Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention

Main pageEditor of the WeekMembersTemplatesTalk page

Wikipedia WikiProject Editor Retention OP ED

I Propose a collaboration to begin a project to encourage editors to write periodic "Opinion Editorials" for the Editor Retention main page. The idea is simple. Stay within Wikipedia norms, MOS, policy, guidelines and protocols. Be responsible for your own words and expressions. I don't feel there needs to be too many limits on the subject matter, but I would say that since it is going to be something we link to our own page that the intent and purpose is to move discussion forward, to improve the retention of editors by expressing our views on ways we might be able to improve them and to allow some expression of what we feel or think at a given moment. This is not unleashing the dogs of war, but simple pulling back the drapes a little and letting a some sun shine through.

It is possible that some will attempt to use this as a platform for a particular point of view or original research. I would say that we should follow talk page procedures and allow this within that limit. However, as always, this is not a soapbox to vent, ramble or spew. This is a platform where you can be heard and seen. Think more Cicero on the Rostra speaking to the community, not "random guy on the street with a bullhorn".

The concept will either be a request basis where the editors ask on this talk page to write an editorial, and after consensus may create a new Op Ed or opened for normal editing as a trial to see if there is interest and momentum.

Sign up

This is not a sign up to write an opinion piece but to join the collaboration and project.

1. --Mark Miller (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
2. --John from Idegon (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC) The concept is a little too vague to be workable as of now, but that is not to say it is not a great idea.
3. --I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} I think this might be a helpful addition. We could consider have a small repository of opinion pieces that could randomly cycle for a given visit to the project page. LikeBuster Seven Talk
4. -- ```Buster Seven Talk 23:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC) Kind of like a speakers' corner in Hyde Park. The WER project needs to expand beyond the current talk page. Further comment: OK. I admit it. Speakers Corner in Hyde Park is, more or less, the same as "random guy...street...bullhorn" but who the heck is Cicero? 00:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
5. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC) ...and as a bonus, I promise to be one of the helpers, not an op-ed contributor.  :-)  I mean really, no bullhorn, where's the fun in that? Strongly suggest we do *not* advertise Op-Eds via automated talkpage messages, even though that seems like a common tactic.

A look back...

We all know Dennis Brown is on a break from Wikipedia. As this project (which he started) enters its 5th month, I thought it might serve us to look back at some of his comments in the very earliest days.```Buster Seven Talk 17:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• There are a number of people who do think that admins are part of the problem, and the perception alone is part of the problem. Often problems are due to a lack of clarity in policies, leading to inconsistent results from admins, meaning we need to clarify the policies. As I stated early on, my goal is to get other admins like myself to join and bridge some of the misunderstandings. This should be a solutions based project, and bashing wouldn't be tolerated. I've tried to make that clear from the start, this is about positive changes, not a place to point fingers. At the same time, you have to acknowledge that frustration with admins IS one problem and where we can find solutions, like better engagement and policy clarification, we should seek to do so. The goal of retaining quality editors should encompass all methods toward this goal. Seeking out quality editors that never get noticed and finding ways to reward them is another, as encouragement is a beneficial tool in retention. And there are hundreds of great ideas out there that I've never thought of, but at least we can have one place to discuss them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this, Buster. It serves as a strong reminder that WER is not only about encouraging editors to stay with Wikipedia, and to do so in keeping with in the Wikipedia:Five pillars, but also includes admins in its remit. Whether or not they have actually handed their tools in, the past 13 months have seen an unprecedented number of our most active and fair admins retiring, or gong into semi-retirement, or announcing they will severley limit their sysop duties. Some of them have done this so quietly that it has gone almost unnoticed, while others have made their intentions plain. A few have mentioned real life commitments as their reasons, while some have simply got fed up of the reputation they have to carry for that small minority of sysops who abuse the the system.

I can assure everyone that it's no fun whatsoever being one of the 20 - 30 'front line' admins. Every word we utter is jumped upon by the anti-admin brigade and analysed for possible hidden agenda, rhetoric, and semantics. Thus, we are suffering from significant admin burn out. Anyone who is really interested in knowing more, is strongly encouraged to take a look at the recent discussions on the not yet archived page of WT:RfA. Draw your own conclusions, but it would be nice to hear an occasional good word for the majority of admins who are active, simply do their job in good faith, and do not deserve to be taintned with the constant innuendos. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

A few nice words for most admins are followed by some very harsh words for those who foolishly condemn admins in general. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Anti-admin brigade

User:Kudpung refers to the anti-admin brigade. I agree that there is such a group. I would add that they are, in the long run, possibly the single major enemy of new editor retention, although they do not understand, and mean well, but are harmful, sometimes deeply harmful. They typically overlap with the class of habitually uncivil editors who have reputations as "excellent content creators", both of whom contribute to the idea that there is a fundamental conflict between "content editors" and "form editors" (actually process editors) and that admins as a class are enemies of content creators. The problem is that the anti-admin brigade weaken the ability of admins to deal with incivility by "content creators", and the resulting climate in which newbies are habitually bitten prevents retention of new editors. I do want to see retention of newbies. I do want to see retention of good admins. I will shed no tears if uncivil editors go away, even if they are "excellent content creators". (However, I don't see that they are likely to go away on anything less than an ArbCom ban. I even see that one editor who was known both as one of our best "excellent content creators" and was one of the most uncivil editors ever is trying to mastermind the election of the new ArbCom from behind a ban by the current ArbCom.) Just a few thoughts. The anti-admin brigade think that they are fighting for freedom in Wikipedia, but they are fighting for anarchy, and Wikipedia cannot be anarchy. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

If you do more work actually building the encyclopedia, Robert, instead of endlessly attacking those that do and ingratiating yourself with those in power, you will cease being so complacent and realise that all is not well in the kingdom of Wikipedia`. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Very, very, very well said. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 17:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

How nice to lump those who may disagree with you on an issue into a "brigade." Perhaps we should have the "no big deal" brigade, the "wannabe" brigade, the "enemies of the state" brigade, and a few others to round things out. It's worth considering that there are simply some "bitey" people on wikipedia. Some of them are content creators, while others are admins. Attempting to shovel all the place's problems onto one theoretical group of people does no one any favors and could be considered quite uncivil in itself, as you've just created a handy label to dismiss criticism. Intothatdarkness 19:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It is perfectly fine to disagree with an admin action. However, there are far too many people who seem unable to do so without expressing a condescending, dismissive attitude towards those they disagree with. Robert was correct in what he said. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 19:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

People like Robert, with his muddle-headed "anti-admin brigade" nonsense do you mean? Eric Corbett 19:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Your response is exactly what I'm talking about. It's one thing to disagree. It's another thing to disrespect, which is exactly what you did. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 20:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. I suggest you read what Intothatdarkness wrote again. Eric Corbett 20:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I did read what both of you wrote and I disagree with it. That doesn't mean that I don't know what I'm talking about. It means that I'm thinking for myself. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 20:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Or more likely that you're not thinking at all. Eric Corbett 20:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

If baiting is such a heinous crime when others do it to you, why are you doing it to me? AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 20:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And ASO, it's worth pointing out that lumping people who disagree into a discrete group like Robert's comment appears to is also disrespectful and dismissive. I've also had the same thought when it comes to the original coiner of the term. Intothatdarkness 20:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

ASO, everyone approaches this place based on their own experiences. What I would prefer is a certain level of fairness. There are individuals on both sides of the discussion who behave badly, and for every content creator you can point out who is uncivil, another person could point to an admin who also exhibited poor behavior. For every claimed unblockable editor produced, an untouchable admin could be located. Both groups are guilty. And both groups contain individuals who will never be held accountable for their transgressions. It's compounded when some of those individuals hold positions of trust and authority (either granted by Admin status or held through achievement as content creators). Your assumption that blame resides only on one side is both disrespectful and dismissive. If there is in fact blame, there's more than enough to go around. Intothatdarkness 20:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that there is only blame on one side. However, my biggest problem is with content creators who feel entitled to act however they please simply because they have more GAs and FAs than the next person. You can see directly above that one of our most accomplished writers has no trouble talking down to me as if I'm a peasant. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 20:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

What's becoming very clear is that you can't see beyond the end of your nose. Eric Corbett 21:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

And why is that so clear? Because I disagree with you? AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 21:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Because you're talking brown-nosing bollocks. Eric Corbett 21:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Apparently you're not going to give me a straight answer. Eric, considering that you are one of our best writers, it seems a little strange that you have to resort to borderline attacks instead of rationally explaining your position. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 21:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

After a while it becomes rather tedious having to repeatedly explain my position to a bunch of clots who apparently are so short of brain cells they have to share them. Eric Corbett 22:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, you won't change very many opinions when you aren't even willing to explain your position. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 16:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, this thread looks like another big win for editor retention. Go team! -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure some Admins would categorise me in the anti-Admin brigade. Some wouldn't. And that's a small indication of our problem. Up at the top Robert McClenon says "The anti-admin brigade think that they are fighting for freedom in Wikipedia, but they are fighting for anarchy, and Wikipedia cannot be anarchy." But where, really, is the anarchy? I was recently taken to AN/I for something I did wrong. No need to go into details, except to say that after a very long (ridiculously long, IMHO), drawn out discussion, I copped a consequence, but I'm back here, the person who took me to AN/I isn't, and someone else copped some solid warnings. One very obvious reason for the drawn out discussion was that several Admins were aggressively arguing among themselves about what policies really mean, and what to do about us. Some unilateral actions were taken, tending to be at the extremes of options available at the time. Admin decisions were overturned by other Admins. In summary, it looked like very much like anarchy. Even after the discussion I have no clear idea of what the Admin "community" thinks on the matters that were discussed. Or more accurately, my impression is that we don't have an "Admin community". We have a bunch of people with special powers who cannot agree on what our policies really are, so who go merrily along applying their own biases willy-nilly. Perhaps not quite anarchy, but.... HiLo48 (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, I agree entirely with Robert McClenon. That group certainly exists, whatever term is used for it. Good faith prevents listing the names, but those whom the caps fits will wear it. What I would prefer is a "certain level of fairness" without the perpetual taring of all admins with the same brush even if some could do with getting rid of, and I fail to understand why the topic cannot be discussed without resorting to expletives, incivility and personal attacks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

There are concerned content builders, such as myself, who want to see a better admin system. That is the opposite to the inflammatory and divisive fantasy conjured up in this thread by people who should know better. If you want respect from content builders Strikeout, you could start by showing respect yourself. I invite you, Kudpung, to list the content builders who are responsible for the "perpetual taring of all admins with the same brush". I am not aware of any regular participants on pages like this one who fall into anything like that category. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

So what's this then: The current admins as a group will never voluntarily release their grip on the levers of power.? (emphasis mine). Or was it written by someone else using your account? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Is English not your first language Kudpung? "As a group" is not a statement about individual behaviour, it is a statement about collective behaviour. To say that current admins as a group will not voluntarily release their grip on the levers of power is a simple statement of fact. We have seen, repeating ad nauseum, that admins and their retinues always block attempts at significant reform. That does not mean that all admins are like that, and I could happily name some who aren't. Your assertion that this is a "perpetual taring of all admins with the same brush" is ridiculous nonsense, and you owe me an apology. Or was the assertion written by someone else using your account? --Epipelagic (talk) 10:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, to start with, how many admins are better "content builders" than you are? And how many are worse content builders? Lat us say in terms of the share of edits in the mainspace? Or the total number of edits in the mainspace? Or in any other metric? May be we should have this statistics first before actually writing smth about "content builders vs admins"?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

No doubt you are a very good content builder Ymblanter. But what relevance does that have to this discussion? Plenty of admins are also content builders and some of them are very good content builders. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I just believe that if we want to discuss the problem in terms "admins against content builders", the first thing is to make sure that these are two different categories of users. I actually believe (I do not have the statistics either) that this is not the case, and that, given recent retirements and activity desysops vs new admin elections, becomes less and less the case. If I am right, then it would be at best "some admins against some content builders", and this is a completely different story, which sounds much less appealing.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think it helps to represent the issues as conflicts between admins and content builders, though that is often a consequence of the issues. The issues are straightforward and could be easily resolved if there were a will. Some examples are:

1. There are a huge number of of current admins, appointed for life even though many are minimally active. A high proportion were appointed back in the days when they had to do little more than ask. Quite a lot were schoolboys.

2. This huge body of admins are individually allowed to roll their own decisions, pretty much at whim; there is little centralised control. This is the anarchic element that has been commented on above.

3. Admins have little guidance to help them know why they are here; there is nothing like a mission statement or constitution.

4. Admins are not held to the same standards as content builders; they know they have a free pass. No admin has ever been desopped for being uncivil to content builders.

5. More and more bits have been made available to admins. Particular bits are not handed over to individuals who are qualified or motivated to use them. Instead, the whole bag of bits is handed over to every admin, whether they need them or not. An admin who does vandal patrols and never develops content can block vandals. But he can also block productive content builders.

However there is little point discussing such matters. There have been many discussions in the past, but the admin corp, as a group, is not interested in changing anything. Why should they? There are so many of them that they control their own terms. It is the people who come here to build the encylopedia and don't want to be admins that get the raw deal. --Epipelagic (talk) 13:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

1. is a pretty much no issue, since administrators who are inactive do not do any harm. It would be of course nicer if they get desysopped sooner, but as far as they do exactly nothing they are not a problem. If, in contrast, someone does nothing but pops up every time drama is coming, to enhance drama - they should be desysopped via arbcom, but I am not immediately aware of any such cases. (When I was still active in Russian Wikipedia, we had one administrator who did not edit pages and also did not help with any cleanup, and could not edit for a month, but was very quick if drama was coming. In the end, he was topic-banned from the Wikipedia namespace, but unfortunately later the ban was lifted since the arbcom decided no topic ban would prevent him from increasing drama).

2: I am not aware of any attempts to introduce any centralized control except for usual requirements that everybody should obey the policies, and I am not sure such control is needed at the moment - but try and suggest smth, may be the suggestion will be clever, then I would be happy to support it.

3: mission statement of what? We have a mission statement of the movement, or, for that matter, of Wikipedia, as I write this, I can easily read it in the top left corner of my screen. We have the Five Pillars. For the rest, see my response to 2.

4: Well, in the section above I see a content builder who is not blocked at the moment - though I would probably be blocked for incivility if I decide to express myself in the same words. Seriously, this was discussed at length couple of days ago, and you adopted a very nice position: for really desysopped admins, you insist that they were not desysopped for blocking content builders, but for smth else. Well, if you are waiting for the arbcom decision "Admin A is desysopped for blocking content builder B" - for the next elections I would vote against all standing arbitrators, since such decision, worded in this way, would be a gross breach of the Pillars.

5: I personally do not care, and there are bits I would probably never use, but the community (note: not the admin cabal, but the community) consistently votes the proposals to split the toolbox down. May be if you make a good suggestion, it will be accepted at a RfC, but so far nobody was able to after the introduction of rollback.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

There seems little point repeating key points only to see them mangled, misinterpreted and ignored in this intrinsically irrational context (not by you Ymblanter). However I'll continue for a bit. I hope you don't mind, but I took the liberty of adding line breaks to your responses so it is easier to see which point is being addressed.

1. I didn't refer to administrators who are inactive. I referred to administrators who are minimally active. To that group could be added the large group of admins who make minimal use of their admin tools. We have way over a thousand admins including this huge group of minimally active admins. This group is particularly problematic. Many of them do not kept pace with current practice, but emerge at random to make an unjust block on a valuable content builder or to vote inappropriately on a policy issue. It has frequently been stated on this and similar pages that there are only about 30 admins who carry out most of the core admin functions on Wikipedia. The minimally active legacy admins are a costly and unnecessary ornament to Wikipedia, because at crunch time it is these admins who emerge to vote down any proposal which might limit or control the powers and privileges of being an admin. This group sits at the heart of the current systemic dysfunction.

2. I don't think centralised control is important except when it comes to the discipline of content builders. That is a specialised area, and needs a specialised panel of admins. As it is, hundreds of loose cannon admins act independently and often capriciously.

3. Yes, there is a brief mission statement for Wikipedia, "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". I was referring to something like a mission statement for admins, perhaps something like "administrators facilitate content building on Wikipedia". Or better, a constitution or guiding document which sets out the rights and relationship between content builders and their governance.

4. I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you are saying here. I certainly think content builders should be sanctioned, maybe even blocked if they are persistently and grossly uncivil. Admins should be held to similar standards. They are not. (And, going back to an earlier point, content editors should disciplined by a special disciplinary panel, and not be repeatedly blocked by loose cannon admins as the user you seem to be referring to was).

5. It is another core myth that these are "community" decisions, representative of community feeling. These votes occur on various drama boards where the outcomes are controlled by the huge group of legacy admins and other inhabitants of the drama boards such the admin wannabes. These are not boards that most productive content builders inhabit. Whenever a key motion looks like it might be getting traction, more and more admins appear out of woodwork until the motion is defeated. This is why in the history of Wikipedia there has never been a move that limited the powers of admins. Only moves that further enhance their powers.

It is not only content editors who suffer and leave because of this fraught and unjust regime. Some of the best admins also suffer and leave rather than carry the burden of this dysfunctional system. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Epipelagic, we do have a mission-statement for admins. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Are you looking for a motto, something like "to serve and to protect wikipedia and her editors"? That I'm in favor of. But it should apply broadly, to anybody using wiki-tools like Huggle/STiki/AfC/Rollback/Twinkle/etc (not just to post-RfA-admins but also to pre-RfA-admins in other words). If you want to stop injustice to content-creators, then I suggest we formulate the Editor Bill Of Rights, centered around the quaint but effective slogan of "liberty and justice for all". Any group of twelve local editors -- specifically discounting WP:PUPPETs of course -- ought to be able to overturn a block, for instance. That's community consensus, eh? Hope this helps, thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. It is rare indeed on pages like this one for an editor to respond coherently to constructive criticism of the admin system. I didn't begin discussing solutions here, though for the most part they are as straightforward and obvious as the problems. But it's a waste of time discussing solutions when there is such adamant refusal to acknowledge the problems. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Whilst I disagree with most of your analysis of the problem and potential solutions Epipelagic, one possible reform that we might both support would be to upbundle certain powers from the admins to the crats. In particular I would suggest the blocking and unblocking of "the regulars" should be made a crat matter. If admin accounts could only unblock or block accounts with fewer than 100 edits and IPs then we would have decoupled adminship from supervising "content builders" so hopefully there would be less pressure to further reduce our pool of admins, and we might get better decisions about the blocking and unblocking of the regulars. This is a solution that could work both for those of us who see the main problem as our declining number of admins and those like you who don't trust most admins to block regulars. ϢereSpielChequers 21:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

You say vaguely that you disagree with most of the above issues (there was no discussion of solutions), but you do not say with what you disagree or why. That is a typical admin response, pretending the issues are not there. You draw a contrast by referring to those who see "the main problem as our declining number of admins". That is inside out. There are far far too many admins, most of them underqualified or largely inactive. You say yourself that a very small number of admins do most of the heavy work. We need a lot less admins, but better admins appointed to more specialised tasks and removed when they don't perform. Admins as a group refuse to be held accountable, and adding more numbers to the already bloated admins corps is just going to aggravate things. However, your suggestion of refurbishing the crat system so it functions as a disciplinary board for both admins and content builders would be a significant step in the right direction. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

My "certain level of fairness" goes both ways, Kudpung. Your apparent willingness to lump all those who have concerns about the conduct of certain admins into a group of some sort does seem to go against that level of fairness. HiLo48 touches on one of the root issues with this...lack of agreement on what policies really are. The anarchy resides within the system itself. Intothatdarkness 22:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, there may be some cliques and cabals at work here and there, but generally speaking, I would have to agree with some of the observations made by HiLo48. There has been some arbitrariness in the execution of authority in conduct dispute resolution processes I've been a party to that convinces me that content policy as a whole is in need of some fine tuning with the aim of clarifying its application. Many conduct disputes I've seen have arisen due to lax or inept enforcement of content policies. If admins are not solid content editors, then maybe a less than thorough comprehension of how policy works in practice contributes to a lot of the unsatisfactory outcomes and time wasting in those processes.

Editors that show up wanting to contribute content do not want to be hassled with such bureaucratic conundrums.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Admins represent the tools they use, therefore any time the tools are misused, or the tools act in a way that discourages editors and editor retention the blame falls on the body of Admins. This is a particular problem because there are a lot of systemic problems with wikipedia. Dispute resolution for instance is simply broken, and rife with tool abuse. While biting new editors is a problem, biting any editor harms editor retention. And there are other problems. Another example is sourcing. I've been involved in source disputes that were frankly ridiculous. An encyclopedia, by it's nature covers the niches, and while editing an article on something as niche as the casio g-shock watch, a possessive editor would revert anything not sourced by something published in print, at the reliable source noticeboard I was advised not to source from reputable watch sources, but instead a menshealth magazine that has about as much fact checking and oversight as a four year old's crayon diary over reputable watch resources. I argued that the day's featured article had more sources from blogs, and personal websites than it did from anything else, but a C class article I was trying to improve was being held to higher standards than formally reviewed featured articles. While wikipedia is suffering grievously from systemic problems, people seem to be obsessing over snake oil cures that absorb enormous resources while having no measured effect. I don't think the solution is to brand a group as the "anti-admin brigade", and scapegoat them when that just causes more acrimony and infighting rather than making any positive contribution to editor retention.TeeTylerToe (talk) 12:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that labeling people rarely helps, aside from possibly leading individual editors to rethink their own motivation now and then. My personal take on adding sources is that reference to a blog or personal web site, as long as it doesn't have obvious NPOV problems, is better than no sources at all, because the information may help an editor interested in improving the referencing to find a better source. For example, a blog entry may refer to a news report that's not on line. While still calling for better sourcing, I wouldn't remove it or the facts that it supports unless it was controversial or doubtful.

I am interested in the statements by Epipelagic above about the large numbers of admins, who may be fairly inactive or may have been appointed "for life" when admission was easier. Since WP is generally very democratic, why not have all admins resign and re-apply for their positions every two years? There has to be a way of reviewing people who have been given dictatorial powers. --Greenmaven (talk) 03:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Adding references to articles as a method of retaining editors

Lately when I have run into an article of a valid topic, but with no or inadequate references, I have added valid references at the bottom. I know from experience, as I wrote a few articles and did not document the material well, that these articles can be candidates for deletion, when inadequate references are used. When I finish finding and placing new references, I try to find the original author of the article and tell him or her I placed new references to prevent the article from being nominated for deletion. My theory is by letting an editor know someone is interested in one of his or her articles, the editor may feel more plugged in to Wikipedia. If we can find more ways to let editors know we want them and their work, it should be easier to retain them. Bill Pollard (talk) 12:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea, Bill. A lot of Wikipedia article spaces feel like very empty places, and I think that silence can be as discouraging for some editors as criticism. Even as a more experienced editor, I know I'm always more motivated on projects where I feel like I have collaborators. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

@Khazar2: You struck one of my nerves. For years I have been lectured about the importance of starting discussions on talk-pages, but for years I rarely get any responses when I do. XOttawahitech (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

When I start up the talkpage discussion, and get no responses, then I make the edits to mainspace, which sometimes stands (WP:DB_), and other times gets insta-reverted (WP:DBR). Variation on WP:BRD. Under the bright-line-rule, anybody with WP:COI issues on some particular edit, ought to follow WP:DBDRD. Rolls off the tongue nicely, as a bonus. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Support. Additionally, I suggest that beginners -- especially those who still consider facebook and myspace to be reliable sources -- should be steered towards helping improve articles in the AfC queue, where we know that A) there is a chance somebody with more experience will glance over the refs before the article hits mainspace, and B) there are no ninjas hovering to insta-revert anybody with a misplaced comma in their reftags. Along the same lines, there are lots of low-hanging fruit in the wikiGnome dimension, for those same articles. Once the beginner has sharpened their skills a bit, under the watchful eye of the AfC reviewers, they can start applying their reference-adding and wikiGnome-skillz to neglected mainspace articles. This is an easy transition... many times, articles that they worked on in the AfC queue, will need additional wikiLove once they arrive in mainspace. The queue for AfC is about three weeks backlogged, so if the beginner starts at the bottom of the queue, by the time three weeks are up, they will have become a valuable contributor, or decided that wikipedia is not for them. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I have been looking through the abandoned G13 eligible drafts (Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/G13 rescue) and about one in five is a notable topic that just needs a few references added. However, because these are so old, a lot of the editors are long gone. I have been adding the references anyway; that postpones deletion for six months in case anyone chooses to improve these articles. However, if someone had done this when the articles were fresh, they might not have been left abandoned. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

There is an editor who works on AfC named Julie, who inspired this temporary-until-we-find-something-better-listing of AfI submissions that are either in the AfC queue, or the AfD queue, and look like they could use rescuing. Templist here -- User_talk:74.192.84.101#AfI. Additions to the list are useful... criticism of the format/datapoints being gathered most welcome... and of course, if you or someone you know *fixes* one of the entries in the list by finding references, please mark the list-entry as  Done. Danke. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Great idea. I know I mainly edit existing articles after, as a newly active Editor, I observed the NPP and CSD crews make quick work of new articles within an hour of their creation. Who wants to pour in the time to create an article that goes into the wastebin because the Editor doesn't think the person is notable?

I realize that deleting the subpar material is part of the process of keeping up the quality of the encyclopedia, eliminating spam and self-promotion, etc. etc. but it is demoralizing to the author who usually doesn't stay around to search out "feedback". Only the most persistent and those with a financial interest in having a WP article track down the person tagging an article for deletion to ask why. Most just quit editing or go back to fixing typos. I hear so much b!tching (yeah, I said it) about how there are not enough Editors focusing on "content creation" and I think this is one of the reasons why. I think those guides to writing your first article are a big help if newbies know that they exist and where to find them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Liz, you think that our horrid process for handling new articles is merely *one* of the reasons wikipedia drives away content-contributors? Officious template-spam as their first contact with another wikipedian, having their "just-a-little-rough-around-the-edges" article they slaved over killed because "rvt G666 WP:OMG", and when they try to stop the deletionists from screwing up their lives, being told to go memorize five bazillion rules which all have subtle exceptions, and btw don't let the door smack you on your way out?

  We are in trouble -- even worse, we're stuck in a vicious cycle. NPP is understaffed -- too busy-busy to be WP:NICE, let alone to help add cites. There are 2231 articles in the AfC queue right now, and Anne Delong and Davidwr and JSFarman and others are going through them, one by one. AfC is incredibly understaffed too -- and we're trying to make it harder to become an AfC reviewer, because we keep getting 'reviewers' that are meatpuppets only there to 'approve' articles written by their buddies.

  The *only* thing that can solve our personnel-shortage is WP:RETENTION of new beginning editors, who will one day -- within a few months if Anne Delong were the norm -- themselves turn into desperately-needed AfC and NPP reinforcements. Bill Pollard's idea of putting together cite-swat-teams combines the best of both worlds: we can train beginning editors on how to properly find cites (including for their own articles in the AfC or the AfD queues perhaps... giving us a willing pool of recruits), and simultaneously we can reduce the work-burden crushing our existing AfC/NPP wizards. WP:TIAD. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Yes, contacting the editor that create the article you wish to help reference and collaborate with is an excellent retention method. I like to do this myself. Contacting the creator or the most involved contributor can be a bit tricky though and like "first contact" (to use a Star Trek reference) has to be done very carefully and with as much kindness and tack as possible. Sounds sickly sweet to some, but the point is to keep them on and help them out, not scare them off. Formal templates and other preformatted text should be avoided unless it is in the form of a Wiki love award like a barn star or other such gift. You can even start out by looking through the recent article history and sending a Wiki "Thank the editor" for a contribution you may like. Perhaps we should develop, at minimum, a Barn star that could be given to the editor for their current work that attracted you that suggests in a friendly manner that you wish to collaborate with them on the article. At any rate, this entire concept is a great conflict and dispute avoidance mechanism if done well.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support - There is a definite socially-aware reason that Walmart has a greeter at the front door. The simplest acknowledgement, a smile, a nod, gives the shopper a sense of ease. I welcome alot of newbies--mostly after a few days of their travel into WikiWorld. It always surprises me that, for many, the first contact is a "Hey! You Screwed Up!" without any concern for the human behind the scrw-up. A nod or a smile would have worked better. ```Buster Seven Talk 23:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

  Walmart may have a greeter at the front door in the US, but it doesn't here in the UK. Eric Corbett 23:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

  No? ASDA does, where I live. Maybe your ASDA is a smaller one? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

  My local Asda is perhaps one of the biggest in the country. Have you ever heard of Manchester? It's quite a large city. Eric Corbett 01:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

  Yeah, it was my local city when I grew up. After growing up, I moved to a proper city. You're welcome down here anytime. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

  If you're referring to London, I lived there for 12 years and wouldn't ever consider going back. And to be honest I find your tone to be offensive, as usual, so I don't think we have anything else to say to each other. Eric Corbett 02:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

  No worries, I'll not risk popping your ego. So delicate, about the size of your supermarket?!? Dearie me. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I haven't been to Manchester since two weeks before the IRA bombing, but I'll assume good faith it's got better since then, and it has got some lovely scenery down the road. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Eric, the reason the USA has paid greeters, and the UK does not, methinks is entirely due to the incredible security-camera-fetish in the UK, although it might be cultural differences (or min-wage difference) between the motherland and the (ooh! burn!) Colonies. But one of the advantages to having beginning editors try their hand at improving articles in the AfC queue, is that they can alert the WikiCops when something about an entry seems off-kilter... which is the real reason that walmart started using greeters. Their smiling faces make *actual* customers feel welcome... and their watchful eyes make *potential* shoplifters feel nervous. Wikipedia can take advantage of the same phenomenon, to make constructive editors feel comfy, and potential spammers feel like looking for an easier site to target. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

They have discontinued both greeters and receipt checkers in our location.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I've started picking out submissions at Articles for creation and improving them to Did you know. Isle of Man Pure Beer Act is one, Rainthorpe Hall is another. Hopefully the article authors get the intended satisfaction of seeing their work on the main page and a credit thanking them for their work. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support – I've worked quite a bit at AfC, and occasionally have improved submissions there knowing that particular topics clearly passed notability guidelines such as GNG, CORP, etc., and then published them after performing improvements (such as the addition of reliable sources that provide significant coverage, copy editing, etc). Oftentimes, Articles for creation submissions about obviously notable topics simply need polishing and refinement, particularly in the areas of denoting reliable sources, copy editing, layout and formatting. Conversely, I've also declined many submissions, oftentimes for topics that simply just haven't received significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Unfortunately, articles at AfC are sometimes overt copyright violations, which I then nominate for speedy deletion accordingly. Regarding the former, it's obvious that when an AfC contributor receives a "submission accepted" template on their talk page, this will likely correspond with an increased likelihood of continued contributions to the encyclopedia. AfC contributors tend to be inexperienced editors, and even simple forms of helpfulness can nudge people to like Wikipedia more. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

This is too heavy handed

Have a look at User talk:Indigo Tourism.

This editor has been blocked indefinitely for conflict of interest. Although we cannot be certain, it was probably perfectly legitimate according to the letter of the law here, but the language used was brutal. It's obvious that this was a new user, editing in good faith, perhaps in the interests of an employer, but what was added was nowhere near as bad as a lot of the other tourism oriented nonsense that exists on the articles for hundreds of small communities all over Wikipedia. In their third edit ever, on their Talk page (see above), they even suggest that it was correcting errors.

This editor made two positive edits, and is now not going to feel all that good about Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. This editor has been poorly treated. His third edit was little more than a re-write of the text that he replaced. I think the block should be lifted. I spend time undoing vandalism from first time editors. Compared to these, this editor should receive an apology and encouragement to continue editing. Doesn't every editor have a personal agenda? Why do we choose to edit the articles we do? --Greenmaven (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you guys referring to the blocking template? That's a standard template for use with editors who have a organization-name username and edit spammishly. Irrespective of the quality of the user's edits, their username is a no-go for editing on Wikipedia, and that taken in conjunction with edits that add promotional-brochure-style language generally results in a block. It's entirely possible Indigo was and is editing in good faith, but they've gone about it in a manner that conflicts with our policies. The best thing to do if you want to help them is first, explain our username policies, and then, explain that Wikipedia does not accept advertising copy (or any other copy that has been published elsewhere under copyright, for that matter) and that the tone of his additions will need to be encyclopedic and neutral. Once he understands those things, a good unblock request discussing his understanding of them is fairly likely to be granted. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

But in this context it's wrong to say that "Wikipedia does not accept advertising copy..." As I've already pointed out, what was "added was nowhere near as bad as a lot of the other tourism oriented nonsense that exists on the articles for hundreds of small communities all over Wikipedia". I am familiar with the area this user is from, and they would have seen lots of other similar content for other local towns. So, whether we officially allow such content, it exists, in vast quantities. And this editor pointed out that the intention was to correct content, not add advertising. And I don't think it's valid to blame a template. Editors have a choice of how to address these matters. HiLo48 (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth: there appears to be no private company with the name 'Indigo Tourism', which might profit from this so-called advertisement. There is a local government entity called 'Indigo Shire' and it has a page on its website related to tourism. The editor in question claims to be removing erroneous information. Isn't that what we want on WP? They have local knowledge. All that is needed is some guidance so that their contribution is limited to facts without sounding like a tourist brochure. That is, without exhortations to visit places. --Greenmaven (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Absolutely too heavy handed for, as UserJack points out, what is basically a re-write. Indef is like using a sledge-hammer to insert a push-pin. I don't see the username as a no-go either. What recourse do we have? Can we convince the admin to "reduce the fine"? ```Buster Seven Talk 03:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

An indefinite block should be used only for persistent destructiveness on WP, such as vandalism or continual intemperate attacks on other editors. This editor was making their first attempt at editing! Whether or not there was WP:COI, all that was required was a standard warning. --Greenmaven (talk) 04:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, a fair bit of agreement here. Can we take this further, in two ways. Firstly, address this specific case with those who did not treat a new editor terribly kindly, and secondly, tackle the broader issue of how such new editors, making good faith edits in innocence, and in possible unintended ignorance of our rules, can be treated in a more welcoming manner? I'm happy to take this to appropriate Administrator board, but where? HiLo48 (talk) 06:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Technically, the admin was correct. However, this is a classic example of what happens because Wikipedia after all these years still doesn't have a proper landing page, although it should really be clear to anyone that an encyclopedia is not a platform for advertising. For those who don't, they probably don't even reaslise that we have people here who patrol new pages and edits, and that there are even others who can block users who don't comply with the rules. I would have used the COI+Username user warning first, and wait and see what happens. If they had continued, I would then have made a 'promosofterblock'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, technically correct, IF it was advertising. Unfortunately, even that's not 100% certain. I've seen, as I've no doubt you have, situations where a user with the name of a company arrives and starts promoting products. Those are obvious. This wasn't. It could have been handled a lot better. And we may well have scared off a good new editor, from my neighbourhood! Not good. HiLo48 (talk) 08:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The article was about a small town, not a corporation or a product. So how was it advertising? Who benefits? I hope this is taken further, as HiLo48 has suggested, with those who contributed to the block. I hope we can agree that this editor was in no way a vandal. The philosophy that 'anyone can edit' guarantees that many first edits will be inappropriate. I would like to hear more about a 'landing page'. I guess every first edit would be sidetracked to a simple page of instructions? --Greenmaven (talk) 10:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any strong opinions about this myself, but have notified User:Toddst1, the blocking admin, of the ongoing conversation in case he wants to join. -- Khazar2 (talk) 10:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Another heavy-handed block by this admin? I'm disappointed; when he and I last discussed things I was hopeful there would be more empathy with inexperienced users.  :-( Tony (talk) 13:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Sad news about one of our best

User:Jackson Peebles is no longer with us, he passed away in late October. Jackson was a Western Michigan University Honors student studying behavioral science and biology. He worked as an ice hockey referreee and volunteered with the Red Cross. His Wikipedia efforts focused on counter-vandalism and adoption, "greeting new users, encouraging civility, and obsessively reviewing recent changes".

Jackson was a Teahouse host, an instructor in the Education Program, and the lead on a Video Tutorials Project through the WMF. User:Go Phightins! originaly adopted Jackson but he went on to run his own adoption school and facilitated a Western Michigan University course himself. Among his userboxes he said, "This user is not a Wikipedia administrator but would like to be one someday."

Jackson was born in 1992 in Kalamazoo, Michigan. He graduated Mattawan High School and was Senior Class President there. At Western Michigan University, he was a 2011 Medallion Scholar. He worked at the Waldo Library at the reference desk and volunteered for the National Alliance on Mental Illness. He was one of three students in the nation invited to represent the US at the International Red Cross and Red Crescent’s Global Youth Conference in Vienna in 2012.[1]

Jackson had recently proposed a WMF Individual Engagment Grant called Reimagining Wikipedia Mentorship. "I think this project is incredibly important and should be pursued," User:EpochFail wrote in an endorsement. The grant scored highly and looked likely to be funded. "A very interesting concept...may become a 'keystone piece' in the new editor onboarding process." wrote one IEG committee member. Another wrote, "Taking a 'Teahouse approach' in building sustained motivation and preventing editor dropouts is a wonderful opportunity to develop a true mentor-mentee support system that would increase the activity of new contributors." Finally, "Proposers are highly qualified and driven mentors with a useful background in teaching new editors and understanding the learning process."

He was excitedly planning a trip to Australia in the coming weeks.

On Wikipedia, Jackson earned barnstars in Mentorship, Random Acts of Kindness and Resilience. Friends and teachers glowingly recalled his sense of humor and his hard work ethic.

His last edit to our site was on October 21 2013, the day he died. Jackson welcomed an i.p. editor to Wikipedia: "Thank you for your contributions, such as the one you made to Nikah mut‘ah. I hope you like the place and decide to stay."

It was an honor (truly) and a great pleasure to have had even a limited amount of interaction with such a great person. I hope he was able to spread a small amount of his joy and idealism with Wikipedia to everyone else who he was in contact with or worked with. May you soul find everlasting peace and may your edits remain as a memorial to all you tried to accomplish. RIP Jackson.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Please leave remembrances and condolences at Jackson's talk page. We'll try and contact the family and share your thoughts with them. You can read more reflections on Jackson's amazing life here. Donations to the Kalamazoo NAMI chapter would have made Jackson very happy and are the family's wish. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 23:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Observations

1. Could less users (since 2007) be a positive thing for the quality of Wikipedia? 67.252.103.23 (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

• The fact that there are fewer editors than before can be attributed to a number of things. First, a lot of easy and obvious topics already have good articles, so a lot of new arrivals want to put up material on COI or niche topics and it's harder to get these accepted. Secondly, people who want to put material on the internet have so many more choices these days, with social media sites and specialized wikis, etc. Thirdly, a large percentage of the early users appear to have been students, and after graduation no doubt many just found themselves busy with new jobs and young families. A smaller (but still very numerous) set of experienced editors can still get a lot done. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that 67's question is, whether WP:RETENTION makes any sense whatsoever, as a project. Everybody knows that editor-count is declining. It just fell below 30k on enWiki,[2] for the first time in ages. On the face of it, having 60k editors would be categorically better for wikipedia than having 30k, right? But the assumption is, that the new-30k, would be some kind of value-add, compared to what the old-30k could accomplish all by themselves.

  You can see that at some point *adding* people would screw up wikipedia. What if all seven billion people could edit wikipedia... and did? Newborns would be entering gibberish, rolling around on the keyboards. Well, uh, the same can be said for a bunch of the not-so-newborns, truth be told. Wikipedians are a cut above average. If we had seven billion editors, the average editor would *be* dead average, and arguably that global average is too low for wikipedia to function.

  So the question is, although we are losing in quantity, are we effectively *gaining* in quality? No more Dennis Brown, which is bad. But maybe, if at the same time Dennis left, five bottom-of-the-wiki-barrel editors *also* left, the net change in the dynamic value-of-the-average-wikipedian actually could have increased that day. To me though, 67's question is rhetorical... clearly we are getting close to the point where overwhelming pressures of the AfC queue, the vandal-fighting burden, and the dearth of RfAs will paint us into a corner, and we'll have to sell out to the PR firms or to Google or the NSA or whatever just to keep the server-farm online. But at least theoretically,[3] *somebody* must be okay with the declining number of active editors... otherwise, there would be more folks taking action to fix things, right? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I have never understood the concerns about the decline in absolute editor numbers. Anne Delong names (above) exactly what the probable causes are. I also wonder what is gained by focussing (in this project) on retaining editors with almost no WP experience. I agree that the WP:TEAHOUSE (see below) has been a huge step forward in looking after new editors and encouraging them to stay. It takes some persistence, durability and patience to develop into a good WP editor. Therefore, I have never thought that the 'barriers to entry' are too high for the kind of new editors that WP needs. We need all sorts of statistics, metrics and research into what defines a 'good editor', some measures of quality. --Greenmaven (talk) 06:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Greenmaven, I have the opposite problem; when I finally became clueful about the fact that editor-count has been steadily declining, I was both flabbergasted and horrified. Those emotions have only increased, once I found out that the raison d'etre of WP:RETENTION was not to reverse the downward trend, at all, but rather, merely to make sure that the folks who leave aren't Good Eggs, such as Dennis. Spam is on the rise. COI is on the rise. Wiki-PR is just a symptom; the real problem is the *established* marketing and advertising firms, not the ultra-niche-startups. Even good old visigoth attacks are on the rise. We have hundreds of millions of unique readers, each and every month -- and growing!

  But the core, central, fundamental problem is merely a personnel shortage. We have fewer and fewer people to respond. Those that remain, and respond, are too busy-busy to beat around the bush. Template-spam, template-spam, perma-ban. Of course, such draconian tactics drive away beginners... which means, we have no fresh-faced reinforcements arriving. Define irony. Why do you not believe that fewer active editors, over time, is guaranteed to be a mortal illness? Sooner or later, wikipedians will not be able to maintain wikipedia... and we will have to sell out, either getting absorbed by WP:GOOG, selling data on the readership to the highest bidder, or accepting 'donations' from big PR firms, in large brown bags.

  We are not yet to that point, but we have somewhere between two and five years before it seems inevitable, by my back-of-the-envelope calculations. Less, if the WMF keeps forcing things like WP:FLOW down our throats, driving away editors by royal fiat. I'm frankly quite terrified; where does your serenity come from, and can I share it?   :-/    74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

my serenity (!) comes from knowing that natural systems, such as WP, do not maintain linear trends for very long. The rate of decline in editor numbers will change at some point. I am confident that the change will be a plateauing out. I would be very interested to see a graph of new article creation against editor numbers. I think there was a feeding frenzy of new article creation 2003-2007. After that, the work of maintenance and quality improvement becomes less interesting to many editors. It is a buzz to create a new article, isn't it? BTW, I think fundraising was very successful this year and there is no immediate threat to WPs independence. Thanks for alerting me to WP:FLOW. I am going to check it out now. --Greenmaven (talk) 22:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

2. Are anonymous (IP address) contributors given enough credit (considering they contribute about 35% of non-vandalism posts? (For example, there is no WikiProject dedicated to IP address editors...) 67.252.103.23 (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

• Hmmm... editors who want to remain anonymous, and yet wish to be recognized.... There is no Wikiproject for logged in users, either. If there were to be a Wikiproject IP, it would have to be set up by logged in users, and wouldn't have any "members", but it could host discussions and post notices. Maybe a simpler idea would be to have an IP editors' notice board with an accompanying talk page. Can you suggest topics that would be of interest only to IPs? There are a number of policy pages and essays about IP editors; maybe that would be a good place to collect links to them for convenient access.—Anne Delong (talk) 05:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

90% of IP-editors are beginning-editors, is my hunch, so any project that is devoted to beginning editors is "their" project, by extension. WP:RETENTION is more about retaining high-caste Good Eggs, than retaining first-time-editors. WP:TEAHOUSE is the closest thing we have to a first-time-editor wikiProject, and also is arguably also the closest thing we have to a landing-page for beginners that Kudpung mentioned. Besides those, there are several specific topics that only IP folks will be personally interested in... although some registered pseudonyms might also be disinterestedly-interested (or if you prefer long-term-view-self-interested since most editors start out as IPs and thus wikipedia's long-term future hinges on how we treat IPs).

1. creation of watchlist-tools that don't require one to register
2. edit filters that only apply to IPs (the vast majority methinks)
3. bots that only apply to IPs (about half methinks)
4. mediawiki abuse extentions that only apply to IPs (the vast majority methinks)
5. reducing the number of articles which are semi-protected (applies specifically to IPs)
6. reducing the number of articles which are WP:FLAGGED (applies disproportionately to IPs)
7. the name "IPs" itself... which in some parts of the wikiverse is a shorthand for "likely vandal"
8. default behavior of auto-obscuring everbody's IP, without demanding any special per-user actions (register/pickUid/rememberPasswd/etc)
9. generally, the caste-system mentality that is responsible for most of the decisions above
10. insert tenth complaint here to achieve round-number :-)

Compare the way that deWiki works, where IPs are completely disallowed, to the way that enWiki used to work, circa 2005. Folks that want to edit, and out of convenience or for some other reason, want to do it from an IP, would prefer enWiki trend back towards classic liberalism, rather than locked-down modernity. The goal of the encyclopedia anyone can edit, tends to directly conflict with the top-ten-list above. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Good points. I may misunderstand something: IPs edit in German, see this, however some of their edits need approval ("Sichten") by a registered user, example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, all of their edits in the article space need approval over there. This is flagged revisions.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• While it's true that there are a large number of IP users who are beginners, a lot of these are here just to make one article or an occasional spelling correction, and many of them either fade away or register an account after a while. However, there is a dedicated group of experienced editors who just prefer for one reason or another to edit using an IP address rather than a username. Maybe this group could benefit from a place to host discussions with other IPs (perhaps about ways to deal with the limitations listed above), a noticeboard for posting information about proposed changes that affect them, etc. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• One thing that was apparent from monitoring the use of Visual Editor when it was enabled for anonymous and new editors was that the IP editors behaved far more like experienced editors than new ones. Experienced accounts and IPs both used the wikitext editor substantially more often than new accounts.—Kww(talk) 00:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Heh heh, I just came over here to say the exact same thing as Kww; I only recently ran across that study from this summer on VizEd "effectiveness" at actually promoting retention, versus the hype that it "ought" to promote retention. There are still a majority (meaning "over half" numerically) of anons which are actual beginners, but the pressure to create an account (social and technological) is so strong here on wikipedia now... and on sites like facebook/gmail/msn/whatever it is of course mandatory... that it seems likely the percentage of unregistered-yet-experienced anons can only go up.

  Anne is correct, however, that in general most beginners come here with a specific purpose in mind: editing one particular article about their favorite movie, for instance, and more commonly, getting their company/band/gramma an article. Those folks are unerringly 'forced' to register an account, to be able to create a new article... after which they immediately get AfD'd, insulted by SineBot, ninja-reverted, and in general driven away (which is only slightly different from fading away due to lack of interest). Methinks it would be *better* if people were encouraged to remain IPs, and stick with AfC, until they fully understood the rules about COI (WP:CORPNAME is a constant problem), about socking (encouraged to create an account? why not create two, especially if you are blocked for some esoteric reason? doh!), and about the five pillars (WP:NPA).

  As for whether there should be a special noticeboard for anons-with-experience, I'm neutral there... kinda doubt such folks need such a thing. However, another thing I just found out is that certain CentralNotice campaigns are kept secret from us poor anons, for instance, the revamp of the trademark policy. And the arbcom elections (not to mention WMF-level votes) are not even advertised to *registered* pseudonyms, which seems pretty nuts to me. If anybody, anon or otherwise, is interested in a CentralNotice client-side-gadget, ping my talkpage. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

"A lot of easy and obvious topics already have good articles"

Just to break out a digression from Anne Delong's comment under #Observations above.

I don't believe this is strictly true. Lots of easy and obvious topics have articles, but they're far from being good articles – let alone WP:GOOD ARTICLEs. This changes the game even further than how Anne describes it (which I would agree with) and makes the editor recruitment proposition yet more complex.

Our need now is not merely for editors to pop up and deal with the easy and obvious topics from scratch. Instead we have more and more need for editors with skill, commitment and outside knowledge to improve the articles we already have as starters and to turn them into good articles. We need better editors now than we have needed in the past. I believe this makes editor retention and development even more important. We need editors now who have learned the WP practices (both the useful ones and how to avoid the hinderances). We need editors with some mileage at the obscure art of writing good articles. Most of all though, we need competent editors with competence beyond editing – those who understand a subject and who can explain it for others.

"WP is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" doesn't go away as a statement on access, but we have to recognise that not everyone is capable of editing every article. The viewpoint that "A good editor can edit anything" just doesn't hold up on technical subjects, especially not if we're looking for an explanation, more than a mere collation of Google links. This is especially difficult on a started article, where making an article readable and giving it a pedagogic narrative often involves replacing major sections, or the lead at least. How many times have we done this, only to then have a well-structured section gradually eroded over time with snippets from, "my favourite web search result", or even a bulk revert from the original author of that lead?

We're also going to have to address the problem of biting experts – probably one of our top ten problems these days. A content expert pops up and we slap them straight down for breaching the rule about Semicolon Tuesdays, then we template them a few times over an improper image license, then an adminkiddie bans them for COI or a group username. Result! That's another one down. WP is saved from evil knowledge and preserved as a social club. We have to stop doing this! If we want to push our vast mass of started articles towards being some decently complete articles, then we have to start working with content experts and resource owners, rather than seeing them as "outsiders" to be resisted at all cost. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Those are excellent comments Andy. The view emanating from the WMF that Wikipedia is largely complete is absurd and eccentric; the job has barely begun. Every article in Wikipedia should aim to be the most definitive and reliable article on the web that can be understood by literate readers who are not specialists in the field. Many of the easy and obvious articles have a long way to go, and many of the more difficult and less obvious articles don't even have stubs. As Andy says, that means we "have to start working with content experts and resource owners, rather than seeing them as "outsiders" to be resisted at all cost". It also means radically renovating the admin system so it sets an example by facilitating content building, and behaves in a manner that commands respect rather than just lumping content builders together with vandals and treating them as disposable trash. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Relevant to this discussion is WP:ACADEME Fiddle Faddle 13:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

WP has long had some degree of respect for academia. I'm thinking more of commercial and industrial contributors, where the first reaction at present is OMG COI!

There's a recent article at MAHLE Powertrain, on a well-established engineering company. Some expansion was done by an editor with obvious links to MAHLE, by the text and media they added. This is good content that wants copyediting, it's relevant and it's not over-promotional. MAHLE is a big company, they do interesting stuff, engineering geeks like me want to keep up with them. A very active WP editor has just discovered this article and, as is their only editing style, blanked all the images under NFCC, with an invalid rationale indicating they weren't aware of their subject. When the FURs were updated to indicate this (they're not replaceable for free by anyone outside the company), they simply repeated the blanking under a threat of topic bans and then deleted 2/3rd of the article text alleging an (unsourced) copyvio. Of course, no attempt at engagement with the author and uploader to try and resolve these issues, just a rush to speedy (their rights owner almost certainly helped to put them here!)

We should be engaging with MAHLE to make an article about MAHLE. We ought to have an article on MAHLE, they're a suitable topic. MAHLE wish to do this, they're uploading media to assist us. WP instead sees this as yet another round in the deletion game, where our young pioneers can win a new neckerchief by being the first to root out infringements.

For as long as we sustain a culture that rewards trivial bureaucracy over quality, we will be stuck with this. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Article protection

To address the issues raised by Andy Dingley (above) I think the options for protection need reviewing. Semi-protection only excludes complete novices from editing. From there we leap to full-protection, which excludes everyone but admins. For articles requiring specific knowledge to edit usefully, it is pretty irrational to assume the expertise lies with the admins. This level of protection seems to be intended more for the prevention of edit warring. I suggest we need a form of protection (probably several forms) intended to limit editing to people who can demonstrate that they have appropriate skills. Editors would have to request permission to edit this category of protected article. I will now be bold enough to add the next section. --Greenmaven (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, admins are not expected to edit fully protected articles, except for introducing changes suggested at the talk page, exactly for the same reason you outline. The only split is between not-autoconfirmed users and everybody else, which is semi-protection.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The chemists here will be familiar with the idea of a dynamic equilibrium. The forces improving an article act more strongly on a poor article, but there is also erosion reducing the quality of articles. It's not a one-way progression to articles of perfection, eventually a balance is reached where change still happens, but the average quality of articles no longer does. The way to improve articles then becomes not just making improving edits, but to change the balance: more good edits, fewer bad edits, better edits.

Despite this, I still don't think protection is workable here. There are still good edits to be made to even the best of articles, and we don't know who is capable of or likely to make them beforehand. If we're trying to encourage knowledgeable external editors to begin, they're the ones most restricted by protections. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Andy's thoughts on dynamic equilibrium explain why the 'anyone can edit' principle limits the quality achievable by WP. The threshold when an article begins to be eroded needs to be detected. Then, achieving "fewer bad edits" seems to require quarantining the article from the less competent editors. Alternatively, can more editors be encouraged to 'watch' articles, and should invitations to watch be directed at some editors or to most editors? Do editors who have done more than 1000 edits deserve any enhanced status, for example? --Greenmaven (talk) 01:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Editor classification

At present editors fall into only three categories - registered editors, IPs and admins. Is it time to attempt further classifications based on expertise and skills? Perhaps, to avoid the criticism of caste creation, the same thing can be achieved by more types of user rights, which must be requested by editors and approved by a well constituted panel. --Greenmaven (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

No. Absolutely. Never. Leaky Caldron 21:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Your emphatic NO is interesting. Your reasoning would be helpful. Are there links anyone can provide to earlier discussions of this question? --Greenmaven (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure your suggestion is well intentioned Jack. My understanding is that WP is the encyclopaedia ANYONE can edit. Any barrier to entry, perception of preferment, right of passage, promotion, etc. based on experience, skill or whatever is not only excessively over-burdened with bureaucracy, it is against the founding principles as far as I am concerned. Leaky Caldron 22:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Then I guess what I am suggesting is that the founding principles may need to be reconsidered, just as we have constitutions and constitutional amendments. WP is an enormous achievement based on those founding principles, but it is also becoming 'a mature product', which may require new approaches, rules, permissions etc. I would strongly support most articles remaining accessible to all editors, because that is what built WP, and will continue building it. In this section and the one above I am trying to formulate a way of matching articles to a set of editors most likely to be able to improve them. So I am thinking in terms of classifying both articles and editors in an attempt to match them. --Greenmaven (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

• It's unclear to me whether you mean "categories" in the sense of user rights (in which case there are substantially more than three - there's autoconfirmed, rollbacker, reviewer, autopatrolled, template editor, edit filter manager, admin, checkuser, oversighter...) or in the sense of sociological groupings (in which case there are also more than three, though what they are will depend on who you ask - off the top of my head I'd throw out anon editor, registered editor, experienced editor, gnome, article writer, arbitrator, staff...). It might help us discuss your proposal if you can explain what you mean by "categories" and "classifications", and what sort of "expertise and skills" you're imagining grouping people based on, and what areas or tools those new categories of editors would be given access to that they would otherwise not have. The newly-created template editor userright is actually an example of creation of a userright to allow people with a particular expertise access to something that was previously admins-only, but I would have a hard time thinking of a number of other expertises that map so neatly onto restricted space/tools. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

  Firstly, I need time to explore existing user rights before proposing new ones. Secondly, I am not aiming at giving access to tools so much as restricting access to articles. BTW 'autoconfirmed' seems to do no more than say. "this person is probably not a vandal". --Greenmaven (talk) 01:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Expanding on what Andy Dingley said above about technical articles, there are many other kinds of articles that need expertise. I, for example, can't judge notability of athletes because I don't know which leagues, tournaments, etc., are professional. I don't know how to find information about artists that's not posted by galleries. I often can't tell which business news sources are press releases. I don't have access to academic journals, (and so on). An attempt to limit editors to articles which they are qualified to edit might be more complex than it would seem on the surface. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

In practical terms, one of our most crucial (and yet, impossible) distinctions between editors would be "Those who don't edit what they don't know" and "Those who blank articles as unimportant, because they don't personally understand them". The later group is rewarded by the current culture of following rules rather than knowledge. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Founding Principles are that anyone can edit Wikipedia. Unregistered contributors can submit new articles through WP:AfC. Confirmed users (4 days, 10 edits) can upload images. The Foundation will not entertain any further restrictions to Founding Principles - see WP:ACTRIAL. The creation of new user rights is something the community (and the Foundtion) approaches with extreme caution and they are usually limited to granting additional technical access. It is not apparent that the granting of such rights would enhance user retention. 'Classifying' users would lead to an unnecessary hierarchy in a system where all users are considered fundamentally equal - the ffort is to avoid Wikipedia from becoming a meritocracy. We do have User Groups, these are the users who have access to special tools for combating vandalism, reviewing new edits, editing protected templates, etc. and admin tools for deleting pages, protecting pages, and blocking users. A process exists for electing admins from users who have demonstrated a broad knowledge of policies and good interaction with other users. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, my comments above were not an endorsement of classifying editors - I was just pointing out that it would be messy. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

In practice one of the biggest classification systems for editors is the combination of whitelists and user warning levels that are used by huggle and similar tools. The net result is to focus our vandalfighters on the most likely vandals. Broadly I think they are a good thing, not least because when I give a level 1 warning I know I don't need to keep an eye on that vandal afterwards - others will do it faster than I could. ϢereSpielChequers 18:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

See Category:Wikipedians.—Wavelength (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

See also: m:Wiki personality type, and m:Wikipedia sociology, and m:Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies, for philosophy/psychology

and m:Category:WMF standardized editor classes for analytics/quantification (currently under development)

and Wikipedia:User access levels (or Special:ListGroupRights) for permission flags

but also Wikipedia:Hat collecting which we try to avoid.

Hope that helps! ;) –Quiddity (talk) 04:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I just came across this sentence on a new user's User Page: "I plan on contributing to wikipedia to help improve my writing skills". How would you classify this editor? --Greenmaven (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Since the best way for anyone to improve his or her writing skills is to do lots of writing, I would classify this editor as "on the right path". —Anne Delong (talk) 23:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Mixed feelings on that. It depends on many factors such as the user's age, academic background, thier native language, to mention just but a few. One of the main ways to improve one's writing skills is to author large chunks of prose and have some one systematically CE it supported by explanations. Is that what the user intends to do? Is Wikipedia a school of English? Perhaps I sound biased but I was a teacher of linguistics, languages, and creative writing for over 30 years. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Greenmaven, its an interesting idea and one that has some sense, and it's been mooted before, but 1) it'll never fly, so forget it, and 2) it would be complicated to implement and impossible to implement fairly and without some negative side effects.

For instance, an idea was put forth (years ago) that Featured Articles and Good Articles should be sort-of protected and only editors in some category (let's say X number of edits, where X could be 100 or 1000 or whatever, and a robot puts you in the class automatically when you achieve the require edit count) could edit them. The theory being these articles are Featured or Good and people worked to make them that way, and so why let brand-new editors mess with them?

The counter to that is, a person making his first edit could be a distinguished professor and one of the world's top experts, or a nine year old boy. And you can't tell. And you don't want to shut out the professor.

And anything that didn't rely on a purely mechanical count of edits, or some other purely objective measure, means that another person has to put you in the special class, and so then you have politics. So I don't see any way forward with this. Herostratus (talk) 05:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

So the OP is "....not aiming at giving access to tools so much as restricting access to articles." Also, they wish to "classify" editors access "...approved by a well constituted panel". And we are seriously discussing this? Leaky Caldron 12:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Um, no, most of us are tangenting off the ideas that it hints at. Eg. I provided links to some of the many existing classification schemes. Other editors are helping to point out the flaws in phrasing and the connotations that they carry, or pointing towards past lessons that history can teach us. Other editors are asking questions to help Jack clarify the underlying queries and problems he's trying to get closer towards.

Just because an idea is phrased imperfectly, doesn't mean that it contains nothing of worth. Just because someone asked a question imperfectly, doesn't mean that others can't respond with useful answers. (Are you seriously trying to stop people from helping an inquisitive editor?) –Quiddity (talk) 19:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

No. I am pointing out, in my own imperfect way, that restricting access to articles based on a classification determined by a panel is an anathema to me. If Jack now has a more refined proposal, based on the advise provided above, may we see it? Leaky Caldron 20:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

You will all be pleased to hear that I have just formulated Greenmaven's Law, which may may one day be included in the WP:CANON.OF.WISDOM. It goes like this: "As an article improves, the number of editors capable of improving it further, decreases". --Greenmaven (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Editors are easily replaceable units of work, each of equal value. Eric Corbett 23:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

If editors are easily replaced units of equal value, we can shut this project down now. --Greenmaven (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I concede that it would be impossible to restrict editing on the basis of an editors's edit count, because of the 'professor vs 9 yr old' argument above. --Greenmaven (talk) 00:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I've been biting my tongue here, but I guess I'll go ahead and pitch in with my usual spiel. Your statement that it is "impossible" to restrict editing on the basis of [insert caste system here] is demonstrably untrue. We already do exactly that. But as many folks have pointed out above, we only do it unofficially and indirectly... but of course, as a direct result of wikiCulture. There is a caste-system. It is enforced by bohts to a sizable degree, because 90% of the rules only apply to lower-caste editors. But even if there were no automated tools to help "focus our vandalfighters on the most likely vandals" ... aka wikiCop caste-system profiling... everybody is already well-trained in how to WP:BITE the beginners.

  We immediately delete image-uploads. We immediately delete new articles in mainspace. We template-spam anybody who makes a mistake. We give rank wiki-beginners "friendly advice" that before they dare make another foolish edit, they should immediately read WP:COI WP:RS WP:V WP:N WP:UNDUE WP:OMG to the depth of three hyperlinks... and Remember To Sign Your Post hahahahahhhaaaaa. Basically, there is a conflict, right now, between these two goals: protecting wikipedia (articles/community/etc) against outside threats, and the fundamental driving goal of wikipedia (the encyclopedia anyone can edit). There is an old saying... those who are willing to give up a little editing-liberty for increased anti-vandalmism-security....

  So, am I just spouting nonsense here? Is everybody happy with not that worried about the downward trend in active-editor-count, and with wikipedia being "the encyclopedia where it is not *too* hard for anybody with a post-undergrad education to get a sentence or even an entire article not-insta-deleted as long as you memorize all authoritah and perfect your formatting and reliably source every word and beg on the talkpages for hours first" ... rather than the old-fashioned outdated notion of the encyclopedia anyone can edit, with at most, the requirement that they take a quick glance at WP:5P? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Can we get better statistics?

See also:Wikipedia_talk:Missing_Wikipedians#Reasons_editors_leave_Wikipedia. XOttawahitech (talk) 16:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I think everyone will be familiar with the graph of steadily declining editor numbers since 2007. But are there statistics on the the numbers of new editors arriving and the numbers departing, that underlie this curve? We seem to have discussed the retention of new editors at length, but not the loss of experienced editors. What do we know about the profile of the latter? --Greenmaven (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Has there ever been a systematic analysis made of a cohort of departed editors? We might make more progress (beyond opinion and anecdote), if we had more facts available. I imagine some code could be written to identify departed editors and their pattern of editing. From that cohort a qualitative, non automated, analysis of a subset, whose whose editing history suggests a competent and prolific contributor. It might even be possible to follow that up with some personal contact. --Greenmaven (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

It depends on how useful such stats would be; there are so many reasons why people appear to edit very little or or appear to stop completely, and stats cannot read their minds. Just to cite my own editing history for example, would you have thought that I had given up completely in January 2007, or been scared off for some reason or another? Looking at it more recently, would you know that I finally retired from active professional life at the end of the Thai academic year in April 2009 and that's why I have been editing solidly ever since? Or even locate the point at which I became an admin, or where I found a retirement job? I don't think stats can tell us any of this. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your generous sharing of your own statistics. (I would guess that there was a life event around Feb 2012). What I am suggesting is that, if someone with a volume of editing, such as yours after April 2009, were to markedly decrease or cease for three months from today, it would be worth having that detected by a Bot, and followed up by a human, who might decide after reading their User and Talk pages, to follow up with a politely worded enquiry along the lines "I see you have not edited for a while. I hope we will see you again soon. Is there any reason for your reduced editing that you wish to discuss with someone?" --Greenmaven (talk) 05:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Phew... this is getting spooky. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. There would be two main types: those who just suddenly stop completely after editing regularly and prolifically for a long time, and those whose consistent, prolific edits start to decline noticeably until they just stop completely. Both would tell a tale and might possibly be worth following up. On the other hand however, it's my guess that those who have stopped suddenly or ground to a standstill won't even be logging in or reading their Wikipedia email. A bot search may come up with hundreds if not thousands of such cases, and processing the few that we could humanly handle would only be a drop in the ocean. Chances are that most of them can't or won't come back. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes people stop editing just as they stop other hobbies for no negative reason, but just because they are busy or became interested in something else. I'm not sure that it would be a good idea to pester people and make them feel guilty if they are editing less. It might be better to concentrate on situations in which we know an editor is struggling or having a bad experience (There's sure lots of that going on at Afc where new editors are having articles declined.)

Doing our best to interact positively with the editors we meet on talk pages is more likely to be effective on encouraging them to edit more. An editor who does a good job of trimming a wordy plot summary or formatting some references might be more likely to do it again if someone recognizes the work. For example, if an article was a stub you are changing it to a higher assessment, how about adding a note on the talk page that editors X and Y did most of the improvements? —Anne Delong (talk) 01:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Sometime editors are driven out of Wikipedia by insensitive editors who want to vent their hatred and are supported by particular admin who share their POV. Just a thought.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

There was no suggestion that editors should be made to feel guilty. Just a polite enquiry about their apparent departure. --Greenmaven (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Greenmaven, Mark's comment was not aimed at you; he is specifically referencing the topic of the *next* talkpage section on this page. But I do agree with Anne, that trying to guilt people into coming back, or in doing more work here, is not useful. If we note in Apr'09 that kudpung-editing has peaked, and then a decline in May'09, and then a decline in Jun'09, and then a sharp decline in Jul'09 ... somebody then coming around to say, in Aug'09 -- hey kudpung, whatsa matter, you getting lazy? Bad! We don't want statistics that tell us kudpung has *left* as of July, when it is too late. We want tools that tell us, with any luck before kudpung realizes it themselves, that kudpung may not be happy about something (in the wikiverse or in real life), very early in the process. Feb'09 would be ideal, or Apr'09 if we cannot make our wiki-unhappy-detection-tools smart enough. But Jun'09 is too late.

  Now, I don't need a wikitool to tell me that Mark is unhappy in Dec'13 -- he told us himself, over at a noticeboard, and then on Jimbo's talkpage. He's not going to quit over this one thing... but he *is* unhappy because something seems wrong. What we really need is a magic wand, that will make everyone good, and then the wikiverse would be a wonderful place. Failing that, it *will* help if we can get some sort of wiki-smoke-detector-tool, which gives us a hint that an editor is smoldering (with some sort of anger/disgust/whatever ... if they are smoldering with passionate love of the wiki-community that is a bit weird but probably not a Bad Thing :-)   so that some human can give them a friendly hey-howzit-going talkpage message, and see if there is anything that can be done to improve their wikiverse existence. *That* would be a very good tool. Plus, anything to spook Epipelagic, right? Hope this helps. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Piotrus did a survey earlier this year for the foundation about what caused some editors who had earlier been more active to retire or become less active. I assume the WF foundation was presented with the results, if they have been collated yet, and it would certainly be useful to find out what those editors indicated might have decreased the frequency of their editing. John Carter (talk) 03:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

While I am certainly happy to share the results before publication, so far the foundation has not indicated they are interested in seeing my results before that happens. I am not sure who, if anyone, is currently working on the editor retention issue at WMF. If anyone here wants to look at my draft paper, email me and I'll send you a copy. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The current "homophobia" discussion at AN over unblock

We could take a look at this to see what effect, if any, it is having on editors leaving the project.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I have been following that, but I think that it may be better not to start another discussion about it here until the one at AN has been closed. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course, let me re-phrase that....we should probably think of whether the issue itself is a retention issue. I (of course) see an issue there, but Ross Hill made a great suggestion a moment ago on Jimbo's talk page and wonder now, if that might be something to raise here on this thread. The proposal was an Anti-Discrimination Task Force from WER. Thoughts? (and a thank you to User:Ross Hill)--Mark Miller (talk) 03:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

One question regarding how to implement it effectively, but, otherwise, I like the idea. Wikipedia:WikiProject Accessibility was also started to help editors who experience (sometimes real) impediments to editing, and it might be useful to contact them to see what if anything they might be able to contribute regarding such matters. John Carter (talk) 04:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome Mark ; and please keep me informed if this task force ever gets put into use. Thanks, -- Ross Hill • Talk • Need Help? • 04:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, turning forums such as this one into soapboxes for divisive issues (note the non-NPOV of the title of this section) will certainly affect editor retention, as each "side" strives to "retain" editors supporting its own opinions, and those of us who just want to create and improve articles became less and less comfortable and leave. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Anne. Broadly speaking, it's disappointing how many people use this page for comments like "I think editor retention would be improved by punishing the person/class of people I'm fighting with", and how few of those same editors take time for something as simple as congratulating the project's editor of the week. It's probably time for me to take this noticeboard talk page off my watchlist, actually, because it ironically does more to sour me on Wikipedia than anything else I'm involved in. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a noticeboard.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of what is or is not discussed about that unfortunate incident, homophobia will not cause editors who have been here a while to leave. They see it for what it is. Those who are new here have, probably, not seen posse behaviour on Wikipedia because they do not get involved in discussions, just with playing with articles. Bureaucracy is, to me, the most disheartening aspect of Wikipedia, which is why I started a thread on our esteemed founder's talk page about it. I choose not to link. If you want to see it you can pop over anyway. Fiddle Faddle 15:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• 'Bad unblock' is an inapropriate assumption and subjective. At the end of the day, the community at ANI decides, and it is well to notice that most of those who !vote or comment at ANI are not even admins. WER does indeed appear to have lost its focus - is that anything to do perhaps with the coincidence that its creator was ekeled away from Wikipedia? I think there is often little to be gained by following threads on the Founders's talk page - I don't even have it on my watch list. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

What's "ekeled"? I concur about WER being distracted, and about not bothering to watchlist Jimbo Wales. --Lexein (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Probably meant "heckeled" but not sure. But yes, WER has lacked focus for some time. I still have the founder's talk page watch listed though (WER founder...well Jimbo's page as well).--Mark Miller (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Ekeled - from uintentional anglicism (damn my biliguality!) German verb ekeln, broadly translates in this context as 'to piss off'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Where should the focus be now?

The WER project page contains this, "Editor retention is the concern and proactive effort of retaining contributors, many who leave for various reasons". My interpretation of this is that we should focus on editors who have a history of ongoing contribution. The 'retention' of new editors seems to be a contradiction in terms. At least it would be useful to discuss new editors on a separate thread. I think WP does a fairly good job with new editors. We manage to detect vandals quite quickly. We welcome, mentor and encourage new editors by a variety of methods. The Teahouse is outstanding in this regard. I would like to see all the welcome templates altered to include a link to the Teahouse. Retaining experienced editors seems, in contrast, to be something we need to give more attention to. --Greenmaven (talk) 23:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

One of the difficulties with the retention of experienced editors is that many are discouraged after participating in disagreements or confrontations with other editors. It's tricky finding ways to make people feel better without seeming to take part in the dissention. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The original focus of Editor Retention was to help editors, old and new with difficult situations and make their experience more positive, thereby retaining them when they might have been discouraged otherwise. Sometimes you actually have to become involved and take part in the "dissention" in order to help.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree with that only to the extent that it helps when outside editors get involved in bridging disputes and adding calm voices. If A is in a battle to the wikideath with B, taking up A's cause to "retain" her is likely to equally discourage B. It disappoints me how often the comments on this page appear to boil down to "the problem is the Bs! If we drove off all the Bs, we'd more easily retain As!" ("admin abuse"/"anti-admin brigade" threads seem particularly bad for this.) I don't mean to trivialize these concerns, which can be serious, but I'm skeptical that we will ever increase editor retention by attacks on Bs, especially when it's hotly debated who exactly the Bs even are.

I think a better approach (speaking purely in editor retention terms here) is usually to remind both A and B that they're valued editors, that there's plenty of work left to be done outside the narrow confines of the dispute, that their dispute is unlikely to be the end of Wikipedia as we know it, and generally to just take a deep breath. Most editors I know who retired did so due to a festering dispute, or weariness from disputes generally, and few of these disputes were actually worth the loss of editor hours and quality contributions we suffered from them (for example, the Infobox wars).

We can't prevent disputes, obviously. But we can try to add calm voices to others' conflicts before they escalate to a heated, potential-quitting level; ask for outside opinions in or learn to step away from our own conflicts before things escalate; and always work to recognize the efforts of other Wikipedians, whether they're under wikistress or not but especially if they are. Just my two cents. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure that when Dennis created this WER project it was not to provide individual editors with a grievance with yet another venue to grind their axe. For that we already have (possibly too many) other noticeboards, help pages, mediation, and dispute resolution venues. Maybe this very attempt over the years to highly compartmentalise all the different kinds of user issues has led to a dilemma of choice of venue for many. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
  • No, you're right Kudpung, when Dennis created the project the original page had this: "Editor retention is a project-wide problem, so the focus of this wikiproject is not on individuals". However he, himself changed that:"I also updated that mission statement to make it clear. We do talk about individuals who leave, get updates here when someone leaves, we have lists of missing editors them around here for that matter, but the real focus is still on the larger issues of why and what can we do to fix it." But that is not an excuse for "individual editors with a grievance with yet another venue to grind their axe", or for the continuation of conflicts that simply move the fight from one venue to the next. At any rate, Jack Greenmaven, Dennis did feel that new editors should be assisted: " But yes, we do help some individuals, in particular, new editors that are lost.".--Mark Miller (talk) 07:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

    New editors are being helped, but mostly at the Teahouse, not at WER. --Greenmaven (talk) 08:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, but the Teahouse is a very specific project consisting of a friendly help page, helping new editors one by one. It is great, but it doesn't have the scope of a Wikiproject like this one, and is just one "tool on the workbench" of Editor Retention. We shouldn't expect its hosts to consider larger issues such as changes to policies or procedures. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Some ways that we decided to assist new editors was with welcome templates. Some editors don't like to use templates because they are not personal and look sever to many even when they are simple hello's. But a great deal of effort was put into the templates for welcoming new editors and it really would take a full community consensus to change a core part of the project. We purposely decided not to try and be another Teahouse, but to try to be a little more proactive with efforts to encourage new editors that are on the right track with several different methods. We have a Barn Star that was incorporated into the list of general barn stars, {{subst:The Excellent New Editor's Barnstar|message ~~~~}}, which was originally created for John from Idegon (formerly Gtwfan52) when they were asking for something to encourage new editors that they thought were doing a great job. It was created as part of the Editor Retention effort towards new editors. We also created the Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week as an effort to spotlight lesser known and more unappreciated editors, but has since expanded to include all editors, new and the well experienced. It serves the purpose better that way to help network editors to those with experience in many subjects and aspects of Wikipedia editing.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The welcome templates are excellent in their present form. Is there any support for adding a link to the Teahouse on one or more of them? --Greenmaven (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose this, except the templates are huge, so judicious use of minimal verbiage helps, IMHO. I wonder if WER's job is to steer the majority of the saveable-by-discussion to the teahouse, and to intervene directly, with other methods (email, phone calls, beers) in the almost-too-far-gone situations. --Lexein (talk) 23:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a plethora of welcome templates. many of them are standard in the twinkle dropdown, and Twinkle also adds the option of creating your own which will be added to your Twinkle dropdown. See Wikipedia:Welcoming committee for more extensive information, and where perhaps preferably this discussion should be taking place. Welcome templates do however frequently get misused, I regulary come across users who do little else but search new account creations and slap welcomes on them even when there have been zero edits or when the only edits were vandalism or some other inappropriate contributions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

We should discuss our welcoming templates here. They were created and meant for use by our members, however if the original author and proposer of these templates, User:Buster7 does not object I will not either.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't object to changing them. We can create some new ones w/ mention of the Teahouse. Welcomes are like a "travelers guide" that the newbie gets at the border. Lots of links because we don't know where they are headed...what doors they will open...what action will catch their fancy. Like Anne, I too referred to the Welcome to figure out where help was available. Without it, I think I would have given up after the first Road Hazard. ```Buster Seven Talk 08:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Some of the welcome templates do more than just welcome. The one I received when I was knew had a number of helpful links which I visited frequently until I found my way around. Wikipedia's backstage is a maze, and I am far from having visited all of its corners. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, ours is meant to show links to what we felt were the most important places for newcomers to see in order to make the first contributions as close to guidelines as possible to avoid the normal trauma of editing blind on your first day. I am still concerned that we may have packed too much into it and made it look too formal. What do you think of ours in comparison to your original welcome Anne Delong?

{{Subst:Template:WikiProject Editor Retention/Welcome}} Template:WikiProject Editor Retention/Welcome 04:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I see the primary mission of WP:RETENTION as working to change $insert_infrastructure_here, so that use of noticeboards, and WP:BATTLEGROUNDs to the wikideath, and the factional A-vs-B troubles, gradually begin to decline. Of course, that is no easy row to hoe. The focus of the teahouse is on being an immediate source of instant gratification. If you are a new editor, and you have a quick question, the teahouse is the place to ask it. What is the infrastructure-question here? Well, see above: how to best drive newcomers to the teahouse, and more generally, how to best welcome them. My approach:

Talkpage table of contents, plus useful links. For fast answers to quick questions, try the friendly folks at WP:TEAHOUSE, they are open all hours

Welcome! Hello, WikiProject Editor Retention, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Getting Started Introduction to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page and How to develop articles How to create your first article Simplified Manual of Style Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

new talkpage section: howdy
Hello, you can call me 74 -- noticed your good work on $article, wanted to let you know I added $some_new_change that I think makes the article even better. Feel free to message me on my talkpage if you need anything (click 'talk' next to my name, then click 'new section' and type your message and click save). Thanks for improving wikipedia. ~~~~

What would be an even bigger improvement on the WP:TEAHOUSE infrastructure? Well, my long-term plan is to replace the bewildering forest of hyperlinks in the lefthand panel with a live chat-window which hooks straight into the teahouse. What better way to let beginners know there is a place they can get fast answers to quick questions, than to put the thing right where they can see it? Similarly, if they get a note on their talkpage, they can get a little chat-notification right in the "teahouse sub-panel" over on the lefthand side. Even better would be two chat-panels... one for article-related discussions, which follows their editing and reading interests, and the other for meta-article-related discussions, which is where the teahouse and user-talkpage and similar things would go. p.s. Before anybody asks, I don't think we need permission from WMF to create this useful feature, and I don't think the lefthand side of the page is exempt from WP:BOLD.  :-)   Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

almost-too-far-gone situations

Lexein briefly mentioned these situations above. These are the situations that need some calm voice to step in, without taking sides, and move the circumstances from adversary to collaborator. The problem is how do we find these Almost-too-far-gone-situations? I won't get into the particulars but I remember, as a new editor, I was shocked at the level of caustic attack that came my way at an off-the-beaten path article. What saved me was two editors that spoke up and calmed the waves. That, for sure, is one way we can retain editors...by being the calming voice. ```Buster Seven Talk 09:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems, as Kudpung has worked so hard to achieve, things are fundamentally past retrieval now and all we are left with is waiting out the gradual final stranding and dissolution of Wikipedia and all it once stood for. Such a shame. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe that Buster and others have the right idea for an ideal world, but I (we don't all always see everything the same...that's one of the great things about Wikipedia...and something I have only just now seen as a plus and not a minus) feel that at times (like this) one has to take a side. I think that Epipelagic has just now made an outrageous accusation against Kudpung. You see, I know that Kudpung has taken great strives to find solutions for very difficult situations. It is how I became aware of the editor. I feel that the issue here is simple. That accusation was just not called for. Period.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Good on you Mark --Epipelagic (talk) 10:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Back to how do we find situations in need of calming - there's the Wikipedia:Feedback request service. This brings more editors into a discussion, and this can be good even if it doesn't end up being "calming" because it spreads the discussion among many editors, making it seem less personal. If more editors who were determined to be impartial signed up for this, and if more editors realized that they could tap into it, that might be one way to detect difficult situations. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I signed up. I'm curious to see how it works. User:Anne Delong. Can you share some of your experiences with the service? ```Buster Seven Talk 14:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, every now and then you receive a message on your talk page saying that your input it requested on a specific talk page. Usually its because the editors trying to decide what to write on a certain article are not agreeing and want more input. Sometimes the topic is not something I can add to, so I don't get involved. Often, though, it's a NPOV issue, so an uninvolved person can be helpful, because people are more likely to pay attention to someone they're not already finding annoying. You can suggest including both points of view, but attributing them as the written opinions of recognized experts, rather than stating them as facts. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

There are at least two sorts of almost-too-far-gone situations. They are very different beasts. Buster's experience in an out-of-the-way article is a type-one problem, where some beginner is trying to get something done in some area where they have an interest, and Somebody Else rains on their parade. Usually, as in Buster's case, simply another calm voice added to the mix will vastly improve things; there, a friendly passing wiki-monk can help the locals achieve peace. This is not *always* easy, nor perfect, see the burn-the-witch scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, where the wandering knights of the round table and their king attempt to mediate a dispute in some village. The trouble with this type-one trouble is detecting it, and arriving in time to save the situation, before grudges form.

  The type-two dispute is far more deadly, and far more pervasive than I would have believed, prior to joining WP:RETENTION... there is a list of permanent battlegrounds here.[4] These are articles, *thousands* of them, where the participants are engaged in trench warfare, and in all cases I've seen, war of attrition -- if collaborating with the other side is ideologically impossible, and WP:CONSENSUS insists that content disputes are not decided by WP:POLLs, then the *best* way to win the content dispute is to Drive Away The Other Sides. ...and as long as admins are over-burdened, such WP:9STEPS tactics tend to work very well indeed. But the worst of it, methinks, is that people trained in the trenches tend to be persistent wikipedians (they pretty much have to be to avoid being driven away), and spread out from their initial warfare-article to "fresh territory" that can be WP:OWNed for their cause. Solving these long-term problems requires more than a wiki-monk who travels from village to village; we need wiki-diplomats. There is no 'detection problem' here... just an unsolved 'resolution of conflict' bump in the road. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Less than optimal?

Lecen has posted a retired banner on his page after this block at Arbitration Enforcement.

After 3 years of conflict over the insertion of non-mainstream sources written by Fascists into Argentine history topics, Lecen recently had an Arbcom ruling in his favor. However, the topic-banned parties requested yet another review of the topic ban, and Lecen posted a comment there saying, "I asked for an interaction ban regarding Marshal and Cambalachero, but since this has direct relation to the ArbCom which we were part of I believe I'm allowed to comment. If not, let me know." While the the policy implications were still under discussion, Cambalachero, one of the parties to the Arbcom case, filed a complaint at AE. It's not clear whether Lecen's participation in the Arbcom discussion would have had any influence in the outcome of the topic ban, but the actions taken in the AE venue, and the subsequent block, certainly undermined the discussion that was still in play at the Arbcom venue.

I'm looking at what WP:BUREAU policy says about errors in procedural requests. It also says: "Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus." It seems this particular policy discussion was cut short. Is that what is intended by the policy? It would not seem reasonable that someone who is being hounded by POV pushers, to the point where they have had to request an interaction ban, should be excluded from meta-discussions about their restrictions. —Neotarf (talk) 01:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it's fair to assume that Lecen is a mature and responsible individual - he has certaily made excellent contributions to the encyclopedia. However, this is not the first time he has 'Retired'. Without categorising on this instance myself, having briefly followed the links, although admins entitled to carry out an enforcement block, perhaps Arbcom should rule in such cases rather than a unilateral decision by an admin who is not an Arb - but I am not fully conversant with all the policies and guidelines for arbitration cases and their enactments. I'm not sure if WER can do anything about it. As far as I know, the only way towards a solution would be for the aggrieved party to address Arbcom directly through their mailing list if an appeal following WP:AEBLOCK is unsuccessful. As a very last recourse, perhaps a mention on the Founder's talk page would stimulate some feedback, but as I have previously mentioned, that talk page is more of a blog than anything thing else, and Jimbo is very selective about the threads he responds to; understandably so, because his tp is one of the busiesest on Wikipedia, and he also has a very active RL to take care of. In general terms, the issues concerning policy should preferably be discussed on the related policy talk pages. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

See my comment at User talk:Lecen. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Lecen's comment at AE pretty much says it all:

"I have the firm belief that you should block me, for 30 days or even more, perhaps indefinitely. I'm already out of Wikipedia, anyway. It wouldn't matter to me. However, it would be useful to show how the community deals with delinquents like Marshal, Cambalachero and Wee Curry Monster (who was also topic banned from similar articles) and with people like me. No wonder I stopped writing articles. In fact, you should lift the ban and let them do whatever they want. That's what's going to happen anyway."

Even though Lecen has softened his sharp criticism with the humor of irony, the underlying message of his post is clear: "If you block me, it will prove that Wikipedia has no problem with Fascist content in its articles." His frustration is evident, and is not being mitigated. —Neotarf (talk) 05:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree, especially when constructive editors get slapped down when trying to uphold the very policies that make Wikipedia more reliable—when enforced. The focus on being nice to repeat PoV-pushers, COI editors and vandals and the preference for going with "editor consensus" developed by tag teams of same instead of accurately summarizing reliable sources, is wildly misplaced. Part of the problem might be that we have few admins and arbs who have recent experience in making major improvements to articles, only to have them shot down by PoV-pushers and other vandals (who are much more adept at gaming the system than they were 5 years ago). Tempers do flare, and understandably so when no support from the community comes to help. Lecen's, as well as several other forced withdrawals that have shocked me the last couple months, illustrates what a frustrating and hostile place Wikipedia has become for editors trying to follow policy (NPoV, WP:V, etc.) in producing quality articles. This occurs across Wikipedia, and editors and admins who have made monumental contributions are being driven off. John Carter offers a similar recent case where a huge contributor was driven off for defending Wikipedia policies which improve reliability (that the arbs decline to look into the content means that PoV-pushing aspects get ignored). More than that, the message being set to newer editors by allowing PoV-pushers to roam free while constructive editors are sanctioned is nearly as bad. I'm not easily riled, but I'm as discouraged as Lecen and others who have experience with the many intransigent PoV-pushing vandals that seem to be thriving more, not less, over time. • Astynax ^talk 06:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Looking further, it appears that policy says (but why is it in that section?) that

"Any editor (such as a prior victim of harassment) who may be affected by a possible ban appeal should be informed, so that he or she can participate in the ban review."

This could certainly be interpreted to mean that Lecen, as someone who was both a party to the original ArbCom case, and the requester of an interaction ban against this person, should have been notified of the clarification request under consideration by the committee and specifically invited to participate. —Neotarf (talk) 08:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

My ears are burning, I see that User:Lecen is still citing that I'm partly responsible for him retiring. To put this into perspective, my sole interaction with the guy was over the article War of the Triple Alliance, which is now a redirect to Paraguayan War. The term Paraguayan War is used predominantly in Brazil, elsewhere the WP:COMMON name is the War of the Triple Alliance; in particular in English this term is predominant. The discussion is at Talk:Paraguayan War/Archive 1#Requested move 2012. Please check the page statistics, the last time I looked the article is hit predominantly via the redirect. A polite request that he stop refactoring the talk page discussion [5] was met with outright hostility and threats on my talk page [6]. The discussion is replete with his battle mentality and blatant vote stacking.

“ Do not, ever, come back to my talk page to teach me how Wikipedia works. Unlike you, I actually contribute to this Encyclopedia and I actually know about the subject being discussed there. Astynax is my partner and we have nine FAs behind our back, again, unlike you. If I copied his message and posted above mine is because I have the freedom to do such thing. The canvassing, the sock puppets, edit warring, everything you and your friend are doing are being watched, and that's why I haven't bothered to complain... yet. Learn your place and do not bother me again. ”

Please note that as a result of his WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality that he displayed in that discussion he ended up blocked for a week [7] following his block he retired [8] and has since retired at least 5 times. While I don't doubt User:Lecen may be a good content editor, he frequentlt displays WP:DIVA like qualities, he has a WP:BATTLE mentality over the most minor content disagreement, he is less than WP:CIVIL. And lets be honest here, he hasn't retired and he is being a WP:DRAMA queen. If he has really retired I'll dance down the Royal Mile in a neon pink TuTu and post the photos to prove it. His friends would do better by him by hitting him with the WP:CLUE stick rather than feeding his WP:EGO. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Wee, Amadscientist here. Please, just stop. That is all I can or wish to ask for. But I think you remember what I said to you before and hope you understand what I say now. Just....stop. Thanks.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Food for thought

Here is an interesting article about editor motivations in 'The SignPost': Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-12-04/Recent research. --Greenmaven (talk) 09:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Bad faith and drama mongering takes its toll

Due to bad faith and drama mongering I have withdrawn my support and background initiatives from WP:AfC which I have been working hard to find solutions for. I was half inclined to hand my tools in too and join the admin exodus, but that would simply have provided some editors with grounds to rejoice. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Kudpung: I hope that you will reconsider. I think many of us who are working at Afc are becoming worn down because of the constant backlog, and this may be leading us to spend too much time focusing on the problems and not enough time thinking about all of the new editors that we are helping and the huge number of new articles that the project is adding to the encyclopedia. Interactions by keyboard are awkward, to say nothing of the wide variety of personalities and social expectations one meets on Wikipedia, and AGF is sometimes a challenge. No matter what you do there are bound to be some who disagree. I for one appreciate someone such as yourself who speaks his opinions directly and calmly to counteract some of the "drama" (even when you are disagreeing with me), and then pitches in to get the job done. I'm sure I'm not the only one, and I regret that none of us have taken the time to show appreciation for your work. I can't think of anyone who would rejoice at your leaving, and I don't think even those who have made negative comments intended to discourage your participation. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I can only second what Anne says. Kudpung, your enthusiasm for driving AfC forward and trying to make a difference has been vitally important and is directed at helping get new editors up to speed and retaining them, which is exactly what we need. Have a break, by all means, but don't make it a permanent goodbye. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I say keep up the good work Kudpung. I know it isn't always easy when you have others not assuming good faith but there are editors who think your work has merit.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I will 'third' what Anne says. Looking at the backtrail, this does not look like a huge deal to my perhaps-over-cynical-from-discretionary-sanctions-talkpages eyeballs... a simple case of mistaken identity, that was then taken out of context, twice, and got blown out of proportion by WP:INVOLVED, most already suffering from wikiStress perhaps. No bridges look burned down to me at the moment, although there are some at least partially aflame. This is not (yet) a case of almost-too-late. Folks that are trusted by and familiar to Kudpung and/or Rankersbo, it may help if you step forward and offer them your support now, if you can be supportive in a way which reduces teh_drahmahz, as opposed to mongering them thar dramahz, which will only cause more ekeled-away-syndrome. In the hope, that this will help, save do I now press.

  p.s. Full disclosure, I in particular would be very sad to see Kudpung's AfC proposal[9] go down the tubes due to loss of leadership, especially over this unrelated conflict of WP:AGF-related issues... currently it has nine-and-a-half support !votes, half-an-oppose on grounds of not-quite-stringent-enough, and another oppose arguing for an orthogonal proposal that will likely succeed in a future RfC. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Kudpung, I hope you will continue in all your roles and editing work. --Greenmaven (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Kudpung. I have always seen your efforts to be in the best interest of WP. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Dec 8-15 Editor of the week

...is WikiRedactor. Sometimes it's the little things that retain editors. Well wishes from fellow editors has a positive result. Visiting the Editor of the Week's talk page the day after to offer congratulations is quick and simple. ```Buster Seven Talk 22:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

"Everyone reverts my changes"

Around the net and in real life, I hear the following complaint (or something similar) very often : "I found an error on Wikipedia, and corrected it. It was immediately changed back again. I hate Wikipedia." I suspect a lot of the time this is because an article is changed by an IP address with no edit summary that is unsourced, or invalidates a previous source. A regular spots the change on the watchlist, and promptly reverts it with a summary akin to "rv unsourced".

The casual visitor has no idea what our policies on verifiability are, or how to view an article's history, and probably doesn't care. All they know is they changed something, and it was undone "for no reason". They then leave Wikipedia, never to return.

What on earth can we do about this? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

One obvious change would be to technically prod IP editors to not leave edits without edit summaries. The editor interface could do this very easily. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

This thread also assumes that they were right (good chance they weren't) and it sounds like they didn't try communication. Specific cases should be evaluated rather than trying to guess at the speculation of a generalized situation. Can you qualify your hypothesis with some form of evidence? If not, speculating could be a waste of your time.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm speaking from personal experience chatting to friends of mine. Bear in mind because they've been discouraged from editing Wikipedia, that they're not going to remember exactly what they did in intricate detail, but just frame it terms of experiences from the outside world. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Discuss, discuss, discuss! Edits don't tend to stick in one go. For better or worse, we have gotten into a culture where a lot of edits are reverted. Long term editors will recognize a revert as a first disagreement from where consensus should be found. A revert generally means "not like this" rather than "no". A newcomer doesn't work in this mode. They change something, and if it gets reverted, they shrug and walk away, with a potentially good edit wasted. What I would love to see is less revert more compromise. Each time you think of reverting, think about how can I make the article better using this edit. That might be a bit utopian. But what I think we should at the very least be able to do, is on a revert of an edit, if the editor is new, explain to them on their talkpage 0: thank you for taking the effort to improve wikipedia, 1: what was wrong about the edit so that it got reverted, 2: what the user can do to find a compromise, 3: an invitation to discuss if they disagree and ask if they don't understand, and 4: thank you again for your effort. It is unrealistic that a new user will be able to understand our modes of communication on first guess. If we need better tooling for casual reverts - which do not include canned replies, which are the kind of stuff that make humans fail turing tests - then we should work on that. Other than that, we need a shared conciousness that a revert of anything but vandalism is generally not a good, and a revert of anything but vandalism from a new user doubly so: if you have to resort to them, you should explain your actions. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

@ Ritchie333, I found something I agreed with on your User Page: "A good newbie can teach themselves to become more competent. A bad newbie never will." You added a link in the second sentence to Wikipedia:Competence is required, in which this passage can be found, "This is where we sometimes see a harmful side effect of our (generally quite useful) notion of assuming good faith. Many editors have focused so much on this that they have come to believe that good faith is all that is required to be a useful contributor. Sadly, this is not the case at all. Competence is required as well." As a user of STiki I see a lot of first attempts at editing. I disagree with Martijn Hoekstra that "a revert of anything but vandalism is generally not a good". For every vandalistic edit there is an edit with one or more spelling errors and often poor grammar and punctuation as well. These don't edits belong on WP and I am not going to spend any time encouraging such editors, following the philosophy "A bad newbie never will" [be able to write competently in an acceptably short time-frame]. We are not here to be tutors of the illiterate. --Greenmaven (talk) 05:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

There are many people with bad spelling who are otherwise competent. I would rather fix up the spelling of an editor who finds good information and sources and adds them appropriately than deal with beautifully written spam or unsourced material. —Anne Delong (talk) 06:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

My first edits to Wikipedia nearly 10 years ago were on-the-fly corrections to grammar and typos while simply looking stu:ff up. I knew absolutely nothing about rules, regulations, policies, and guidelines. I just saw the 'edit' button and pressed it, and I got it right. Nothing of mine has ever been reverted by an intelligent editor. By the time I had realised there were some articles that I could expand or even write, when I registered an account I still dd not know much about the rules, but most of it was intuitive - it seemed pretty obvious to me what is wanted in an encyclopedia and what would be copyvio, PoV, and what needed sourcing. But that's just me, we can't expect everyone to have been a professional writer and linguist for 30 years. More needs to be done to explain things to IPs and new users as soon as they touch the 'edit' and 'save' buttons. Less credence needs to be lent to the mantra that all drive-by editors will be come dedicated, prolific editors, although with a bit of luck, some might. I did, but I and others like me are probably a rarity out of the 13 million registered accounts. I saw somewhere that there are around 50,000 regular editors, but I doubt even that; it depends on the criteria used for extrapolating the stats. There is a table somewhere of the highest performing editors (by edit count) - I was rather high on it myself once, but IMO, minor edits don't count for much. We should focus here on retaining editors who have made significant contributions to content, and who suddenly stop editing, or who were driven away by the drivel and lack of good faith by others. The focus of WER as I understand its founding principles, is on retaining good editors rather than encouraging 1-edit newbies - for that we have the TeaHouse. Things would buck up if the Foundation would pull its fingers out and create a proper landing page after all these years. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I would like to point out that having an academic background doesn't always lead to an intuitive understanding of Wikipedia's policies. I've had several long discussions with professors and authors who undoubtably wouldn't think of submitting an article to a journal without a bibliography, but couldn't undertand why an encyclopedia article about themselves should have independent sources. —Anne Delong (talk) 07:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

If you allow me, I have the opposite experience. I gave up and unwatched the article on heat after on its talk page there was a consensus of editors stating the reference I brought in is incorrect (in fact, mistaken). The reference is an undergraduate text which I use for teaching the course in physics (which includes thermodynamics), and I am a full professor of physics in one of the leading universities of the world. The subsequent discussion showed me that the most active editor on the talk page in not familiar with the basic notions of the subject. This is not my first experience when a bunch of schoolchildren or undergrads gets together to reject academic sources in favor of their favorite book or smth. This is why I almost never edit articles which have any relation to my professional activity, and many of them are in a pitiful state.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

And btw articles about academics do not always have to have independent sources. If the subject passes WP:ACADEMIC, in many cases the university webpage (obviously a dependent source) would suffice.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

While I agree that the university profile is enough to show notability of a professor (I'm presuming that this is because universities value their reputations and wouldn't allow someone to misstate their academic credentials on an official web site - although I'm sure that it's happened), I believe that references are still needed for the inevitable "is well known for", "has made significant contributions to", "discovered the fundamental principals of", or "lectures world-wide on the topic of", etc —Anne Delong (talk) 13:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is correct.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Anne, 'Not everyone has an academic background' - I think I made that clear in my post - I was referring only to myself. In fact some stats once raised by the WMF demonstrated that the fewest editors have an academic background. Also, having lived in academia for nearly 40 years, I can confirm that even academics are not always the most intuitive of people. It depends what their area of research is. Scientific researchers tend to be more pragmatic, while those studying humanities tend to be less objective (again, only in my experience). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I would also "fix up the spelling of an editor who finds good information and sources and adds them appropriately" (Anne). But I am talking about people who add a sentence or two of drivel, stating the obvious, repeating the already said, in a poor paraphrase. These sort of editors are not capable of finding "good information and sources" because they don't live in the literate community. User:Kudpung has made a key observation: "Less credence needs to be lent to the mantra that all drive-by editors will be come dedicated, prolific editors". --Greenmaven (talk) 08:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey folks! Just reverted this, <"ulaalaa,, membahana badai cinn..." "Nyata terpangpang....." "Bulu matakuuu..">. It may be intended to represent part of a song. --Greenmaven (talk) 08:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

So, your point is some edits are plain old vandalism? If I didn't make that clear on the first go; yes, that exists, and the ROI on taking time with those editors is probably a lot less than with good faith edits. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Martijn is pretty well on the nail with the ROI. I think it's fair to assume that most vandalism is done by children who are best waiting for a few more years before they edit the encyclopedia again. Any vandalism done by adults is probably done by individuals who should never be considering editing Wikipedia again. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I try to tell myself, when its a borderline case, to let it go. Its hard because most of the pages on my watchlist are articles I care about. Let's say an editor comes along and changes "most" to "the majority of", stuff like that. It's not an error, but its not an improvement either. Its roiling the text to no benefit and actually introducing needless words, and on the purely technical merits I'd be inclined to revert it on that basis. But: it's not an actual error. The person thought it was an edit worth making. It's the encyclopedia anyone can edit.

If its the introduction of (what I consider to be) unnecessary material, same deal. If it's not sourced but there's no reason to believe it's not true, consider letting it go. Tag it you like. Most of the statements in the Wikipedia are not sourced but are true. Of course if its an actual error, or there's reasonable cause to believe its not true, or if its egregiously illiterate or trivial, that's different. But it's the encyclopedia anyone can edit, not the encyclopedia anyone can edit who writes like I do or has the same idea about what an encyclopedia article should or should not include that I do.

It's hard, though. There's a certain amount of eye-rolling and even teeth-gritting involved. And there's a valid counterargument that technical quality even at the margins is more important than social inclusiveness. You have to strike a balance I guess. Herostratus (talk) 14:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

It's hard, particularly when you've got an article up to a certain standard, and the edit in question would be picked up and criticised at a formal review. For example, List of Hammond organ players is on my watchlist after I cleaned it up substantially, and it's spelled out in a comment in the article's text and in an edit notice that unreferenced and / or non-notable entries will be removed. So when I saw this edit, it would have been quick and easy to undo it with a summary of "unreferenced, non-notable" but I spent a good hour creating a Peter Weltner article even though quite frankly his notability is tenuous. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

That's pretty great. Now the questions is, how do we get more people acting that way? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Ironically enough, one good way of handling it is to spend less time on Wikipedia and do other things. You'll get a better perspective of what really matters and what doesn't. It sounds counterintuitive, but I think it basically comes back to the fundamentals of WP:OWN that you'll fall into traps less often if you don't have as big a stake or interest in an article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Possibly though, but can we distill a concrete proposal out of that. We can discuss this untill the cows come home, but unless we change actual behaviour, nothing will change. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The word 'altruism' is occurring to me. Taking time to create a new article rather than throw out someone's contribution is commendable. Probably there was some curiosity as well... who is this Peter Weltner? Behind that there is a desire to keep the article List of Hammond organ players in good shape. Now, how can we formulate a proposal to encourage 'altruism'? Most of the efforts of editors are altruistic, as far as I can see, especially to begin with. We reward them with tokens of our esteem. That's what our first welcome page is. Our community will prosper if we acknowledge good work. In the end, people want to be well thought of, and that begins to supersede 'altruism'. --Greenmaven (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps implement forced viewing of Wikipedia:Tutorial for new IP's and accounts. Meaning they will be directed to the tutorial and hopefully read over a few basic principles before they can edit. -- Moxy (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. They have to be given some kind of Rules of the Road or else they head right for the "fast lanes" and cause all kinds of un-necessary traffic. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

As an aside, your edit summary is awkward for one large area where new editors head straight for the overtaking lanes. In India, if slower traffic were to keep to the right then one would have colossal problems, for they drive on the left, as do far more people than you might be aware of Fiddle Faddle 19:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I meet quite a few "burned" editors in real life. My first response now is to tell them to cite their sources, I'm not sure I like the situation where newbies have to be told to cite any factoid that they add to the pedia, but I find that deals with most cases. OK in several cases I've then had to explain that they first need to create an online source by getting something published in a reliable source. In a couple of cases I've further steered them to wards writing a book, and I'm not sure the sort of book that we would accept as a source. In only one rare occasion have I found that someone had had a cited edit reverted, and I can see there that it was a logical editorial decision, the info belonged in the sub article not in the main article perhaps we could get some sort of edit notice or transclusion system to prevent people from ignoring the {{main}} template and just expanding the main article to duplicate the section that was spun out. ϢereSpielChequers 08:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

If a good faith new editor inserts material that's not sourced but is reasonably appropriate and probably true, tag it rather than deleting it. And if someone else deletes it, restore it and tag it. Do this on the grounds that the greater good -- being a more welcoming community -- supersedes the technical requirement to ref all statements (honored more in the breach anyway).

I don't know what the rule is -- so many rules! -- but I'm generally against deleting material that's appropriate, not derogatory to anyone, for which no claim of untruthfulness is made, and which common sense tells me is very likely to be true, unless it's been tagged for a reasonable time, like a year.

You know, if someone inserts let's say a discography, and someone reverts that on the basis of not being sourced, come on -- it's the second editor who's being disruptive (as well as unwelcoming). It's not common for people to just make stuff like that up, it'd be easy enough for the second editor to look it up, or he doesn't want to take the time to do that then tag it, if he doesn't want to take the time to tag it he should let it go, and if he's not willing to do that then screw him -- why should his lazy one-click editing get to dictate the narrative?

If and when an article goes to peer review unsourced material can be removed then I guess. I don't know much about the GA and FA process but what I do know doesn't incline me to treat them as a shibboleth. I want lots of reasonably "good articles" not a few "Good Articles"^TM and to make lots of good articles we need lots of writers.

New topic, but one place where people can practice "letting it go" is re WP:ENGVAR. I see a fair amount of that, anon IPs changing "kilometer" to "kilometre" and so forth (when it's not a UK-specific article). There's a very good reason for WP:ENGVAR, which is to avoid pointless sterile warring over that. But that doesn't mean you're required to bounce the guy's edits. They guy thinks he's "fixing the spelling", and probably some small but non-zero number of editors who start that way go on to become useful editors.

I think it would be basically impossible to write that into WP:ENGVAR. For one thing, if you did it would presently be gamed. It's just an attitude. Lead by example, pass it on, write an essay (there probably already is one) and point people to it, I guess. Herostratus (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

What an excellent and forward-moving strategy!

I can think of at least one admin who threatens blocks for doing this. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 16:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't fully agree with this, but there is a balance. Leaving it there is probably better than outright reverting, and possibly leaving a boilerplate warning. Then again, a handwritten note, which genuinely thanks the editor for trying to do their part, and genuinely welcomes the editor to wikipedia, along with explaining that the article is written in American English, and that we prefer to keep it in one style, but that they are welcome to keep contributing, and to keep making mistakes every now and then is probably still better. If you don't genuinely feel that they did a good thing trying to improve the encyclopedia because you strongly feel about Engvar/Are in a bad mood today/Are dulled by a rote anti-vandalism run, it's probably better to opt for the first option of leaving it there. Someone in a better state of mind might still do it, and wikipedia isn't going to burn down for leaving that there for a few hours/days/weeks/months. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

  Herostratus is fundamentally correct. The only way that we are going to overcome the delete-if-not-perfection wikiCulture, is by directly counteracting it, in the field. Of course, snark-tagging everything is not much better than deleting it. *Especially* if somebody added some info, then that info was deleted, the beginner was officiously template-spammed... and then *later* it got undeleted, but marked as "we think you are full of it" to add insult to injury, and a condescending patronizing holier-than-thou personal note left beneath the template-spam. (Fully support Martijn's plea for authenticity and genuineness! That is the real intent of pillar four!) Methinks there is only one way forward, we have to bite the bullet and Actually Fix The Problems, not just complain-n-delete; whether done very rudely or very politely, complain-n-delete sends one message only, clear as a bell: Go Away. This goal of fixing-the-problems dovetails with other WP:RETENTION goals: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention#Adding_references_to_articles_as_a_method_of_retaining_editors. I suggest we have to *implement* these cite-squads, not just talk about them. When some beginner adds poorly-written unsourced material, the cite-squad needs to swoop in ... FASTER than the deletionists ... and improve the stuff that was added. Then, thank the beginner, and invite them to join the squad.

  This is true for new articles, and new image-uploads, as much as for new text-insertions. What is the primary reason people want to edit wikipedia? To spam the world, about their awesome band/company/self/boss/friend/whatnot. They create a ten-paragraph article about their band. The upload ten photos of their band. What happens next? In mainspace, all the images are deleted, and all the paragraphs. But it's a slow and torturous procedure: they get template-spammed for every image. Their article is tagged, then templated, then marked for death, then !voted to death, then actually killed. Meanwhile, fighting to save their work, they get even more template-spams, more insults. Don't remove tags! don't re-add unsourced material! don't copy images off the web! don't run with scissors! don't forget to sinebot your posts hahahahahaaaa! Even in the AfC submission queue, things are not much better. They work in quieter conditions, but when somebody finally comes to review their work, weeks later, it is often a quick "sorry WP:NOTNOW WP:COI WP:V WP:RS WP:N WP:NOTEWORTHY WP:UNDUE WP:SELFPUB WP:OMG you're on your own now I'll be back in six weeks with any luck".

  We need to have cite-squads. They need to be helpful to the beginners. They need to be good at improving articles. Most crucially, they need to be friendly, so that the beginners stick around, and get taught all that stuff, by watching the cite-squad at work. But... but... but none of that matters, if the cite-squad is too slow getting there. An article is put into mainspace. WP:NINJA delete! An image is uploaded. WP:NINJA copyvio! An edit is made, inserting some not-quite-perfect grammar, or some not-quite-formatted ref. WP:NINJA snark-tag and/or WP:NINJA revert. How do they do it? Well, simple, the wiki-tools are optimized for deletionists. There are no wiki-tools optimized for cite-squads, for being friendly by helping beginners insta-improve their flawed contributions. VizEd is horrid. Thanks-button does not even *work* for sending to anons. We need to build wiki-tools that make the lives of anons easier, and make the cite-squads able to take control of flawed contributions, before the deletionists arrive, and fill the beginner's talkpage with the templates of war. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

There is one problem with the "let it go" philosophy -- although it is the one I've been practicing for a number of years. That problem is that eventually the time comes when one can't just let it go. I've seen this happen many times with many different editors, & when that moment comes it often isn't pretty. Sometimes it's because the other party is pushing outright bullshit & it seems no one else understands. (This is the problem with esoteric topics that require a fair bit of education, such as advanced mathematics.) Sometimes it's over something very trivial -- if not amazingly stupid -- but it's become the line in the sand a veteran editor has decided to draw. (I suspect a lot of the entries at WP:LAME which end with one or more editors leaving are caused by this.) And sometimes it's because the inevitable personality conflicts between one editor & everyone else have built up until that editor goes into mad suicide bomber mode. (Does anyone like everyone she/he works with? Are you being honest? Would you really invite all of them to a party at your house?)

In short, the average human being can only let so much go & when that point is reached it's not a pretty picture. And I don't have the answer for that. -- llywrch (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is perfect, and nobody said it was easy. For stuff that might end up in LAME it's an excellent idea to point at WP:FUCK a little more often, try to live by it, and remind other editors when they are seemingly too deep in. That whole thing at Yoghurt should never have happened, and we should have asked our editors there how important the spelling of yoghurt is to Wikipedia, and if it's worth the hassle. But I agree there are other issues where letting go would be detriment to Wikipedia. A recentish example of that, which I was tangentially engaged in is the mess at Ezhava, which was the target of persistent POV pushing, and having one central editor trying to maintain sanity there, with some help of others (check the last talk archive for more background). If that editor wouldn't guard the line, or be pestered away (and we've been close to that a couple of times) Wikipedia would be worse of for it. I can't blame him for not always being welcoming to newcomers, since the fast majority of newcomers there have the intention of making Wikipedia worse in their own self interest, and it is virtually impossible to reliably distinguish between a good newcomer and a bad one. If someone has suggestions for these kinds of situations, I'd be very happy to hear them and apply them myself. and remind me to invite you all next time I'm hosting a partyMartijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

  Heartily agree with Llywrch. The idea that, when a beginner shows up, and makes a significantly flawed edit, it should be left to stand, to avoid hurting their feelings by deleting their stuff, is wrongheaded. Yes, deleting their stuff is a slap in the face. But there is a third option, besides leaving shoddy work in mainspace, or deleting everything and driving away the beginner. The third option is to help. Beginners *like* it when they contribute, and somebody notices, and appreciates their intent, and helps them achieve it. Think of the person that changed "most" into the more verbose "the majority of" phrasing. What was their intent? To make the statement less vague. WP:WEASEL applies. How can we help? By getting precision from a sourced quotation. WP:GOOG and WP:CALC and a bit of hunting for relevant sources, and maybe we can improve that sentence to say something like this: "According to the meta-review of surveys[6] of professionals in the field by Faim O'Spundit in 1987, at least 83% of respondents agreed..." Then leave a note on the beginner's talkpage, asking them in they like the new wording you came up with, and thanking them for improving wikipedia when they made the original statement less vague. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Retirement

Yworo (talk · contribs), a user who has been active for over 6-7 years, has already announced his retirement a couple of days ago, as well as Khazar2 (talk · contribs).

Also, I know this might be irrelevant, but back in August, I semi-retired from Wikipedia in frustration over being subjected to personal abuse by some disruptive users (such as Fladrif (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Bambifan101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Fragments of Jade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)), Wikipedia's inability to deal with some of these editors, as well as real life issues like getting ready for college. That lasted for two months (it ended in October), but now I'm back and decided not to let past issues get to me anymore. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

You shouldn't really cast such aspersions against other editors without at least wikilinking them to let them know. I've done so for you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Some of these issues have been actually easing up for me, because they are things that I don't think about every day. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Bambifan has been blocked since at least 2012 (and I believe most of the time before that), so you could hardly interfere in 2013.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

And Fragments of Jade were blocked in 2008.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Back in early April, an IP belonging to FOJ (76.120.178.220 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) continued her disruptive editing on video game articles as her previous socks, and I had one of the admins block her for it by filing an SPI. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a volunteer project, people are free to come and go and a proportion will go each year, losing some individuals is normal. Are we losing more volunteers than other voluntary organisations? Are we losing more (or indeed less) than we used to? I will be updating my stats of admin retention in the next fortnight, it would be really useful if someone could do some stats for the broader editing community. It would also be useful to do some research on those who leave to ask why they've gone. But we need to be careful not to do so until people have actually gone months without editing. ϢereSpielChequers 13:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Actives, 5+edits/mo.[10] Readers, 1+views/mo.[11] Click 'secondary' to see veryActives, 99+edits/mo. Nutshell follows.

during	99+/mo	5+/mo	readers/active
2011	3382	35099	11725
2012	3313	33057	14333
2013	3176	31648	15824
decline	-4%/yr	-4%/yr	+10%/yr

The loss of 4% of our editors per year, both actives *and* very-actives, is incredibly disconcerting. Coupled with the ever-growing number of readers per editor (nothing attracts visigoths like a large audience with few guardians), wikipedia's lack of retention is an existential crisis.  :-)   "May you live in interesting times." HTH. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Is thisa new trend? Just from my watchlist, we have lost AutomaticStrikeout, user:Kafziel. Just from my watchlist, we could potentially lose Fluffernutter, and Stormmeteo. Generally it's for the same reason: WP:BATTLE. What should we do? -- Ross Hill • Talk • Need Help? • 15:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

We should change the wikiCulture, from one that drives people away ("everyone just reverts me") into one that welcomes beginners, especially famous celebrity beginners who by their mere presence here will draw in others. This means accepting that COI edits on talkpages are perfectly fine. More crucially though, it means accepting — and then fixing — the problem of slap-in-the-face reverts. Also, some less-clunky wiki-tools, and some less-officious template-spam-messages, can probably help... quite a bit, even, methinks. But the wikiCulture is the key here. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

@IP I was interested in retention of our existing editors, and if that was just 4% we'd not have a problem. Retention is about how many of our existing editors are staying with us. The superficial community decline is about total community size, and the raw edit count has indeed been falling. The more efficient the edit filters have got at preventing vandalism the more editors we appear to have lost, but as it takes most vandals 5 or more edits to get a block we shouldn't worry too much about the loss of 4% of editors who do 5 edits per month. As far as I'm aware nobody who has looked at the effects of the edit filters has been able to work out a formula to calculate whether the community is contracting, stable or growing; But I'm not aware of anyone who thinks that but for the edit filters our community would be growing as fast as our readership.

Community size is about how many editors we have left after we look at how many stayed with us how many joined and how many left. Retention ignores the recruitment side of things and just looks at the proportion of the existing community who have stayed and the proportion who have left. We have lost some people recently, and I'm interested in finding out whether we have a retention problem. ϢereSpielChequers 23:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, you can call me 74, if you like. "Retention is about how many of our existing editors are staying with us." Disagree 100% — this project ought to be about growing the number of Good Eggs in absolute terms as well as relative-to-readership terms — but you are in good company with your stance, many others here see this wikiProject the same way you do. If you ask me, retention is about retaining a community-size sufficient for wikipedia to thrive, and that means having enough active editors *per* reader. Readership growing. Editor-count shrinking. Fatal, if not corrected.

  So yes, we have a retention problem, by my definition. I'm curious about your definition, and why it is not the same as mine. When the absolute editor-count is falling, even by your terminology ("our existing editors") there is a decline. Whether that decline is inherently a problem, some would argue no. We have "enough" articles, right? But to me, that *is* one major problem: not enough people believe we have enough articles! We get a new article every 127 seconds, based on my spot-measurements. There are not enough Good Eggs to revert the spam, cruft, et cetera contained in that massive influx. Look at the AfC backlog, which just forced Kazfiel into retirement. So let me put it like this. How many "real" editors do you think we have, in those years, if not 35k/33k/31k? How many do we need? You don't think the loss of 4% of active editors is a problem... do you also not see the loss of 4% of very-active-editors, each responsible for 100+edits/mo, as a problem? That trend *is* new, just this year.

  p.s. Your point about the edit-filters is a telling one... as you know, they only apply to anons and other low-caste folk, so I've been incorrectly blocked by at least eight different edit-filters, just in the last two months. But I'll bet a million wiki-bucks that if the edit-filters were shut off for a randomly-selected million IPs, and left on for the rest of the internet (randomly choosing a million of them to act as a control-group), we'd see a distinct differential in retention profiles, *any* way it was measured. I'm trying to research how many false-poz events there are for filter#225 enWiki, at present. The ones on metaWiki are even more bitey. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi 74, the way I see it we have a problem the recruitment of new members of the community and possibly with the retention of existing ones. But recruitment of new editors and retention of existing ones are very different issues. I suspect we are losing far more than 4% of our existing community every year, but we are recruiting enough new ones that the net loss is 4%. Our retention rate is the percentage of our existing volunteers who we retain, though perversely we usually talk of it in terms of the percentage of them who we lose. As for whether falls of 4% in the number of active and very active editors is a problem, one of those is just a function of the edit filters, if the edit filters had been coded as anti vandal bots we would not have lost most perhaps all of that 4%. The active editors dropping is as you say a new phenomena and I agree it is troubling, but we don't currently know whether it is a retention problem, a recruitment problem or a combination of the two. We know that the community has been getting more and more closed to newcomers, so it is entirely possible that we are still losing say 10% of the very active editors every year, but this year the number of new very active editors has fallen sharply. Of the various theories for loss of experienced editors the hardest ones I find to rebut is that the site has become a much more hostile place for gay editors, and we've seen a lot of them disengage. Whilst the use of EN wiki as a guinea pig for software testing, and a succession of initiatives such as AFT and implementing a version of VE that had failed user testing has taken its toll of people's motivation. Remember we recruited this community by empowering people and involving them in the running of the community. The transition to a more managed community should in theory lose some of those people. The problem with just looking at the growth or decline of the very active editors is that we don't know whether we have a recruitment problem or a retention one or both. As I said I'm not bothered that the edit filters have lost us a bunch of vandals, and no I don't have an accurate figure of the number of goodfaith editors we have left. My guestimate is that somewhere between 2% and 6 % of the annual decline is down to the edit filters stopping vandals. Since the raw decline is running at 4% that could mean anything from 2% annual decline to 2% annual growth in the number of editors doing 5 edits each month.

As for false positives, I thought our main problem with IPs is that we have blocked millions too many and we need to implement some sort of smart blocking, and unblock many IP ranges; But if there is an edit filter that is getting excessive false positives then yes it needs dealing with - and your 8 blocks is a troubling stat. ϢereSpielChequers 02:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• A word about the Afc backlog - For a number of years, the declined articles that were not being improved by their original submitters (or in some cases were not improvable) were left in storage, until there were tens of thousands of them sitting there. At the time they were doing no harm, since search engines were ignoring them (NOINDEX), but then some other Wikis sprang up which suck in Wikipedia pages indiscriminately and allow them to be indexed. It became necessary to get rid of the old submissions. All of the editors whose "Articles for creation" hadn't been worked on for six months were notified of impending deletion. Among them, though, were plenty of submissions that were close to being accepted, but whose editors had either forgotten about them or were inactive. Some of us have been going through these and "rescuing" them from the path of deletion. This has been having a bad effect on the Afc backlog for three reasons: (1) setting up the deletion process and checking over the 50,000 or so old submissions is taking up the time of editors who normally would be working on the backlog, and (2) some of the editors who were reminded of their old submissions have started working on them again and resubmitting them, and (3) editors who are checking the old abandoned ones are finding some good material, fixing it up and resubmitting it. This is all temporary. We are about half way through the process, and while it will never be done, the numbers of stale submissions should drop drastically once the giant stack of old submissions is gone. The result should be several thousand new articles, and a cleaner Afc in the long run. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

  There is some crap there which should go, and which even an arch inclusionist such as myself would have deleted if it was in mainspace where articles erm belong. There is other stuff which would have been categorised and improved if it had been put in mainspace where collaborative editing takes place. The solution to the AFC problem is to make unpatrolled articles no index and exempt all new articles from most of the goodfaith "A" deletions for their first 24 hours. Shoving them elsewhere just deprives them of the collaborative editing that newbies need. ϢereSpielChequers 18:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

  I fully support this opinion.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

  I think many AFC articles would benefit from the fresh air in mainspace. Let the collaborative editing process take hold of them. --Greenmaven (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

  So move them into mainspace - simples! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

  I have not moved any because I am not very familiar with the protcol around WP:AFC --Greenmaven (talk) 02:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I know i'm late to this, but didn't User:AutomaticStrikeout leave because of the campaign against LGBT editors, which intensified on Jimbo's user page about 1-2 months back? An issue which has once again been swept under the rug after the Chelsea Manning incident was already largely ignored. RFC and ANI are cumbersome and useless. I've seen as much the last time when an editor was painted as the victim for harassing Talk:Homophobia for over a year and trying to redefine the term, without producing a single reliable source. AFC not only allowed this editor to paint the other side, mostly LGBT editors as attackers, but saw fit to call the entire LGBT Wikiproject a group of activists, again, without anyone batting an eye. The result was no consensus. No admin present saw an issue with such an editor who also thought being personally involved with the creation of an article on Straight Pride (a fringe extremist movement) and attempting to merge Gay pride into it, when there wasn't even a reliable source in it at the time was an issue. A racist editor would have been topic banned quickly for just an ounce of this behaviour, no problem, but there is a clear double standard, which is as yet unresolved. I was disgusted by the comparison of bestiality and gay editors (discussed on Jimbo's page) and made clear i would be leaving too the next time i see anything like this again, which is ignored. I'll stick to that oath, as Wikipedia doesn't deserve to retain LGBT editors, when it chooses to attack them at every opportunity. I have less than a year at this rate, as these situations are cropping up more often, since by not stamping them out, they're being encouraged. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken. I left for a variety of reasons, but that is not one of them. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 21:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Editor retention of tag-bombers

In my wiki-travels I have come across many missing-editors who joined wikipedia fairly recently but show thousands of edits . I was intrigued by this phenomenon and investigated a bit further. What I found out might surprise some of you.

Here is what is common to this Group of editors:

• Most do not contribute to wiki-mainspace in the classic sense
• What shows up as edits to mainspace is actually tag-bombing (wikilinked by Ottawahitech (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC) ) using automated tools.
• For example nominators of wp:XfDs can easily generate edits by using automated tools that plaster deletion-nomination-notifications tags on articles/categories/wikipedia pages and user talkpages
• I have recently come across an active editor who generated 24 such messages in ONE minute. (user:WOSlinker on December 13, 2013 at 11:54)

I just wonder what motivates these editors: Do they feel these thousands of automated edits improve Wikipedia in some way? Do they realize the daunting effect their actions have on good faith contributors? Why do many of these editors leave Wikipedia within a couple of years?

Apologies for this long (crap?) posting. XOttawahitech (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It saddens but doesn't greatly surprise me, I suspect that many are young and not really ready to improve wikipedia. Though of course we shouldn't assume that they are gone forever - some may come back when they are ready to start adding cited content. One reason why they go is that the feedback that they get is rarely going to be positive, and it is positive feedback that many people editing. I have tried in several cases to get such editors to at least extend what they do to categorisation. My belief is that they do believe that their contributions are a net positive and some have got very upset when the discover at RFA etc that the community considers them otherwise. I honestly doubt that they realise what effect template bombing has on newbies, indeed my fear is that some of them started by creating articles and after those were deleted they "switched sides" and became templaters. I think we need other things for such editors to do, and we need to replace some of the templates with less obtrusive things like maintenance categories. We also need to recognise that new page patrolling can be come quite addictive, and that some patrollers start thinking in terms of "which CSD tag or templates best fit this article". If we can get them to fix typos or add categories, links or section headings then we can indulge their natural urge to do something to each article they touch without having them do so much template bombing. ϢereSpielChequers 20:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The provision of WP:Service awards to show length of service and gross edit count is a very imperfect measure, but is a way some editors try to establish credibility and reputation, (not surprising in this competitive environment).This is an incentive for some to find ways to build an edit count faster. --Greenmaven (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

And that concept of quantity-over-quality has crept into virtually every aspect of our measurement of editors. For example, at my RfA, my edit count was deemed 'too low' to qualify me for adminship (amongst other, valid criticisms). --NickPenguin_(contribs) 20:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

In at least some cases, tag-bombing is another convenient way for SPAs to push PoV advocacy (along with serial blanking, misuse of sources, endless talk page campaigns, forum shopping, and the rest of the PoV-pushing toolkit). I doubt those types of new editors are worth retaining, as such edits-bordering-on-vandalism tend to drive away constructive editors (new and old). It is a frustrating enough task just to get such advocates warned, especially for less highly visible subjects, let alone to get them to abandon tendentious editing methods that drive away genuine contributors. • Astynax ^talk 21:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• In general, a lot of tag and category additions are a waste of time and do little other than degrade articles and irritate editors. However, it was a very bad idea to identify one editor in the OP as WOSlinker is an extremely helpful editor who has brought enormous benefits to the encyclopedia—the technical side of Wikipedia is less important than article content, but it is important. Johnuniq (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• The messages that were posted on Ottawahitech's talk page were nothing to do with article editing. They were all redirects for discussion and the messages were as a result of using Twinkle to create the nominations. All the peges that were nominated were of a similar types so that's why all they were all done at the same time. -- WOSlinker (talk) 07:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Something to commend

This reply from Anna is truly one of a kind. Few, not even me, would have this amount of patience with an editor who may not even even be helping the encyclopedia. I think this is one good example of exactly how we should be treating our good-faith and helpful newcomers. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 01:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

What? A reply that enforces a made-up policy that each list entry must separately meet WP:NOTABLE? Not a good move at all, IMHO. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

No. The reply said that each list entry must be notable, and additionally, those of the entries that meet WP:NOTABLE could have standalong articles.

In particular, I was pointing to the way the reply was, with respect to making sure we treat our newcomers well and help them understand our policies. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I think Andy's point is that entries in lists of brands or companies don't actually have to be notable, although a citation for verification of their membership in the list is required. Whilst I'd personally prefer it if Anna's claim that all list entries must meet WP:GNG was correct, it actually isn't. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Please come and join this discussion on Draft:

Please have a look at the emerging discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Drafts#Deletion_and_Draft:. I feel that WER could be the key formative group to show us what Draft: can and should do. Fiddle Faddle 08:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)