting them may merely be challenging them to a very unfriendly battle of wits: there needs to be a better guide somewhere to functioning within the asshole hegemony. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Sammy, you make some excellent points. Male attitudes are the default because men are, and the women who function here successfully are expected to go along with it. Some genuinely don't notice or don't mind; those of us who do are "militant feminists." But what it often boils down to is exactly what you've written above. Sarah ^(talk) 00:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. I agree with both Sammy and Sarah. Gandydancer (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

comments about comments about comments about beer

No, "Bus stop" was not at all suggesting anything remotely like watching a porn video while drinking a beer. I am "Bus stop" and it would be my pleasure to reveal all pertinent facts relating to my mindset and motivations for everything I said. It is "Reveal All" time. Are you all ready for me to take off my psychological clothes? Please consider me specimen number 1A. If any of you need to open my head and splay my brains out for examination I will consider it to be in the interests of science. Now I lost my train of thought. Where was I? Bus stop (talk) 01:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC) How can one not characterize Bus stop here as a "little nuts"? Three lines to get to the point: You don't win anyone to your side with the amount of self-love you display, man.--A21sauce (talk) 02:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC) A21sauce—I laugh at every possible opportunity. In my opinion there are too few opportunities to laugh. Bus stop (talk) 02:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm very happy that there's some agreement about this. As the above beer scandal demonstrates, there are aspects of this problem where not everyone is likely to see eye to eye. However, if we can agree that we can take a chunk out of the gender gap by changing certain aspects of Wikipedia's "masculine" culture, that may give us a path to some progress. Nobody on any side of these issues should have a problem with the idea of making Wikipedia a friendlier, less combative place. With that in mind I'll throw out some ambitious ideas, particularly with a mind to changing how new users are received.

• Changing the rules for applying article templates. Tags are grossly overused. They come across as aggressive and have a negative effect on article development, rarely serving the constructive purpose they were intended for. I would like to propose a policy saying that, except in extreme cases, articles should only be tagged after both discussion on the talk page and good faith efforts to correct the issues by editing the article. Furthermore, the burden of consensus should rest on those who want to keep the tags up, so that tags cannot be used as a bargaining chip in disputes.
• Have a guideline discouraging non-constructive pugnacious behavior. The guideline should explicitly tell editors not to simply go to talk pages and say "no, you can't do this," but rather make a commitment to familiarizing themselves with the article's content and sources and use this knowledge to offer non-trivial suggestions. If our priority is the development of quality content, we need to acknowledge that people who demonstrate content knowledge and actively improve articles are entitled to a bigger piece of the consensus pie, much the same as we ignore the opinions of editors who make incoherent or non-policy-based arguments. (By not having such a rule, we value knowledge of policy over knowledge of article subject matter, which is not only unfair to new editors, but is an obstacle to creating quality articles.) My hope is that this guideline may gradually change the pugnacious nature of talk pages as editors are incentivized to collaborate constructively and civilly rather than producing lots of criticism and no helpful ideas of their own.
• Changing the responsibilities of new page patrollers. Currently, the new pages feed is a game of whack-a-mole, where the goal is to nominate new articles for speedy deletion faster than the other guy. Articles that can't be deleted are instead bombarded with templates. I propose to restrict access to Special:NewPagesFeed, and require designated new page patrollers to make a serious effort at helping and welcoming good faith newcomers. Instead of just marking articles as "reviewed", they should have the responsibility commenting on the new users' talk pages thanking them for their contributions (using their own words, not just templates) and inviting them to the teahouse and whatnot. This shouldn't be required for every new page, but they should have to agree to do this for a reasonable number of pages in proportion to how many they nominate for deletion. Furthermore, they should agree to collaborate in a helpful way with new users on pages that have problems, instead of spamming tags.
• Create less-threatening userpage templates. Getting templated feels a lot like being served papers, and have you noticed that the nicer ways of bringing issues to people's attention, like ... writing words ... are for the most part reserved for respected experienced users? Since templating someone usually involves criticizing them for spending hours working for free for the WMF, we should bend over backwards to make these messages seem as light-hearted as possible. Except in the most serious cases, it should feel more like a poke in the ribs than a hand in the face. We should have templates that make completely goofy references to that "wiki-humor" that's piled up in the back somewhere. It might foster a more collegial environment to suggest that someone might be a "wiki-imp" than that he is disruptive, but only at level 1.
• Scale back the language of WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. The severe impersonality of Wikipedia makes users less likely to treat each other like people. Allowing editors to have a lot more non-editing interaction can serve to humanize them. If some people use the site like Myspace, so be it. People will be more comfortable here if they can make friends and express themselves. Banning chit-chat makes everyone a stranger and a potential enemy. Allowing it can foster an environment where editors may value each other more - which, according to Baumeister, is a characteristic of not-all-male groups. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Very thoughtful comments. But let me quibble. You say: "… we need to acknowledge that people who demonstrate content knowledge and actively improve articles are entitled to a bigger piece of the consensus pie ..." I think this can have unintended consequences. Couldn't this tend to legitimize ownership? I would say this: People need to be loquacious. Those who hold back on speech are a problem in and of themselves. Those with "content knowledge" are not exempt from a requirement to explain themselves. Sometimes they may have to repeat themselves. Sometimes they may have to find a new way of explaining a point. Bus stop (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware that point is likely to be the most contentious. However it's the only one which addresses the concern Thebrycepeake had when he wrote this:

The expertise of Wikipedians on all things Wikipedia trumped any other form of expertise in knowledge production—such that knowledge about (and research on) campus sexual violence and its effects was never the real subject of debate. Instead, where Wikipedians are unable to compete on the terrain of facts and content expertise, they turn to hermeneutic arguments through a near infinite, always self referencing, system of WP:<POLICY>. To paraphrase Bruno Latour, these lawyeristic maneuvers are the most effective weapons for individuals who do not know very much about facts, as they allow Wikipedia editors to replace expertise about subject matter with expertise about Wikipedia's rules. The image of Wikipedia I describe in my article, through empirical grounding in my work writing campus sexual violence into Wikipedia, is a space where the primary focus is on the mastery of policy as a tool for domination – and not on the production of, or debates about, verifiable facts and actually existing knowledge.

To change this, we need to establish that content knowledge has value in debates. The policy I have in mind is sure to be argued about to a tremendous extent, but I think this debate might be necessary. The ideal should be that everybody involved in a heated dispute is expected to contribute both to the talk page and to the article. The views of those who can't or won't make an attempt at substantial contributions or compromises should have their views devalued, although if several such people agree against a single OWNER they should still get their way. This could give people who feel pressured to bow to the "asshole consensus" a way out: instead of saying "well, it's 4 to 3 and this is what we have to do," they should have the ability to take into account who's being constructive and compromising and developing the article, and who's just making policy-heavy noise. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I will try to explain the benefit, as I see it, of talkativeness. There is a type of editor that mentions policy a lot. If Wikipedia had no policy such an editor would have no choice but to discuss the substance of the discussion. I recognize, as you do too, and of course as Thebrycepeake does, that there is also another type of editor that has a good grasp of a subject under discussion. This second sort of editor may speak of policy but importantly speaks about the actual topic of discussion. In my first post, which I deleted, I did not try to address the benefits of free-flowing dialogue among editors. This free-flowing dialogue would tend to partake more of the topic of discussion than Wikipedia policies. While there is beautiful logic in Wikipedia policies, the more expansive area I think is the topic of the discussion. Policies don't exist in a vacuum; the best of policies must be properly applied. And the pleasure of editing and its meaningfulness is tied to an actual topic of an article. I think the nature of an argument becomes more clear as its actual substance is discussed. Hence I feel that we can't have editors holding back their own ability to speak. Policy is a less expansive area and some editors can create the impression that they are being open and engaging in dialogue when all they are doing is manipulating the logic of policies. Such an editor must put down the policy manual at times and discuss the topic. Bus stop (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Sounds great in theory, but two problems in practice:

1. Referring to policy is often an excellent shield against hurt feelings. You think a user's feelings are hurt now when they are told "Unfortunately, your aunt Jane's blog is not a Wikipedia:Reliable source, so we'll need one of those - for example a book from a major publisher, a mainstream newspaper...", just wait until you can't hide behind that policy and have to discuss the substance: "Unfortunately, your aunt Jane is a crank, a liar, and/or a fraud."

2. Subject matter experts and excellent, prolific article writers include many of the worst offenders on the incivility front. If you think about it, you'll realize why it has to be this way - people who aren't involved in the substance of an issue have less at stake, so have an easier time keeping their temper when they disagree with you. People that genuinely care about the subject will explain to you in great detail your mental, physical and emotional handicaps, and, for no extra charge, will throw in a treatise on the intimate relations that your last three generations of ancestors must have had with their household pets. --GRuban (talk) 01:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Incivility is a separate problem. And certainly policy has its usefulness. But there comes a point in a discussion at which disagreeing parties should try their hand at a discussing topic without reference to policy. This does not rule out mindfulness of policy. Bus stop (talk) 01:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

General note: I just read a lot of this talk page & archives for the first time, and I'm very impressed. There are a lot of very intelligent people here thinking excellent thoughts. I feel hopeful that WP problems I've considered intractable could well be changed. General kudos.

@GRuban:

1. That's a good point, but I think we can often find other substantial ways of addressing the problem of auntjane.blogspot.com. Depending on the situation:

• "Your aunt Jane has interesting ideas, but my brother's blog disagrees with her, and it wouldn't be fair to include one perspective but not the other. You can probably see that my brother's blog isn't worth including, because as far as we know he's just making stuff up; unfortunately, the same reasoning applies to your aunt."
• "Your aunt Jane has interesting ideas, but it would be more helpful to our readers to use [this textbook] as a source instead. People are more likely to want to refer to an overview of professional scholars' opinions on this than your aunt's opinion, because the scholars' opinions represent centuries of carefully gathering knowledge, and your aunt's blog can only represent one person's personal wisdom."
• "Your aunt Jane has interesting ideas, but so do lots of people—people are really interesting, by and large. On Wikipedia, we have the opportunity to select only the very best ideas, and the fairest way to pick those ideas is by looking in sources which have lots of knowledgeable people working on them. Published books or mainstream newspapers, for example, generally have teams of dozens of skilled people who check facts, organize publishing contracts and distribution, run printing presses, and so on; that's a big vote of confidence in the ideas they print. Unfortunately, your aunt Jane's ideas haven't yet had that kind of recognition.

Certainly there's a time and place for citing policy, but that doesn't mean it's always the least hurtful way of discussing a particular issue. The models above do require more effort and, yes, respect on the explainer's part, but they also do a much better job of explaining the lofty goals of WP along the way. It can't hurt for relatively experienced editors to remind ourselves of those goals, either.

2. I've seen plenty of uncivil content contributors, but I don't see why that's inevitable. On the contrary, I think ad hominem attacks are often a panicky substitute for the kind of refutation that comes much more easily to subject experts: a quick list, from memory, of reliable sources explaining with cogence and evidence why the objection in question is misguided. As WP:Unblockable details, the community tolerates a lot from major content contributors, and I think that's the bigger factor contributing to expert incivility.

This needs a great deal of discussion and research and thought (forgive me if I'm overlooking it in the archives), but in general we need a major discussion on the costs and benefits of giving great content contributors special treatment, especially when it comes to incivility. There's tradition and reason making the argument that content trumps everything, even welcomingness (eg WP:READER), but we need to figure out how to make the counterargument that driving newbies off is detrimental to content in the long term. FourViolas (talk) 04:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Unskewing coverage drive

This thought just struck me, and I thought I'd share it and see what people's responses were. There is a lot of discussion on this page about improving behavioral guidelines, and changing the tone of discussion. While this is important, it does tend to rub a lot of people the wrong way. What if we tried to focus on the other end of the problem, that of skewed content. There are drives of various kinds at GOCE, GAN, AFC, and other places. Why not one here as well? One could create a list of articles about women which are in need of improvement, and offer barnstars to users who undertake this, for a certain time period. Surely nobody could object to this? Perhaps such an idea has been proposed before, I don't want to read through the archives, but I'd like to hear thoughts on this. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

There is already Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/open_tasks#Women_and_women.27s_studies. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Also the entire WP:Women in Red. Ogress _smash! 01:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I was aware of the open tasks list. I was not aware of the Women in Red; thanks for pointing that out! I think there's still some potential in my proposal, though, because it would be a way to attract people who do not usually participate in this areaVanamonde93 (talk) 01:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I like this idea. Maybe its redundant to create a new list, but I will say that I hadn't ever come across the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/open_tasks#Women_and_women.27s_studies article until now. Admittedly, it could be a newbie mistake on my part!

The best Wikipedia articles seem to get that way because they have a critical mass of engaged editors who are committed to producing quality content. The behavioral guidelines can help, but, I find people engage in fairly egregious violations of the existing rules on pages where they believe only a couple of people who are paying attention. Simply having more eyes and more voices on a topic tends to make a big difference in the way people conduct themselves. Nblund (talk) 02:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I have to say, though, that while writing more articles on notable women is a good thing to do, it won't alter the enormous, mostly invisible consequences of having a 90% male editorship. Some of my suggestions above might be a little naïve, but if anything can be done about the problem it will have to be done through policy reforms aimed at affecting the culture of Wikipedia. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Sammy1339, I don't disagree. This idea, even if successful, could only address part of the problem. But it could address it in a way that doesn't have the opponents of this task force kicking and screaming. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Existing policies on behavior are only spottily enforced. What can one do about that other than acknowledge it? I think behavior, evidenced by verbalizations on a Talk page, would change if the likelihood of sanctions were higher for unambiguous incivility. In other words, if you don't pay attention to the way you speak, your activity on Wikipedia will be curtailed. I personally would find it a more pleasant environment if everyone minded their p's and q's. Bus stop (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure, that would be nice. But in my experience the most ruthless verbalizations come in a perfectly "civil" manner just filled with pleases and thank yous and smiles and have a good days, etc. For example:

Dancer’s comments throughout contain a distinct tone of fussing, griping, grumbling, bickering, protesting, agitating, and finger-wagging. Behavior like that is not good; more particularly, it’s not good for use during an open-minded discussion of competing ideas at the Wikipedia or anywhere else. May we please keep this on an unemotional level without unkind personal implications? If anyone wishes to discuss any of my explanations, please feel free to do so; I’ll gladly take part in a cordial, congenial, respectful, businesslike conversation. In contrast with that, if anyone else wishes to make smart-mouthed, sarcastic, or otherwise ugly remarks, including juvenile comments or personal insults, please dump your trash elsewhere. [Unfortunately there seems to be a high rate of incidence of such antisocial behavior on the talk pages of the Wikipedia.] In any event, as always, best wishes to all,xxx (talk page To Kill a Mockingbird where I argued about a number of changes to a FA article) Gandydancer (talk) 19:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

That's certainly an over-the-top example of using multiple adjectives when one would suffice! Unfortunately, as you point out, putting things into a more "polite" form of speech doesn't magically make conflicts disappear. On the other hand, the remark above, no matter how unwelcome or inappropriate, does not immediately suggest it might be time to move house, sign off the Internet, change your name, change your phone number, buy a large dog ... etc. in order to avoid unwanted contact from the person who made it. The same sentiments expressed with non-polite language, vulgarities, sexual terminology, or metaphors involving violence would be considerably more intimidating. --Djembayz (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, Back to the unskewing coverage drive. If this is your interest, in addition to working with the existing projects that are aimed at improving coverage of women (see Departments of WikiProject Women), you might consider using listings like Cleanup listing for WikiProject Women's History as a base to work from. It breaks down tasks, and gives you a weekly update on your progress. You could request a bot listing like this for other women's topics if you wish. The challenge with WikiProjects is strengthening the existing projects and networks and getting synergy to happen for new initiatives, because what tends to happen here is starting lots of new things that quickly go inactive.

Since this is a volunteer-driven project, asking people to switch their interests doesn't necessarily work. More specifically, if people are reading these pages because they have concerns about behavioral norms, they aren't necessarily going to want to move to some other avenue of volunteering instead. Some of us have expressed concerns in person that we are being told that we should sit down, be quiet, and only edit female biographies, which isn't necessarily our intellectual interest, and probably won't help resolve harassment problems. (This is a bit like the questions that came up in the early years of ethnic studies-- some members of an ethnic group will want to serve their community by studying to become professionals serving their community, rather than by studying to become subject experts on the ethnic group itself.)

Nonetheless, you have certainly found a way to get in touch with others who share your interests by posting here! It's fine if you don't want to read through the archives. (That geek culture "obligation to know" and read all the archives is something that makes it unnecessarily difficult for new people!) So I hope you will enjoy participating in gender-related topics on the site, whatever your piece of this may turn out to be. You might even have other creative ideas, like a content development recruitment banner we could display on this page. Following the links in the Departments of WikiProject Women infobox and looking around should eventually get you a starting point for what you're looking for.--Djembayz (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

What does it take to get this implemented?

(cross-posted from User talk:Jimbo Wales)

The fact that there is no way to confidentially report sexual harassment says a lot about the values of this organization. Currently, editors are urged to report to a largely anonymous group at Arbcom, which is all male except for one person, does not take phone calls, has had leaked e-mails in the past, and is not necessarily sympathetic to people who prefer a non-hostile working environment. Creating a confidential reporting channel for sexual harassment, which includes the option of speaking on the telephone with someone of your own gender, and where the person responding has signed a binding non-disclosure agreement with regards to confidential and personal information, would be a step forward. --Djembayz (talk) 14:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Djembayz:

Ok, you want to get a person who will answer sexual harassment complaints. What will it take to get there?

• First you've got to think of the actual $ cost - In San Francisco, one person with backup for sick days and vacations, health insurance, office space, etc. might run up to $250,000 per year. This is clearly possible for the WMF. I don't see any way EN Wikipedia could do it.
• Why would the WMF get involved? Well they dedicated themselves to a goal of 25% women editors a couple of years ago. Last year Jimbo said that they had totally failed to reach their goals on this. Wikipedia does have a reputation as a male dominated website, but is seen as flailing about trying to do something about it. I think they are ready to do something, even if the cost would be a couple of million. But what they need is a plan and a reason to move forward *now*
• So what does it take to get the WMF off its butts? Perhaps a petition with 100 signers? I'll ask Jimbo Wales to weigh in on this. Jimbo, what would it take to get a proposal like this in front of the WMF board with a good chance of passing?

If it is just 100 signers on a petition, that should be easy, piece of cake, on your desk on Tuesday morning. I think what you really need is just a couple hundred angry women saying "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore." Hasn't ArbCom and a few others already provided you with this on a silver platter? Time to get to work, plan it, organize it, and just get it done.

I hope this helps.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I suggested something similar to deal with all gender based complaints during LB's arb case. Personal I think a committee of volunteers would be more feasible but age WMF needs some sort of liaison. Such a thing would need to go through village pump though if it's a committee. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 13:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

BTW, the discussion continues at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#What_does_it_take_to_get_this_implemented.3F and I don't think we need to replicate the general discussion here. I'll suggest that the discussion here should be on what to implement: solid plans to have a way to confidentially report sexual harassment. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

How would a "committee of volunteers" differ from a "largely anonymous group at Arbcom"? Harassment should be dealt with by the WMF not anonymous editors on the internet. J3Mrs (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• "... which is all male except for one person, ..." - I thought there are two women who are arbitrators? SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• Sagaciousphil, I'm only aware of one woman on ArbCom, GorillaWarfare.

I agree that we need an expert, someone hired from outside Wikimedia so that they bring a fresh perspective. I've posted about that on Philippe's page (this thread; search for "Thank you, Philippe, that's good to hear"). I've also suggested it to someone from the board of trustees. Smallbones, my idea was to make a formal proposal to the board. Is that the best way forward, or would a petition be more effective? Or an open letter to the Foundation? Sarah ^(talk) 17:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Smallbones, you wrote elsewhere that women should lead on this, but that puts the onus on a very small number of people. It isn't women who are causing this, so I would hope that male allies would help, and that includes taking the lead if any of you have good ideas or time. Sarah ^(talk) 17:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Editors who do not identify as female were asked to step back to allow female editors to lead, so it may be fruitful for any initiatives to be driven by editors identifying as female. isaacl (talk) 23:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• Try DeltaQuad - it looks to me as if she identifies as female. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Sarah That's a very sweeping statement to say that women don't harass other editors, but like anything else on Wikipedia, if you say it often enough, people believe it. J3Mrs (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

J3Mrs, I think the remark above was referring to sexual harassment, not general harassment. This website appears to be at least 3/4 male, so sexual harassment is more likely to be by males. Non-sexual harassment appears to be a problem for all genders. --Djembayz (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Smallbones, I'd also hope that you or other male allies have the time will be able to move forward on this. As you see on Jimbo's page, the one board member who's responded would bring forward proposals "if supported by a sizable part of the community." --Djembayz (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Sarah:

I don't see much difference in a petition or an open letter to the Board. However you want to format it would be fine. In any case, I'd probably locate that on Meta, maybe as a subpage of WikiWomen's User Group. A formal proposal to the Board would be fine too, but how would you want to make that proposal? There would have to be something in writing, I'd suggest 2-3 pages - so just the main ideas. They'll want to study it and put in their own details. Probably this should be attached to the petition or open letter, but you might let them know that somebody (or 2) would be available for a conference call for a 10 minute presentation and Q&A to the Board.

My main point is that the folks here do not need to be afraid of the Board or of moving forward. I believe you need just 2 things to make a change on Wikipedia:

• A firm conviction that you are in the right (I don't see any deficit of that here), and
• the knowledge that enough people support what you are doing.

It's hard knowing exactly how many folks support you, but my educated guess is that

• Almost all the women on Wikipedia are strongly in your favor. That's 10-20%
• Many men who see the days before many types of discrimination were made illegal as the "bad old days". That's probably 50%+ of all editors
• Perhaps 10-20% of editors who really don't care one way or another, and
• 10-20% of editors who are strongly against you.

So if the "don't cares" drop out, you could easily get 80% of any vote.

If you look to the broader population (e.g. readers) then you start with something over 50% support, then add in any men who will support you.

You're in a strong position here. All you have to do is keep moving the ball forward.

More later.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• most all the women on Wikipedia are strongly in your favor. That's 10-20% - please could you point me to what this statement is based on? Thanks. I would also appreciate an explanation as to why the fallacy of there only being one female arbitrator is not being addressed. SagaciousPhil - Chat 19:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Sagaciousphil, I may have gotten the wrong impression ... I agree that it's a little surprising the Arbs would let an error like that stand uncorrected. --Djembayz (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• Smallbones, the more we write (re: the 2–3 pages), the harder it is to reach agreement, because people will agree to sign this thought, but not that one, and so on. I think this is what has put people off from moving forward. For my part, I'd like to see the Foundation hire a full-time expert (someone from outside the movement), full stop. I think a huge amount would be solved with that one step. Sarah ^(talk) 19:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

That's fine by me. You're right - "keep it simple" will have the most support of any position. The only question will be "What is the person supposed to do?" Answers might be "make recommendations to the Board," "listen to complaints, survey the general situation, and make a report to the Board at the end of the year," or whatever you have in mind. I'd be specific however. I don't think the Board would accept either of my 2 suggestions - or at least they'd have to be convinced that those would actually accomplish something. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• Smallbones, Sarah, I agree with Sarah here: " For my part, I'd like to see the Foundation hire a full-time expert (someone from outside the movement), full stop." --Djembayz (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• Smallbones, I too would like to know what your statement "Almost all the women on Wikipedia are strongly in your favor." is based on. Gandydancer (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

As I said, educated guesswork. I've met many Wikipedia women, both online and at various events, and they don't seem to be super-traditional "do what your husband tells you to do" types. There are a few editors who identify themselves as women who I see around here who probably would not be in favor of strong action, but I see them as exceptions to the rule. Everybody can make their own estimates, and make their own judgements based on them, but I'd be very surprised to see anybody guess that a strong woman's position would get a minority of votes on Wikipedia. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

So women who aren't in favour are " super-traditional "do what your husband tells you to do" types". That's extremely insulting to say the least. Some women might see such a statement as harassment. I don't see editors who attend events as being typical of most editors, male or female. We're mostly anonymous and the majority never find these discussions. J3Mrs (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you were offended. I certainly did not mean to say that you are a "do what your husband tells you to do" type, nor that all women who are not in favor of the proposals here are "do what your husband tells you to do" types. I do think it is more likely that this type of person would oppose many of the proposals here. I was asked about the basis for my estimates - I think having estimates like this are useful, but they do necessarily involve some generalization. I was just trying to explain the basis for my estimates. Again sorry if you mistook my intentions. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Well Smallbones, you have been extremely offensive and you have still failed to supply any definitive basis for your statement other than it being your personal opinion. Why does the GGTF feel it has the right to claim it speaks for the majority of female editors? SagaciousPhil - Chat 21:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

If you'd care to explain on my talk page why you think I've offended you, or anyone else for that matter, please do so. Here it just seems like a distraction. I do believe in the use of subjective probability and suspect that most other people use it as well. Denying yourself the ability to quantify your uncertainty unless you've already conducted a thorough statistical study just strikes me as perverse. If you want to put forward your own educated guesses, please do. But if you want to deny the right of others to make educated guesses, please don't even try. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Smallbones: See the comment from J3Mrs above re: why your opinions are offensive. SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Sagaciousphil, so far as I can tell GGTF doesn't "speak for women" on the site. GGTF a set of web pages for information sharing and for discussion of gender-related topics related to Wikipedia, as we are now doing. If you want an organized group of editors working on concerns of women editors, that might be able to develop common positions that represent women editors, you're looking for the WikiWomen's User Group. Does that help? --Djembayz (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Djembayz: "Does that help?" - Please direct me to where I have asked (or even suggested) that I may need your help? Thanks. SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Sagaciousphil "Does this help" was meant in the sense of "does this help you (and others reading this) navigate the complexity here and find the actual [user group for women", as a user group is more directly tasked with gathering and representing concerns and positions of women editors. (My attempt to agree part of your remarks without being wordy didn't work, evidently.) My apologies as it appears you may already know all this stuff; most likely you know your way around the site better than I do.--Djembayz (talk) 02:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Sagaciousphil, J3Mrs, Smallbones, this place is nuts! We're at the point where being an "obedient wife" (something considered a sign of good character by many of my neighbors!) is not just old fashioned, but highly offensive, and what is considered more appropriate for women is to be happily surrounded by an atmosphere of aggressive sexual profanity. This kind of distraction is a recipe for lots of drama and shouting back and forth, not a recipe for getting things done. We need some pros, people with HR training, to look at the situation and explain what works in a workplace setting or a respectable non-profit where things get done. --Djembayz (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I only came here to correct the inaccurate statement being perpetuated here and elsewhere that there is a sole female arbitrator but I can see that it is a total waste of time - people here appear to only see what they wish to see and simply wish to exert their opinions on to everyone else. SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Djembayz, in relationships mutual respect is what I strive for. The "obedient wife" is indeed an anachronism and to me quite amusing but to others offensive. Where did I say I wanted to be surrounded by "aggressive sexual profanity"? Of course I don't. Wikipedia is my hobby, it attracts all sorts and as such I am totally against it being treated as a workplace with a HR department. Genuine harassment, as opposed to criticism, disagreement or the occasional bits of bad language, does not seem to be the rampant crime being suggested and should be dealt with by someone at WMF in a confidential, discrete manner. J3Mrs (talk) 07:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

And to add to the comment by J3Mrs immediately above: when it does occur, as it has very recently in the way of porn images and death threats being made against an editor on en.wp and Commons, it was very swiftly dealt with - and I might add without any help from this task force. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Response is not always that good, unfortunately, according to an acquaintance I ran into in the cafe recently, who isn't editing much these days as a result. Can't divulge details, but appeared a serious concern. Reporting channel to WMF is not obvious at this point-- is there one? --Djembayz (talk) 22:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Reboot

This discussion seems to have gotten bogged down. Let's just restart. Who would support a petition or open letter to the Foundation asking them to employ a full-time expert, as previously suggested? All those interested, please sign below. (If anyone is violently opposed to the idea of having such an expert in the Foundation's employ, feel free to start a section below where people opposed can sign.) Andreas JN466 12:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Interested

• --Andreas JN466 12:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• Sarah ^(talk) 15:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• Djembayz (talk) 12:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
• Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
• Cla68 (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

• Andreas invited opposition. The part that I oppose is that the WMF should have this person in house. I support the idea of staff harassment mangement, but the person should be employed by someone at a nonprofit organization or university with relevant expertise and funded by the WMF.

There is a proposal to this end at meta:Grants:IdeaLab/Centralised harassment reporting and referral service. Links to several subproposals are in the "extended explanation" section. I diverge on these points -

• I believe it is unreasonable to ask the WMF to hire someone like this. It is outside their scope, hugely disruptive, more expensive than alternatives, and unlikely to be effective.
• The more reasonable alternative is to ask for the WMF to fund an external organization to do this. Imagine everything you want, and that the WMF pays for it, except housed in an organization which cares about harassment, and that the organization will oversee a staff Wikimedian to engage with Wikimedia projects.
• I think it would be less controversial, more cost effective, and create less conflict with the WMF to not put responsibility for addressing harassment on them. The WMF could be held accountable for funding the solution, but not for designing and executing the solution. It is asking too much to put such a big risk on the WMF. Consider whether the demand could be limited only to funding. USD $50k for the first year with anticipated growth to USD $350,000/year after some time could be a place to start the conversation for the request.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

I would like to see a discussion of what this person would do. I don't believe that it is enough to say "She will accept and report harassment complaints". Part of that might be counseling, but ultimately something has to be done with these reports. Where would the reports go, what would they accomplish? Another part might be to make recommendations to the WMF Board. But what would be the scope of the recommendations? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to see public reporting (warts-and-all; not the usual Wikimedia PR fluff) on the WMF blog, via press releases and so on. I believe if you build public awareness, community awareness will follow (remember Categorygate).

The person could also be available for consulting if any wiki body (ArbCom, WMF board, user groups, projects etc.) would like professional advice. Andreas JN466 13:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I see the consultation aspect as very important. We've had several situations where admins and the ArbCom had made things significantly worse for the victim. The latter often behaves poorly in response to the harassment. That behaviour is used to justify further harassment, using the argument that it's necessary scrutiny. The complexity of the group dynamic makes it hard for individual actors to recognize their own role in it and for outsiders to know who to hold responsible. It leaves the victim traumatized, perhaps also not knowing which parts of it she's responsible for. As I mentioned on Philippe's page, it turns into a form of gaslighting.

An expert would be able to name it, explain it, direct us to reading material, and show us how other communities deal with it. She might also have suggestions for dispute-resolution structures that are less traumatizing than the current set up of AN/I and lengthy ArbCom cases. Sarah ^(talk) 16:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Bluerasberry, I appreciate your Oppose rationale. Does it seem of overriding importance to any supporters that the person should be a hired Foundation employee, or could we leave it open to the Foundation whether to hire her as a staff member or fund her via an external organisation? Andreas JN466 22:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Bluerasberry has a lot of useful insights and experience with community outreach, and would be a good person to get involved in moving this forward. He has practical experience on what works with bringing communities together, so I'd be willing to give his suggestions a try. And in fact, if he was the candidate selected to work on gender issues full time, I'd be delighted. --Djembayz (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Re-organization of WikiProject Women

Main page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women § Complete reorganization proposal

There currently is a discussion about the future organization of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women and several other women-related Wikiprojects and taskforces at the above link. Some aspects may be of interests to editors of this project and your participation in the discussion would be appreciated. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Interesting videos

One Videographer’s Journey to Find a Lost Human Ancestor. Also NOVA | Dawn of Humanity | PBS. Also Dawn of Humanity. Also New Human Ancestor Discovered: Homo naledi. Bus stop (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Warning templates

I have always thought our warning templates should look less like templates (we made some progress on this a few years ago, stripping out boxes, bolding and icons). I have also thought that there is a Wiki-ideal - Smallbones touched on it in our discussion on Jimbo's talk page, and Sammy did above - which enables us to be perfectly civil and even friendly to people who are, on the face of it, misbehaving - aka "not biting the newbies". With this in mind I have created a sandbox version of {{Uw-3rr}} - the edit warring warning template.

Existing

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Proposed

Hi! It looks like you got caught up in an edit war! To resolve the content dispute, it is best not to revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead use the article's talk page to work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. The best thing is to discuss it! See BRD for how this is done. If discussions get stuck, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution.

It's a good idea not to edit war, not just because it doesn't solve anything but because edit warriors often get blocked from editing.

--ends--

What do people think?

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC).

Discussion

• I'd get rid of the second exclamation mark - it's nothing to be jovial about. I'd also qualify BRD with "often done", and we should probably refrain from using jargon like "edit warrior". And we ought to mention WP:3RR, be it in passing. All in all, a definitive improvement. Alakzi (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
• Excellent proposal! Agree! with Alakzi!! about the exclamation overload!!! I don't mind the use of edit warrior considering edit war is immediately introduced above; I wouldn't necessarily mention 3rr, as it is jargon, encourages people to game the system (aha, I can revert twice!) and the warning about being blocked covers it. --GRuban (talk) 23:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Can confirm GRuban's point about 3RR is valid. When I first learnt about 3RR and had an edit I made reverted, my reaction was to revert exactly three times because technically that's ok. But at the same time, I'm not sure if purposefully witholding policy information from newbies is a better alternative. Brustopher (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Well, can we not both make it clear that edit warring in general is frowned on and that 3RR is a bright-line rule that's gonna get you blocked? Letting people now they're very likely to lose their editing privileges if they carry on past three reverts is a matter of courtesy. Alakzi (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
• I agree in principle, esp. for levels 1 & 2, but we really do need an "if you continue, you will be blocked" type warning, in all fairness to editors who might misunsdertsnd the tone otehrwise. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with this change, and thanks for creating the new template, Rich. The one thing I'd add is the issue of 3RR and that four reverts in 24 hours may lead to a block. Otherwise we're not warning them, when part of the point of the template is to do that. Sarah ^(talk) 00:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Needs to mention that 3RR is a "bright red line" or something similar. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Why are you soliciting consensus on the GGTF page? This page has discretionary sanctions, and some people are topic banned from here who might like to comment on this proposal. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 02:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Chess: While I can understand this objection, it would defeat the purpose of GGTF if people could only discuss concrete measures in the presence of those who have been topic-banned because they might want to interfere with them. This is an appropriate place for brainstorming. Once the proposal is better-developed, it will have to be proposed elsewhere where everyone can offer his 2 cents. --Sammy1339 (talk) 10:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Sammy1339: But it doesn't in any way, shape, or form, have anything to do with the gender gap? Also, you're disallowing topic banned users from participating in the brainstorming process. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 16:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you! This really needs to happen. Probably a good idea to have this discussion elsewhere. I agree with Alakzi, Brustopher, Pigsonthewing, SlimVirgin, EvergreenFir that there's an actual hard limit here which should be clearly stated. That can be done without jargon, as in "Edit wars lead to stress and ill-will, so users who revert the same edit more than three times are usually temporarily blocked from editing to keep the situation from escalating." FourViolas (talk) 04:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with these revisions and would go even further. It's hard to overstate how difficult it is to come off as non-confrontational when sending a form message that says "you may be blocked." That also may not be the best note to end on. --Sammy1339 (talk) 10:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• General response

Thanks for all the comments.

I'm not really soliciting consensus, so much as trying to determine if there is appetite for these types of change. GGTF is interested in a welcoming environment, warning templates have a part to play in that.

There are three exclamation marks, I agree that is too many.

The wording I put up has several problems, it stumbles a little in the middle of the first para, and it ends on a bad note.

It does however retain most of the meat of the current version.

It may not be the best example to choose, because 3RR itself is very slippery, you can remain unblocked while violating it, and be blocked although you didn't.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC).

Extended Comment

I am sorry Rich. I don't agree with this approach. You are trying cure the symptom rather than the problem. The first few edits that a newbie editor makes usually get reverted. Most people get disheartened and walk away. The committed ones come back. What do you suppose they do? (A) Either they think they are right and they need to reinstate their edit. Or, (B) if they are extremely sensible, they might fix the problem with their original edit and reinstate a better one. In either case, they haven't been offered any help on how to do it right and no consolation offered to get over their hurt feeling. If they stay, they come to learn that reverting (i.e., edit-warring) is the way of Wikipedia. Once they learn enough, they want to do it to others. By the time an editor reaches the 3RR point, it is already too late. They are about to get blocked. Softening the warning message at that stage is counterproductive. It will ensure that they will get blocked. So what are you trying to accomplish? Do you know there are other edit-warring templates like template:uw-ew and template:uw-ewsoft? Have you ever used them? Have you seen anybody else use them? - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I have never seen those, and I instead have seen people throw around the 3RR template after one revert. I agree that this is only part of the problem, but I'd like to see significant changes in most aspects of how disagreements are handled, especially with newcomers. I also don't think that even the "soft" template, which I just now first laid eyes on, is really all that soft. --Sammy1339 (talk) 10:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, people give uw-3rr because it is required. Without it, they can't report people to WP:AN3. We don't really train people on how to deal with edit-warring, do we? So nobody knows! - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I use the ew-soft template quite a lot. I've never bothered tracking whether or not it makes much difference but I'd estimate that easily 85 per cent of those who get any form of edit warring notice from me do in fact end up being blocked, topic banned or otherwise sanctioned. Perhaps that just reflects the subject area in which I most frequently work. - Sitush (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I am interested in the people who "get disheartened and walk away", we don't know but it is received wisdom that we actually want these people to hang around.

I don't leave many warning templates, because I don't do much warning these days, and it's quicker to just write a note. The two you refer to are relatively new and one at least has had bitey bold text removed, which is good.

I would never leave a message saying "you will get blocked if..." - I might say "You will very likely get blocked if..." or (if I had the authority) "I will block you if you continue to...."

I do agree that we must make sure that the warning is clear. That's one reason to make it short. I'm sure it can be better.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC).

New draft

Hi! It looks like you got caught up in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, it is best not to revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead use discussion on the article's talk page to work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions get stuck, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution.

It's a good idea not to edit war, not just because it doesn't solve anything but because edit warriors often get blocked from editing, especially if they break the three revert rule.

Alt:

It's a good idea not to edit war, not just because it doesn't solve anything but because you are likely to get blocked from editing, especially if you break the three revert rule.

-- No comment needed I might propose this over at the template talk page presently.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC).

Not quite sure what "No comment needed" means in this context so ... ignoring it. :-) Add a period after first sentence. Prefer "edit warriors often" version to "you are likely" version. Thanks! --GRuban (talk) 17:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC).