Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention

Added more info to the retired editors list

I threw together a little Python script today and scraped through the list of retired editors, and pulled out:

• Whether the user is currently blocked
• The date and time of their last edit
• The page they last edited
• Their last edit summary

The list is still a little rough, but it's very interesting! It'll definitely help us in not wasting our time trying to bring back editors who never had any intention of contributing productively, or who retired one account to move to another (some final edit summaries say as much), etc. I'm most interested in those who look like they were editors in good standing and just wandered away. I plan on adding information about edit counts when I get a chance. If you have any more ideas about what I can pull out, drop me a note. Zad68 01:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

excellent work. Penyulap ☏ 03:32, 9 Jul 2012 (UTC)

I clicked sort on the comments list two times and saw "you can't reason with demagogues or devotees". Here I was thinking I might be the only one who knew the name of this absolutely pervasive menace, it's nice to know there are others. Penyulap ☏ 03:37, 9 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Pen, Ha!! I have updated the list again, it now has the following fields:

• User
• Blocked?
• User groups
• First Edit
• Last Edit
• Last Page Edited
• Total edits
• Live edits
• Deleted edits
• Unq pg ed
• Avg edits/pg
• Last Edit Summary
• Last Contact
• Notes

I will be adding more block log info. Zad68 16:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I added block log info and also did a bit of cleanup to the list of retired editors. It's interesting to note that there are about 9 accounts that are marked as "Retired" but are also in the sysop group. If they're really retired, the groups should be removed from the accounts. Zad68 19:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

See also now the new list: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Editor_Retention/FA_editors_list Zad68 17:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

If you are going to list editors without informing them may I suggest blanking out or excluding those on this list? Also it isn't good practice to create a "name and shame" list or anything that hints of that. Some people think that doing so contributes further to the aggressive and less forgiving side of this place. So I'd suggest not listing blocked editors by name, either just exclude them from your list or replace their names with a placeholder such as <currently blocked account>. As some blocks are of former accounts or the accounts of deceased Wikipedians it risks causing confusion if you do a simplistic analysis of them. If your focus is on working out how we've lost those who are not currently blocked then I'd suggest excluding blocked editors altogether. ϢereSpielChequers 12:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Yow... yes I'll do this. It wasn't my intent to create "name and shame" list, just a resource for data mining. I see that a number of blocks are from totally innocent things like compromised accounts, account vacated to move to a new name, etc. But yeah, there's no point in keeping the blocked accounts included. Doing this now... Zad68 14:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done Removed blocked users, blanked out edit counts from those editors who opted out. Zad68 15:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, the blocked column is now redundant, but it might be worthwhile replacing it with a retired/decd column. Some editors quietly get less active and others formally retire. You could also use it to mark any you come across as deceased. I suspect they are currently only a small minority of our known former editors but they are of course not coming back and it would be perfectly in order to identify them as a subset of this group. You also have some IP addresses in there, I'd suggest removing them as the probability is that those IPs have simply been reassigned. ϢereSpielChequers 17:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I only just caught up to this, but why on earth are blocked editors left off the list ? explain this one to me, because anyone can pick up a pointless of incorrect block, it's meaningless to blind ourselves to that demographic. Penyulap ☏ 23:49, 25 Jul 2012 (UTC)

The report only omits accounts that are currently blocked. Please see the definition of the word "retired" - ie "leaving". Being & remaining blocked is a different thing: being blocked is exclusion to prevent disruption of other people's work on WP. Incorrect blocks will be overturned. If you see one (an actually incorrect block and have valid evidence why) report it to ANi (but be clear spurious accusations against ppl who have blocked properly are themselves disruptive). In other words Penyulap become part of a solution if you are concerned about it--Cailil ^talk 14:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Volunteerism

Having read all of the above, it seems basically to be a convertsation between a very small number of interested persons. All voluntary organisations have a whole range of issues that are part and parcel of the processes of interactions between people, and the dynamics of how things are dealt with (or not) - motivation to stay in, reasons to join - are all in the sociology texts of old, and a whole range of academics have explored all the issues over time. whether on-line voluntary participation is in any way substantially different, I doubt it.

wikipedia was a great thrill in the early days - but a whole range of things since have bothered me:

• The Admin gauntlet and Arbcom gauntlet and associated shanigans suggest that some processes are a vast waste of time and energy and see a lot of people leave
• watching corporate spin doctors or their henchpersons trying to manipulate the high scoring in goggle searches
• the numerous holes in wikipedia due to the very skewed intellectual preferences of editors (has anyone really researched the vast perceptual inadequacies, or very skewed interests of most editors? each subject/project seems to have vast vacant lots where interest seems not to exist )
• from personal experience I have seen many more people leave than stay, and have seen good acquaintances leave (or reduce involvement) for a whole range of issues
• surely editor retention is a pointless exercise, real life is out there and many leave for too many reasons - perhaps it (the reason for this project) should be more looking at how to get new editors, rather than trying to keep - people come and go for too many reasons to ever encapsulate a possible easy fix -
• if the editor numbers and editing is going down or bothering somebody, there is always the possibility that no project is going to fix that - if there is any element of truth in that assertion, I would think that wikimedia foundation are sitting on something that they should deal with and not leave it with the volunteers... SatuSuro 11:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The idea that everything can't be left to volunteers is the same as saying you can't embody higher principles of justice into an angry torch bearing mob, it's obvious in both cases. To say that there is no good that can come out of the project at all is the same as saying it can fix all the problems that it identifies. I can learn from wikipedia's mistakes when creating systems for new projects which could possibly take a good share of the editors who choose not to use wikipedia, and a share in the good editors who cannot be retained, who cannot learn from the mistakes of others ? There are plenty of reasons besides these reasons why the project is worthwhile, if nothing else, it fills up the hard drives :) Penyulap ☏ 13:30, 12 Jul 2012 (UTC)

A hard to understand response, for something closer to the issues and more coherent and believable - look at Dr Blofelds comment below SatuSuro 23:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding at least one of the points raised above, I am right now about six hours of staring at a monitor away from compiling a list of the various encyclopedias and such which have been reviewed by journals archived in JSTOR. The downside is, yeah, I haven't spent a single hour in the past month or so trying to change that, but it's been a weird month, OK? I do think that if we had a good idea of what kind of articles exist elsewhere, and provided an indicator to both newer and older editors where they could find material relevant to those subjects, that would help a lot, as would maybe some sort of central content, maybe at the community portal, regarding perhaps a specific group of individual articles, related or unrelated, as a form of regular "contest". But, yeah, with four million articles already existing, there are going to be less articles the average joe on the street is really actively personally motivated to create from scratch, and it gets harder and harder to find exactly which potential articles are notable for creation of those articles or knowing what material is missing from extant articles. John Carter (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Jimmy Wales

I have just come across these recent comments from Jimmy Wales which directly address our problem. Maybe we have not been paying enough attention to the problem of having to write and edit wiki code. I remember about a year ago there were strategic discussions about how to improve the editing process but I can't see there has been much progress - rather the reverse. I brought this up with one or two administrators at the time but received very firm replies that they thought wiki code was great! Ideally new editors should be able to edit in WYSIWYG mode, at least until they perceive the need to deal with more complicated formats such as tables and annotated images. Is there any consenus here about trying to move in this direction? --Ipigott (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Difficulty of interface was also mentioned in Nine Reasons Why Women Don't Edit Wikipedia by Sue Gardner. I'm not sure what we can about that at en.wiki alone, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
• WYSIWYG is here! Check out mw:VisualEditor:Test and try it out for yourself. There are still a lot of kinks and it will be a while before they roll it out. In the meantime, I'd suggest that we focus on the aspects we have control over. If you do feel strongly about the visual editor, you can try to get more involved on the media wiki site. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

If I'm honest, my general perception in recent months is that the number of decent contributors who know how to write good starter articles and GAs has actually been steadily climbing. I personally believe that the quality of new articles is generally at an all time high and I see evidence of a broader coverage on an increasingly wide range of topics. Yes, we have lost a shocking number of decent editors through stupid wiki bureaucracy which could have been avoidable through a lesser stiff assed "community" where civility is not valued above content, but I think our focus should be more on attracting a new pool of editors and breathe new life into the project by offering monthly competitions like Core Contest of the month and Best Article of the Month which actually offer incentives to editors to produce the goods. The key I think is incentive to edit, which would not only retain many of our existing editors but bring in a diversity of people from all walks of life. It might even prompt some of the lazy sods here who do bugger all to contribute to content but sit around moaning about everything to write something substantial for the first time in 5 years. You advertise over the internet, on Facebook and Twitter than wikipedia is offering $500 Amazon vouchers as a top prize for writing the best article of the month and suddenly you have people knocking on your doorstep joining the party screaming "Its Stifler time baby"! Well, not quite, but I think you'd be amazed. I have brought this up with WF and I believe Wikimedia UK have shown the most interest.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo's article was an interesting read. I think he was spot on describing one of the difficulties seniors face trying to edit wikipedia, the editing interface. Has anyone done research on other barriers to seniors' participation? Imagine a world where millions of grandmas and grandpas were "active editors"... --Rosiestep (talk) 06:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

easier to imagine than today's editors still being editors by the time they are grandparents. It is a good idea to improve the interface, it's a huge chunk of the problems and the solutions right there. Penyulap ☏ 07:15, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Not all grandparents suffer from IT illiteracy. One of the huge advantages many of us have over the newbies is that we can type quickly on a keyboard having been brought up with typewriters -- at least those of us from the English-speaking world. If you look carefully at the rather better new articles, you'll see quite a few of them are written (or improved) by retirees. That does not mean, of course, that we would not like a better editing interface. If we could cut down on all those ALT-triggered keystrokes for square and curly brackets, vertical bars and strange accents it would certainly help. And there must be an easier way to deal with wikilinks. --Ipigott (talk) 08:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Speaking both as a grandparent and as a female editor, we do have to remember that there are indeed a goodly number of those in either set (and in both) who are fairly clued-up! I cut my programming teeth on COBOL, back in the 1970's, for instance. In terms of making the editing interface much more user-friendly WYSIWYG is the obvious move to be making here; at the same time, though, we all need to be a bit careful with making apparently ageist and / or apparently sexist remarks, because those just in themselves can drive people away. Pesky (talk) 03:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm a five-time grandfather and a five-year WP veteran editor. I would point out to Mr. Wales that plenty of females have been involved in computing since the beginning—think Ada Lovelace, Bletchley Park and Grace Hopper. HTML code and wiki markup are no more difficult than other means of interfacing with computers; in fact, they are arguably easier. Believe me, Grandma is not lacking in the ability to figure this stuff out. What Wales is seeing is probably a lack of motivation. Binksternet (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

My biggest problem is my rocking chair which forces me to only be able to edit as it rocks forward. The one advantage is that I have the time to think about what I am typing on the back swing. Every cloud has a silver lining. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC).

Interesting...

I'm not one to haunt Jimmy's page, but a previous discussion brought me there, and I thought it was interesting since he was talking about editor retention vs. admin actions. Don't need to pile in, but an interesting read. [1] Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrators

Are Arbitrators in the pay of Britannica?

In my short time here I've encountered so many damaging actions taken against dedicated and able editors that, applying the cui bono principle, I can imagine only one scenario; and the fall-out is of course wider, effectively serving pour décourager les autres. Is there anything that can be done? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, admittedly, you made me look up pour décourager les autres on Google, which lead me back here to François Henri de la Motte, ie: to ceremoniously butcher in public. I have to say I disagree with that approach, and pretty everything I do is for the purpose of doing the exact opposite, and instead engaging those with bad methods and actions, and trying to show them a better way. In this case, you are claiming that Arbitrators are in the pay of Britannica (a failed paper encyclopedia, I might add) without substantiating your claim. This would be conjecture at best, which isn't particularly enlightening or helpful. There are plenty of problems that affect editors staying around here, and this Project was founded with the goal of discovering and fixing some of those problems with a positive and proactive approach. It isn't acceptable, however, to make unsubstantiated claims in this way, and the honorable thing to do would be to strike them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

@Dennis: The Encyclopedia Britannica was for many decades the sine qua non of encyclopedias, so calling it a "failed paper encyclopedia" is far too dismissive of what it achieved. We should be so lucky to be as authoritative as it was in its heydey. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the failure to express myself clearly and politely; my basic point is that in our midst is the proverbial mastodon, it has no mahout, and as yet does not feature large in this project; I know not what can be done, but perhaps others have suggestions; in the meantime, thank you for your efforts, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 19:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC) P.S. Don't discount Britannica yet - in my neck of the woods taxpayers are funding subscriptions at the local libraries.

I would put it even more succinctly: We have bulls in the china shop. Some eventual misuse of admin tools gets quietly resolved before it reaches Arbcom - perhaps because they are due simply to carelessness rather than bad faith, exasperation, or admin overload, but they still cause editors to retire which of course isn't acceptable. Over time however, a history of inaccurate admin operations and/or less serious comments becomes as disruptive as admin incivility [2] [3], wheel waring, and vengeance blocks, and something needs to be done. The only people who end up being widely discouraged are the mature, experienced editors who should be running for adminship but won't because they are not prepared to risk taking the flak that admin actions often engender; being an active admin necessarily requires stepping into cesspools of contentiousness with the associated danger of catching a ricochet. IMHO, two of the most important areas that should be addressed in order to retain editors are ensuring that the right kind of admins are elected (for which we desperately need candidates of the right calibre), and insisting that the right kind of editors operate NPP. Plus of course providing new users with a new, informative, interactive landing page that will help them avoid unpleasantness right from the start. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• • • If you looked at my contribs, you would find I'm quite active in this. This is covered by the project as well, but that is only aspect here. The project isn't rigidly defined to a single purpose, except anything that affects retention. Bad calls by admins are part of the problem, but not the majority of problems. I would argue that POV, socks and edit warring causes more people to leave than anything. Of course, now I've joined SPI as well, and I've always been the ghost at ANI, catching other issues. So I agree it is a problem and one that I work on every day, along with a number of other issues. Literally, 90% of my wiki-time is dealing with issues relating to retention now. Part of the admin issue is to get involved and get new admins that have the right attitude. I've nom'ed two admin candidates in the last week, two people who I think will be exceptional admins because of their calm way of dealing with problems. One has already become admin in the last 24 hours, the other is still pending. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Eureka (or perhaps not): how about instituting a more friendly alternative venue for resolution, a pow-wow of peers rather than conclave of elders, where no-one has powers of execution but a few sage and non-involved voices can add their tuppeny-worth in a neutral and less-threatening venue; where's there's some kind of dispute the parties could then choose between Arbitration (carrot) and Arbitration (stick); I guess I have in immediate mind the threatened [4] and guaranteed-to-be mutually destructive WP:ARBPIA3 (Israel/Palestine...); at least it could act as an intermediate step? The arbcom pages are so adversarial, partly maybe because of the likely outcomes - would a more flowery venue for appeals to reason rather than the exaction of punishment help? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 10:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
        • That's called WP:MEDCAB Maculosae tegmine lyncis, it is part of the dispute resolution process--Cailil ^talk 13:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Missing_Wikipedians is proposed for deletion

Sorry for butting in here, but I thought some participants may want to know that Wikipedia:Missing_Wikipedians is being proposed for deletion Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Missing_Wikipedians_(3rd_nomination) Ottawahitech (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads up! We really need to incorporate that fully into the WER program and help out there, and get the regular contributors there to join us here. It certainly is within the scope of the Project. If someone will volunteer, that would be exceptionally kind of them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 15:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

StackOverflow has the same issues, apparently

For those interested in editor retention stuff, I'd recommend reading this blog post from StackExchange. StackExchange run a series of sites that started with Stack Overflow, a Q&A site for programmers. They've realised that they've got a civility problem and are going all WikiLove-ish. Interestingly, they are also rather conflicted about this. Here are some tweets from Joel Spolsky re The Atlantic piece on Wikipedia:

• Read the comments: a lot of whining about the very thing that makes wikipedia work--its high standards
• People seem to assume that they should be allowed to type whatever the hell they want into Wikipedia.
• They don't see the contradiction between their perceived right to type anything into Wikipedia, and the quality of the content that is there
• Same thing on s.tk: a lot of whining about strict mods, who are the very reason you're delighted when you find us in your search results

No comment. Just thought I should post it here for people to munch on when it comes to coming up with editor retention strategies. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

cool. and +1 on 3. Penyulap ☏ 20:27, 23 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Getting across to newbies quickly and clearly ...

... OK, I couldn't think of a better section title!

Although I thoroughly approve of getting newbies to read our policies and understand them as soon as possible, if we look at the welcome messages which include links to a load of pages, by the time a newbie has read all the links, they've read a very thick user manual. Most of 'em actually won't do that; they want to just get in and start editing. And then they fall over and get heavily discouraged by having people chucking links to TL;DR-appearing pages at them.

I'm trying to work on something that will bridge the gap between total newbieness and total policy-awareness, just to get people started (it was someone else's baby, but I've been working up some stuff on it as it seemed like such a good idea, and getting the gist of our policies across quickly and clearly has always been an interest of mine).

My aim here is to get a foundation-level summary of some major policies across in less than a screenful for each policy, with "read more" type links to the actual policies themselves. I'm also aiming to make the approach friendly and personal, as it would be said if we were speaking to the individual newbie. I think that makes us look much less oppressive / authoritarian / pompous [insert all those other possible misconceptions here]. It hopefully makes us look easier to work with.

I think something like that is both much more likely to be read, and much, much less daunting, than the aforementioned very thick user manual.

Could you guys take a look at it as it is so far? If we could get something like this substr'd as part of an automatic welcome message, it may help people get a foot on the first rung of the ladder. Pesky (talk) 03:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Pesky! Thanks for the link. I'll be looking over it. I have one initial comment. I feel that the links to the full policies should be more uniform. On a similar note, I recently created {{Clickable button}} that might be a useful format for those links. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

On another note, I don't know if I understood you correctly, but I don't think this should be part of a welcome message. I wouldn't have anything against linking to this in a welcome message though. It's just too long for that and our messages are too long as it is. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey Ryan! That was a quick response, lol! What I'd really like to happen, eventually (OK, ASAP!) would be for every new account created to get an immediate basic welcome message, with this stuff subst'd onto their talk page just below the basic welcome message. I know that most created accounts don;t turn into productive editors, but if the process of getting foundation-level policy stuff across to everyone was an automatic response to the creation of an account, nothing would be lost by it appearing on a multitude of new user talk pages, and possibly quite a few new users could be saved right in their first days, before they make a mistake. The "You have new messages" banner is accompanied by an absolute compulsion to go and read them ... it's the Facebook generation, and we can make use of that. Pesky (talk) 03:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Do feel free to standardise the links with those clickable buttons - that would be awesome! Pesky (talk) 03:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll start off with a comment on the buttons. I standardized them; however, there is one issue that exists with them. Although the buttons exist and encourage clicking (in my mind), the text still needs to be clicked. If you click on the edge of the button it will not link. Do you think this causes unnecessary confusion or is it fine? Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Ideally the entire button should be clickable. Does using buttons instead of text links use of stupid amounts of server space? That would be one of the things which might be a contra-indication if this were transluded to every new account's talk page. Pesky (talk) 04:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea how it would affect server space. It is transcluded and is a relatively small template so I don't think it will make a huge difference. The only way I could imagine an entirely clickable button would be to use a public domain image that is linked to the desired page. We could potentially find someone willing to make those images if we were entirely certain of the text (or knew someone who was very good at photoshop and could change it in the future). Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll expand with a comment on the automatic appearance of this on pages. I feel that it would be an Everest style battle to get that approved. Automatic welcome messages is on the list of perennial proposals. The Teahouse recently had to fight an uphill battle just to get a bot to be allowed to invite a small list of users based on a defined criteria. I think a better thing would be to create a simple welcome template that goes along with this. The template would consist of two things. A welcome including a thanks for the editors contributions, and a link to the page stating that it is highly suggested reading to get an editor started on Wikipedia. In any case, I know this is a work in progress, but a new editor recently asked for a "guide to citizenship". I'm going to link her to this so that I can ask her if she feels that it is helpful and figure out what confuses her. It is sometimes difficult for us to see because we understand it all (or think we do ). I have one comment on the Jack and Jennifer notability section. I think that it might be useful to give an example of a situation where they would be notable. We don't want to discourage article creation completely. Finally, would a hoax created by a 10 year old girl qualify as a self-published source? I can't imagine a situation where information we knew to be false could be used in an article. I'll try to look some more tomorrow and leave a few more comments. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your work so far! Awesome! I'm pretty good with Photoshop myself, so I can always help out with stuff like that (provided I'm not too busy doing something else, lol!) Maybe I can include a situation where Jennifer's hoax might be notable. Pesky (talk) 05:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

A quick, clear welcome

Below is the Welcome I am currently using. Since we can't predict what the newbie will need in their early struggles the upper multiple links are necessary to cast the widest net. As you can see, in the more personal lower message, I send the newbie to PoetGals "How-to" page 'cause I thought it fit the bill...informative and easy to grasp. I could easily replace PoetGal's How-to with pesky's one page view whenever Pesky gives the go-ahead.

Hello WikiProject Editor Retention. Welcome to the English version of Wikipedia
Thank you for your participation in this project. We hope that you will stay to contribute and that you will find the collaboration process enjoyable.
Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that started in 2001 and is free for all to use and edit under certain guidelines and principles that all users should understand and adhere to. These principles and guidelines are listed below. Click on the link next to the images for more information.
	The five pillars of Wikipedia. The fundamental principles of the project.		Help. How to get help.
	Tutorial. This tutorial is a basic guide to editing.		Your user pages and your sandbox. How to experiment and edit in your user space.
	Mentoring program. Request help in your first steps of editing.		How to start a page. Help on creating your first article.
	Things to avoid. How to avoid common errors and mistakes.		Style Guide. How to write in an acceptable style.
	Main policies of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's main policies and guidelines.		Frequently asked questions. Some common questions and their answers.
	Help Desk. Here you can ask other editors for assistance		Quick reference. A handy quick reference guide for editing Wiki.
This is your Talk page where you can receive messages from other Wikipedians and discuss things with them. At the end of your messages you must put your signature by signing with four ~~~~ (just as I have done) or by pressing the button in the editor bar as shown here in the picture. By the way, you don't need to sign edits that you make in the articles themselves as those messages will be deleted. Another valuable page that may provide information and assistance is User:Persian Poet Gal/"How-To" Guide to Wikipedia. My name is Buster7. If you have any questions or face any initial hurdles, feel free to contact me on my talk page and I will do what I can to assist or give you guidance and contact information. Good Luck editing!

```Buster Seven Talk 06:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Looks good except - a really big problem we have is copyvio. Hardly a day passes when I don't find big chunks of it. I strongly think we need something included with appropriate links. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Excellent! Exceptionally clean and simple, yet easy on the eyes. We can discuss tweaks, but the overall format, look and feel are the best I've seen. If I had my say, this would be automatically generated as soon as the account was created. Maybe that is a new topic to explore. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 14:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't agree with you there. When someone's first edit is clearly vandalism, copyvio, pov, a BLP violation, etc. we should as politely as possible give them a welcome which deals with the specific problem. Dougweller (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I see your point. But could TW determine it is a new user, and add the proper template, according to the type of tag you are putting on their talk page? I would assume so. But as a general template, I still think this is a great one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Could the new "WikiLove" user talk page tab be adjusted to include one or two template messages for new editors, IPs, or whatever? That might make it a lot simpler. John Carter (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Any reason to use WikiLove over Twinkle? Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I really think we'd have a problem with automatic page generation. The only way I think we'd have a chance is if it wasn't formatted as a welcome, but instead a suggested guide. I'd be a bit wary of giving new editors a "reading list" without welcoming them though. I still think the best solution is a simple welcome message that contains no suggestions other than a link to this page. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

First, not everyone uses Twinkle. I know I don't. But it might be rather offputting if, a few weeks or days after starting, a newbie saw that the message he thought was a thoughtful and personal message to them was just a template that could be generated with three or four clicks, yeah. Some sort of short page, or a link to a page, might be preferable, and maybe less disappointing later. John Carter (talk) 21:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Just some general info, for what its worth. I don't use Twinkle. I make individual welcomes by selecting working newbies from the Recent changes page. I never welcome a (User creation log) editor. There are too many and my guess is most are temporary or SPA's. I do a quick scan to see if there are any red-linked talks that may be "in a situation". If none, then its a completely random selection. I only watchlist the editors that 1) may need some assistance, 2) may be paid advocates/operatives, and 3) may be vandals or, at least, of questionable nature. I only watchlist for about a week. Sometimes I run across editors that may have already received a welcome but have hit an early roadblock. I give them some "hang in there" support, watch for a while and then move on. I don't hold their hand but I do show them where the crosswalk is. WikiWorld can be a mean place when you just get into town. One other thought. Think back to what worked for you...a simple welcome or a laundry list of places to go and to learn. For me, it was the list. A simple welcome would have sufficed but I still would have been lost as to what to do to become an editor. ```Buster Seven Talk 02:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, I love your welcome template. The images make it easier on the eyes, easier to find what you want, make it interesting enough to actually read and those things matter. We can debate when and how or some of the links, etc. , but as far as template designs, I'm impressed with your effort to keep it consistent with Wikipedia standards and yet flow quite nicely. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

BusterSeven, that's a great approach, I love it. We need people like you doing this. I love your template also, but again, can you please mention copyvio? There are a number of editors who come from cultures where this isn't seen as a problem and can innocently add to the copyvio problems we have. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Only an organizational issue, but why not put the Help, FAQ and Help desk sections next to each other since they're prettty similar. Thanks ツ Jenova20 <sup>(email)</sup> 08:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to mention, I've been using that one (from User:Chaosdruid/welcome) for a while, but looking at the links, I found them outdated. I updated just a month or two ago, using the teahouse colour scheme as I was referring a lot of new people to the teahouse as part of my welcome.

Hello WikiProject Editor Retention! Welcome to the English version of Wikipedia
Thanks for your contributions so far, we hope that you will stay and that you will find the collaboration enjoyable. I am Worm That Turned, an editor who's been here a while. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that started in 2001 and is free for all to use and edit under certain guidelines and principles that all users must try and adhere to. Lots of these principles and guidelines are listed below. Click on the link next to the images for more information.
	Policies and guidelines		Help and Tutorials
	The five pillars of Wikipedia. The fundamental principles of the project.		Tutorial. Step-by-step guide on how to edit.
	Main policies of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's main policies and guidelines.		How to start a page. If you want to create a new article
	Style Guide. The complete guide to how articles should look.		Help. The complete help guide
	Asking for help		Quick reference. A handy quick reference guide for editing Wiki.
	Help Desk. Here you can ask other editors for assistance		Your user pages and your sandbox. Editing in your own "personal" space
	Adoption program. Request an experienced guide for your first steps of editing.		Frequently asked questions. Some common questions and their answers.
This is your Talk page where you can receive messages from other Wikipedians and discuss things with them. At the end of your messages you must put your signature by signing with four ~~~~ or by pressing or in your interface. Do not sign in the articles themselves as those messages will be deleted.

If you need anything else, let me know! Worm<sup>TT</sup>(talk) 08:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

---

It's available at User:Worm That Turned/Welcome, if anyone wants it. The links are all direct links, and the description of each is more accurate. I think it's easier on the eye, is less imposing on text and is laid out with sections. What's more it includes both "insert sig" buttons, as the signature button changed over a year ago. Worm<sup>TT</sup>(talk) 09:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly easier on the eye and quicker to read. I like it ツ Jenova20 <sup>(email)</sup> 09:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

New Welcomes are on the drawing board. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Welcome. Input welcome. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Good work--Cailil <sup>talk</sup> 13:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style (WP:SMOS)

• another option available to point out to newbies for their indoctrination (Instruction in the Fundamentals) ```Buster Seven Talk 19:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Some projects dying

I joined solely because i've had a discussion similar to this about Wikiproject:LGBT Studies recently. Newsletters stopped long ago, membership is still increasing but the visibility of their contributions isn't, contributions appear to be falling. The project is dying and the workload is ever increasing. This can't be the only project like this but it's startling that we can't hold onto members across Wikipedia and we need ways to make Wikipedia simpler to edit by making things clearer and simpler. There may well be as many policies and essays as there are members now and in the heydays of 2007/8 Wikipedia was a force to be reckoned with. Now it's suffering from poor retention, mass vandalism and hostility and overcomplications. Thanks and that's just my 2p worth, but it's obvious in some places ツ Jenova20 <sup>(email)</sup> 11:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

you changed your name, was there conflict ? Penyulap ☏ 12:06, 25 Jul 2012 (UTC)

I've been Jenova20 since i joined in 2010 to work on the Arabian KSU Ghazal vehicle. I've never had a different identity, only a differnt signature. Conflict? Yep, too much. Thanks ツ Jenova20 <sup>(email)</sup> 12:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

First, many projects are dying not so much for the reasons given above, but rather that the basic content relating to their central topic is to some reasonable level developed. As articles get better, it is harder to improve them, and generally requires much more work. And while several comparatively minor topics relating to the subject of a group do, obviously, remain in poor or nonexistent levels, that is often because of the difficulty in finding sources to use. I know, as someone who has studied religion, particularly Christianity, for about 30 years, even some of the clearly Christian articles in the Encyclopedia of Religion, one of the most best and most comprehensive sources in the field, are about people or individuals I admit having never even seen mentioned before to my memory. The list of those articles can be found at User:John Carter/Religion articles, and, yeah, I had never even heard of some of these subjects before, particularly articles relating to the Armenian, Syriac, Assyrian and other churches. One of the problems with editor retention is finding ways to make it easier to find material for content and to develop content, and that is a reasonable point, but I'm not sure it is or really necessarily should be on of the focuses of this group, although I would obviously welcome input from others on that. John Carter (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's only this group, i'm giving an example of my experience and saying that for this group in particular members are constantly increasing for LGBT studies and most of the article content will actually be easily sourced on the internet as it's recent, in the last couple years or a bit longer, but...I'm not the most active Wikipedian and yet i'm one of the most active on the talk page of LGBT Studies and get little response. The automobile wikiproject on the other hand is getting stronger by the day and gets a massive audience.

I've also noticed an issue in some cases where we specifically have bias on a lot of articles where we end up in a tug of war with religious wikiprojects and editors and even references from LGBT news sources are accused of a bias, while reporting a more factual account of both sides than what the other side puts up, leaving nothing that can be used without this accusation being thrown at it. Thanks ツ Jenova20 <sup>(email)</sup> 15:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The religion/LGBT battleground is not a fun one, I know, even though I personally tend to be less involved in that field. And, recently, we've had editors saying journals published by historically evangelical universities, like Baylor University, aren't RS material simply because of the school's historic ties to a religion. But for battleground topics like religion/LGBT, and others like it, it might be nice if we had some sort of unofficial standing "compromise committee" along the lines of the groups ArbCom has set up in the past for abortion, Palestine-Israel matters, and the like, No idea how to institute such, though. John Carter (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a pain in the arse to even edit articles with any remote relation to religion and LGBT issues because of that. I really do think that contributes a lot to the LGBT Studies member retention. Thanks ツ Jenova20 <sup>(email)</sup> 15:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

@Jenova20, I'm still a new enough editor that I've never even seen a newsletter. The LGBT Studies Wikiproject is one of the more active projects I've seen, so kudos to you for helping to keep it alive. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Also at @Jenova20, I don't have the answers myself, but I can clearly see how LBGT editing problems can contribute to editor retention issues, and by all means, you are more than welcome to setup a subsection and recruit others. As someone who is fairly outspoken in the real world on the issue (and who works with many less enlightened but otherwise kind people) I fully support the efforts. Everyone should be free to add to Wikipedia equally, without constant hassles or harassment from POV editors. Sounds like an issue perfectly in line with our objectives here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

If overall editor numbers are broadly stable, and despite the slight increase year on year I think we should count them as such, we should expect that individual WikiProjects will vary in their activity from year to year and even month to month. Most "active" WikiProjects have only a handful of active members, and it might only take a couple of enthusiasts to breathe new life into a project. Conversely one key retirement can greatly weaken a project. Personally I think that it is healthy if instead of a small number of consistently active projects we have a much larger number of projects many of which are only intermittently active. But perhaps we need to find ways to encourage our newer members to pick up and revive old projects. ϢereSpielChequers 18:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

There hasn't been one since 2009 so i haven't seen one either. I've offered to help out create one in the last few days though. You can find it and suggest content at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Newsletter if you have time. Thanks ツ Jenova20 <sup>(email)</sup> 19:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I swear I am going to try to get to work on finishing the list of dictionaries reviewed on JSTOR come Monday. I think making it easier for newer editors to get a good grasp of a subject will make it a lot easier for some projects to be revived, and for some marginally interested editors to develop related content. I could probably use several rather colorfully phrased messages on my talk page early Monday morning US time to help remind me, though. John Carter (talk) 19:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

You can do it! Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

What's JSTOR? Thanks ツ Jenova20 <sup>(email)</sup> 19:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

See JSTOR. LadyofShalott 02:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

John answered this quite well Jenova: task forces and projects have a natural half-life, they do eventually go dormant. But you could always recruit new ppl there yourself. I had to do that with Project Gender Studies in 2007. It died again subsequently in 2009 (because the major issues got dealt with) but it then spun-off Project Feminism which has been quite active since 2010.
The existence of specific POV battlegrounds is definitely a cause of editor frustration (and the evidence shows) a contributory factor to editor loss, but [{WP:DR|dispute resolution]] needs to be attempted in hot-button topics. If there are POV warriors (or civil POV pushers) they will come to light through that process and the community can deal with them then--Cailil <sup>talk</sup> 13:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

A couple comments: One of the things with the newsletter issue is that the editor with by far the most energy for doing a newsletter died. Even for those of us who had helped with newsletters before, I think it was hard to take that on after his death. (That being said, if you want to restart a newsletter, go for it!) The other thing is that for some long-term editors, our editing foci may shift - for various reasons. (I used to do much more LGBT-related editing than I do nowadays.) LadyofShalott 02:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Not that it's very important, but I have gotten together the citation list, with links, to all the book reviews of encyclopedic reference books, not including things like field guides to birds in California or limited topics like that, and can e-mail the lists out to anyone who wants them for their projects. Just drop me an e-mail and I will forward them to you. But you should be warned that there are in fact several thousand of these reviews, of I think a few thousand books, and you can expect it to take a while to go through the lists. But I do think it might help some projects keep up activity, and keep editors, if they gave out on the project page a list of good reference sources in the area, and, if you're really energetic, maybe a list of articles which could be created based on their apparent notability from having substantive referenced articles in those works. Maybe. John Carter (talk) 22:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

A suggestion for a proposal

I haven't been following the discussions here, but for anyone who may have missed it there is a pre-proposal here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads up! I've commented there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 14:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• The pre-proposal seems to have garnered some clear support, and no opposition (although some people have misread it as an invitation for alternative proposals - but that's the downside of Wikipedia discussions).

I would now like to think that the pre-proposal could be moved to a full-blown RfC - unless of course there is local consensus to implement and deploy anyway, in which case, possibly only the Twinkle devs would need to be informed. What do the regulars at this project think? In my experience, such RfCs have more chance of getting accepted if prototypes of the new template messages are already available. Let's not forget that these template messages would only be effective if the NPPers are aware of them as soon as the new Special:NewPagesFeed goes live, which is likely to happen some time very soon. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Devs can kill anything, so I would suggest getting them in the loop before the RFC, at least at an informal level. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

AFAIK Twinkly things don't need to go through Bugzilla. They just tweak the js (or whatever it is). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Join WER

I've decided to add this tag to the end of my signature. I don't expect anyone else to but I encourage others to consider something similar.

<small><b>[[WP:WikiProject Editor Retention|Join WER]]</b></small>

Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Editor retention logo

I slapped together a specific svg graphic for the group. I might put together a few others.

Editor retention logo 1

--Amadscientist (talk) 07:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It's beautiful, even though I thought "seat belts?" Penyulap ☏ 15:41, 26 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Should I adjust the quill smaller or just take them out? What do you think?--Amadscientist (talk) 20:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

If anyone has a suggestion of something for me to create, let me know.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Have you seen the image in the userbox on my userpage? I kind of like that image, which is similar in style. In general, I like this as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I like the quill but it does look like a seatbelt. Suggestion: Movement is always eye-catching. Can you get the right side editors to move left...back in the fold so to speak? Also, being the mad scientist that you are, can you go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Welcome and add WP:CopyVio with the Copyright logo to the left column (under the Style Guide)? Sure would be appreciated by 2 old farts.```Buster Seven Talk 21:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I made the change on the Welcome page and had to change the first title and lose one. Seems to work, but let me know if anything needs adjusting. I'll full around with the logo and make the suggested changes and a few others and load them as alternatives.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I've been slowly looking for some icons to follow the lead of Amadscientist, I found another along the way. Penyulap ☏ 07:08, 27 Jul 2012 (UTC)

• I'm more for images that show a positive experience, a positive connection. That is the goal of the Project, to affect positive change, with positive outcomes. This is why I liked the one I have in my userbox, two people holding hands, essentially. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

found this one I could adjust if you like Penyulap ☏ 07:08, 27 Jul 2012 (UTC)

• I thought very hard about the idea of positive imagery. Also about conveying an idea through the image itself. I think the problem is that my imgae is focusing on the missing and not on the outreach itself. good points to remember.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
• This is one reason I like the hand outreached. "Outreach" is a good verbal cue for the image to have, as that is what we do. The overall type of image I think is good, again consistent with the current test userbox. How do we make them reaching out to each other, I will leave to the artist ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Another possible logo

Again these are just suggestions for different uses, but I like the discussion as it focuses the ideas on just what we are trying to do here. So... --Amadscientist (talk) 05:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Wunderbar! Dramatic, eye-catching, Modern. Quite unique. ```Buster Seven Talk 05:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Like Hey, I really like that one :D Pesky (talk) 05:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• I like this as well. Simple, clean, obvious and vividly demonstrates the concept that describes our efforts here. I bet that would look good in a userbox as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems silly now, but I was thinking of a crowd that changes as wiki dies, I have to draw a lot more kinds of people though, and I don't know if it is worth it

It's just a kind of idea is all, not anywhere near a draft level I guess.. Penyulap ☏ 20:10, 28 Jul 2012 (UTC) Well even the storyboard won't display, probably just as well. strange it can click through to commons though. Penyulap ☏ 20:15, 28 Jul 2012 (UTC)

is this one on the list thingy ?

recent retirement of someone big. Penyulap ☏ 03:48, 27 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Community De-adminship

I've decided to start on the long road to looking at a perennial discussion. I've started a proof of concept RfC on community de-adminship. Please do join in. Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Community de-adminship proof of concept Worm<sup>TT</sup>(talk) 18:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• NOTICE There is actually a lot going on at this venue right now, including two proposed policies that are in place, and this is a big topic for a lot of people here. I highly recommend everyone take a look. If you don't find what you like, you are of course welcome to recommend changes to the big two, or create your own. I am hoping we really get something done this time. Please stop by and actually peek at the good work that Worm has started. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

User box

Tranfering from project mainpage:

Discussion for user boxes...although, these all might just as well be placed on a "Userbox page" where editors can choose from a variety.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Userbox suggestions (1)

Userbox suggestions (2)

• I like both, even if I prefer the first for myself. We need to get them into actual templates, something I don't normally mess with. No reason to have only one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• I made the second one but like Dennis prefer the first one. I'd have no problem with the second one being replaced with new content and moved to become a template--Cailil <sup>talk</sup> 13:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:RETENTION This editor is willing to lend a helping hand. Just ask. This Amadscientist creation proudly hangs over my talk page. Its like an "EAT" sign coming out of the desert. I love it!```Buster Seven Talk 14:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• I've updated the userbox on my user page to use this new image. It isn't a template, just coded. using 50px to fill it out.

This user is a member of WikiProject Editor Retention

Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Y - updated. Thanks Dennis, nice work! ツ Jenova20 <sup>(email)</sup> 16:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• To be clear, I would be in favor of making the W with two hands, the official logo for the Project. Think I will start a vote. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Unbanning

Probably not a "front burner" issue, but it does fall under the scope of this project and eventually we need to develop an consensus on the issue, but this [5] type of issue has come us several times. Editors that were banned, but years later they came back and made good contributions for a while until accidentally found out at SPI. At what point do we "forgive"? Again, not trying to run with it, but if anyone has some experience with it, it would be good to eventually an essay for dealing with this that others in the community could use as a guideline. Realistically, we probably have dozens or more good editors here who are really banned users that reformed and are quietly being good editors. Some amnesty, if they will admit their linkage, should be considered. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is Dennis that such action violates the standard offer and abuses our assumption of good faith. I'm of the mind that unbanning discussions are a cul de sac for this project because banned editors and long term disruptors cause editor loss and thus it's illogical for us to be spending time on. They'd be better for WT:BAN--Cailil <sup>talk</sup> 13:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I had already responded at the ANI that I wasn't sure how I felt about supporting or not. At the least, I have mixed feelings. I do NOT want to try to get any banned users to come back, but my concern was about how to deal with them once we find them and they have been behaving. But you may be right and it might be something we handle as individuals, not as a group. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo page stuff

I removed the link to Jimbo's discussion of an issue regarding Bwilkins and GabeMc. The important stuff in that thread is that Jimbo makes a very pertinent remark:

If we care about having a serious, thoughtful, kind, adult and mature community (which I assume was the sentiment behind that unseemly outburst) then we have to model that behavior ourselves as admins. There's a bit of sad irony in behaving in a juvenile and bullying fashion in an attempt to get others to behave better.

We should add that quote to the page (in relation to evidence/feedback re: civility advice) not the link to the thread (the rest of which went wildly off topic)--Cailil <sup>talk</sup> 14:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Newbie icons

Just a germ of an idea. When viewing edit histories and discussions, I find it hard to know how experienced other editors are. So I develop a blanket and probably too unsympathetic kneejerk response. For example, should I throw lots of policy pages at them? It would be useful to me if every occurrence of an editor's ID were accompanied by a little mnemonic ("new", "med", "exp", "admin", etc) or icons (say a colored star) to show their experience. Would make it easier to be nice, harder to be thoughtless. Obviously would need to be implemented as a coding feature, not one for user space. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Great idea. Some Internet poker rooms use a star to designate if a user was .net or .com. (which informed veteran players the "newness' of their competition). Some non-descript code would help at recent changes, for instance. It would assist in finding editors that have just begun their WP career and have made some timid steps into WikiWorld...lets say 50 edits worth but still have a redlinked user talk page.. A warm welcome to them would enhance their experience. The chances of retaining them would be much higher. And, the opportunity to watch over them (unbeknownst to them) is also greatly increased. This may sound harsh but its not meant to be....they have shown that time spent nuturing them has value. Good suggestion. ```Buster Seven Talk 16:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

This idea of a flag or icon that signifies newbies in a positive way has been bounced around at the Foundation too, though admittedly in a vague way. After having a hallway chat with one of the designers, I'm going to write up some notes. I'll make sure it's shared here too. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

That sounds good, thanks Steven. There is some downside, obviously, but I think the upside benefits easily outweigh them. Like a "do not bite" button, but obviously something less intrusive, something welcoming and inviting. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Then the only issue is doing it in a way that doesn't degrade them. I doubt professors would appreciate anything that makes them look inexperienced (even if they are). In addition, how would we make the distinction? Would all new editors have it until they turn it off in their preferences? I think that would be acceptable because it allows an editor to state when they no longer feel they are new. Ryan Vesey 19:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be wary of making it user-settable. It would be too tempting for a disruptive editor to masquerade as an old-timer or even as a bureaucrat - and that makes it something else to police, yawn. I'd rather see it be wholly transparent, based on something hard to game. For example, the number of days on which edits have been made (so multiple quick-fire mini edits don't rack up). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I like Steelpillows suggestion. It can be something casual and un-noticable....like the current (UTC) at the back of our signatures. ((What does that mean anyway?)) For, instance, add (NE) for new editor or the # of ediing days. Believe me. The college professors won't even know. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It means Coordinated Universal Time and we can't add anything after that in our signatures as that would mess up our archiving bots which are triggered by that last trailing timestamp in a thread. Our talk page guidelines do not permit altering this.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

How about....lets see.....in front of (UTC)? ```Buster Seven Talk 01:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It would have to come after "talk" in your sig and before the first number of the timestamp...or before your sig started. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Why not a green + graphic, before their name? It is neutral to slightly positive, it won't interfere with archiving by being a leading feature. It is a graphic so it won't interfere with copy/paste. It can be easily identifiable at any size due to the simplicity. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and I wouldn't want it to be optional, make it automatic until they have $NUMBER of edits or $NUMBER2 months, or a combination. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I actually like this idea. Non-optional, $NUMBER of mainspace edits (don't know that I support the $NUMBER2 months, or a combination), green is a pleasant color, small/simple graphic. Yup, I like this idea. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm flexible :) I was only thinking like after 3 months if they didn't do say, 100 edits, but I see the logic in making it a hard limit on number of edits only, in case they leave and come back they are still a newbie, etc. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I support non-optional and any graphic that is easily discernable at Recent changes. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Request for Admin Sanctions

I have created a proposal for a new and complete solution for admin sanctions. It is based upon the many ideas expressed here, in other venues over the years, and at the RFC that Worm initiated [6]. I've had some help from Coren on making it workable from the perspective of ArbCom (which is usually the one sticking point with these proposals) and I have a high degree of confidence it represents a compromise and consensus of the many different views. It isn't perfect, but it is workable, adds no new bureaucracy and could begin to take affect from day 1. Take a look, mull it over, drop by the talk page there and of course, never be afraid to tell me the truth. I am guessing many will like it. I can't take the credit, all the people here really wrote it, I just combined all your ideas into what I think is a workable solution that ArbCom, admins and the community will agree is better than what we have, and is flexible enough to change as we need it to. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Indexing the project

What about an index for everything, a navbox so that we can get around between the pages here and here Penyulap ☏ 13:46, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Penyulap breaching the request for admin process

Not really a topic here... — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I figure there is no more useful data to be obtained, so I'd like to discuss the differences between the RfA voter demographic and a more general mix of the community fauna. For background I would actually suggest someone else's example of what I did, it's someone I had never heard of before, I would have gone with Salvadore Dali myself as an example, because he is someone I relate to who did the same thing repeatedly (breach testing community norms). Someone who I've discussed the RfA incident with suggested another example called Joshua Bell. This is foot in mouth territory so please read this in full and understand what breach experimentation is before jumping in to comment. I expect Dennis will argue that we should all take an interest in RfA's and I say he is right, but that treats the symptom rather than the cause of the problem which is the process itself. I expect there may be others who may see the objective of the process subverted into pleasantries, edit counting, and other distractions. In my case, the very idea that barnstars should be given in exchange for votes makes me want to vomit, which is why I have never taken any interest in that sector of the project until I was asked to do so, and after 3 editors in good standing suggested without prompting, on different occasions, their opinion. The process appears to attract a type of commentator, who upon seeing a challenge to the social norm waits for cue's from other editors on how to respond. I think it's a bit difficult to grasp for some people, and unfortunately some of wikipedias articles on the subjects I haven't really looked into, or are too complicated even if they are American. I don't know if this should go onto the administrator retention‎ page or here, as I have literally no idea if this reading level is beyond the people here or not. (not the last wikilink, but say, just the Joshua bell experiment and breach testing) Penyulap ☏ 15:27, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC) We should all take part in the RfA process (didn't want to disappoint you). On a more serious note, this last month has proven to me that RfA isn't as broken as I once thought it was. It isn't perfect, but it was able to deal with several high quality candidates, one candidate that falls into the category "other" ;) and several sockpuppets voting, yet nothing broke. Being that I've been in marketing for over 2 decades, and I speak "demographic" fluently, I have my own ideas about the average voter, but they would be anecdotal, so it is more useful if I keep them to myself. I'm not completely clear how this fits into Editor Retention, I have to admit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Indeed, a good question as there isn't much room under this bit on the Administrator retention subpage. User talk:Fastily is a good example. There have been plenty more. Check out WT:RFA, where several people have pulled out statistics based on logs of how many admins are REALLY active, doing admin things It is close to 200. Many admins tire of the hassles they get, so they edit and stay out of harms way, which leads to too little of a pool of active admins, which could lead to more of a monoculture. Diversity is a good thing for the admin corps, as is experience, so I agree with you Doug — some guy Maybe it can be stuck somewhere else ? personally I think that the process is distasteful to some fauna, because of the barnstars for votes, superficial gratuities, the assumption that people all are supposed to be clawing to do something which they can already do better than anyone else as a nadmin, but are being bugged by certain sectors of the community to do more work, the solution I see it is to streamline the process so that idiots can get past the distasteful pleasantries :) No but seriously, this system is fucked up. Read the documents posted, then read the RfA, and look at how many people did not read anything let alone do any kind of study. I mean, just count the ones who stated plainly that they did not read anything. I love that whole thing because of the flawlessness of it, you get people laughing at something they refuse to attempt to understand, then you've got someone else, not me, laughing at them for being so incredibly blind, then they are agreeing with each other, but they are both laughing together at different things, I myself laughed, because you see people talking past each other quite often but these people were laughing past each other. A spectacle such as this is historic, just for the comedy alone rather than as a critique or a study. It's a masterpiece. Penyulap ☏ 17:57, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC) Surely you aren't suggesting Literacy tests for RfA participants? If you want community participation, you take what you get, and the Bureaucrat has the authority to completely discount any vote he chooses, so the real trust is in that position, not as much the uninformed !voter. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

What do we do about editors who never discuss?

I've just run across an editor who is creating a lot of new articles on worthwhile subjects. That's great, but he seems to have never responded to anyone on his talk page or anywhere else. He never uses proper citations, just urls, and he doesn't seem to understand the sort of sources we are looking for, eg one article is entirely sourced to fr.Wiki, others to subpar websites, etc. I'd like at least for him to spend a bit more time on proper citations so you don't have to click on a link to see what it is, and I'll see if he responds, but since he hasn't before I doubt he will now. Dougweller (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Ugh, wish I had an easy answer for that one. I have seen circumstances where what the editor was doing was in good faith but genuinely disruptive, and we have blocked to force them to talk, but this doesn't seem to justify that strong of a reaction. All I can recommend is a hand written note with the header "Dear Friend...." in absolutely huge letters, and a polite invitation to discuss. It might take being a little absurd to get their attention. Other than that, it falls under the "he did part, you finish the rest" part of building a wiki. Aggravating perhaps, but better to have his good articles with flaws than not have them, I suppose. That is my take, anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)it's pretty hard to start an argument with the editor if they won't talk to you, hmm, I know just the approach to use here, from my dealings with ‎‎Jssteil, go and improve the articles they are working on, help them along by filling in the citations, then, after a while, they'll let their guard down and start talking, then BLAMMOOOO!. works every time. (although I only tried it once with ‎Jssteil <shrug>)

Dennis, Dennis, tsk tsk tsk, large letters ? shouting, that is so 5 minutes ago, unless it is McUnoHoo, and then it's all last month, this month, and for the foreseeable future, no if you want to betray someone's trust you must earn it first. Go and annoy them by improving their work as if you were trying to help them, they fall for it every time, suckers. Penyulap ☏ 17:42, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC)

I've found that usually, it isn't about trust, it is just that some people avoid confrontation, or even contact, at all costs. Some creative types are just that way. Sometimes you try what you can, and in the end, you live with how it is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Start an argument? Who said anything about starting an argument? ```Buster Seven Talk 01:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I still think that dialog is an essential part of editing. As an example, making work for other editors to fix raw urls, etc may be one thing, but repeatedly adding bad sources is quite different and something that we really shouldn't let continue. But I guess in a case like that, one would simply warn the editor and if the warnings were ignored block. Ditto incomprehensible writing. Dougweller (talk) 06:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes, there isn't a choice. I've had to do that once, and I absolutely hated it, and tried everything else first. But when everything else has failed, and it really is disruptive, sometimes we have no choice. :/ I would add, that this isn't just necessary to get them to talk, but because what they are doing is causing a burden and frustration with OTHER editors, and that is a retention issue as well. Some editors do leave because of frustration from the disruptive habits of others, as we both know. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Official logo and userbox

User:Amadscientist has created this image that I think represents the group quite well, and I would like to adopt it as the "official" logo for userboxes and other functions. Of course, this requires consensus.

= Official logo

This user is a member of WikiProject Editor Retention

Make this the official logo and userbox?

• Support Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• sweet quite gentle, harmony, I like that. Penyulap ☏ 18:05, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Thine Antique Pen (public) 19:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• 100% Support - I'd say 110% Support but I hate that. ```Buster Seven Talk 01:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I'm already using the userbox. Is niiiice! ツ Jenova20 <sup>(email)</sup> 08:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Agreed. Worm<sup>TT</sup>(talk) 12:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Absolutely. Pesky (talk) 12:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Inexperienced editor needing assistance

Hello, everyone. I'm stopping by to ask if one of you can help User:Fxmastermind improve his editing skills. This was discussed at User talk:Boing! said Zebedee#Question.[7] After I pointed out that Fxmastermind needs a mentor, administrator Dennis Brown stated "maybe you could hook him up with a mentor or adopt program. Or ask one of my friends at WP:WER, which covers some of these issues among others." I chose here because not only is this project active and seemed more open/beneficial per Dennis Brown referring to you all, or some of you, as his friends, but because looking for an individual mentor can be difficult/often isn't successful and my having suggested WP:Adopt to a couple or few editors has yet to produce an adoption (or, if it has, it's only produced one). Flyer22 (talk) 12:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I just found this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/list FX (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Wow, that page is really out of date. We actually have an "adoption" program that gives mentoring, I need to find that link. We need to coordinate with them and offer them support here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Finding Wiki related information is one of the biggest obstacles I have ever run into online. It's also immense, the actual amount of data needed to be an expert at this. I usually let somebody else (who is an expert already) fix/perfect my raw efforts. It is a group thing IMO FX (talk) 01:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• And we are actually working on making it easier. This project is only one month old, and much has already been started and accomplished. I'm hoping someone will stop by your page soon and offer to mentor a bit. If I could, I would, and I have before, but the whole WP:RAS proposal is eating up a good deal of my time right now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Penyulap blocked

I've been putting off mentioning this today, and some of you probably already know it, but Penyulap was indef blocked yesterday via a discussion at ANI. (He is the first person to join WP:WER after I started it, btw.) It has very broad public support, including my own and a lot of people who also really like him but recognize he has not been himself lately and has taken things entirely too far. A look at his talk page also makes it clear that Penyulap himself has broad support by a number of people who find him entertaining, fun, interesting, and a good soul. He has his own issues right now, and I look forward to him returning after taking a break and working some things out. A kind word of encouragement on his talk page would be appropriate if you are inclined to. Once he is ready and capable of coming back, I will make sure that he can. I wish nothing but good things for him. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

First contact and why it is important

• The New Wikipedia Editor senses the Wikipedia Community and they want to be a part of it. They reach out to shake hands and that first handshake should be friendly. Reciprocity. It's why Wal-Mart has a greeter stationed at the front door of ALL their stores. They create a bond with their customer. It makes good business sense. Using the Wal-Mart greeter as an example, the First Contact Veteran Editors (FCVE) should not be there to help the New Editor decide on a red hat or a blue hat (or which aisle to shop in) but merely to point out where the HAT department is. The FCVE is the face of WikiPedia; a warm smile, a friendly greeting, assisting, re-assuring. The Initial Contact (FCVE) that the new editor has with a real live fellow editor should be smooth and real and it should create an opening for the new editor to "walk" into. Reciprocity. It should never be an attack. "You broke the rules. You walked on the grass. You left the assigned area and dared to think you could edit. You need to be reprimanded and, perhaps, placed in detention, until you read the 57 page manual and learn what is right"! The focus of the First Contact should never be about rules. It should always be about "Welcome to Wikipedia"!
• It should be obvious that the majority of new editors do not come to do harm. And yet, it seems that the way things are now, that's not the assumption that many veteran editors envolved in the "early life" of a new editor have. Many New Editors are casual users that will either "sell" or condemn Wikipedia (in RL) based on their experiences here. We should do everything possible to make that experience a good, fertile one. POINT:every New Editor should be specifically, and with a determinite effort, be referred to as EDITOR not user or newbie or n00b or whatever. They are editors at their first "Save". WE need to change the conversation, the 'meme', that is prevelant about New Editors. We need to respect them right from the start as equals.
• FCVE's need to let them know, right from the start, that they are not alone; that they are part of a community, part of a partnership. We will walk alongside them, a short way down the path into WikiWorld. Sounds sappy but is necessary to counter the less than savory moments they will definitely experience. They don't know it yet but there are Grenades (Toxic Editors,as Jimbo has called them) on the path. If they pick one up...and pull the pin....POW! Let them know there is a friend they can call to soften the blow.```Buster Seven Talk 05:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely magnificent. I started Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a community. I hope that other editors will take this and run with it. We could use some useful shortcuts WP:FC and WP:FIRST are already taken. Ryan Vesey 05:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:Initial Contact wasn't taken. I've made a copy of the above and moved it there.How do you make a shortcut to WP:IC? WP:ICE is also taken. (Damn that Bjorn!)```Buster Seven Talk 06:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Crap, I apologize, I used the wrong link. I created WP:First contact. Ryan Vesey 13:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• WP:HI might be an option if updated, and a lot of info is already there. Maybe adopt and reshape would be better? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• WP:HI is about an editor introducing themselves to Wikipedia. Buster7 was talking about actually welcoming an editor. Ryan Vesey 13:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I like WP:First contact. But, now what do I do with WP:Initial Contact? Shouldn't it be deleted or something? ```Buster Seven Talk 13:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Redirect it if you like first contact better. It would make sense for any initial contact shortcuts to go to first contact. Oh, and you create a shortcut by creating a redirect. Ryan Vesey 13:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Redirect.  Done ```Buster Seven Talk 13:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You might take a second look. It looks like an underdeveloped "hi" with basic tutorial for new editors to me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I like the look of HI but why whould we build one of our structures on someone elses foundation. Plus, I'm not sure the building is abandoned. The original owners may be a bit upset if we go in, gut the place, re-hab, and then open for business. Just a thought. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'm confused. It seems like a similar goal, a welcome to new users. Taking the idea farther by developing it should be seen as a good thing. It is obviously incomplete. And of course, you can contact the heavy contributors there and ask them to join us here, but this is a wiki, anyone can edit, right? ;) But WP:HI is a good shortcut, and it looks like the idea they have fits. Of course, it is your call, this is just my observation. I always look to bring new folks in that have similar ideas. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

When I saw Buster's comment and created the essay, I meant for it to be something that experienced editors read. Then hopefully they can change the way they contact new editors. I have no opposition to improving WP:HI, but I feel they are separate things with a similar goal. Ryan Vesey 13:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

On that note, I made {{Welcome only}} If people think it is a good idea for a welcome template, it would be great if you can improve it or give me your thoughts. Ryan Vesey 14:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:HI is excellent. It certainly can be one of the many places we send New Editors (via our Welcome). I'll let one of you knock on the door to see if they want to work with WP:WER. :~) ```Buster Seven Talk 14:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

BTW, we are at the point that we really need someone to revisit the front page here, condense the "reasons" by 2/3rd and use some boxy formatting to organize the place. We have a lot of good things going, but it is very hard to find them. I can code html in my sleep, but I know squat about wikicode (tsk tsk on me, I know). We need something nice, welcoming, maybe the graphic above that looks likely to become adopted here, a plant or two and some drapes ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

A receptionist? ```Buster Seven Talk 14:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we need some nice throw pillows and some nick nacks. I will take a minute tonight (need a break from real life project) to sort out the front page and box up the formating with a pleasing look.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I think there is sometimes a gap between the expectations long-time editors have of newcomers, and those of the new editors. When a new editor makes a problematic edit, experienced editors will typically point them to a Wikipedia project page with appropriate guidance (sometimes just using the shortcut name, which in itself can be difficult for a new editor to understand), assuming that the editor will proceed to read the project page in detail. I think though there are many casual editors who just wanted to fix something that they think is broken (in their view, although by Wikipedia standards, it may not be), and who won't bother. Due to the repetitive nature of dealing with new editors, experienced editors may forget this, and implicitly assume that a newbie is ramping up faster than is actually the case. The general hands-on solution in other discussion forums is to try to ensure a continual influx of intermediate editors willing to help out new editors, who haven't yet burned out on answering questions from newbies. So this means both retaining new editors and drawing some of them into editor assistance tasks. Another oft-used solution is to create tutorials and FAQs to cover common tasks and issues. isaacl (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Watch

Some ideas are better than others.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Every now and then a veteran editor puts a noose around his/her neck and threatens to jump off the chair. Right now User:AndyTheGrump is perched on the edge. We need an ALERT! function that can respond to these moments of editor depression. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC) O well. He has been blocked for a week. But its not really about Andy but about editor retention. As we members roam around WikiWorld we are going to run across situations like this. In this case, I was roaming Recent Changes looking for red-linked talks when I saw a strange comment, by Andy, on a user page edit summary. Went to his talk and found him standing on the chair (sic). We all watchlist this project and a "........ in Progress" thread would draw attention and response B4 blocks and bans and retirements, maybe. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC) In either case we shouldn't call it a "suicide watch". I dislike referring to on-wiki things as real life dangerous events. On an unrelated note, Buster, can you look at my comment at User talk:Worm That Turned#Adoption? Ryan Vesey 13:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC) Agreed! But I hope you see my point. If we are Editor Retention, we need to respond ...in the moment. We need some available dialogue...some eloquent words that have worked in the past...some script that convinces the troubled editor to reconsider and to get off the ledge...what a negotiator would say. I'll check Worm's talk out. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC) It's all very selfish. I would hope someone about to commit suicide would at least tell us first so we can place the appropriate tags on their user page. This is of course a joke but i do support some kind of mechanism where we are warned people are digging a big hole for themselves. I'm unsure how that would work though ツ Jenova20 (email) 13:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC) The comparison here is not a good one. Many of us have lost family and friends in the real world to suicide. Next week is a difficult 1 year anniversary in my life, for instance. We should be a little more careful of the words we use. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC) Inconsiderate on my part. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC) We all can be sometimes, being human. I don't take it personal at all. Sometimes we just need to remind each other when an idea is not a good idea. That is part of the goal as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Departing editors

As described in this good analysis of departures in the midst of a conflict, it's tricky to deal with these situations. Loud, noisy declarations of leaving, though perhaps not always, are often attempts to draw attention and don't result in the editor actually being able to disengage. Eloquent words simply intended to persuade the editor to stay, in addition to being of questionable effectiveness, can just cause more problems down the road, as it provides positive reinforcement for disruptive behaviour. As suggested in the article, the best approach may be to wish the editor well, express an honest desire to cross paths with the person again, and extend an invitation to return in the future. isaacl (talk) 14:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I've read Meatball. Also, I've made many attempts over the years and always failed. But, Ive lost many Wikifriends and I'd rather not lose more. Wishing them well etc. is the best course, agreed, it just seems like surrender. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Not a surrender, just the best way to avoid riling up an upset person further, while leaving a face-saving way to return when ready. isaacl (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Messages for new-page creators

The proposal is now an RfC and is currently taking place at:

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#rfc_B207991

Users interested in enhancing new-user/new-page retention are invited to take part in the discussion.

--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Guess how many IPs are blocked

How many IP addresses do you think are currently blocked from editing Wikipedia? I just ran the numbers for the latest rangeblock report and the total is... 10,735,998. Yep, 10.7 million IP addresses blocked. See also Wikipedia talk:Editor engagement experiments#Suggestion: Unblock invalid rangeblocks Kind regards. 64.40.54.10 (talk) 09:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)