Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention

Main pageEditor of the WeekMembersTemplatesTalk page

Using newcomers to help identify sections of policy & guidelines that are unclear

We have a wonderful and somewhat untapped resources in new editors... not just for their freshness and unique approach to article content that interests them, but they are reading all of our how-to pages (essays, policies, guidelines... everything) for the first time or two. Since these editors are seeing that stuff with fresh eyes, one way we could tell them we value their participation is to invite them to flag any area they had trouble understanding. Auto-invites could go out at predetermined intervals (3, 6, 12, and 18 months). Established eds could opt in for auto invites too.

This idea would need to define a place where they can make these observations.

In this way, we might overcome the tendency for our policy and other rule pages to stagnate from "status quo" inertia. I'm not saying we should change the rules, only that we should tell newcomers that we feel their pain when they find these pages confusing... and their input is very important so we can try to keep on improving the way we explain the rules.

Comments? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe...the place where they can make these observations about flagging an area they have trouble understanding is here at WER? Not sure what that would look like. Can we try an auto-invite? We need to promote ways of capturing the new user beyond their initial desire. I comment so that this potential conversation isn't lost in the archives. Ideas need fertilizer. Buster Seven Talk 07:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Apparent retirement of Dennis Brown

User:Dennis Brown, the founder of this group, has, apparently, more or less, retired. I salute him for his years of effort on this project, and wikipedia in general, and I think can say that I with the rest of you wish him all the best and hope that, if he sees fit, he may return to active editing again. And, yes, he had his e-mail disabled, and he's blanked his user talk page.

I note that we do have one barnstar which is already named for a single editor, Template:The Newyorkbrad Dispute Resolution Barnstar. Would anyone have any interest in maybe creating a barnstar for the basic tasks of this group in Dennis's name? John Carter (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I support the idea in principle but I think it's a little too early to be discussing a memorial barnstar for a Wikipedian that has last edited yesterday. Unless there is a volunteer here for it, I think the reward board would be a good place to make the request. This WikiProject could solicit a few designs, decide collectively which one we like best, and perhaps offer a {{The Barnstar Creator's Barnstar}} for reward. But again, let's wait a year or two. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Given that Dennis did not want to lead this project, and that he wanted to help facilitate the work done by many interested persons, personally I wouldn't choose to do this. The real legacy would be to revive this project. The Editor of the Week recognition needs a community behind it just to keep it running, and to help recipients feel like they are indeed being recognized by more than a single person. Maybe the criteria could be revised, or maybe it's time to shift gears and target a different type of editor (say, a rookie of the week award for someone who started editing in the past year). It would be great to have another initiative launched: can we examine Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Reasons editors leave and look for ways to address some of these issues? isaacl (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

isaacl, that was actually the intention when we started it. I cannot say when it drifted away. I'd like to see the original purpose of the editor retention project (which was to facilitate discussion such as the thread immediately above this) revived. However, since Dennis left active participation here, virtually every discussion has ended in a quagmire of negativity. Buster7 tried hard to keep things positive, I've tried to head off negativity by closing negative threads only to be told I had no right. Simply put, IMO, what we tried to do here died in the overwhelming negativity of the past two years (both on-wiki and off). It may not be revivable without a popular charismatic force like Dennis's presence. I'm being negative, I know, but.....look at the thread above. Great thought! How encouraged do you think the proposer is now? And want to take bets on the amount of crap that would be added if anyone had bothered to reply? I'm just as guilty as anyone else, no fingers pointed. John from Idegon (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, as you know, I was there, and I've written about how Wikipedia's consensus tradition can dissipate focus. (I can identify certain points where this trend took place, but it's water under the bridge now.) Dennis is the most well-known member of the project, but the only initiative that has come out of it to date was not primarily guided by him, but by Buster7, Go Phightins!, Mark Miller, you, me, and others (my apologies for those I have omitted; I'm writing this list from memory). Although big changes need broad support, tasks that can be done by small groups can move forward: all that's needed is creativity and commitment. isaacl (talk) 02:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• @John from Idegon: (as the one who objected to your "closing negative threads") I know you meant well, but stifling discussion, positive or negative, is the wrong way to go about trying to revive a group, on top of it being against wiki gidelines/spirit. I learnt this the hard way when my own, apparently unpopular post, was removed from this forum years ago, with the full support of User:Dennis Brown. Ottawahitech (talk) 11:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)please ping me

Ottawa. Mistakes happen. Things get said and done that are regrettable. Whats that old adage? Time heals all wounds. Looking back is not the medicine we need right now. You have been a member since the beginning and I hope can recall when this page was a hotbed of conversation and stimulating ideas. Lets get back to an open forum, a marketplace to share ideas and solutions. I support your reminder that we should all be watchful for censorship and the stifling of input. The problem was that until recently there was very little input. Buster Seven Talk 17:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@Buster7: I am not as sure as you are that this was not delibertely done. As a matter of fact I continue to see my own edits removed from talk pages. Actually I am starting to believe this is a common problem for many other editors who are being silenced by more popular editors. Ottawahitech (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)please ping me

Moved from Archives

• Back on July First 2012...when the project was only a few hours old...and Dennis warned about watching for the wet paint...he laid the groundwork for what he intended:

  I'm trying to start conversations in singular, digestible chunks. Of course, I can't control where the discussion goes, but I try to keep it focused on ideas for solutions, and put different problems in their own full thread, all on the same page.

• By the end of the year he said this:

  You have to remember that the sole purpose of WER isn't to deal with civility, although that is one issue that fits the goals. We still do many different things via WER, typically not on this page. Often people drop off problems and a member will go and try to help, often with success. The Project is more a place to discuss problems, create awareness, and provide a venue for both sides of debates. If WER has done anything, it has allowed the discussion to take place in a public area, owned by no one. The real work that gets done never happens on this page. But you are right that I am not smart enough to figure out the solution on my own, and you may be right that it is structural and will require core changes, I honestly don't know. I do know that opinions are very split, and getting consensus seems hopeless at this time. And yes, usually I come across more hopeful, perhaps more so than I really feel, but it is just my way to try to project an optimistic view. For now, myself and others try ad hoc solutions in individual situations where we can, but that is a very hit or miss proposition. It is better than nothing, but still less than optimal. As for being a de facto leader, I understand why others see it that way, which is why I sometimes ride the fence, as to encourage discussion and not force the Project into my particular point of view. It is still not the role I wanted, and it is a bit uncomfortable at times, to be honest. There are a great many issues that affect editor retention, and if I had the answers, I would have no need for the project. The purpose is to get people to talk so we can learn and develop ideas. Some solutions are obvious and everyone agrees, but many (like civility) are not. The whole reason to start the project was that I knew the best ideas wouldn't come from me, but from others, and this would provide a forum for them.

• A look at the original edit Dennis made to start the project [1] gives us an idea of his original intent. To me, what I heard was I can't control where the discussion goes and it is just my way to try to project an optimistic view and The purpose is to get people to talk so we can learn and develop ideas. What happened was we stopped talking. I agree with isaacl...the real legacy would be to revive this project. Buster Seven Talk 05:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not certain that Dennis has retired, though if he has that would be rather ironic. Anyways, I'm going over to his talkpage & try to persuade him not to retire. GoodDay (talk) 14:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think he has necessarily retired as in left indefinitely, but he has turned in the tools of adminship and blanked his user page, which at least looks a lot like retiring. And, I acknowledge my own off-again, on-again editing pattern has made it harder for me to keep up with things myself, which would make me far less than ideal to revive it. Regarding the matter of civility, and the related matter of stalking of some sort or another, which are two of the big reasons long-time editors retire for less than optimal reasons, maybe, if nothing else, some sort of place for individuals to indicate that they think someone might be "following them around" for less than good reason, with the possibility of maybe getting a few more people involved in the relevant discussions and maybe reducing the impact of the stalking, if that is in fact what is taking place in that instance? John Carter (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

He posted somewhere (can't remember where) shortly before he disappeared, saying that the medical marijuana votes in the US in November meant he'd be very busy (his day job is selling agricultural lighting systems for hot-housing greenhouse plants). I very much doubt he's stormed off in a huff. ‑ Iridescent 21:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

editorial break

John Carter. Your comment about getting people involved in relevant discussions elsewhere in WP rekindles a 7 year old idea. When I first started to edit WP and I was roaming around various article and editor talk pages, getting my feet wet, it struck me how often I found editors singlehandedly trying to fend off attacks from other editors. Many times the individual was new and the "others" were veterans. I thought how good it would be if there was a group of editors (I planned to call them WikiKnights) that could provide assistance and a friendly voice so, at the very least, the lone editor didn't feel isolated and forgotten...so that there was a group that could get them past this moment of stress and strife and help them move on to bigger and better things. I was too young and inexperienced to get it past the draft stage. Maybe it now has possibilities. Buster Seven Talk 05:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Isaacl The WikiKnight idea fits with your "small groups". Kind of like cadres whose mission is to retain the troubled editor. I'm not taking about troublesome editors; more about editors that have gotten into trouble because of their inexperience. Buster Seven Talk 06:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm reminded of a village pump discussion on an anti-bullying task force, which I tried to recast in terms of dealing clique behaviour and setting expectations, both for experienced editors and newcomers. As discussed later in the thread, there are lots of challenges in making this operational, not the least of which is managing the helpers themselves: how can their interactions be guided towards helpful intervention, as opposed to making the situation worse? Unfortunately it is the textbook definition of a difficult-to-staff initiative in a volunteer group: lots of investment in time required in stressful situations, with likely a low number of successes. The Teahouse might provide a function similar to what you are thinking of. Last time I checked, involvement there was drying up, so maybe trying to reinvigorate it would be a good step forward? I encourage anyone to think of tasks you can do yourself or with a small core group, and try them out—if you succeed, great; if not, re-evaluate, and try something else.

On a side note, I think the thankless task of mediating disputes or even just providing some gentle intervention to get everyone talking constructively is an area where it would be useful to have paid staff, simply to ensure there is someone dedicated to the task. As far as I can tell, though, there isn't much support for this amongst those most likely to participate in a Request for Comments on the matter. isaacl (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

In terms of dealing with the helpers as a group, maybe the first step might be for them to leave polite notes on the bullies' talk pages, indicating that they are coming in as, well, observers, in a discussion. They could also then use the same user talk page to address concerns over problematic behavior, while using the article talk page or bullied editor's talk page to discuss the broader issues. Should an individual become too familiar to the anti-bullying task force, they could obviously seek administrative or arbcom attention.

To my eyes, part of the problem might be where to have the anti-bullies discuss things in a way which doesn't maybe contribute to the problem in some way. John Carter (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

In my experience, bullies don't take kindly to notes about their bullying, no matter how polite it is phrased. I think the helpers should just show up in the arena and show concern for the editing future of the bullied editor (who is most likely a newbie). Whatever "the issue is" is of secondary importance to retaining the editor. "The issue" will be handled by the machinery of WP. What WER members should be most concerned with is the possibility that the new editor will be chewed up in the machinery process and spit out. I'm advocating that we don't need one more voice to handle the issue. Those voices are not rare. What is rare is a voice that speaks to the "bullied" editor with support and understanding.Buster Seven Talk 18:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

That works too. John Carter (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

data-sort-value="" |  What a loss for Wikipedia if it sticks. I don't think anyone needs consensus if they, on their own, want to create a barnstar in his honor to award to another user. His legacy of starting this project, being a tireless dispute resolution advocate, and a genuine good guy left this project better than he found it. Go Phightins! 17:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Calendar Update

The Peacemaking Meeting scheduled for tomorrow has been cancelled due to conflict. . Buster Seven Talk 05:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

HAHA. GoodDay (talk) 06:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Editor of the Week Discussion

FYI for those that are not aware, there is an on-going discussion here too. Cheers, JustBerry (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

The Editor of the Week initiative needs help to continue!

• Nominations of unsung contributors are needed: who do you know who does good work but has gone unrecognized? In particular, what novice editors could use a little encouragement by knowing their efforts are appreciated?
• Supporting statements for nominations are needed: help confirm that a nominee is deserving of recognition
• Help with announcing recipients is needed: a recipient infobox must be prepared, and then all appropriate pages updated. See the "to do" list under Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week#Administrative procedures for a list of tasks. If you are interested, please write a note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week to co-ordinate your efforts with the others involved.

Not only do many hands make work light, but they engender greater satisfaction from the recipient and build a stronger connection to a community of support. Your participation is appreciated! isaacl (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

"What do I do, though?"

Recently, I have spoken with multiple editors over IRC regarding WP:RETENTION. Although people generally seem to admire the project, I have heard multiple comments regarding people not knowing what to do to help out at WP:RETENTION. Looking back at the home page, my feeling is that we give people such a full idea of what the mission is and why the mission is important, but not enough of what needs to be done. My proposal is to include the two todolists at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Editor_Retention/Editor_of_the_Week/todo on the front page (collapsable--so they don't take up much space, but clearly denoted/marked/highlighted). What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustBerry (talk • contribs) 00:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you modify the section you created earlier so it asks people for help with the Editor of the Week project. I think the greatest gap is in nominating new recipients and seconding nominations. The second most time-consuming task is creating the infobox. The actual announcement is straightforward enough and just needs one person able to do it each week (or a rotation between persons).

As I discussed in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention#Apparent retirement of Dennis Brown, it would be great for new initiatives to be started. There have been a few threads on this page that people can follow up on, or people can chime in with their ideas. The key is to have interested parties who are willing to dedicate time and investment in persistent efforts. isaacl (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I just make sure to encourage recently retired editors or editors contemplating retirement, to change their minds. GoodDay (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I try to do the same, generally after seeing if there is any particular recent circumstance which may have prompted their retirement and seeing if there is any way to address that. Yeah, that is more reactive than pro-active, and that is less than optimal in itself. Having some sort of "early-warning system" about potential retirees would be great, if anyone could think of one. John Carter (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Good point, John. I'll look into making a tool for that. --JustBerry (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Lest we forget....

Dennis may have retired for now but "t(his)" project lives on. The following are some words of encouragement from March of 2015

What is editor retention?

Moved from Archives

I'm not around much, and you don't want to be me this month, but I will take the time to reiterate one point, a point that addresses some of the questions above and in the archive: What is editor retention really about?
Let me offer a different perspective, a different way of looking at how I see editor retention in general. WER isn't the only effort to retain editors, although we are arguably the most visible project doing that work. There are many other valid analogies, this is just one of many....
WER is a group of farmers. Like all farmers, it isn't a binary job, but rather one in which you do good work and you will get good results. Put a little more effort into it, and you will get better results, etc. Our first focus is on the soil, the medium in which our crop grows.
We try to give Wikipedia better soil, a better environment, so that good things will grow from it. We do this by encouraging policies that help new users, and ones that make it possible for blocked users to come back if we reasonably believe they will be an asset. We improve the soil by helping out in dispute and content resolution, by welcoming new users, and taking the time to help someone. It all starts with the soil, the foundation, the overall environment at Wikipedia. The more people you have working the soil, the better that soil is likely to be.
Editor of the Week and other programs like the T-shirt giveaway (which isn't WER but does the same function) is like fertilizer. it takes existing editors and makes them stronger, more vigorous. This has additional benefits, we have learned, in that it helps us identify new leaders, as we have several admin come from the program.
The crop is articles; the primary product that Wikipedia produces, and the only reason it exists.
Reading is the harvest. The beautiful part is that the crop is infinite. It is literally like an apple tree that never runs out of fruit. Once we have retained excellent editors, and they produce well written and sourced prose, it is available to be enjoyed by 1 person or 100 million. The most important Wikipedian IS the reader, and they reap the greatest reward from a competent editor retention program. Keeping high value talent here means better accuracy and sourcing, more readable prose, all on a well maintained page.
While it is easy to think about the individual editors we try to assist so they can be happy, productive members of Wikipedia, it is important to remember that all our work here at WER, just like all the editing, admin'ing, coding and even the people running payroll at the Foundation, is all about and for the reader.
From Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not certain if you're really Dennis Brown, but anyway, I spend little time here (at WP:RETENTION), but rather concentrate on persuading editors to not retire :) GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry if I caused your confusion (or anyone else). A check of the history would have shown that it was not Dennis. I see now that I should have signed my preface. I posted the above as a reminder of Dennis's words of advice. The archives are a rich source of encouragement and I just wanted to re-kindle enthusiasm. No harm intended. Buster Seven Talk 17:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

January 28, 2017, the week following, and long-term project goals

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week

Looks like White Arabian Filly is up for receiving the award this upcoming Saturday, if I am not mistaken. @Buster7: Regarding the infobox notification for this past week, I have just notified Tyler of their infobox here. The notification, though, seems to have gotten lost in the midst of the week. It may be beneficial (for now, i.e. until there is more project involvement), to keep the infobox notification day on Sunday. Alternatively, we can notify the recipient of their infobox at the end of the week following the Saturday they receive the award, informing them that their infobox has been featured on the project main page for the past week (another round of appreciation, which seems to be the intention behind keeping the infobox notification day on Monday or Tuesday). The end-of-the-week day would be at the top of the todolist (prior to starting the tasks related to the new recipient).

I also feel as though we should begin setting long-term project goals. A primary goal seems to be increasing project involvement (or awareness at the least). Along with brainstorming ideas, such as mass-messaging still-active project 'registrants,' I think breaking down the ideas into doable parts and setting realitic deadlines for each part would be helpful. I realize the deadlines seem limiting. However, everyone is welcome to chip in to move the project along. My hope is to reactivate interest, after which the need for deadlines to efficiently utilize the handful of editors that are left in the project will not be needed.

Further, I have been considering algorithms and ideas regarding making a bot to generate a list of quality contributors, who seem to be getting progressively less active, i.e. heading towards retirement, with a fellow Mediawiki sysadmin. Since the bot would mainly be doing searching and analysis (not editing articles), the bot could dump the list into a userspace, avoiding the need for a bot approval proposal and such (for now). Then, we can easily transclude the userspace dump onto a project page. I whole-heartedly encourage everyone to vigorously participate in this discussion, leaving criticisms, ideas, etc. below. --JustBerry (talk) 06:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Additional Note: Also, thank you, Lepricavark, for tag-teaming with me in working through the checklist and processing the nomination, notification, page updating, etc. in a timely fashion this past week. --JustBerry (talk) 06:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes I was quite happy earlier today to see the eddybox on the Project main page and at Tyler's talk page. I like the idea of the Saturday following with a note that informs them of the Front Page Prominence for the past week and maybe adding a reference to the Hall of Fame while were at it. Contacting editors as they consider retirement has always been presented on these talk pages as one of the top programs that this Project should undertake. Nothing has ever taken wing but the archives are full of the many dozens of times that the subject of retaining "almost-retirees" has come up. Once your idea for a bot gets going maybe we could scour the archives for editors that have brought the issue to "our marketplace for ideas" and we can inform that the time has come and their idea needs fertilizer and some gardening. Buster Seven Talk 08:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. I have modified the weekly todolist here, Buster7. I certainly think getting some stats/names on our list (from the bot) will be great in sparking more conversation and generating more ideas for the project. I do want to quickly distinguish, though, that there are two agendas we're talking about here regarding the bot's functionalities: 1) figuring out and considering (for nomination) almost-active retirees 2) figuring out and contacting still-active project registrants. --JustBerry (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Curteousy ping: @GoodDay: I noticed your note about WP:RETENTION on Dennis's talk page. It is certainly unfortunate that the project founder has themselves felt the need to retire. However, I pinged you because I wanted to let you know that discussions about revitalizing the project are still active, and you are more than welcome to give your ideas, call other editors who you think are interested in the project, and help with administrative tasks as you desire. --JustBerry (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm content to leave any changes or improvements here, in the capable hands of ya'll. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Surely! Thanks for stopping by. --JustBerry (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@Buster7: I will be updating this todolist to provide insight into the bot development/discussion. --JustBerry (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

As I said earlier, my personal preference would be to put the infobox on the recipient's talk page (and the Editor of the Week page) at the same time when the recipient is notified of the recognition. It's like getting your award statue on stage at the same time it is announced.

Regarding project goals, I'm unclear if you are referring to the Editor of the Week initiative, the editor retention project, or both. For the latter, discussion should be held on the wikiproject talk page, rather than this one.

Regarding setting deadlines, I think more time is being spent talking about them than finding someone (or volunteering) to do the tasks in time (it takes just about the same amount of time to write down a deadline as actually putting the infobox on the recipient's talk page). Again I suggest that each week, say on Sunday, the weekly to-do list is updated and everyone claims tasks. Without volunteer commitment, deadlines aren't helpful. isaacl (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

It looks like you and @Buster7: are on opposite sides of the spectrum regarding the gap between initially awarding the recipient and giving the recipient their infobox. Kindly discuss.

The discussion has been moved here to the main project page accordingly. Thanks for advising, Issac.

Regarding deadlines, I think the todolist has refined itself. We are working on getting volunteers involved in the project. This will need time, and cannot happen right away. For now, though, the todolist seems to have kept the tasks moving along between Lepricavark and I this past week. Anyone else is welcome to chip in and mark tasks with {{resolved mark}} ~~~ upon completing each one (chronologically). --JustBerry (talk) 22:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Whatever happened before was totally at my discretion and for my convenience. I am no longer committed to a time separation between Award and eddybox. At the same time would be perfectly fine with me. Buster Seven Talk 02:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

In that case, Buster7 and Isaac, Sunday should work fine. The problem with sending out the infobox on Saturday is that the peer reviewing of the infobox is set for Saturday. --JustBerry (talk) 02:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure, if the infobox were to be sent on the same day that the recipient is notified, then peer review of it would also have to be moved up. As I suggested before, I think it would be good to have the infobox ready when the nomination is accepted. isaacl (talk) 04:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Let me take a moment to point out how splendid and informative the 2 recent eddyboxes are. Well done, JB. Buster Seven Talk 17:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Adjusting the RETENTION Menu Bar/Header

Considering adding WP:RETENTION/todo as one of the tabs to the project tab menu. Please leave your thoughts below. --JustBerry (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I feel the Editor of the Week tasks should be kept distinct from those of the editor retention project. Not everyone interested in editor retention is interested in the Editor of the Week recognition. isaacl (talk) 05:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

In that case, we may need to section off two todo lists. Work with the bot (currently being setup; see bot todo list on that page), for example, is relevant to both projects and can certainly use help or ideas from all project members. --JustBerry (talk) 11:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Structural problem with administrators

Has anyone looked into the role that administrators play in editor discouragement/retirement please? I think in general administrators perform important tasks, but posting warning messages on talkpages over minor issues, sometimes with the threat of arbitrary bans and blocks, and without assuming good faith, has a chilling effect. Wikipedia is supposed to be a relaxing hobby and some administrators make editing stressful. However, I think this may be a structural problem--I don't think they are sadistic on purpose--I think one way we could help with "editor retention" is by reassessing the power dynamics. Zigzig20s (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that is a rather exaggerated perception, Zigzig20s, especially without a significant number (as in 'several hundred') of diffs to prove that it is as common as you suggest. IMO, When done, the chilling effect is generally necessary. Remember that the majority of editors posting warning messages on talkpages over minor issues, sometimes with the threat of arbitrary bans and blocks, and without assuming good faith are non-admins reveling in the power to police Wikipedia in a manner that would never allow them to be promoted to moderators on a common or garden forum or blog. I often also remind the anti-admin faction that I was myself abused by teenage admins early in my Wikicareer neither of whom, (fortunately) are still around, but I have never tarred all admins with the same brush. It's time that users with long tenure and high edit counts stood up and be vetted for adminship themselves before making sweeping statements of this nature. Perhaps this WPER project should from time to time examine the reason for the voluntary exodus of so many admins. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

So sorry if I wasn't clear. As I said, in general, I think administrators tend to perform important tasks. I asked a question; I am not "tarring" anyone at all and there is nothing personal about this. But editors are human beings with feelings too. I am asking if others feel the same way about this structural problem, and if we should reassess the power dynamics to enhance editor retention.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't really see how what you've stated your perception is amounts to a problem with administrators. Most warnings are applied by everyday users like you and me. Generally, an administrator will only leave you a warning message either as an everyday editor (which they all are) or as a result of some community discussion. Administrative communication with editors is rare. And if you are receiving administrative admonishments, it's a fair bet your behavior isn't conforming to community standards. Would you care to restate your problem or give a specific example? John from Idegon (talk) 03:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

No, because I don't want to commit Wikipedia:Suicide by admin. Again, this is not about Zigzig20s; this is a question about the possible need for structural reform in power dynamics to enhance Editor Retention!Zigzig20s (talk) 03:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

You have not made any case for that. At all. Again, the vast majority of warnings are given by everyday editors. That seemed to be the crux of your concern; so if you have nothing further to say, I'd say your concerns are baseless. Specifically, if you have a problem that can be addressed, say so. In a manner that can be addtessed. Whining about administrative power while saying nothing whatsoever about any administrative power that needs to be changed is a waste of others' time. IMO, editors that cannot communicate effectively and waste others time are as much a reason people leave here as administrative abuses, which I see very little of. John from Idegon (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Please assume good faith--I am not making a case or "whining" at all. I am asking a question about power dynamics as a potential problem for editor retention, which is relevant to this WikiProject. There was a question mark at the beginning of my very first post. If you think power dynamics are not a problem, fine. There is no need for you to keep telling us. The question is addressed to all members of this WikiProject, in the hope that we can find constructive solutions to fix the problem if others agree this is a problem.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

The problem is you posits a problem that may or may not exist and then you muddy the waters with a bunch of crap. Your position in your question was that administrative power is somehow a problem and the evidence you offered hasn't a damn thing to do with administrative powers. Perhaps the problem is your rotten communication skills. Cause that's the only thing you've demonstrated. It's easy as hell to point fingers at others. When you can make a sensible point, come back and discuss it. If you think editor generated warnings are some sort of indication of administrative abuse, the problem is yours. If you do not have the cahones to actually say what you are thinking, that too is your problem. Are we supposed to read your mind? If you want to make vague accusations, you're part of the problem not the solution and Wikiocrocy is thataway. John from Idegon (talk) 05:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I am making zero accusations, as this is not a personal matter, but a structural one. I am asking a question to improve editor retention, which is the whole point of this WikiProject. I take it that you don't like the question. That's fine, and you don't need to tell us again. Please let other editors answer the question.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I dunno. It is certain that the incidence of administrators (and other editors) warning editors in an unnecessarily harsh manner, or with inadequate cause, inclining that editor to leave the project, is not zero, obviously; that would be impossible. Is the incidence of this higher than we would expect given the normal functioning of a project like this? I guess not, not in my experience, no.

It's a very large, busy, and fast-moving project. There isn't time to fully assess each incident as much as we would like, so sometimes mistakes are made. Sometimes an editor is warned more quickly and harshly that really ought to have been.

I don't know if there's an answer to this. More admins maybe. My personal experience is that there isn't a structural problem or a problem with the personnel, generally, that I've seen. Herostratus (talk) 06:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

One of the varied points of this project is to provide a platform for ideas and, perhaps, provide an arena for the possible implementation of them. But we need something to work with, some facts, some discoveries you have made or have witnessed...some proof that this power dynamic exists in a profusion that is measurable. Can you provide some examples, some diffs, or something to examine. How can we provide answers without something beyond your own hypothetical claim? If I consider "power dynamic" I have a notion that its more editors that know whats going on over editors that don't. Or the power of editors that accept criticism and move on over those that dig in and fight over the smallest perceived slight. Have you had some recent dealings with admins that displayed this power dynamic you speak of? Buster Seven Talk 08:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

No, because I refuse to be baited into Wikipedia:Suicide by admin. Again, I don't believe this is a personal matter, but a structural one. That's why I think it makes sense to get together in this WikiProject and reassess the power dynamics in order to improve editor retention! One thing I will say, since I have been editing Wikipedia for over ten years, is that administrators seem to be less willing to assume good faith than they used to, and this has made editing more stressful. Perhaps Newmark's donation to stop online bullying could look into the way admins treat regular editors--and sometimes overreact, or perhaps use warnings/bans/blocks punitively. This is not personal because I'm sure some/most admins are not sadists, but I do believe there may be a need for structural reform.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, there is a certain degree of clique behaviour that can cause tension between experienced editors and new editors. Combating this needs co-operation from both sides: experienced editors need to be persistent in their efforts to be inclusive, and new editors need to be understanding when others fail to craft the perfect response to them. Unfortunately, I don't have any ideas at present on how to encourage these behaviours in a way that reaches those who could use the reminder. It's a very difficult problem. isaacl (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't really see how the expression power dynamics really applies a all. There are only about 20 or 30 admins who are truly active in patrolling or monitoring those areas where conflict arises or is discussed, and they are mostly pretty professional in the way they go about resolving and defusing hairy issues. There are 33,000 regular 'wannabe admin' editors who have made ANI, AIV, XfD, and RfA and other drama boards their home. So, I dunno about fancy terms like 'power dynamics', but it's easy to see where the real power lies - and it ain't with the admins. WE're just the jailers janitors with the keys; the police, the prosecutors, the lawyers and the judges are the ones you can hear above the noise they make munching groundnuts in their gallery.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

This is getting to be a bit of a conversation- so may I just add a few POVs. Saying that this is a structural matter means this is a problem with the organisation not the individuals- it implies that the action becomes inevitable- and the individuals are mere pawns in the game. It is a point of view that merits examination. Don't shoot the messenger- just yet. We have some good real-life examples of utopia disintegrating -hopefully we can learn from their mistake. One structural problem we have is how every disagreement dissolves into precedent and case-law which appears to fascinate the folks gifted enough to become admins and bores most editors rigid. It takes years of study to learn where it is permissible to put a hyphen and the ´force' of the structure ensures that the jobbing editor will always lose- even when in real life they are perfectly correct. The 'force' has codified behaviour- and after years of study one can apply the Civility policy to do anything- it is an excellent example of passive aggression. Individuals may run amok in their various roles but is it something about our structure that allows it to happen or maybe encourages it to happen?

I keep on my talk page a classic example of an alpha-male response to a non-incident. At User_talk:ClemRutter#Just FYI Both members of the tag-team chose to misrepresent a comment about an erroneous good-faith edit as an assault on their DNA- both guys I had looked up to in the past but the system has done something to them and they use their knowledge to cause mayhem. It is 3.00 in the morning here an I am still editing-- why? The system? Others did but have just walked away. We are here to consider why- an overview, not specifics --ClemRutter (talk) 02:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Clem, Whether or not those were Alpha-male responses or even male ones, none of the people in the thread you link to are actually administrators. That isn't an isolated incident, I've seen several reports over the years where people have complained of administrator behaviour and then given examples of editing by people who aren't administrators. Unless you want to start a new thread on Structural problems with non administrators, this is not an ideal example. ϢereSpielChequers 11:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Interesting- a new offence perhaps 'Impersonating an admin'?--ClemRutter (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Arguably neither claimed to be an Admin, I think those who do so falsely are rare. But they clearly behaved as if they could tell others what to do. The way we run this site is to encourage anyone to get involved in self policing it; At RFA candidates are expected to have already started acting in admin like ways. Indeed you can't pass an RFA unless you have demonstrated a "need for the tools"; normally by either tagging articles for deletion or reporting vandals for blocking. RFA has often seen candidates fail for errors in such tagging, especially in deletion tagging. Even more common are candidates whose early tagging was sloppy but who now are ready to run. Candidates rarely get their identification of vandalism so wrong as to report goodfaith editors for blocking as vandals. But there are several other pitfalls that RFA candidates do fall into, and that's just the candidates. There may even be some longstanding non admins who don't run at RFA precisely because they know their behaviour is too bitey to pass an RFA. It would be interesting to know whether the editors that Zigzig20s and Ottawahitech complain about are actually admins. I can't see the community agreeing to restrict some of these admin like actions to admins, but perhaps we can do something to speed up their learning process so they get less bitey more quickly. ϢereSpielChequers 00:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I mean admins, because they are the ones with power and thus likely to instil fear and lead to lower editor retention. There seems to be some agreement with my concern below.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@:WereSpielChequers: Absolutely my issue is with ADMINs who set the tone that others emulate (see below). I provided a concrete example earlier on this page of a very popular ADMIN with whom I personally had an altercation years ago. Since that time I have seen many examples of editors who feel it is OK to silence others on talk pages. Ottawahitech (talk) 10:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC) )please ping me

• I agree with user:Zigzig20s. Admins are not always careful to act as role models on Wikipedia, not realizing they set the tone for many other editors. Edit summaries accusing editors of vandalism / Speedy deletion of articles as spam /silencing others by removing comments from talk-pages are some areas many admins commonly abuse. Just my$.02. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)please ping me

• While I agree with Zigzag to an extent as well, I have reservations about attempting to place admins on too high of a pedestal here. Some, honestly, are worse than others. Those admins might merit having the bit taken from them a bit faster than often happens, and if anyone had a good idea of how to do that, I would welcome seeing it. Other admins can be better, and I don't see any need to necessarily seem to lump them in with the others. Having said that, I have no clue really how to limit the impact of the dubious admins, other than, maybe, going to ANI or wherever and suggesting in the relevant threads that maybe some sort of adoption might work. John Carter (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• This "power dynamics" question seems to be about a person-to-person problem. An admin-to-editor problem. In 8 years of editing, I have had very little negative interaction with administrators. To my knowledge, I've never been threatened with a ban or a block. I rarely get warning messages over minor issues...and when I do get them, I don't get mad or stressed. I don't view admins as my enemy, out to get me, out to force me to retire, out to force me to commit suicide by administrator. Not to say I haven't seen some atrocious behavior by random Admins. But I don't think that's a problem WE can solve here. It's a person-to-person problem so WE can talk about it till the cows come home and WE won't get anywhere. I think you handle it in the moment, fix the problem indicated by the warning message, don't worry or focus on any subordinate clutter, and move on. John Carter offers some different solutions above. Any others? Buster Seven Talk 04:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)