Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention

Main pageEditor of the WeekMembersTemplatesTalk page

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

User talk:71.239.82.39

Losing another expert content contributor. (No analysis at Editor Retention?) Ihardlythinkso (talk)

Wikimedia's efforts in order to keep Wikipedia an open and self-organizing network

We submitted a request for an IEG grant at Grants:IEG/"Wikimedia's efforts in order to keep Wikipedia an open and self-organizing network.". It concerns a systematic assessment of the (essential) formal policies to keep Wikipedia an open and self-organizing network and of all informal practices of stakeholders to support or subvert this. Your thoughts and comments would be very much appreciated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.115.180.33 (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2014

How well do we handle usernames?

Sometimes I think our conflict of interest policy is the second most misunderstood thing about Wikipedia from the outside world (the first being copyright). Take a look at User talk:British Bandsman. This account has one mainspace edit adding a link to a website, and a sandbox about a magazine with the same name as them. Sounds like "spam" doesn't it .... except the magazine has been going for over 120 years, appears all over the place in a Google Books search, and is in the Guinness World Records as the world's longest running weekly print publication. So why is our standard procedure to block the user and give them instructions that I'm not sure a newbie would understand? If I had the big orange blocked template as a new user, I'd probably be scared away. As for the sandbox, I think it meets WP:GNG and have moved it to mainspace as British Bandsman ... but if I hadn't got involved, a newbie would have got frustrated and we'd be missing an article. What can we do? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I sent him an e-mail indicating that to my eyes the block was not for anything he had done so much as his user name. I also indicated that he can still edit his user talk page and ask that the block be lifted, and that I am willing to offer any help that I might be able to. There is the possibility that this editor might have a COI regarding the topic, maybe being an employee, so there is a chance that maybe the block was a good one. Maybe. I dunno, and don't have enough information to make a decision.

Having said all that, it might not be a bad idea to maybe propose the creation of a specific template for bad user names which doesn't have the big red x on it which really would come across as a very harsh and maybe judgmental to a newbie. John Carter (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd go right back to basics. Why do we block people? Because we believe all or most edits they're about to make will harm the project. A simple "oy, your username is not acceptable, change it here" message (as you describe) would do - then if they actually spam and require reverting or salting, then we can block them per WP:HEAR or WP:COMPETENCE. Isn't our mantra on blocking supposed to be "when in doubt, don't" anyway? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Define "doubt." It is very possible for someone who might not know some details about, for instance, how long National Geographic has been run and how clearly obvious its notability is to think that someone who starts a user name and article by that name to think that there is some form of promotion involved. Honestly, for a lot of smaller companies, having a user name which is the name of a company is grounds for the name being changed. If the edit history is, surprise surprise, related to the content on the topic after which the user is named, that could, not unreasonably, be seen as sufficient to identify an SPA.

Yeah, I know that there could be productive editors who take names related to a specific topic for whatever reason. If User:Smithsonian were to put lots of images of items in the Smithsonian Institution on commons and work more or less exclusively on articles relating to the museums and their contents, that would raise questions too. Particularly if the edits seem to promote the Smithsonian in some way. For all I know, this person maybe was an employee or COI person. I'm not sure, but if a magazine were decades old and still didn't have an article after 10 years here, it wouldn't be unreasonable to think that, maybe, an employee wanted to change that.

I do think that maybe the block is open to discussion based on what you said, and I regret that it was done in the way it was, but in a lot of similar cases it does seem that such action is more warranted perhaps than it might have been in this one. John Carter (talk) 20:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Just letting everyone know he's been unblocked. John Carter (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Unblocking is one thing, but getting them to come back is quite another. This is a real problem – it strongly discourages many of the new editors we should be working most to attract. Same thing at Rogiet Primary School / User:Rogiet Primary. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Editor of the year?

Just wondering if anyone thought that maybe we might do something like WP:MILHIST with their "editor of the year" and "newcomer of the year" awards, and, if we were, what criteria we would want to use for determination. John Carter (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I would prefer not singling out a single editor, as there is a lot of potential for inadvertently upsetting worthy contributors in the process. A roll call of honour which recognized everyone who met a set of standards (they could be objective, such as X articles of a specified quality or higher, or subjective, such as three supporting nominations) could be a way to give some thanks to some of the highly appreciated contributors to Wikipedia. isaacl (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

If there are individuals with the greatest edit count overall this past year, greatest mainspace edit count this year, most GAs or FAs or both this past year, and similar individuals new this past year with either the greatest number of such edits, or most edits per day since first activity, and if there is a way to figure those, I would imagine they would be included. Maybe, beyond that, something like the current editor of the week system, with one person nominating and another seconding, might be sufficient to be included in what might be called the annual "roll of honor". John Carter (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Hall of Fame. Free Admission. Open 24 Hours, 7 days a week. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

So I've had better ideas. At least, I'm going to tell myself that. ;) Consider the proposal withdrawn. John Carter (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

A roll of honour can be different than the Editor of Week Hall of Fame by setting up specific criteria, and it would serve to recognize many worthwhile editors, so if it's something you'd like to pursue, that's great. Time is a bit on the short side, though, as I assume many people will become busy with other tasks at this time. isaacl (talk) 02:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I would love to see a parralel program to etow that recognized any editor, not just new and underrecognized ones, that spent their time doing wonky stuff that doesn't attract much attention, such as infobox work, copyediting, vandalism patrol, AfC, AfD, etc. Except for my recent poor behavior, an editor that wonks around and neatens and cleans like myself. (expressly not me tho, for the reason stated above). People who do that kind of stuff are very needed, and generally underappreciated. Just a thought. John from Idegon (talk) 06:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you draw up a list of criteria that you had in mind? Would it be based on number of edits of specific types? If so, would this be edits in total, or over a specific period of time? If over a period of time, this would imply regularly issuing the recognition X times a year. If in total, there could be an increasing scale of thresholds to recognize editors as they pass them. Or would it be nomination based? If so, how would the nominations be processed? (A strictly accomplishment-based system could be managed by a small number of people, which always makes it easier to keep an initiative going.) Just a few questions that came to mind; I'm sure you can think of more. isaacl (talk) 06:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Issac. Pretty much I'm thinking a nearly identical program to etow, however removing the new and underrecognized clause from the requirements (also the ban on admin types) and adding for work that is not content creation. Wonky stuff like I mentioned above. Also it could be a device to shine light on unseen work that admin types do (do you know what the 'crats do? I don't, but they do it and it must be needed). Also I would like to see nomination by a direct peer required. For example, I work mainly in three areas: school articles, place articles and mentoring (altho sadly I haven't been able to do much with the last lately). If I were to be nominated, it should be from someone else that either edits school articles, place articles or that mentors. I am clueless as to a name. Again just a thought to run up the flagpole to see who salutes it. John from Idegon (talk) 07:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The Editor of the Week initiative has, unfortunately, not developed a community of participants discussing the nominations (typically one person simply says "Seconded"). Because it is a low-stakes recognition targeted towards a specific type of editor, the absence of a more explicit vetting process for the nominations isn't a big deal. For a more general award aimed at a broader audience, though, I think a more substantial screening process is needed to provide additional value above the low overhead of a personal thank you or barnstar from a direct peer. For better or worse, I suspect it would be difficult to keep a group of participants engaged to process nominations thoroughly and regularly. isaacl (talk) 07:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't mean to piss on any bodies parade. I like new ideas and this is a good one. But don't forget one very important thing...Someone has to be behind the scenes moving all the necessary parts to keep a thing like Editor of the Week going, week after week for two years. Things like this don't manage themselves. If someone is going to start a new award (which is a good thing and one I support) they had better be ready to stick to it for the long haul and keep their hands on the steering wheel. I have been that someone, behind the Editor of the Week curtain, making sure everything that needed to be done was getting done. GoPhightins has helped dispensing the award and Isaac1 has been very handy with advice and good counsel. Let's not get something going unless someone steps forward and commits to keeping it going. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to say, but I do believe Buster is right. It would be fun and useful, but I haven't been able to even help you guys out at eotw as I wanted to, and I know I cannot commit any action to a new process. I was hoping there had been some growth here, but that is apparently not the case. My absense here saddens me. Hope no one takes it personal. I have been using my wikitime, limited as it is for some article content projects with school articles. Wish it could be different, but having no net access at home limits me a bunch. John from Idegon (talk) 09:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

It's one of the reasons I asked if you were thinking of an accomplishment-based system, since this would not require as many people to maintain, and could be done in a more on-again, off-again fashion. One idea I had was to have a rotating "Barnstar of the (month/quarter/some period)", where the Editor Retention project would promote a barnstar and seek out recipients. It would allow editors to participate without requiring a long-term commitment. I'm uncertain of how effective it would be, but at least it would be very low overhead. isaacl (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

It might be possible to broadly announce an effort, perhaps for a month or other preordained period, an effort to recognize individuals in particular fields that don't often get such recognition. So, for instance, maybe making February a month dedicated to recognizing article reviewers, March a month dedicated to recognizing people who work on missing references or similar, that sort of thing. In some cases, they might have clearcut quflifications, like doing a countable number of GA, FA, or peer reviews, but not in all. If it were to be done, I think maybe the best way to start would be to propose some month as a month for specific recognition of individuals in an easily quantifiable field and seeing how much input it might have. If there is enough, then maybe it could be extended to less easily quantifiable types of contributions. John Carter (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind other people going in for EOTW, but it's personally something I've not warmed towards as I prefer to look at editor's contributions and judge them on their own merits. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

John from Idegon Hey John. Do you remember this? I found it in an old file....

		The Excellent New Editor's Barnstar A new editor on the right path
		Put your message here. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Brainstorming. It doesn't quite fit your proposal but it can be adapted to better encompass the editor of the Year idea and be available during a given month, advertised, and dispensed by anyone that wants. Little or no overhead.```Buster Seven Talk 16:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• • It may not quite fit the proposal, but it works, and that's what matters. And, for maybe slightly older editors (post-stork variety) we can use the File:Exceptional newcomer.jpg with some form of text variation as well. John Carter (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Just the other day there were 4,567,890 articles On Wikipedia

NOTICE THE SEQUENCE

• ```Buster Seven Talk 18:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Turn the MoodBar back on?

After six months, 3.6% of editors who were able to use the MoodBar were still editing, compared to 3.3% of those who did not have the option, per Ciampaglia, Giovanni Luca; Dario Taraborelli (September 4, 2014). "MoodBar: Increasing new user retention in Wikipedia through lightweight socialization". arXiv:1409.1496.

Please voice your opinion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Turn the MoodBar back on. Thank you. EllenCT (talk) 02:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Anyone speak Dutch?

User:Theobald Tiger, who has on his user page indicated that he was the wikipedian-in-residence for six GLAM institutions in the Netherlands, has recently blanked his user page and user talk page apparently due to unfounded aspersion on him from someone in a request for clarification and amendment of arbitration. Does anyone here speak Dutch well enough to contact him in the Dutch wikipedia? John Carter (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I speak a version of Flemish from the 1950's (when my parents emigrated to the U.S). It is often said that the Americans and the English are separated by a common language. The same is even more true of the Flemish and the Dutch. I'll give it a go but no promises. Buster Seven Talk 22:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Drmies, one of our most prolific editors and active admins, is a native Dutch speaker. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern, but since I left one limbo, just to step in the next, I have decided to leave. My command of English is such that I am able to communicate more or less effectively. Cheers! Upon the death of my enemies, for all my friends are gone! Please do not contact me on the Dutch Wikipedia. I am a nuisance to them, and I want to save them further embarrassment. Theobald Tiger (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Theobald, als ik iets voor je kan doen, laat het me weten ajb. Hola--dit heeft iets met Landmark te maken? Dat is gezellig! Als je iets te roddelen hebt kan je dat altijd via email doen. Drmies (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oh, die Waaksnikkel, dat is inderdaad een lul. Die naam komt me bekend voor, maar ik ben vergeten waarvan. Drmies (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Ik spreek Vlaams mor ik kan et niet tu goed skreven. 'tis nie Algemeen Nederlands. 'tis gewoen wa dannik weit. Mesceen gebruik ik woorden verkeert. Ik vraag dada hij nan anders foutjes vergave.
  Nou is't précis damme makoar een bietsen beter kennen. Ik vraag dada bleft. 'bedankt, Buster Seven Talk 02:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Of Possible Concern to this Project

An experienced editor is feeling some frustration and appears to be thinking of bowing out from the project. Please see this and the related talk page discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

His request has been answered. GoodDay (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It's reversible. His talk page is still open. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

•  Done (added this page to list) Buster Seven Talk 14:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

This project was mentioned...

at Questions for the candidate - Titodutta's answer to question #15. Buster Seven Talk 23:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Thought this might interest you...

I've only just become aware of this project. Thought you might be interested in something I wrote a long time ago: User:Dweller/Suggestions for wikistressed editors. --Dweller (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

See also User:Beyond My Ken/thoughts#A personal prescription for surviving Wikipedia.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Creator of WER takes a break and hands in admin tools

Dennis Brown, creator of WikiProject Editor Retention and at times one of Wikipedia's most active admins and agitators for new, better policies, will be on a long Wikibreak and has asked for removal of his sysop rights. In his talk page statement Dennis describes the reasons for no longer being currently available for edting the encyclopedia or carrying out admin duties. His motives for taking a break are entirely personal which dispels the meme that many of our most active users stop editing due to harassement by admins and other users. I am sure that the Wikipedia community will join together in hoping that Dennis will soon overcome his domestic issues and will return to regular editing in the not too distant future. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

We have few enough competent admins as is (presently company excluded, of course), and I agree that we all hope that these affairs, which have, as he's said, been seemingly snowballing over the past year, resolve themselves quickly and for the best. I also sincerely hope that, upon the final resolution of these affairs, that he finds that his life situation will allow him to return to editing, in any capacity. John Carter (talk) 02:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Really? You're going to turn this into a non-sequitur political statement??? NE Ent 02:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Since when has it been a topic that admins have quit due to harassment by other admins?? What a manufactured joke. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

DB's wikibreak & suspension of administratorship duties, noted. We await his return. GoodDay (talk) 03:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

With Dennis's situation in mind, we should have a talk about the direction and leadership at WER. Titodutta's heartfelt response to Q-15 in his RfA makes it embarrassingly clear that we really don't have any plan or course of action to take when it comes to our declared goal---retaining editors. WER is entering it's third year. We.ve talked a lot. WE need to talk more about what to do. I thought maybe we could go thru the list of WER members and invite those interested to have a "brainstorming session" or something, to address the issue. Maybe focus on Admins that have visited and participated at the WER:talk page. Maybe a dedicated IRC-channel conversation. Something. I told Tito I would get back to him in a week or two. I'm sure he is busy with his visit to the Wikipedia Official Administrator Tailor to be fitted for his new velvet robe. I always wondered----Is the mink collar optional? TRA! Buster Seven Talk 04:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The best way for me to encourage retention is by my actions. I never have & never will retire from Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 05:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

First of all we need to find a way of encouraging more friendly behaviour from some editors whose only comments outside their regular content work are almost always in totally unprovoked and extremely bad taste. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Getting an adult to admit that something in the way they behave is "wrong" is extremely difficult in RL. Here, it is impossible. I'm not sure which "some editors" you have in mind. Editor GoodDays comment about leading by example is valid, don't 'ya think? Buster Seven Talk 16:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not fitting the velvet robe that's the hard part, at least it wasn't for me. It was getting enough material together to make a mitre that would actually cover my rather awesome head, brain the size of a planet and all that. In more direct response to Buster's points, it would be nice to figure out some tactical ways to proceed. WikiProject X has some ideas about making WikiProjects more effective, which might help retain editors who turn to them for help, and we've a got a well-enough developed dispute resolution process to hopefully prevent the loss of too many editors through those disputes who haven't earned their being lost, but I think we haven't really identified any specific tactical matters we could take which might help reduce burnout. Any ideas? One I could think of, maybe, even if it is a minor one, would be to try to maybe help make it easier for editors to engage in other WMF entities. Maybe an ERB nut like me might help avoid burnout by taking a break and proofreading a novel over at wikisource, or gathering relevant quotes, or writing past or current news articles for wikinews, or maybe something else. "A change is as good as a break," and, unfortunately, encyclopedia editing is all more or less of one nature, and doesn't allow any breaks from that one nature. John Carter (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, right, providing support in indirect hidden ways, much like the Editor of the Week Award does. We have almost 200 editors that have come forth as members of WER and said, "Yes. I'm In. Let's do something about retaining editors". BTW...your mitre is rather plain and needs some adorning with trinkets and such...a medallion might be nice. .Buster Seven Talk 17:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, let's continue with this project's work. --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Break noticeboard?

Thinking about it a little, I think that maybe one way we might help retain editors in at least a few cases might be to give them something useful and maybe, sort of, fun, to do while maybe taking a break from the dramah and conflict that drives a lot of editors away. I do think that most editors here are somewhat fond of reading in general, that being kind of required to write something on the basis of other works, and maybe, emphasis maybe, we could help them find a few things to do that involve just reading which might be both useful and productive, in a sense, while also implicitly providing a link back here. I know that there are a [word I will not use] of old PD reference sources of all kinds, from biographical dictionaries to local encyclopedias, sacred texts, and a lot of fairly good and well-written PD nonfiction and fiction which dedicated "readers" could read and proofread for wikisource. Wikinews has said in the past that "old" news stories, which could include almost day to day news stories about what President Roosevelt or PM Blair or whoever did, would also be, at least theoretically, acceptable there. And it might, maybe, even be possible to do something like Flashman novels or the various Larry Gonick books, although maybe without the pictures, for editors with experience in a given topic who want to write something "fun". Maybe we could provide some sort of noticeboard of current active or maybe theoretical efforts elsewhere, with individuals willing to offer assistance as needed or if the efforts actually get formally started? John Carter (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar of the month

Previously, I raised the idea of having a "Barnstar of the month" (or some other fixed period). To anyone interested, what barnstars (see Wikipedia:Barnstars for a list) do you suggest as candidates to promote for recognition of worthy recipients? isaacl (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Ideas for addressing burnout

Regarding the question raised above with respect to burnout: Jeff Atwood had an interesting blog post where he explained some of the design of his Stack Exchange web site with an analysis of the life cycle of a forum participant. In order to more effectively integrate newcomers, you need experienced people to help them out. Over time, though, people get tired of answering the same questions over and over, and inevitably start becoming more brief in their answers, pointing more to frequently asked questions lists, and become less effective at helping some portion of incoming population. So to sustain the community, you need newcomers to graduate to helping the latest participants, freeing up the previous set of helpers to move onto other tasks.

Thus as numerous editors have discussed (including Kudpung, Jimbo Wales, and even me), recruiting more skilled contributors to Wikipedia to keep the pipeline flowing is important. (On a related note, encouraging a robust influx of administrators is healthy not because Wikipedia is short of administrators, but because it helps forestall burnout.)

Previously, Kudpung had suggested getting the Wikimedia Foundation to advertise for new editors; I had suggested personal recruitment (inviting persons who you know can be excellent contributors to participate). (Atwood's approach was to use badges, copying video game achievement systems; Wikipedia's barnstar system is similar.) What other ideas does anyone have for expanding the pool of new editors? isaacl (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. But it almost seems like the focus will then shift to replacing editors rather than retaining them. I know there's burnout and seven year itch and all but editors come here asking for something to be done to save the editor that's on his way out the door. Both replacing and retaining are important. Buster Seven Talk 18:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It's just one way to specifically deal with the question of burnout, not by replacing editors, but giving them the option (should they desire) to take on different roles. Of course other initiatives can be launched (such as helping people find diversions, as John Carter suggests), and naturally there are many other relevant issues that need other approaches. To help avoid too many digressions within one thread, perhaps a separate discussion section can be opened regarding the scenario you raise, where the burnout has already occurred. isaacl (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Editor interaction reference page

Based on the discussion thread Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 115#Telling people their edits are promotional, I was wondering if Wikipedia editors looking to help out newcomers could benefit from a reference page that would provide sample replies to various situations. It would list out a scenario (such as the sample question in that thread, "Why did you block me for adding factual information to an article?") and a response. It's easy to forget after writing a few dozen replies to temper the message with some empathy for the difficulties faced by a new editor who doesn't understand how Wikipedia works or its basic principles. Being able to refer to a sample reply that you could then tailor for a specific situation might be useful. What does everyone think? isaacl (talk)

I went and posted the following, not noticing that it was an archived discussion. The sample responses essay page is fine—go for it. The suggested responses could also be made into templates and those collected on an essay page. However, there is a deeper problem in that discussion that needs to be addressed. What I would like to have contributed there: The day has long passed when savvy SPA promotional editors, new or seasoned, can be easily be flagged based upon a quick look at edit histories. With tools available, it is possible to pad one's edits with hundreds of minor article and talk edits in a very short time (easy enough for paid promoters). Marketing and lobbying types are expert, by definition, at spinning compelling scenarios for the view they are promoting (even if that includes funding a "study" or "expert" that departs from the mainstream, planting articles through press releases and sympathetic authors, smearing competing views, etc.). We know that there are editors here who promote (or in some cases delete unfavorable) certain information, and surely many/most of those who get paid to do so are aware of how to stay just under the radar—there are even "how to promote your company through Wikipedia" articles out there. Is it productive to retain editors whose reason for being here, paid or not, is promotional? In many cases, the articles affected get little notice apart from advocates and a few drive-by editors who quickly give up or are reverted in the face of editors with a vested interest. Given that our dispute resolution processes primarily dwell on behavior and take little notice of content, Wikipedia needs a more robust and more readily accessible method to address these situations. Reliance on already stretched admins, many of whom also tend to focus on actionable behavior issues, to sift through content issues is not always reliable. Having policies against advocacy, COI, fringe content, reporting all significant viewpoints in reliable sources and similar content-related issues is nearly useless when enforcement is unavailable. I like the proposed items in terms of keeping things civil, but I also think that they need to be fitted into something that does something concrete to address the problem of advocacy. That might take the form a task force, which has been suggested before, that specifically examines content and sourcing when advocacy issues arise (which would also provide a firmer basis or assist to admins during dispute resolution processes). It is beating against the wind to rail against content-related advocacy and COI when it is so difficult to flag and enforce. • Astynax ^talk 19:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

My proposal deliberately does not involve the creation of templates; the idea is to provide sample responses, which editors would adapt to meet the specific situation. Regarding the rest of your comment, could you please open a separate thread to discuss your concerns, to avoid diverting the focus of this section? Thanks. isaacl (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

As I said, go for it. Your essay page can take any form you wish. • Astynax ^talk 20:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

(e-c) In response to Astynax's longer comment above, this is I believe a very valid and reasonable request from someone who I know has been dealing with at least one very problematic "civil POV pusher" of the possible COI type. While I want to admit that there are a few editors who are acknowledgedly paid editors who are still useful and valuable away from their paid editing, like User:CorporateM, and I wouldn't want to see them sanctioned, it might be very useful to get together a group of people willing to do some "mining" of history of problematic editors who seem to possibly be among the biggest reasons individuals leave certain topics or the project entirely. And ArbCom probably isn't the best way to deal with them, because their behavior often isn't that clearly disruptive in some cases. But, at the same time, ANI will often not get enough attention or input to generate a consensus. Maybe we could get together something like a committee or task force, prefereably of people in some way elected to do so, to review complaints of long term disruptive editors, including their history, and maybe, upon reaching a local decision among themselves, if that decision is to proceed to ANI to seek sanctions, to do so and be able to present their reasoning to do so? Also, I suppose, some of these individuals might be able to serve as advisors or even advocates in ArbCom cases, obviously at their own discretion and at the request of the party, if one or more of the parties seek such. John Carter (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Just trying to get feedback from others: would they use such a page if it existed? And would they contribute to its creation or maintenance, if only to provide common scenarios? isaacl (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Isaacl:. Yes, I would contribute and help maintain. It fits an idea I had a few months after I started way back when. Buster Seven Talk 08:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I know I've used some of the wikipedia space pages to find the most appropriate template for specific problematic content issues a few times lately, when I knew of them. I don't actually do template user talk page messages that often myself, and but together most of my similar comments freeform, but I think having them available, particularly in a format which might be available for a "cut and paste" type edit allowing for specific variations, might make it a lot easier for some editors. The best way to get input about what common scenarios are most frequently found would probably be through filing an RfC requesting some indications of what scenarios still unadressed in such ways are still out there. John Carter (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think a formal RfC is required, since anyone can just pipe in with their suggestions and no closure is required. I am planning to solicit input from the new page patrol and articles for creation projects, whose participation I think is key: if they're interested, I think a lot of good examples of behaviours and responses can be garnered from them, and they probably would make use of such reference more than anyone else. isaacl (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it would necessarily be required, but RfC's tend to get at least a bit more attention to a discussion than they otherwise tend to get, and I would think that the greater publicity that an RfC can get a discussion might well get more input and awareness to such a page. John Carter (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I don't feel this proposal is significant enough to warrant the attention of an RfC, thereby taking away focus from other RfCs. I appreciate, though, that others may feel differently about it. isaacl (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It is difficult to discuss subjects like this in broad strokes, because every circumstance is different. Some civil POV pushers can be reasoned with, others can't. I've seen bad-faith paid editing that improved Wikipedia and good faith paid editing that did not, including some of my own early work. I've seen editors AGF, when I had real-world knowledge that it was an ABF situation and vica versa. Some paid editors are bullies and others aren't pushy enough when they are in-fact encountering an abusive editor. Statistically most COI editors are disruptive, but do not intend to be. I think it is only of minor use to create standardized templates, rules or messages. Rather I would focus on creating better decision-making processes for content decisions. Right now the most persistent editor wins in most cases, creating this testosterone fueled fighting environment that escalates to the behavioral-focused ArbCom, who often blocks/bans editors that got into a heated content dispute. There should be an easier way to get a "final" content decision that will immediately end disputes without escalating to blocks/bans at ArbCom. CorporateM (Talk) 21:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The scenarios can be a branching script, where if the editor of concern displays obstinate behaviour, an appropriate course of action can be suggested.

Resolving content disputes is a hard problem; my suggestion is to have a binding mediation process, but at present there isn't enough support for this approach. isaacl (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

(e-c) Agreed with CorporateM. I recently proposed a sort of "comment" committee as a way to maybe get uninvolved editors in contentious areas to get together summarized forms of disputes, hopefully with references and consideration of existing policies and guidelines regarding content. One of those involved said that maybe some people were declining taking part because there were no in place sanctions against problematic editors, although, personally, I think that might not be the only reason. The school year and lack of a highly regarded "front man" strike me as being other possible reasons. NYB is expecting to return next week, and DS are almost certainly going to imposed before then in that topic area, so that might help a little. Also, making it easier for more people to find more sources would help a lot.

I would particularly think that contract paid editors might be among the best possible editors we have. They not only want to get the current article they are paid for developed as per the fee, but also make sure that the current article is not so poor on completion that it serves as a disincentive for others to contact them in the future. In that regard, such editors might be among the most motivated we have to produce quality content. John Carter (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

and also the most motivated to assure that the articles content is "flavored" toward their client. That is, after all, who is paying them. Not Wikipedia or its readers. Buster Seven Talk 22:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

That depends on the motivation of the company offering the contract. I've seen the standard reference work on histories of world companies, which is I think over a hundred volumes long with histories of only a few pages apiece and covers a huge number of businesses we haven't touched yet. If the purpose of the contract is to just get an article here because no one's made it yet, that's one thing. If the purpose is to literally "improve" the article in a way more sympathetic to the employer, like you suggest, that's another matter. John Carter (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

A bit of a radical idea, but what if individual WikiProjects had the authority to nominate participants to a content committee with the authority to make quick content decisions, subject to being overturned by consensus (of course). This could help revitalize WikiProjects, place the burden of obtaining consensus on the POV pusher, and prevent disputes from escalating to behavioral boards (ANI/ArbCom) focused on administrative action. The most frustrating part about POV pushers is the overwhelming burden involved in achieving undeniable consensus against an editor that does not want to accept it. A content committee could make intermediary decisions that places the burden of obtaining consensus on the POV pusher and provide a sort of court to go through to get a concrete decisions, hopefully preventing endless escalation that eventually ends up on behavioral boards (ANI, ArbCom). CorporateM (Talk) 23:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

If it's subject to agreement by a larger consensus, then I'm not sure I see a significant difference with what currently happens when there is a dispute with an edit. Typically the related WikiProjects are notified, and if the problematic editor is unhappy with the results, the editor can seek a broader range of opinion. isaacl (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I actually myself like the idea. As I've said elsewhere on this page, I have proposed a "comment" committee to help resolve the really long-term content problems. One of the difficulties we have with a lot of our "standing" problems is that the content tends to reflect one side more than another. This might be particularly true of Scientology, for instance, whose independent coverage has tended, unfortunately, to often be sensationalist and negative. If the individuals nominated were basically chosen based on their grasp of the topic involved, and, hopefully, access to relevant sources, then having one or more predetermined individuals who could serve as topical representatives on a committee might help facilitate it. So, for instance, Scientology issues would probably involve religion, sociology, psychology, business and marketing, law, and American history topics, for instance. Having some way to make it easier to find and get input from such a broader field of knowledgeable editors in a way which might also be one they can reasonably see might be in the comparatively short term, rather than continuing, might help resolve a lot of these issues. Having said that, finding individuals who actually are knowledgeable on at least some of the areas in which we have projects might be problematic. John Carter (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not clear, though, how this is an improvement over soliciting input from the WikiProjects. Most of them aren't overflowing with members to the extent that divvying up tasks is an issue. isaacl (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

From personal experience, I know that there are at least a few WikiProjects which are rather inherently biased, and many or most of their members would probably not be particularly helpful in such regards. And some of the editors can have rather inflated, sometimes counterproductive, opinions of their own level of knowledge. This can be particularly true regarding Wikiprojects which deal with issues of personal beliefs of one sort or another. Also, honestly, there exists the question of project activity, and there are a huge number of at least comparatively inactive wikiprojects. Leaving messages there can tend to be less than useful, particularly if knowledgeable editors like are being sought haven't watchlisted the project talk page. One might in at least some cases end up notifying more POV pushers than useful editors by a simple WikiProject notice. Not saying that notifying projects is itself a bad idea, but the two options aren't mutually exclusive either. John Carter (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

back to the threads original idea---"a reference page that would provide sample replies to various situations"

I think sample replies are a great idea. I use what I call "scripts" in a project I am working on with another editor. We created the article List of United States post office murals and as an off shoot realized that there was a hundred or so potential Bio article on women muralists. I created half a dozen "scripts" which all say the same thing but with different emphasis for different situations. While creating the articles (which all have a similar skeleton) I refer to the 6 scripts and choose one. The hardest part is deciding which of the 6 works best for the artist I'm writing about. After that it's an easy cut-n-paste. Buster Seven Talk 07:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense, actually. I guess the question would be which scenarios to script here. Would we be talking about including those which already have premade template messages, or only the less frequent type of messages and/or more specific messages for variants on the existing messages? John Carter (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

As I had ceded this discussion thread to the other topic that came up, perhaps discussion of the original idea could continue at § Editor interaction reference page, take 2? Thanks. isaacl (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Editors who are very active and then suddenly stop

A viewpoint from the archives by @Anne Delong:

Dear editors: Lately I've been working on the db-g13 eligible submissions, and so a lot of the comments I've been reading are six months old. I've been seeing a lot of helpful and constructive edits by Rybec. Today I wanted to leave a message about one of these, and I realized that he/she, after being very active, had suddenly stopped editing last March. I'm a little sad that I didn't notice sooner. There's been a lot of discussion about how to improve the behind-the-scenes part of Wikipedia so that editors will be happy to contribute, but some editors who seem happy and haven't been "driven away" stop anyway. There could be many reasons not related to Wikipedia, but one thing that could be happening is that some editors find Wikipedia editing too appealing. I have talked to two people who have stopped editing completely because they were doing so much of it that it was interfering with their real-life goals and obligations. (I'm sure you are all familiar with the essay Wikipedia:Wikipediholic). It could be possible to over-encourage some editors to the point where they have to quit, and thus have the opposite of the intended effect. Maybe some kind of reminder timer or organizer could be attached to the notifications with a customizable message, such as "Time to do your homework/laundry/piano practice" to help editors who get caught up in a particularly interesting article or discussion thread and forget that there is no deadline. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Searching on "web countdown timer" turns up a number of timers that editors can use, if they desire. I'd be a bit wary of suggesting to editors I don't know that they use a timer, but perhaps as part of a "break time" page, there could be links to some timers, along with pointers to interesting diversions. isaacl (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd love to see such a "break time" page, particularly if at least some of the things it indicated might be useful later here. Like I said before, I know of many, many PD reference sources which contain a lot of material which could easily be included here later, particularly older smaller articles in biographical dictionaries. Such activities would both give people something to do in the short run while also providing a reason to possibly return to the encyclopedia at some point in the future, in that case to add or develop articles here relating to the sources they have reviewed elsewhere. John Carter (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Editors who are active and abruptly stop

While considering the section above, Editors who are very active and then suddenly stop, the realization struck me that sometimes its for no other reason then "the Jig is up"...they have been caught! A well-intentioned editor comes here to report an editor is leaving, seemingly begging this project to do something...anything. We go and investigate and find the leaving editor is a well-concealed sock puppet or a bothersome "whatever" that can't or won't stay out of trouble. What I'm acknowledging is that it's not always a bad thing that an editor leaves. Sometimes the Encyclopedia (and us) are better off without them. Buster Seven Talk 21:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

True. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

And some dramah mongers or individuals who cannot acknowledge that their own behavior is problematic are among the louder "announcers" of their retirement, because they cannot or refuse to acknowledge that their own conduct played a big role in their situation. John Carter (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Per DIVA, some editors retire multiple times for attention & support. But, those editors are generally easy spotted. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I'm one of them who retired at least once. Then I saw actually looked at how many freaking encyclopedias there are, and was actually astonished by the number, and decided to come back more or less just to make it easier for others to find them. I am however not a completely self-absorbed, over-dramahtizing, problematic geek, and I will roundly berate anyone in the strongest possible terms in as many areas as I can think of who would ever think to say one negative word against me. ;) John Carter (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

There are some valuable contributors also who have been pulled back from retirement more than once by efforts of people here. Not all are divas, and even in the case of those who are, the thing about divas is that they are often awesomely talented and valuable. Society usually deems it smarter to manage divas, rather than drive them away (unless they are actually doing something very destructive). I see putting up a "retired" banner in the heat of a situation, then relenting, as not always an indication of a diva mentality (though it certainly can be). Retiring, even repeated retiring can also be an expression of high frustration with the sometimes toxic editing environment here. Some who have done a Herculean amount of positive work, producing reliably sourced, NPoV material, doing impartial/constructive admin work and/or keeping a semblance of order amid the chaos, have the human flaw of being easily goaded into either leaving or defensively reacting in a way that gets them sanctioned. Some seem to also be adept at spotting and exploiting those weaknesses, and good editors, diva or not, can decide to leave or else be sanctioned for reacting. There may seem no alternative when it becomes obvious that the encyclopedia is being defaced with bad (often remarkably bad) content, and there is no recourse to those who insistently introduce/reintroduce such material. The bullies, often having contributed little or nothing constructive to the encyclopedia beyond PoV additions/deletions and often undetected/unsanctioned, stay. Effective advocates (and as I said, there are articles in marketing lit with instructions) take care in introducing and maintaining their material. We have some good policies on content that would narrow the toolkit that PoV/CoI advocates exploit, but the almost exclusive focus of our dispute resolution processes is on behavior. There is almost nothing that addresses content (unless and individual admin decides to get involved in examining the content, in which case s/he often does so at some risk). Unless we have enforcement of content policies as robust as we do for behavior, the field remains open to advocacy, CoI, etc. • Astynax ^talk 20:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much by definition, yeah, content is supposed to be determined based on the sources, and we haven't to date done a hell of a lot to make it easier for outsiders to come in. BTW, on a related note, both Astynax and I are somewhat involved in a rather long-going dispute about Erhard Seminars Training and related topics. It even recently went to ArbCom. At that time, I proposed to try to get some more parties involved, and that proposal was supported by ArbCom. I made a bit of a detailed general proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 16#Rehashing an old idea - Maybe a "Comment committee" to deal with content? about maybe trying to get together some editors with competency in the field involved. To date, possibly because of a just recently closed appeal to ArbCom, nothing has happened.

ArbCom actually did something similar some years ago, with the Macedonia naming dispute, setting up a independent three-member tribunal to hear the cases for the various naming proposals from all sides and making a judgment for the short term. Something like that was what I was envisioning here, except I was thinking here the tribunal would be more actively trying to make preliminary judgments on arguments for the purpose of proposing them through RfC to the community as a whole. Like I said, to date there hasn't been much response, possibly for many reasons, but if anyone were to be interested in taking part please feel free to do so. John Carter (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Advocacy and conflict of interest issues

Regarding the inquiry above from John Carter, I think the described role fits within the goals of Wikipedia:WikiProject Integrity. What do you think? isaacl (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Only partially. I think both Astynax and I can name active editors who we both think are rather clearly SPA POV pushers, although we might not necessarily think of the same names, which may or may not necessarily rise to the level of being "paid". And the Integrity project seems to be rather clearly focused on only the latter. And I think part of the "work" which might be done under my proposal is more "detective type" of the individual editors, rather than specifically of their edits, for the purposes of maybe a sort of "lesser court" review of their conduct and possible presentation to ANI for resolution if they see so fit. And also, on a perhaps separate matter, I do think that there will be several, newer, editors who go to ANI or ArbCom who might not be well prepared to defend themselves in those venues. Particularly ArbCom. Some sort of "public defenders" there might well be very useful in at least some cases, even if that particular topic is not necessarily identical to the "detective" role of the review of dubious editors type. John Carter (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

By investigating editors outside of their edits, if you are referring to off-wiki investigation, then for better or for worse, it's unlikely to gain acceptance at present with the general English Wikipedia community. Personally, I'd feel uncomfortable for investigation of other editors to take place under the aegis of the editor retention project.

Regarding editors not being prepared to efficiently present their points of view in an adversarial proceeding, I have in the past suggested that a spokesperson be designated to represent each side who would be responsible for coming up with a summarized, concise case. However, to date this suggestion has not gained much support. isaacl (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Badly phrased by me, and my apologies. I meant not reviewing their edits to see specifically if they qualify as NPOV for possible direct changing. I meant reviewing their edits as a whole for the reason of determining if there exists a serious pattern, more or less as Astynax implied in his earlier comment. And I'm not necessarily seeing it necessarily as a part of this project, but as something that somewhat needs to be done to prevent the loss of some good editors as a result of problematic conduct from bad editors. And while I wouldn't necessarily think an advocate would be required in all cases presented before ArbCom, for instance, I was thinking more specifically thinking of creating a contact list which editors who think they might not be up to the situation, either through general inexperience or other reasons, might be able to find someone to help. That wouldn't necessarily guarantee they would find it, of course, because such volunteers would do whatever they do based on their own wishes, but it might make it easier for some newer editors who might be just ignorant or ill-informed to better prepare their cases. Also, there will be some ArbCom cases where a long-term problematic editor who has prepared evidence off-line against good editors drops a case on the good editor announced, and possibly at bad times, leaving the good editors ill-prepared and possibly unable to defend themselves reasonably. John Carter (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

For all of its advantages, the assume good faith principle makes it tricky to deal with biased editing (and in fact, there can be editors contributing in good faith who just don't understand their biases and how they are contrary to Wikipedia principles).

As I understand it, the new Wikipedia:Co-op space is intended to match up editors that have a specific need with editors that can help, so perhaps this aspect of mentorship—building a strong, effective, concise case—can be covered by the Co-op. isaacl (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

In the past, I tried to deal with (what I perceived as) Pov/Agenda pushers. My experiences from that attempt, weren't enjoyable. GoodDay (talk) 14:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that is a frequent reaction. As I noted in the section above, the focus is on behavior rather than content, and unless there is an outrageously obvious behavior pattern, there exists no enforcement options that are equipped to address content in any depth. You will get wide community input regarding content on widely watched articles, which does offer some balance, but the majority of articles are monitored by few (sometimes mainly/only those with a CoI) and offer an open field for advocacy. Want an unwatched article deleted for a biased reason? No problem, just propose it to see if anyone bothers to object, and if so, edit it so that it can later be deleted. Want to show your company makes the best widget in the universe, insert puffery (an article or just a claim) sourced to a company-funded "study" then gradually remove anything that might impugn that claim. If someone objects, wear them down by skewing sources that might cast doubt, endlessly argue your experience and the experiences of others with the widget, make unsupported remarks suggesting bad behavior by other editors, get another biased editor on-board to form a "consensus" to retain the advocacy, argue that article stability demands the claim be retained, invent an issue regarding balance or notability, revert, goad and generally argue down anyone who even looks like they might contribute something rooted in reliable sources that tends to oppose the claim. Get outvoted, just come back in 6 months and reedit when most have moved on to other projects. All of that distracts the focus from what should be the encyclopedia's primary aim: presenting all significant reliably sourced views. It is so easy to get thrown off that target, especially when content is a minor (or no) part of the resolution process. • Astynax ^talk 20:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Editor interaction reference page, take 2

Restarting the discussion on having a reference page for sample editor interactions: I am trying to gauge if anyone would use such a page, and contribute towards its creation and maintenance. Please let me know what you think. isaacl (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like just an elaboration on dont-bite-the-newbies. That's a principle that gets a lot of attention, and yet there's still a ton of newbie-biting. That tells me it won't make a lot of difference to give it more attention. If people didn't hear you the first hundred times, they probably won't hear you the 101st time either. Bottom line, newbie-biting is a symptom of a conflict-based culture. With a few exceptions, I think we're better off putting all available energy into curing the illness rather than treating its symptoms. FWIW. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The idea is to help people learn by example, through seeing the best practices of others. There are some well-intentioned editors who aren't adept in finding the right words to use, and there are times when an editor may just forget some key points and it would be helpful to have some reminders. isaacl (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Could you link me to a few real life examples of such? ―Mandruss ☎ 02:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

If you mean examples of less-than ideal interactions, sorry, I'd prefer not to single out any editors in that manner. isaacl (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I thought you might say that, and you're probably right. Actually I hate shoot-down artists and I think any halfway reasonable idea deserves a chance to work. As to your opening questions: No, I wouldn't use it, because I don't need it. I've bitten a newbie perhaps twice, on really bad wikidays before I learned how to deal with wikistress. Sure, I would probably contriibute what I can, although I probably wouldn't be considered a "major contributor". It might be an interesting exercise. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll use myself as an example of forgetting to consider certain key points. Here is a comment I made; in retrospect, as I was uncertain about the degree of levity in the original post, I probably should have either not replied at all, or had a qualifying clause regarding my uncertainty. Generally speaking, "not respond at all" is an option that should be more frequently chosen when considering a response. isaacl (talk) 05:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Well that's interesting, since I didn't see any hint of what I would call newbie biting in your comments. We may be talking about entirely different things. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for any over-emphasis on dealing with newcomers; the concept of sharing best practices in interacting with editors can be used with all types of interactions. isaacl (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The world is teeming with dysfunctional people, and they don't check their dysfunction at the door when they login to Wikipedia. You're not going to change them significantly with a web page; that's why we have psychotherapists. We can't even get many of them to observe simple civility guidelines, and you're talking about things far more subtle and complex. Sure, you could have a page with one example each of snark, sarcasm, overexpectation, pompousness, imperiousness, and so on, with a suggested alternative for each. That might have some small benefit, but anything more than that would, I think, be a waste of time. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Have you ever had a skill that you felt pretty comfortable with—maybe a sport like tennis, or public speaking in your school—and then you saw some others who just blew you away with their talent, and used it to push yourself to do even better? I believe it can be helpful to develop an institutional memory of best practices, and place them on display for editors to learn from. It could be editor interactions, or perhaps copy-editing, or putting together an effective argument, or any number of things. After seeing numerous conversations where editors were clumsy in their wording, exacerbating situations rather than improving them, I thought examples of effective editor interactions might be a one way to raise the level of discourse. I understand, though, if you think other areas would be more important in which to build up a bank of examples; I'm happy to hear your ideas. isaacl (talk) 06:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's a specific example. I could add more here as they come to mind, or you could create another place for them.

• What part of x did you not understand?

―Mandruss ☎ 09:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

One problem is that "best practices" is very subjective, and subjective + personal = battleground. Like we need yet another battleground. I could maybe see a talk space where such questions could be discussed, but a web page is another matter. Unless it's an essay, it would represent community consensus, and that would make it a battleground. Therefore I'd suggest an essay for anything like that. As for the copyedit example, I think there's some kind of self-training thing in the works that would (or could) cover things like that. I can't remember what it's called, but it looked pretty impressive at first glance. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

As for pushing myself to do better: There are editors who have earned my esteem, I have learned from them and tried to emulate them, and I think I'm better for it. I didn't need a web page to do that. Others choose different people to emulate, based on who they already are. The ones who live by a street-mentality "I don't take shit from anybody" emulate those who "don't take shit from anybody" better than they do. The people who would benefit most from advice on how to interact with others are those who are least likely to be receptive to such advice. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I still think, as I have always done, that many editors who complain about biting newbs or who make suggestions for being less bitey, have never seriously spent sufficient time at AfC (I mean actually reviewing rather than the perennial social bickering that goes on there), and NPP (where there is no social interaction between patrollers whatsoever). HJ Mitchell sums up this discussion perfectly.

Over the years since around 2009 I have patrolled thousands of articles, possibly, just possibly, even more than any other patroller, but mainly because I have also been the main protagonist for the system's improvement and spend a lot of time patolling the patrollers. I can say without any question of a doubt that there are two kinds of users for whom it is not worth a second of our time to coax into being active Wikipedians: the corporate spammers, and the 300-edit wonder whose RfA was nipped in the bud before it could be transcluded, and who after several attempts by various editors to coax them into doing something useful, storms of the project leaving a black 'retired' banner, claiming he doesn't want to be part of a Wikipedia that won't let him be an admin. Good riddance, I say, but there seems to be a meme that every vandal and troll can be turned around.

There are some, of whom up to 90% or more of their 1,000s of edits are from systematically searching every noticeboard and forum (such as this one) for an occasion to place a throwaway sarcastic comment about Wikipedia or its admins. They often craft their low form of wit deliberately to antaginise others in the hope of receiving a retort they can complain of as being uncivil or PA. They are the ones that make regular editors sick and tired of continuing to participte. They are the ones who should do the decent thing (if they can't grow up) and retire.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for being unclear; I have no empathy for editors whose sole objectives are counter to Wikipedia's key principles, and I think there should be examples of how to effectively deal with them as well. Learning by example covers all these cases. isaacl (talk) 04:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

A lot has been said today

We opened a lot of doors and windows with the conversations above. I wanted to summarize them here so they don't get lost. These are just basic reminder notes. Feel free to "add to the soup".....If I got your proposal wrong, feel free to change or elaborate....

1. Find a way of encouraging more friendly behavior from some editors whose only comments are almost always unprovoked and in bad taste.
2. Give editors something useful to do, to get away instead of retire, read, have a noticeboard of potential things to get involved in rather than quitting.
3. Recruit new editors within your personal circle of real life acquaintances...expand the pool of new editors.
4. Create a Wikipedia:Co-op connection.
5. We have contacted Project X and are on their mailing list. Stay in touch with them and keep the group informed.
6. Create sample replies or scripts for various uses by editors in need of the "right" words to say. Sample replies tailored to the situation.
7. Help people learn by example, through seeing the best practices of others.
8. Time spent on Wikipedia results in a negative Real Life situation. That's why some editors leave, not because they were chased away. Some sort of reminder with a customized message is needed.
9. Fact: not all "Retirees" are worth saving
10. A task force of sorts to review repeated complaints about long-term disruptive editors.

Buster Seven Talk 08:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• All these look good. We need to approach in a systematic and planned way. In last October I attended India Community Consultation — a national level conference, currently I am working on their records and follow-ups WP:RMI. I have noticed that many such initiatives fail for not having clear roadmap and vision. I can show more examples where people knew what do, but either they did know about the process or did not give it similar importance. The question "what" is important, but a more important question is "how" (or "exactly "how"). Hope for the best. User:Buster7, you told that my suggestions were WAAAY WAAAY ahead of what you are thinking, so I am a bit afraid here to talk on new things here. I'll start talking on a couple of points soon. --Tito Dutta (talk) 14:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• No need to fret, Tito. I guess we missed each other in our first conversation. What I was proposing was what we have above...a lot of good focused brainstorming talk on a lot of important issues by a lot of interested motivated parties. What you were proposing when we chatted (at least it seemed that way to me) was all kinds of merchandising and product incentives and gifts and the like. I didn't mean to shoot it down (if that is what you heard). It just seemed a bit early in the process...cart before the horse. Your sad experience of wiki-friends retiring is shared by all us. At least by those that have been around awhile. Please take a seat in the conversation. Help us define our role in improving the status quo. Buster Seven Talk 20:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• That's a good exptrapolation Buster7. I have taken the bold initiative of numbering them for easy reference. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

  If anyone were interested, we could certainly stand seeing an article in the Signpost discussing these, which might help draw more attention to them, and possibly more feedback, and maybe help some of the extant editors maybe considering retirement to see something else which they could do instead. John Carter (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Go Phightins!: is the new Editor of the Signpost (Which proves that WER is a steppingstone to Greatness...or is it just busy-ness). I'm sure he would like articlesfor his new venture. Buster Seven Talk 15:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

As Project:WER enters its third year, members have started a "Consultation" about where the project is headed and how to better implement potential solutions to achieve their goal of retaining editors....... Burnout, interest wanes over time, new members are ignored, no programs of "action" other than EotW, etc, etc,

I see some encouraging observations above, but I have an observation myself. Or a question, how many women have been involved in these discussions? Lightbreather (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

So far as I know, none, but I don't see an way to fault those who have been involved on that basis. Honestly, getting broader input, from all sorts of editors, was the reason I proposed including an article in the Signpost about it. John Carter (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedians are gender-neutral. It's virtually impossible to verify one's RL gender. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

As yet we have not notified the general populace (WP's or WER's) of this discussion. Whomever shows up, shows up. Now that you are here....Welcome...have a seat...participate in the "Consultation....invite others to join....Slim Virgin and the two Ann's (Anne and Anna) are Co-ordinators here. No one is excluded.Buster Seven Talk 16:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we could just assume that those ladies either haven't commented because they didn't see that they had anything specific to add, which is possible, or were busy doing something else, which is also very possible, as it was a rather quick discussion. I'm not sure it would be appropriate to ping them, considering they are probably watching the page anyway, but someone would be free to do so, or leave them messages, if they so desired. John Carter (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• This project seems to be heading down the same rabbit hole that the GGTF project now finds itself in. For instance, can anyone explain the meaning of this to me? "Find a way of encouraging more friendly behavior from some editors whose only comments are almost always unprovoked and in bad taste." Why only some of such editors rather than all of them? Do such editors really exist? "What's so wrong about making unprovoked comments anyway? Eric Corbett 16:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Question at the Village Pump

There is a question at the Village Pump that should be of interest to this group:

Risk in identifying as a woman editor on Wikipedia

--Lightbreather (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)