Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23→Archive 25

Apparent bureaucratic mistreatment of a new editor

I've just come across the disturbing case of User:Verycarefully. This good-faith editor, previously unregistered, found h--self unable to continue editing due to an IP-range block covering his h-- entire university campus. The editor then registered a user account, only to promptly fall victim to a CheckUser-sanctioned block due to an unfounded accusation of sockpuppetry. The situation snowballed as this good-faith editor struggled to understand why this was happening and how to contest it, only to be smacked down by repeated unhelpful, jargon-laden responses from various admins. The experience left the editor with a feeling of disgust, saying h-- desire to continue contributing to Wikipedia had been quashed. The coup de grâce was the final indefinite banning of the editor's account by yet another admin.

It appears to me that what the editor experienced ought to be examined by WikiProject Editor Retention as an example of how certain very bureaucratic processes of Wikipedia can impact new and inexperienced editors in a way that is very detrimental to editor recruitment and retention.

— Jaydiem (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

What's the evidence that all of these admins were wrong? Isn't it more likely that this really was a sockpuppet?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Did you not read the entire thread? I find the user's explanation to be entirely plausible and credible. It appears to me that no substantial evidence was ever given by anyone to support the accusation of sockpuppetry. — Jaydiem (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
The good-faith editor made a new account, put "Hello world" on their user page, then voted "oppose" at AN for two editors facing a topic ban for their promotion of Jews and Communism. Of course they were blocked as a sock—what other interpretation is available? Bear in mind that being ultra nice to newbies has side effects because it drives away good editors who are fed up with the crap. The two editors facing a topic ban were being disruptive, and the topic ban was necessary to reduce damage to the project. Johnuniq (talk) 00:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Since you don't seem to be paying any attention to what the editor wrote, let me quote it for you here:

I've edited sporadically for a year, and probably a dozen times in the previous years. My first edit with this account was not my first or tenth edit. Recently, I had taken an interest in the community forums, but when I tried to add my 2 cents I received a message that the IP was blocked. I might be misremembering but I thought the message encouraged me to register an account. So I did, gave my 2 cents, and was promptly blocked.

The editor asked repeatedly whose sockpuppet he was accused of being, and it wasn't until his third unblock request that anyone deigned to answer him: "Sockpuppet of Minorview per Timotheus Canens." The editor then demonstrated that that accusation made no sense whatsoever:

Minorview isn't blocked and is uninvolved in any of the 2 areas I edited. […] This IP is accessible to a few thousand people. Are you going to block all of them as sockpuppets of Minorview, who doesn't seem to have been blocked in over a year and who hasn't even edited in months?

Wikipedia admins' response? "Please log into your main account and post an unblock there"—merely continuing the presumption that the editor had a "main account" other than the one he was using.
⋮
It was only after all of the foregoing that someone explained to the editor that no admin could unblock him even if they wanted to because he had been blocked by a checkuser, and that there was an entirely different procedure for appealing checkuser blocks. I can't help but empathize with the frustration the editor then expressed:

It sure would be helpful if this sort of thing were made clear the first, second, or third time I appealed, or if the page "UTRS" said anything about being the correct method for checkuser blocks, or if indeed there were a clear guideline explaining that checkuser blocks must be appealed in a different way, or if such a guideline does exist buried somewhere on some page that it be presented to users when they are checkuser blocked, or that the blocking admin, knowing it is nearly impossible to appeal his block in the normal ways took some responsibility to pay attention to the effects of his block, or if Wikipedia in general treated people with a minimal degree of competence. I've edited for a long time minimally without an account, such as fixing typos when the page allows IP-edits. I can't imagine taking any deeper interest in Wikipedia given the character of the community and my experience to-date.

After making this statement, the editor was blocked indefinitely even from editing his own talk page. The justification given? "too many unblock requests".
⋮
I am appalled by the byzantine treatment to which this editor was subjected, and given his experience, I can't blame him for being turned off from ever contributing to the project again. What's even more disturbing is what another admin told the editor near the end of his ordeal:

Do you think you are the first person this has happened to? Do you think you will be the last?

There is a serious problem here, folks. — Jaydiem (talk) 13:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
The serious problem is that anyone would imagine that it would be desirable to create a new account, put "Hello world" on the user page, then voted "oppose" at AN for two editors facing a topic ban for their promotion of Jews and Communism—do you know the background of that article and the damage it was causing? Johnuniq (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Obviously the first edit is quite suspicious. It is possible they have a history of their own edits on other topics which they could have been asked about. This way even if they actually knew the users in question from their university and were asked to do this by them, they at least could prove that it was a mistake to post there (which might lead to 24 hour block), as opposed to a sock puppet offense. Just to cut the possibly new editor a bit of slack. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Gentle reminder for experienced editors to remain civil?

Boldly cutting this off. Question asked and answered. No sense in descending into name-calling and uncivil discussion about civil ways to alleviate incivility. Go Phightins! 03:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've come across quite a few cases recently where experienced editors have acted inappropriately in various discussions. What can be done to remedy this and discourage future behavior that is bitey, condescending, and/or callous towards other Wikipedia veterans? That is, what can be done beyond the normal procedures (the editing goals on the front page of this project, resolution disputes, etc) to push users to be more civil?

Could we create a gently-worded template for use on the talk page of a user who has acted uncivilly in a discussion that doesn't quite chastise editors, but still forcefully reminds them to remember the human and to check WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:BITE, WP:HUMAN, or other relevant policies? Ideally, a stigma against receiving such a template on one's talk page would develop within the community. As with everything else, there is the potential for abuse, but I think that any problems that might occur are dwarfed in comparison to the potential benefit it may bring via community morale and editor retention.

...or is this a terrible idea? - SweetNightmares 17:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

It's a terrible idea. Why have these experienced editors you're complaining about responded in ways that you consider to be inappropriate? If they're just bad people then no amount of templating is going to change that. And if they've come to end of their tether with a particular editor then you need to look more closely at the cause. There's far too much of this "the first one to become frustrated and use sharp words is the one who needs to be punished" nonsense here already. Eric Corbett 17:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
"You're complaining," "that you consider to be inappropriate," and "nonsense" imply that my issue is not a valid one. These are not personal beefs that I have with editors, nor are they "complaining;" I am trying to find a viable solution to a site-wide problem that greatly hinders the very cause of this entire project. Excuse me for making the suggestion. - SweetNightmares 18:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Templates are not going to fix the problem. Nor is "moral ambitiousness". Ultimately, we probably need to have a sweeping RFC on civility, the drafters of which ought to come from different opinions on the subject to give the RFC credibility. Go Phightins! 18:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with User:Go Phightins!. It is a well-meant idea that won't work. Some experienced editors consider it insulting to be templated with any template. (I disagree, because I think that some experienced editors take advantage of their experience to resist both templating and reasoning.) Also, a few experienced editors dislike the idea of limits of content creators. Civility is declining, and is likely to continue to decline until something happens, such as the sweeping RFC that GPh suggests, or the intervention that some want and some fear of the WMF. I don't think that new templates will help, or that there is any easy solution. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
And it needs to include more than just cursing, honestly. I've seen some incredibly offensive, pedantic displays that often don't draw a comment at all. And it's hard to scream about civility when DICK is still used as pseudo-policy. Intothatdarkness 18:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
So is WP:CIR. Who here - we are the editor retention project, after all - will promise not to cite that essay as though it were a guideline or policy? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Last time I checked, competency is not considered an offensive word (at least not in most normal circles). Dick is. There does seem to be a wee bit of difference between the two. Intothatdarkness 19:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree that civility does not simply mean the avoidance of cursing. At the same time, it does include the avoidance of cursing. It also includes the avoidance, as mentioned, of mean-spirited pedantic rants. The original question did not appear to involve cursing, but biting of newbies. I don't exactly understand the reference to competence. We shouldn't want to retain incompetent editors (and that policy isn't about new editors, so much as about editors who either won't learn, or who can't write comprehensible English, or who have other issues). Competence is a different issue than civility (except that there are some incompentent uncivil editors). Robert McClenon (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
However, with regard to editor retention, the widespread acceptance of cursing (in some cases of language that is known and probably calculated to be offensive) is indicative of the larger problem. There is no obvious easy answer, but if something isn't done about incivility, retention of new editors will continue to become more difficult. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Robert, you say above that "civility is declining". Have you evidence for that, or did you just make it up? I don't get the impression civility is declining apart from the manner some users want control over what content builders say and do. But most of those users themselves seem to contribute little content. You also say above that "we need fear of the WMF". Is this a continuation of your campaign for blind totalitarian control by the WMF? --Epipelagic (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
You are misreading my post. I will try to clarify later, but I think that you have your mind made up, so that any clarification will be for other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
That's nonsensical. I merely quoted you verbatim and asked for clarification, or confirmation that what you said is what you meant. How can that be "misreading" your posts. You are avoiding clarification. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
@Robert: WP:BITE doesn't only apply to newbies, IMHO. I know that's what the policy says, but the spirit of the policy is basically summed up by "don't be an asshole, it's bad for the long-term goals of the project." I've witnessed accomplished editors stand up to some unnecessarily harsh insults, and while someone usually steps in to diffuse tension, it still causes unnecessary gray hairs and there's plenty of times a tit-for-tat takes place with no witnesses. Having a crocodile-thick skin should not be a requirement to partake in the Wikipedia community. Obviously users here shouldn't be babied, but empathy ought to be advertised more if we hope to maintain activity on Wikipedia. - SweetNightmares 23:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
No. That policy is about biting new editors, and is specific. What you are referring to is the more general, and largely ignored, policy about civility toward everyone. I agree with you that a crocodile-thick skin should not be necessary, and too often is. I don't think that a special template will be useful. We have enough templates with levels 1 through 4; we don't need another. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

As I said, I am aware that's what the policy says, but its intention is to ensure that experienced editors don't dissuade others (not necessarily new editors) from partaking. It's even there in the second sentence: "Remember: ... in some ways ... even the most experienced among us are still newcomers." Regarding the templates, to what are you referring when you say "levels 1 through 4?" - SweetNightmares 23:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Is "asshole" OK to use here now? HiLo48 (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Since it wasn't directed towards any individual, I don't see why it would be unacceptable? - SweetNightmares 01:01, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I respectfully opine differently here. Let's not forget that we have nice and friendly lady editors and admins who are non-toxic and do not have truck driver mouths. The use of incivility and profanity, albeit totally unnecessary, will not appeal to them and will certainly do NOTHING beneficial to "retain" them. Worldedixor (talk) 01:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to throw around Schlappschwanz myself. But it's called self-control. Some people just don't have it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Worldedixor - Please stop generalising. Occupation or gender do not automatically make one person's language usage nicer or worse than another's. Do we really want to force your stereotypical truck drivers to use "nice" language before their thoughts are welcome here? How about we ask the nice ladies to swear more instead? In a phase of my life when I worked in primary production I was once asked by a female co-worker, who I regarded as very polite, why I didn't swear more. This issue is not about ladies, or truck drivers. HiLo48 (talk) 01:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
How hypocritical of you to use "respectfully" and "truck driver mouth" in the same breath. Nevermind the fact that your fixation upon my apparent profanity has nothing at all to do with the point I was making in summarizing WP:BITE. Excuse me for thinking this was a friendly discussion between adults. - SweetNightmares 01:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I respectfully think you misconstrued my point. A truck driver's mouth is a factual representation of a person who uses profanity as clearly described here http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Trucker%20Mouth. Kindly assume good faith. I am here to support civility. Thank you. Worldedixor (talk) 01:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
"factual representation" huh. Since you give urban dictionary as an authority, I guess you'd agree with it's def of "slut" --- meaning a "women with the morals of a man.Moriori (talk) 02:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Your lack of respect and disdain for truck drivers is noted. I hope, for your sake, that one never moves in next door. HiLo48 (talk) 01:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I did not mean truck drivers per se, I used a common term. My next door driver is a very nice person who is a truck driver, and uses profanity but I respect him. Your allegations that I have "lack of respect and disdain for truck drivers" is false. That was not my intention. I meant persons who use profanity and incivility. Worldedixor (talk) 02:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Where is the civility in this discussion?... I will recuse myself from this discussion. Worldedixor (talk) 02:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
How about also striking out the part implying that I am toxic because I swore, as well, before you leave? I, too, am wondering where the civility went. I came here looking for constructive comments, but was met with "you're complaining," "you're morally ambitious [à la Ayn Rand]," and "you're toxic and have a truck driver mouth." If this is just another Friday night for you guys, I am withdrawing my participation in this project, since it appears to be a total bastardization of its original intent. - SweetNightmares 02:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Nah, it's already Saturday afternoon where I am, and by saying that I want to emphasise that the world is a very big place, with huge range of cultural norms. Truck drivers may be the metaphor for unacceptable language (whatever that is) in some parts, but certainly not everywhere. Some cultures have very different linguistic niceness standards from others. For one group to demand that everyone else be like them is never going to be a successful strategy on Wikipedia. There are no universally agreed standards of niceness. HiLo48 (talk) 02:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I find this conversation amusing because my father owned a big trucking company and had to herd truck drivers all day, using their language. Which, of course, I learned. So you can see why I can lecture on self-control. Self-control is just a way of proving you care more about the Wikipedia project than, as libertarians call it, "macho flashing." Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sfan00_IMG - Taking a break before my Wikistress gets too high

(Moving from (WP:AN)

Please see the top of User_talk:Sfan00_IMG, Certain events in the last few days, not least "disruptive-actions" by a specfic user, have convinced me that it's time to take an extended break, until specific individuals and organisations are prepared to accept accountability, and make active efforts to apologise.

I am not happy, and dissapointed that there are still those within this project that cannot accept that some things are simply unacceptable.

I am making this notifcation to WP:AN because whilst very disappointed, I remain optimistic that there are still a majority of trusted people within the community that are prepared to hold indviduals and organisations to account, and will implement the tough measures needed to refocus the project so that it is once again a neutral encyclopedia, and not another website on which individuals and organisations abuses in promoting various agendas (be they political, extremist or troll).

The admins and community already know what tough measures are needed, but it seems at times lack the ambition to implement them. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

It would be a lot easier to reassure you, or summon you back, or whatever you're hoping for us to do, if we had any idea what you were talking about. I, at least, do not. I'm sorry you're disillusioned with the project, but there's really nothing actionable - or admin-notification-related - in this post. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The admins(and the wider community) know which indviduals and organisations are the problem, but seem unwilling (or unable for some reason) as I said to take the firm action required, I am not going to name the specfic individuals and organisations concerned, as they are already known to both the community and administrators.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 06:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


Sfan00 IMG, for editor retention's sake, you might want to copy paste this entire thing over to the Editor Retention talk page and delete the post here.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Suggestion noted, Thread copied. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 06:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


Fluffernutter's an admin and she doesn't seem to know what you're talking about, so perhaps a bit more detail is in order. KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 10:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Sfan00 IMG, I see about 4-5 different situations which fit your description, but I don't see you embroiled in any. That's life on Wikipedia, unfortunately and without discussion, we can't come up with solutions. A bit more information would help. WormTT(talk) 10:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
You asked for more detail.

My reasons for taking a break are based on the following. 1 The modifcation of a userbox on my talk page which was modified by a (suspected) russavia sock 2. Claims by The Times newspaper that Wikipedia was trying to sabotage 'right to be forgotten' 3. The 'monkey-selfie' (see Commons) 4. Paid editing. 5. The inclusion of direct links to the Wikileaks.org site 6. POV Pushing needs to be handled much more vigorusly. (and I would welcome a discussion about indef bans for users distributing/linking extremist materials) 7. Paid editing, the current situation is ridiculous as corporate accounts can't be held accountable if they can't be identified as such 8. Copyright misunderstandings on the part of some users (too numerous to list here) 9. BITEy admins. etc. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Ammended ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, well, I'm happy to comment on some of those - if it'll help.
1. I don't see the specifics, despite a quick look, but unfortunately banned users try to cause disruption regularly. There's nothing more that we can do besides ignoring them.
2 - 7. These are all massive issues and there's no right or wrong answer. In some of the cases, people strongly believe one point of view and take bold action because they do. The way that we handle these sorts of things on Wikipedia is to discuss them, or if you don't have a strong view, ignore them. The days of administrators leading force are long gone - the amount of mess it causes is phenomenal.
8. This is always going to be an issue, because copyright is so complicated. I generally point people to my adoption course on the subject, which I think explains it so that a competent individual could understand.
9. Unfortunately being ad admin isn't a fun job - you see the same mistakes over and over. Some get jaded and become BITEy. I'm not excusing it - but I do try and mitigate it. If you have some examples, please do email them over and I'll try and have a chat with them.
So, most of your problems with Wikipedia are philosophical - and a break may well be helpful there. Perhaps see if you can get yourself to a WikiMeetup, debate these issues with a real person. The human interaction is always helpful in reminding you of the positives too! WormTT(talk) 12:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
In respect of 1, I am convinced that some of them won't stop until they are compelled by force of court to do so, but the Wikipedia community and WMF have traditionally been unwilling to take matters that far.

There are also some actions of other organisations off-wiki (which the Wikipedia community can't obviously assist with) which are also responsible for my decision to take a wiki-break. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Could more information help to keep newbies?

The first article rejection is a critical stage where we are likely to lose a newbie.

I know that the Page Curation tool was designed to give newbies less in the way of alarming templates on their talk pages, and to reduce the amount they have to read, but I wonder if it has gone too far. The typical newbie who has put in an inadequate article gets only something like this.

That is excellent as far as it goes, clear and conversational, and it provides an invitation to contact the tagger, but it does very little to provide guidance about how to do better next time. I believe that, for a new user, that message should be accompanied, preferably preceded, by a welcome message, both to say "Welcome to Wikipedia!" (giving a slight warm feeling to balance the coldness of rejection) and to give links to further information, so that a newbie prepared to do a little reading and learning has got somewhere to start. (That will include most of those who will go on to become productive editors). Some of the standard welcome messages like {{welcomeg}} are overwhelming, but I think the basic {{welcome}} does a good job.

We could advise New Page Patrollers to preface a message to a new user with {{welcome}}, but that might be difficult with the present curation system (it would mean an extra step of looking at the target talk page) so my suggestion is that, if the recipient's talk page is empty, the curation message should automatically place a welcome message before the "rejection slip". Some existing templates do this - the PROD template adds {{firstarticle}} - so it should be possible.

I would like comments here before suggesting this to the page curation people. JohnCD (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I would support having the Curation tool also leave a welcome message. We need to make sure newbs are aware how they can do x better/right next time. I suggest using {{welcome-graphical}}. I think it covers a good amount of policies (especially WP:DEVELOP) that don't overwhelm the user. It also includes a few help pages unlike {{welcome}}. Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 22:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Isn't about time the fundamental problem was addressed here, which is that no new editor can be expected to do anything other than fix typos, spelling or grammatical mistakes? The mantra of "anyone can edit" has long been a lost cause, and rightly so. Eric Corbett 23:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
While I agree with your first statement, you need to realize that's how we see it as seasoned editors, but newbs can't and don't see it that way. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Then it needs to be made clear to them, rather than pussy-footing around. Eric Corbett 23:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Easier said than done. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 23:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Is that a reason not to do it, because it's not easy? Do you only do the easy things, and not the things that need to be done? Eric Corbett 00:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Nope, I don't believe I ever suggested that. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 00:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, new editors can't be expected to do much at first....but what is it that Eric is wanting them to have made clear? That they aren't expected to have abilities right off the bat. I could support that, but I am not clear that is the message Mr. Corbett is wishing to get across to "them".--Mark Miller (talk) 00:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I never respond to those who switch from calling me "Eric" to "Mr Corbett" in a vain attempt to patronise me. Eric Corbett 00:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I could easily just refer to you as Eric Corbett, but I was indeed raised to also use Mr. as a form of respect (since we do know this is not a user name and is indeed your actual name)...not as a patronizing reference. Not everyone is after you. You made a comment and I am asking for clarifcation.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • At any rate this does indeed bring up something that, while it is possible was not actual the intent, does raise a rather interesting perspective...that we should not be expecting new editors to have the immediate ability to do the same work as experienced editors. It should, some how, be expressed that it is not expected of them at the beginning and that...perhaps, that could take a bit of pressure off new editors.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Re "The first article rejection is a critical stage where we are likely to lose a newbie." How often does a new editor whose first edit is really lame (and is immediately reverted or speedy-deleted with good cause) become a useful contributor? We need statistics on this. If the odds are low, we're worrying too much about initial rejection. John Nagle (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Stats can't measure that kind of thing. Sure, you can get metrics on what happens, but not on what the users think - the vast majority of them are SPA anyway, or simply hoaxers or vandals who probably have no intention whatsoever of becoming regular Wikipedians; the very idea of assuming they all would is frankly ridiculous. The paranoia about losing editors was largely started by the flyer that was distributed at the Haifa Wikimania by the WMF in which was stated that most of our prolific editors began their Wiki careers as vandals (or words to that effect). Duh! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
That was a great example of how not to do stats. When they took two very different but true statements "30% of our most active editors have been blocked at least once" and "most blocks are for vandalism" they should have done a reality check before saying that 1 and 1 make 11 as they did in that (now thankfully discontinued) leaflet. I have since encountered or heard of at least four editors who started as vandals, there may be more. I'm not against the idea in theory that vandals can be reformed and become good editors. Clearly some of the adolescents who we block for vandalism will grow up into responsible teenagers and adults who come back many years later, but they are rare and I'm not convinced that they would be more likely to come back as goodfaith editors if we were harsher or milder when they were vandals. However the concern about losing editors was not caused by that mistake, it was caused by the stats on the declining proportion of new editors who go from their 5th edit to their 100th and their 100th edit to their 1000th. We shouldn't greatly worry about the drop in editors doing their 5th edit, it usually takes 5 vandalisms to get all four warning levels and a block, so the rise of the edit filters between 2009 and 2012 accounts for a large amount of the perceived drop in the number of people doing their first five edits in that era, if not the whole 2007-14 era of decline in new editors. There is less certainty as to why we have greater attrition of new editors between their 5th and 1000th edits. I have a couple of theories, in particular I think that the decline in use of the citation needed template and the increased tendency amongst the regulars to revert unsourced new content is driving people away. But we need to test whether our retention of people who do cite their sources has held up, and if I'm right we need a better way to train new editors to cite their sources - simply reverting them doesn't seem to work. ϢereSpielChequers 14:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
@Nagle, it isn't how many goodfaith but unhelpful newbies go on to become good editors that is the issue, we know that currently it is very few. The issue is how many would have become useful editors if their first edit had been corrected rather than reverted. One theory is that the difference between our currently closed community and the much more open community of 2003/6 is that new editors were much less likely to have their first edits rejected in that era. It would be possible to test that, for example by comparing people who did their first 1000 edits in 2006/7 with people doing their first 1,000 edits in the last couple of years, and look at when they first added referenced information. If the theory holds up, the few editors who have recently become active will be more likely to have been citing sources earlier. Of course we could find that Wikipedia has never been good at training people to cite sources, and what we are seeing is that we have always lost editors eventually if they didn't cite sources, and that currently we just get rid of them earlier. My hope is that if someone researched this we would find that a worthwhile proportion of new editors used to learn citation and so forth in their first thousand edits or so, and that being nicer to goodfaith newbies used to turn a useful proportion of them into good editors. But I don't believe that anyone knows for certain whether we used to turn newbies into useful editors by tolerating inexperienced edits, or if we didn't whether we now could. ϢereSpielChequers 15:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
One of the reasons that new editors are not seeing their contributions stick is because the overall quality of the encyclopaedia has increased, at least in certain areas. Ten years ago, articles were missing or factually incomplete and we wrote about whatever knowledge came to hand. Since then, articles have been improved both formally to GA / FA levels, and informally by citing additional sources. The net effect is that a new editor could easily add unsourced trivia to Manchester Ship Canal in 2004, but they'd have no chance of doing it today. The amount of skill and effort required to stay in Wikipedia gets higher and higher as the years go on and the project matures.
Because editing Wikipedia has become a non-trivial skill, paid editing would help. I'm not talking about what we normally refer to as "paid editing", but a trained individual who understands Wikipedia markup and policies helping out somebody else who wants to contribute genuine encyclopaedic information, but doesn't have the skill to do it. In that respect, it's no different from paying a company to do corporate web design. The reason paid editing has a stigma is the stereotypical editor that does it doesn't have a good grasp on policies (specifically notability, NPOV and conflict of interest). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Probably the last thing we need is paid editors, if only because that would be open to so much misinterpretation and defy the huge initiatives we have made in the past 12 moths to try and stop the wrong kind of paid editing.
What we need to do is to find ways of better training our new page patrollers, recent edit patrollers, and vandalism patrollers. Unfortunately, even if we admins give them a hat to wear, those are the areas that are a magnet to inexperienced maintenance users who don't understand the differences between good faith but inapproriate pages/edits, and blatant vandalism from kids, SPA spammers, religeous propagandists, and hoax/attack pages. I've been patrolling the patrollers for an hour a day since I got home from the UK, and I never get past 20 newly patrolled pages without finding a critically wrong patroll or a page that has been passed that should have been tagged for deletion. I don't know what goes on at recent changes etc because I can't be everywhere. At the end of the day however, I think we're too paranoid about losing editors this way. I'm still convinced that WP:ACTRIAL would have relieved us of a lot of this mess and that anyone wanting to abide by the rules can easily wait 10 edits and 4 days before creating an article. I don't believe that the ability to make spontaneous edits or creations helps grow the encyclopedia or turn people into regular, dedicated Wikipedians.
The only real solution IMO, is more outreach, and, although I hate to suggest it, using some of the surplus funds to buy some advertising on TV: Text this number to give just 2 pounds a month to ensure that everyone on the planet has access to free knowledge... WP is one of the few among millions of interactive websites that allows people to edit/post without first registering or the content first being rewiewed by a moderator. WP has grown over the past 10 years and I think that rather than the WMF constantly trying to come up with new ways of providing stats for what they want us to believe, it's time to tighten up those old presumptions and realise that that old free-for-all Alternativbewegung culture is no longer appropriate for something that has grown to the stature of today's Wikipedia/Wikimedia. I'm not suggesting that we should all wear suits and ties to work on WP or all be over 40, but it's time for some people to realise that WP operates on a multimillion dollar budget, has real offices around the world, and is not a web project being run from a back bedroom or a converted garden shed by someone in torn jeans and a scruffy T-shirt, or an ill-fitting junior high school uniform. The sooner we get that message across, the sooner the quality will improve. It would not affect the mantra that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit but it would help to prevent it from being the website any troll can wreck. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Wow.... advertising. That's brilliant. Not advertising for donations but for editors. "Edit the Wikipedia". "Become a Wikipedia editor, it's easy and fun". "Your Reddit posts go into the bit bucket in hours or days. Your Wikipedia edits last forever". "I'm a Wikipedia editor [picture of attractive desirable person]; so can you be". "Ten ways being a Wikipedia editor makes you a better student". "You'll never believe what happened to this girl when she started editing the Wikipedia". "Watch this video and learn how to edit the Wikipedia in 90 seconds". "I became a Wikipedia editor and found my voice".
I'm not a ad guy but we have ad guys here... placement and tone are important, maybe the examples above are pitched too plebian, if you want get Commander Whitehead or someone and put the ads on high-tone science and humanities magazine websites or whatever. I'm dead serious about this, this'd be great. The Foundation has the money. I wonder if they'd go for this... doubt it. Too tryhard probably. Herostratus (talk) 11:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Another editor gone?

I just noticed that Ryan Vesey has not made an edit since May 19th of this year.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I think Ryan's one of those people who might come and go depending on life's other commitments. Hopefully we'll see him again soon. WormTT(talk) 07:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Hey guys, Worm is correct here. I doubt I'll become heavily active again, especially in the behind the scenes areas, within the next two years, but don't consider me gone. I'm hoping to write a few articles (or at least finish up some of the ones that have been languishing on my user page) in that time if I can swing it. It might be that I need to give up on the idea of "completing" them and just finish them so that they can be seen and improved by other editors. Ryan Vesey 00:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

University of Washington: Editing beyond articles

I received this in my notifications from the TAFI project, and had a pointer to a quote from it:

"Many members of the Wikipedia community have suspected for years that their shrinking community is partially due to new editors having difficulty learning the ropes and having few opportunities to interact with the Wikipedia community in positive ways, a theory supported by recent research [14][22]. The creation of projects like Today’s Article for Improvement and Editor Retention demonstrates how the WikiProject model for group collaboration can be adapted to address these emerging community concerns."[1] - Jonathan T. Morgan, Michael Gilbert, David W. McDonald and Mark Zachry

--Mark Miller (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

"Another recently-founded (2012) alternative WikiProject, Editor Retention (f. 2012), has a complementary focus: it provides a forum for discussing strategies for retaining established editors, who often leave Wikipedia because of negative social experiences or a feeling that their work is not acknowledged [35]. In service of this goal, Editor Retention runs an Editor of the Week board, a “place to nominate someone for Editor of the Week recognition: an unsung hero who has been doing great work for months but is not well-known.”"

--Mark Miller (talk) 19:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mark Miller: Thanks for posting this paper along with these excerpts. I'm hoping that the Co-op mentorship space that we'll be piloting is able to facilitate productive interactions between new and experienced editors without causing a lot of burnout for mentors, as the idea is to make the process more lightweight. We need volunteers to pilot the space, and if there are editors who are interested in mentoring one or two editors later this year, please let us know on our project talk page. Thanks, I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Reverts

I've been having a few edits reverted lately and it's kinda irking me because I don't really feel like it should have been reverted, I need another opinion because it kinda pisses me off if I spend a considerable amount of time on something and it just gets wiped out. For example, I made some edits on HIV/AIDS, In my opinion the article is very repetitive and difficult to read. I could see that some of the edits I made may be open to opinion but I also spent a considerable amount of effort cleaning up red-links and a couple editors just reverted all of the work I did on the article. If they'd just re-edited some of the edits I did because they didn't agree with it, I'd have accepted that; but all the cleanup I did was reverted as well and that irritated the heck out of me. Then again I spent quite a bit of time getting the latex formatting correct for an edit I made to Hydrogen that included a scientific formula and it was outright reverted. David Condrey (talk) 02:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

BOLD, revert, discuss. I can see at least the Hydrogen edit being discussed. To me it looks like you did everything by the book, I'm not sure about this one. You could point that out and ask for the concern being raised more specifically. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 05:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a nominee to be our Editor of the Week?

Editor of the Week seeks to recognize underappreciated content contributors for their outstanding contributions that, while they may go unnoticed by fellow editors, greatly serve the readers. Right now, our queue of accepted nominations is running a little short. Do you have someone who fits the criteria to be Editor of the Week? If so, consider nominating them here. Thanks! Go Phightins! 12:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Editors who are very active and then suddenly stop

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

Proposed addition to "Avoiding personal attacks"

There is a proposal to add a short paragraph to the "Avoiding personal attacks" section of the No personal attacks policy page. The discussion is Proposed addition to "Avoiding personal attacks". Your participation is welcome. Lightbreather (talk) 01:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Taking a break

Been pretty preoccupied with other issues and projects and haven't spent enough time here so I am letting the project know that I am taking a break from participating here. That will probably make things better so it should actually be seen as a good thing. The project is doing a good job just existing. The fact that we don't really do anything hasn't really effected how well it is perceived. The one bright spot of activity is done by a small handful of editors to highlight the work of OTHERS. Can you believe that? They actually want to spotlight the work of other people. I strongly encourage editors to help more with Editor of the Week. Really. We discuss a lot and do little...but they keep trudging along with almost no help. Give them a hand if you can. Happy editing.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Enjoy the break. I'm mainly breaking myself. I would argue that more comes from the pages than just EoW (a great program), but it isn't obvious from the pages. I think the project puts "retention" in the minds of a lot of people in everything they do, plus several small projects that benefit from it. It isn't the cure-all, but it helps. And simply having a centralized place to discuss, bitch, brainstorm, etc. helps, and may influence people when they vote in polls on other pages. The benefits are nuanced, but don't count it completely out. Some months are better than others, but it isn't useless by any means. Once I have the time, I have some other WER projects I want to get rolling, but I simply don't have the time this month, maybe not this year. We will never "fix" anything here, we can only plant seeds. On that front, I think we've done some good. Dennis 13:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
A little butterfly can start a hurricane. (Not to mention a big squawking crow.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • What kind of things would you like to do to help retain editors? As someone who is involved in the Teahouse, is there some common pattern to the questions that could somehow be addressed? As you've noted in the past, resolving disputes is often a key problem; is there some way we could recruit more experience in mediation to Wikipedia? Perhaps hiring people to be uninvolved, third-party mediators might be the best way. Although I realize the community is loathe to cede editorial control, I think the idea of binding mediation should be explored.
  • I suggested above that I think we should be trying to recruit good editors to Wikipedia, but I'm not sure on how to give this the publicity it needs. Maybe we can get some people from the Teahouse to design a good set of welcome pages and banner ads to support this initiative? Kudpung suggested advertising to attract more editors. Should we try to lobby the WMF for advertising? Should we lobby for the long-promised landing page to help assist newcomers?
  • Following up on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 115#Telling people their edits are promotional, maybe the various groups with extensive experience talking with new editors (e.g. those involved in the Teahouse, Articles for Creation, New Page Patrol, and so forth) can pool their knowledge and come up with scripts for best ways to introduce editors to basic Wikipedia principles and guidelines. (The scripts would branch out based on the editor's responses.) This project could act as a central point of discussion for this initiative, or any of the other projects could be used, if the editors prefer.
  • Given the reality that everyone's time is limited, initiatives that can progress forward with lots of incremental tasks are the most achievable. The groundwork can still be prepared, though, for larger-scale proposals, by constructing solid rationales examining both pros and cons. The key is to focus on what we can do, and not fret over what someone else has to do. What are everyone's ideas on what's in our power to change to improve matters? isaacl (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good. Maybe some one should do something about this small but annoying issue: this obnoxious edit summary. How can intelligent productive editors be retained when they have to worry if this sort of barbarity will be dropped on them for correcting something like massive technical disruption of a page? It's insanity. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
for correcting something like massive technical disruption of a page Yes, it certainly would be insanity if that were the reason. But it wasn't. (Too bad? Carol aren't you the editor who's complained repeatedly about other editors "casting aspersions"!?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I apologize for being insufficiently clear; I was asking about what ideas everyone had for specific actions that could be undertaken? I appreciate the issue you've raised, but the actions to try to address this come back to the same discussion you started above and on other talk pages, and the potential resolutions are not small. In the interest of avoiding diffusing discussion, perhaps the civility issue can be kept to the other thread? isaacl (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Carol, I'm pretty sure Doc has been told to fuck off more than once, and can let it slide off his back like water on a duck. They have some history, including Doc's previous summary "You fucked up the TOC with the continued whinging. Annoying". Seriously, two editors that swat at each other once in a blue moon, this is the kind of stuff that admin should ignore as long as it is just singular comments. We aren't school marms or the nannies. Dennis 16:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I would like to ask Carol if the f-word she objected to was the first and or only piece of incivility she saw in that thread? And was it really the worst? I see far worse incivility here every day than the use of one word from a list of words some don't like. One editor is unlikely to have told another to fuck off if all had been sweetness and love up to that point. HiLo48 (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
First, most editors don't know the history of other editors and may consider it to be a "fuck off" out of the blue. Hey, I have a lot of editors I'd like to tell to "fuck off" in big bold letters half the size of their talk page (and a lot of other things that would shrivel their weenies for weeks). But of course there is this problem with some editors being allowed to get away with incivility and others warned or even sanctioned for nothing but a lot of allegations with nary a diff in site. There's too much cronyism on Wikipedia to allow incivility because some are allowed to be uncivil and abuse it to get their way on articles and others aren't permitted that luxury. I've certainly come to see it's not just a male/female thing, but it's also a interpersonal relationship thing. The good back scratchers get away with more than the less expert backscratchers. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
There is cronyism here, although it isn't always obvious from the talk pages. Lots of stuff happens offwiki and on private channels of IRC, something we can't change. I don't think you can ever escape all of it, human nature being what it is, but there is more than I like and certainly more than what serves us best. This is another reason I tend to be rather lax in enforcing the minor incivility and why I full protect pages instead of blocking two editors who are at 4RR, etc. There are only two possible ways to go to level the playing field: get tougher with established users (we can't even define "civil", and that doesn't stop cronyism, it just creates enemies, so this isn't a great option) or try to level it by being equally lax with everyone, but follow up with discussion. I don't have the "answer" here, I just try to take this approach, which I'm still learning. I constantly say it, but there is never going to be justice here, only solutions. Dennis 15:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you Mark for your kind and encouraging words re: Editor of the Week. You were there at the start and its current success is because of our (5 or 6 editors) diligence back then. Good luck with your break. I see you around, here and there, dispensing Good Advice....editor retention in practice. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • What? You can't walk away from WP:RETENTION. Oh the irony of your actions ;) Good luck & hope you return, sooner then later :) GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

There are a lot of good things that started here and I am sure it will continue. But I'm not in a positive, helping mood lately. I had hoped I would brush it off and get over it sooner, but I think I need the break to find my Wikipedia feet again, understand my place and know the right Direction to move forward. Thanks everyone and thank you Dennis. As I have said before, it was you and this project that were the turning point for me on Wikipedia. Pretty sure I would have been ideffed by now had I not found Editor Retention.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I unwatched this page myself. (Just checked back if any reply on mediation.) Actual editor retention doesn't seem to be the prime concern here any more. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention/Archive_21&oldid=1161876987"