Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Unbanning

Probably not a "front burner" issue, but it does fall under the scope of this project and eventually we need to develop an consensus on the issue, but this [1] type of issue has come us several times. Editors that were banned, but years later they came back and made good contributions for a while until accidentally found out at SPI. At what point do we "forgive"? Again, not trying to run with it, but if anyone has some experience with it, it would be good to eventually an essay for dealing with this that others in the community could use as a guideline. Realistically, we probably have dozens or more good editors here who are really banned users that reformed and are quietly being good editors. Some amnesty, if they will admit their linkage, should be considered. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Jimbo page stuff

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

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

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

Comments from Jimmy Wales

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User box

Tranfering from project mainpage:

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

Userbox suggestions (1)

Userbox suggestions (2)

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

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

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

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

This user is a member of WikiProject Editor Retention

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Request for Admin Sanctions

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

Indexing the project

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

Penyulap breaching the request for admin process

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

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

Community De-adminship

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

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

What do we do about editors who never discuss?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Make this the official logo and userbox?

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

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

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

Inexperienced editor needing assistance

Hello, everyone. I'm stopping by to ask if one of you can help User:Fxmastermind improve his editing skills. This was discussed at User talk:Boing! said Zebedee#Question.[3] After I pointed out that Fxmastermind needs a mentor, administrator Dennis Brown stated "maybe you could hook him up with a mentor or adopt program. Or ask one of my friends at WP:WER, which covers some of these issues among others." I chose here because not only is this project active and seemed more open/beneficial per Dennis Brown referring to you all, or some of you, as his friends, but because looking for an individual mentor can be difficult/often isn't successful and my having suggested WP:Adopt to a couple or few editors has yet to produce an adoption (or, if it has, it's only produced one). Flyer22 (talk) 12:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Penyulap blocked

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

Some projects dying

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's JSTOR? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 19:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Watch

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

Departing editors

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

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

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

Messages for new-page creators

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

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#rfc_B207991

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

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

First contact and why it is important

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dennis, I'd prefer to see the list (of reasons people leave) remain as it is, and I'd like to remove the note that it should be shortened in case it discourages people from adding to it. The list is contradictory, of course, because people have different perspectives, but that's the reality. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Guess how many IPs are blocked

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

To put that into perspective, there's 4,294,967,296 possible IP address out there (on IPv4, and many more than that on IPv6)... so that's about 0.2% of IPs blocked. Given the grumpy editors who believe that you should have to register to use WP, I think that's a fairly reasonable number. Worm^TT(talk) 09:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

These aren't generally random IPs. By their nature they are skewed towards ones that are likely to be used by potential editors. EN wiki gets editors from all over the world, but disproportionately from English speaking countries, and guess where those range blocks tend to be? Also some organisations have huge underused or even unallocated IP ranges and others make much more "efficient" use of them, guess which ones are more likely to have editors in a range, and consequently to have been range blocked. 0.2% of potential editors would IMHO be uncomfortably high, but for those two reasons it will be way more than that. ϢereSpielChequers 10:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

You are right of course, and looking at the way that those 10 million are blocked, it's quite worrying. Range blocks taking out large groups of potential editors because of one single person's abuse? It seems like madness. Worm^TT(talk) 10:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I suspect the problem comes from the length of the rangeblock, also it is easy to see the price of an unblock - if you boldly unblock a few ranges and nothing really bad happens then nothing will be said. But if you unblock a range that unleashes a vandal then you might be considered responsible for their actions. Combine that with our shortage of active admins and an atmosphere on wiki that isn't exactly supportive of admins and you have a clear recipe for becoming increasingly closed to IP editors. ϢereSpielChequers 16:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Rephrase it to "how many do we expect to get blocked?" and you're good to go.I'm assuming creating an account is a way around an IP block anyway? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Only if you also have access to an unblocked IP, and are sufficiently motivated to come here despite the rebuff. If range blocks could be circumvented by creating an account then I don't think they'd be so heavily used. ϢereSpielChequers 10:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

As well as the range block problem there is a related opportunity at Strategy:Proposal:Unblock_formerly_open_IP_addresses. ϢereSpielChequers 10:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Rangeblocks are typically hard blocks, meaning everybody is blocked. IPs can not edit or create an account and previously registered editors are also blocked. This comes as a shock to existing editors wondering why they are blocked. Another problem is that most rangeblocks are WP:AUTOBLOCKed. So when a registered user finds they are blocked and tries to edit from another place, such as work, their new IP address is autoblocked by the software. The autoblock only lasts 24 hours, but it's reset everytime the person tries to log in from a different place. This has the effect of cascading the rangeblocks in to all sorts of other networks. When it's just one person, it eventually resets itself. But when it's 10 million, the autoblocks cascade everywhere effecting many innocnet people as can be seen by the comments at Wikipedia talk:Autoblock#How to get rid of newbies and elsewhere. Most people just say screw it and leave, so it's a major concern. Best regards. 64.40.54.10 (talk) 11:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • We had a /19 come up last night at ANI, which is just over 8000 addresses. Kww did a softblock on the range, which means logged in users can edit and IPs can create accounts. Can't wait until IPv6 is fully implemented, I imagine there will end up being billions of IPs blocked :/ But it is necessary to do so at times, so it is a lose/lose situation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I recently saw a statistic somewhere, I think it said 94% of vandalism edits come from unregistered IP editors. Certainly in my experience of fighting vandalism this is a plausible figure. I do not think it is unreasonable to have so many IPs blocked, especially considering that IPs are not blocked indefinitely, so the vast majority of these blocks are temporary and due to expire, eventually. Elizium23 (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

And I think it's worth pointing out that blocks are a vital necessity for editor and reader retention. If we don't block enough disruptive editors, the quality of Wikipedia degrades. Readers perceive our articles as unreliable and poorly-maintained and avoid coming. Editors in good standing see their contributions vandalized, their work challenged by tendentious editors, edit wars and drama that drive them off. It's unfortunate that we have to block so many people, but keeping out the bad eggs, in the long run, helps us keep around more of the good ones. Elizium23 (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The opposite side of the coin is that a 2007 study found that 81.9% of edits by unregistered editors were not vandalism, and about one third of all non-vandalism edits are made by unregistered editors. All the same, 80.2% of the vandalism edits were done by unregistered editors. I don't know how representative the sample was for this study (the sample size was quite small), but the study generally illustrates that any plans to address vandalism by unregistered editors should look for ways to preserve their useful edits. isaacl (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I know that at least a few of the range blocks are to stop banned editors from making vicious attacks on some of our good editors. Dougweller (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

And a big part of editor retention is creating an environment that quality editors want to participate in, without fear of POV warriors, edit warriors, vandals or personal attacks. Prompt and fair blocking plus equitable policy enforcement are important parts of Editor Retention. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is something that has been glossed over in some of the discussions: there are some editors that the Wikipedia community does not want to retain, and retention efforts should be directed appropriately. isaacl (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Apparently somebody blocked the whole world yesterday [4]. That would for sure avoid any vandalism ;) benzband (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think it has necessarily been glossed over, even if it isn't a main topic here. A couple of us work at WP:SPI, including myself, and there are a large number of admins that are members of the project. It isn't much of a discussion topic here, since blocking isn't something everyone can do, but it is the motivation for many of us admins working the problem areas. I've been mulling over some ideas on helping admins in this exact area, but it is quite complicated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear; I was referring strictly to the discussions underway on this page, which largely seem to assume that every editor who has been rebuffed in some way deserved to be treated in a kinder way. I agree than in many (most?) other places on Wikipedia, this is not assumed. isaacl (talk) 03:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Anybody wanna fix this problem?

I should have been more specific.

• Rangeblocks zap the good guys along with the bad guys and cause WP:COLLATERAL damage.
• This can be a few 10's of good guys for a small rangeblock to a few 1000's of good guys for large rangeblocks
• WP:AUTOBLOCKs compound this problem and add significantly to these numbers
• At 10 million blocked IPs, a rough guess is that between 10,000 and 1,000,000 good guys are being zapped. Only a CheckUser can tell the actual number of good guys being zapped, and nobody is going to do a CheckUser for 10 million IPs.

So here's the question. Does anybody wanna help save 10,000+ good guys? A simple Yes or No is fine. Thanks. 64.40.54.136 (talk) 08:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I can appreciate it is a delicate and pretty thankless balancing act: which is the more important to overall quality, universal access or a sane working environment?

I started out thinking it would be neat if there was some way to identify the good accounts affected by a rangeblock and allow them past the block. Maybe new account requests from within the rangeblock could be checkuser-ed before activating. I don't know if all this could be done; some kind of "firm" block, intermediate between soft and hard, perhaps?

Then I realised, this was all just a variation on the theme that users with different status get different privileges. In this view, rangeblocking is something you do to the account privileges, not to the IP connection itself. And that's cleaner - fixing a user-space issue down at the IP level is pretty dirty engineering practice. But again, a design challenge.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism

i just want to tell you also this:

On the Talk Page of the article of "Israel =>> [5]" and also Here =>> [6] There are whole paragraphs of anti-Semites calling delete the word "Jerusalem" as Israel's capital, And this is in addition to some trolls who write Against Jews. Thank you !. פארוק (talk) 13:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• This isn't really the proper venue. Additionally, I previously left you a warning on your talk page (which is likely how you found this place) because of your vicious attacks against Wesley Mouse on his talk page, unjustly associating him with anti-semitic behavior and trolls, which was unfounded and block worthy, although I chose to warn you first. WP:WER isn't a soapbox. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Personally I have several times attacked by trolls that sent me pictures from the Holocaust on my personal page just because my name is appears in Hebrew. I don't think it's a reason to block someone just because he tried to defend some articles. פארוק (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

You defend articles by discussing what is in the articles (or what should be in the articles). You do not defend articles by attacking other editors. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

A couple issues which i will spell out if you don't already know פארוק:

• • • • • • • Don't use personal attacks. Challenge arguments and statements but without attacking people. WP:AGF.
            • Don't use your presence here as a walking soapbox shouting out the same thing over and over. People ignored you on the Israel talk page because they were arguing over content and you were shouting the same thing and trying to use the bible as a reference, which isn't appropriate in many situations.
            • Don't use talk pages as forums for general discussions of a topic. WP:NOTFORUM
            • Do use reliable sources to formulate a decent argument.
            • Do keep your cool and take a break if the situation gets heated.

Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 12:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Regular templating of user talk pages

Can somebody explain what this means? It has been added as a reason for editors leaving. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

This is refering to users receiving template based messages such as the ones listed at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. Most veteran users prefer not to get those template based messages. See also Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. Best regards. 64.40.54.8 (talk) 11:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Most veteran editors are probably not too worried about it though, because they realise that such templating is often done by newbies. What we are probably mainly concerned with is the over templating of new users. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't imagine that any veteran editor has left because of templating. It would be like saying someone divorced his wife because of the color of her lipstick.```Buster Seven Talk 13:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I hear a few people get upset over templates, but it is rare and I never understood the big deal. I don't use them very often, except with socks and vandals, and use hand written notes because I think they are more effective, but I'm not offended by getting them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. An ecosystem I have never really bumped into before - thank you all for not over-templating me, at any rate! — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

To add a data point to this - I'm taking a bit of a wikiholiday at the moment because I got templated by somebody last week for something which, although their complaint had legimate concern, I found extremely patronising. I'll contribute as and when I have time, but if I find good faith contributions are met with hostility, I'm inclined to go elsewhere. FWIW this GA review is an example of how I would deliver bad news to good faith contributors. --Ritchie333 (talk) 11:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

A concern

I want to urge just a little caution over the direction this project takes. My understanding when it began was that it would focus on the problems that are causing editors to leave, and would try to take steps to solve those issues; that is, it would try to turn WP into a healthier environment. I understood that it would not focus on attracting or retaining new editors (i.e. it would not copy the Teahouse), or on simply persuading experienced editors to stay.

The latter is a problematic thing to get involved in. Lots of editors are here because they are addicted to Wikipedia, despite the fact that it has caused them problems in real life and that their editing experiences are increasingly unpleasant ones. Contacting someone who has broken away from a stressful environment to ask them to return to it, or trying to stop someone from breaking away, would be doing them no favours.

Therefore, I feel we ought to focus on the environment, not on the people. What can we do to make the environment a more pleasant one for the editors we have -- to make it more respectful, less stressful, etc? Ethically, that is a legitimate thing to do. It's the only thing that will work in the long term anyway, if the aim is to keep Wikipedia going into the future without a large percentage of its participants feeling miserable about their involvement. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Hear! Hear! ```Buster Seven Talk 01:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

We don't want to duplicate the Tea House, we do want to support them because they do excellent work, and don't require our input to do so. I left a msg on Sarah's talk page a few days ago, asking her to put up a stronger presence here, so we can refer people to the Tea House when appropriate, or so they can find it more easily as this Project isn't designed to deal with that, even if many are interested in help with new users. WP:WER is a broad concept, and we can't save all "lost editors", so I agree with that point, even if I would like to keep from losing editors due to fixable issues. For many, being here can no longer be a joy, they lose interest or the real world is demanding, and we can't change that. As to the environment, I agree. I seek out someone regularly, usually someone quietly working in their own area, and just say "thanks". When I see a retired banner, I ask why. I don't talk them into staying, I just try to find what the problem is. Often, they are just discouraged by edit wars and drama and appreciate someone just listening. And we need to all take responsibility on talk pages and the boards, to encourage a calm, rationale discussion, lead by example, and politely try to direct heated discussion into productive discussion by keeping a moderating tone, or simply moderating the discussion fairly. There is no "silver bullet" and it is the little things that add up. I think it starts with all of us having a positive and constructive attitude, and spreading it in all the different areas we work. Of course, I would love to hear ideas on larger initiatives as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with SlimVirgin. 'Retired' users are not a significant number of all registered accounts, and scouring the site to find them and badgering them to return (if in fact this is happening), is probably not the optimal way to address this issue. The environment angle is the best way to prevent users from leaving, and active users should be encouraged to use more forethought when tagging articles, leaving uw, or making non-admin comments (and/or closures) on WP:AN/I, WP:AN, Unblock requests, etc., or indeed making flippant reports to such noticeboards. Extremely important is also the way communications are conducted over CSD, PROD, and AfD cases; many of the concerned users are new, and hence can hardly 'retire' - instead, they just quietly slip away. Recent concerns are being expressed over areas where new users are involved, such as at Articles for Creation. See WT:Articles for Creation#standards for current discussion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The only way to Change the Conversation is to...change the conversation. We need to confront arguing, quarreling and bickering when it begins around us. We need to confront the stance of 'Adversary' when we see it. We need to step in the way of incivility and remind editors that collaborators don't talk to each other in that way. The more "changing the conversation" happens the more it becomes commonplace. I've seen the 3 of you step in front of (between) attacking editors. More of us need to do that. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, Buster, though one problem with confronting it is that it can sometimes have the effect of prolonging things. Sometimes it's good to step in, and sometimes to ignore, and it can be really hard to know which is best. I also agree with Kudpung's point about established editors really needing to watch how we word things, and taking care not to tag articles frivolously, propose things for deletion unnecessarily, etc.

I'm wondering whether we should draw up a checklist (top 20 things that cause most "environmental" damage, as it were), so that people interested in editor retention can try to avoid doing them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

If the list hasn't been started, I will do so below. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

A question of morale and "good editor" retention

I've begun a thread on Jimbo's talk page to open a cultural discussion about the retention of the relatively small subset of contributors who bring articles to GA or FA. In particular, about how to avoid their morale from becoming seriously undermined by some of the "background noise" on Wikipedia, which I feel seems to pay little or no respect for such editors sensibilities.

As I've written in a prominent disclaimer. there's "No intention to canvas here about infoboxes, involved individuals, or anything else. Rather, to use this concrete example to raise an issue which goes beyond individual personalities or any particular dispute."
—MistyMORN 18:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I've spent the last 3 days, drafting (and editing and rewriting and refining) a response to that particular battlefield, in an attempt to mediate. I was emailing some people to try and get preliminary feedback, before posting anything publicly, but the people I poked haven't replied. I'll contemplate posting what I've drafted, in the next few hours. I strongly agree that this is both an interesting and relevant example, but also a delicate situation... Anyway, more later. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, that's good to know. I understand your concern that this particular situation may be delicate. I do hope that by focusing on the broader issues my intervention won't aggravate any personal grievances. —MistyMORN 20:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I saw that conversation, because of your linking, and agree it isn't a simple issue, which is why I haven't offered an opinion there at this time. Obviously, retaining editors that are highly skilled is a top priority, but as you both point out, that isn't always a simple thing to do. The goals here are to help create the environment to make it more rewarding for them to stick around, which often means mediating fairly in disputes and helping reduce the drama in those discussions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The thread has now been archived with relatively little input/response. Had the "disclaimer" not been there, I guess the thread would have gained much more traction, but mainly as an excuse for a general brawl. That sort of dynamic encapsulates for me one of the main communication issues on Wikipedia. A significant culture (or cultural tendency) here seems to be: 1) threaten to be heard; 2) use ridicule as a weapon; 3) vaunt you're perceived strength by being 'above' caring. —MistyMORN 12:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Asking at jimbo's talkpage pretty much never helps. (Context: Until you've tried it once, it can seem like a potentially good idea! But if you watchlist his page for a few months, you'll see that it's a wormhole gravity-well for a huge quantity of crackpots, misassumptions, and histrionics. Hence most of the background-regulars will start with an eyeroll, if something has been brought there.) It's just one of the many "mistakes/lessons that we all learn the painful way". ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Did you read the disclaimer in my post? Jimbo explicitly invites "philosophical" input. It was in that spirit that I posted there (quite clearly not as a request for any implausible form of intervention). —MistyMORN 12:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course! And I can completely agree with the intent, and I do believe your motives were sound (because I've read your userpage, and many comments elsewhere, and gotten a feel for your archetypes), and I do also remain naively hopeful that occasionally jimbo's page leads to insightful discussions and tenable solutions...

But I can also draw upon years of experience (7yrs inside, 3decades+ outside) to point out that a "large quantity" of editors will always lean or leap to the opposite conclusion if a topic is brought there, basing those conclusions on abundant evidence (Ie. A metric shitload of people do bring issues to jimbo's talkpage for imperfect intents. (And they include disclaimers, too!))

Hence the existence of essays like WP:Argumentum ad Jimbonem and WP:Appeals to Jimbo and WP:What Would Jimbo Do? (See the bottom of my Annnotated guide to navboxen, for what I think about essays!). HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure. But I also feel that Jimbo deserves to be taken at his word -- if for nothing else because this guy who is the founder of this Wikipedia deserves the respect he elicits. Anyway, I've now culled a couple of simple insights which I feel genuinely address the root issues. Of course they may be old hat, because I'm relatively new around here. Nevertheless, I thought of setting the ideas out here rather than on Jimbo's page. However, I'm aware that the difficult step is not making the causal diagnosis as such, but devising potentially effective intervention/s that have a realistic chance of gaining consensus. And then of course finding ways and means to build that consensus... Regards (and thanks for the friendly "stalking"), —MistyMORN 23:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Newbie icons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sounds good. For some of us with really long watchlists, I might like to see an icon next to the article name as well, something indicating that the page relates to content under discretionary sanctions. Sometimes that can be easy to forget, given the number of them, and it might help get a bit more attention to those edits. And, yes, I acknowledge that I am one of those who forgets what counts under discretionary sanctions unfortunately frequently. John Carter (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for my ingorance, but does this generally positive discussion mean that the idea is being taken forward, or does that involve something else? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for not taking part in a while, but I really really don't like the idea of this being non-optional. All this edit does is identify an editor as new. According to this discussion, the purpose of this is so that other editors might be more careful not to bite the new editor, not so they can discount the editors opinions. I feel that the worries that an editor might "game the system" go along the lines of discounting the contributions of that editor. User talk:198.102.153.2 should immediately be able to turn this off if he became an editor. I could still see an automatic shut off once an editor hits a certain point, but I see no reason to disallow an editor the ability to turn it off. Ryan Vesey 20:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Quote

I had to "tweak" this quote abit to fit the Wikipedia Experience but I think it is worthy of sharing. I know it speaks more toward WP:Civility but I think it also whispers to us at WP:PER to realize the long term potential of every new editor and that we have no way to predict their greatness.....

“Let’s treat each other as if we plan to work side by side for many years to come. Let’s treat this work as if it is one of the most important things on the Internet. Because, to some, it is...ANONyMOUS”

```Buster Seven Talk 15:05 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ahem...Anonymous...ツ Jenova20 <sup>(email)</sup> 15:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ahem....He didn't want to be completely anonymous so he choose anon-o-mous...unknown identity, but still unique. ¿Are you buying this?```Buster Seven Talk 19:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Support the Article Feedback System

Since Wikipedia:Article Feedback Tool/Version 5 is focused on gaining more editors from encouraging them to start off reviewing and commenting on articles, they'll come into this area if they do join where we're trying to keep them and make their experience here better. So the more this tool attracts, the more new blood we'll have to work with and encourage to stay, train etc. Keeping in mind we lost User:Swifty for about the third time this week because he feels someone wants to argue with him every time he un-retires, then maybe we should also be working on the areas of Wikipedia that are widely slated for not working and only exacerbating things? Hopefully that makes sense, i'm struggling to word it atm. Thanks ツ Jenova20 <sup>(email)</sup> 09:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I've added a note to the WP main page about dispute resolution, a majority of issues can be addressed with it. Though the feedback tool is definitely cool. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we should also work together with the Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign since they have a similar goal to ours. Thanks ツ Jenova20 <sup>(email)</sup> 14:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• A handshake barnstar (a variation of WP:REP's icon) from the Kindness Campaign page:

		The Friendship Barnstar
		Nice to meet you (then add your tilde)

{{subst:Friendship Barnstar| your message}}```Buster Seven Talk 07:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

A challenge

Ok, one of the big problems here that puts people off is pov nationalistic edit warring. Throw in possible sock puppets. changing sourced text, etc and it's just the sort of environment that causes editors to walk away. So, anyone want to take a look at WP:ANI#Ambitious Stance by Kurdo777 and see if they can help? Dougweller (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oy, I don't have time to look right now, and you are 100% correct that this is one of the biggest problems on Wikipedia: editors from nationalities that have spent generations at war with each other. It isn't likely that we can make them "play nice" here either. Nationalistic POV issues are difficult, and something I've avoided as I'm not as familiar with the topic (any of them) to comfortably jump in and determine truth from fiction on. Most of the time, I would rather slam my head in a sliding glass door than jump into those areas, but I suppose we all need to do our fair share if we can. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The environment

Ok, so here goes...

A premise: Wikipedia as a rule/process-based environment, populated by a large population of volunteer "wikipedians" (contributors) who are completely free to leave for good. Survival of individual contributors (ie editor retention) can be viewed as a form of natural selection. Those best equipped to adapt to the wikipedia environment, and its climate changes, are more likely to achieve short-, medium- or long-term survival. Wikipedia needs to tweak its environment to facilitate the long-term survival of the sorts of users it wants and needs to attract. That's to say, many different kinds of people to cover the many different useful tasks available on Wikipedia. Including (though of course not limited to) scholars, experts and other professionals with valuable specialist skills. But those types of people struggle to survive in an environment perhaps more geared to suit the sorts of people who have helped engineer its rules, processes and culture: a relatively "geeky" population who really have helped make Wikipedia the extraordinary success it is today; and more worryingly, a "bloggy" population comfortable with a high level of conflictuality not only in the content of discussions but especially in their tone.

How to make the wikipedia environment more friendly for a broad range of good editors? I think we need to adopt an occupational perspective, where the population of good editors (ranging from sporadic to almost full-time contributors) can be seen as a particular type of workforce, and Wikipedia as a virtual workplace.

We really need to help make that workplace congenial, both from an engineering perspective (editing software etc) and socially. But how? Certainly not by adding more rule/process creep. Imo, we need to introduce simple processes to facilitate a more "normal" environment for social human interaction.

A small example: When one thinks of a large international conference, it isn't hard to see that there's no single, universally accepted standard of civil discourse adopted in all situations. Styles vary by group (interests, nationalities, age groups, etc) and setting (foyer chats, mealtimes, small-scale seminars, large-scale debates, etc). People spontaneously gear the way they speak to their fellows and the setting. So, people naturally tend to speak in different styles in the bar and the conference room. And a good speaker won't use a lot of unexplained technical jargon when debating in a plenary session attended by a broad audience. Does that sort of spontaneous differentiation tend to happen in the wikipedia environment? Sometimes, maybe, but often not... And too often discussions tend to degenerate into a sophisticated virtual brawl. Imo, any participant in a serious talk page discussion should be allowed to request – and legitimately expect – that the other participants communicate in relatively plain English rather than an in-group slang or highly personal idiolect filled with obscure citations. I realize that such a change will meet with strong opposition (for example, the first post here under "oppose view 12"). Nevertheless, imo, that's the sort of basic, cultural change may help the wikipedia environment become easier for the general contributorship.

My apologies if this is the "rediscovery of warm water", as we say in Italian. —MistyMORN 19:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes, if not at all times, stating the obvious is necessary. Its the secret ingredient that makes the "conversational stew" savory and edible for all.```Buster Seven Talk 14:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

This is spot-on. Plain English is much more important than many people realise; I think a lot of Wiki-Old-Timers don't realise that they're almost talking a WP/Collegiate American "dialect", which others may not understand the same way that they do. The ability to communicate in a really common language, as opposed to idiolect, is of vital importance. Otherwise, the only people who will stay, long term, are those who speak the same idiolect. British idiolect tends to get one a bite, or a slap on the wrist, from our American editors, for example. Pesky (talk) 06:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Imo, this sort of language 'civility' issue is just one example of diagnosing and addressing the mechanisms which create a certain sort of toxic culture on Wikipedia (rather than relying on disciplinary fixes). If we don't examine the cultural issues at their root – in the relationship between the working environment and the editors who are helping shape that environment – we're going to continue naturally selecting certain types of long-term contributors (and, crucially, dysfunctional communication) at the expense of others. In other words, carefully targeted cultural interventions of this sort are needed to help shape a more healthy and congenial working environment. —MistyMORN 09:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if they don't realize that they're speaking that way, Pesky, or if it's that they don't care. One hallmark of cultural groups or clubs is the development of their own language or dialect, after all. To be one of the "cool kids" you have to know what every acronym and abbreviation means, along with the special variations used by sub-sets of the larger group. I expect that the concept of Plain English is actually threatening to some (even if it's at an unconscious level), because it means giving up a part of that group identity that they've struggled to create. When you couple that specific language with the creation of varying status levels, it makes for a convoluted mess that can be quite difficult to untangle. Intothatdarkness 14:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I've provisionally scouted in a couple of places about the possibility of a WikiProject Plain English for Policies. Other places have come to realise the importance of this (see Plain Writing Act of 2010, Plain English Campaign, etc.) What our policies really should strive for is " ...communication in English that emphasizes clarity, brevity, and the avoidance of technical language – particularly in relation to official [...] communication.

The goal is to write in a way that is easily understood by the target audience: clear and straightforward, appropriate to their reading skills and knowledge, free of wordiness, cliché and needless jargon.

This is a laudable goal. The question we really need to find the answer to is this one: Why is there so much opposition to it? Pesky (talk) 09:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely that more clarity is needed. "Eschew obfuscation"!

A few logical components as to why change is difficult and feared: (partially for listmaking/cataloguing, and partially to play devil's advocate ;)

• It's hard to explain Detailed Rules and Technical Guidance without using terminology (hence we're implicitly stuffed with jargon)
• It's especially hard to do so without referring to precedent using a lot of short-memorable-handles (eg. "See WP:RS", versus, a 5 paragraph explanation, trying to explain each of the relevant factors (any of which, the editor that you're typing to, might not be fully aware of).)
• Basic words, are usually more general, and less specific. So you need a lot more words, to get across the same nuanced contexts/implications, as a handful of terms from a finely honed lexicon. (basically offering a layman's definition of a technical word, instead of using the word itself, every time.)
• As someone noted in a current discussion about whether or not we should be encouraging some of the younger editors to also try editing at Simple: Wikipedia, "you probably need a slightly higher proficiency [of English, to edit there], as you need to take complex concepts and break them down into a very small range of possible words."
• Mostly the exformation. We're swimming in it. But not all in the same oceans...

Rambleramble. =) -- Quiddity (talk) 10:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that we need to simplify some of our processes and then we can simplify how we communicate to people. For example, I'm keen that we introduce autosigning on talkpages. If we do that we can remove this bizarre set of instructions that we give all newbies about when to sign and how they do so. Once people have got more involved then they might choose to default to unsigned and start adding tildas, but that is OK - some people like to personalise. The default should be simple. But the problem is that over the years we've gone the other way. If you can get people to upgrade their skin to Monobook then they don't need to work out what the symbol is for their watchlist, or which sub menu includes "what links here" - it is conveniently one click away. Vector didn't just slow things down by adding an extra click, it complicated things by hiding useful stuff in submenus. I was in the UK office this afternoon doing one of my training sessions, and I don't include long lectures on copyright or reliable sourcing. I start by getting people to do basic things like link articles, fix typos and add a photograph. Explaining preview, edit summary, the advantages of editing sections rather than whole articles, and how you create sections is to me the basic Wiki 101. One day I may write a welcome message that goes through that. I may even get people to upgrade to Monobook as well as setting and confirming their email address. ϢereSpielChequers 22:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I found some nice quotes:

• "The niftiest turn of phrase, the most elegant flight of rhetorical fancy, isn’t worth beans next to a clear thought clearly expressed." (Jeff Greenfield)

• "Genius is the ability to reduce the complicated to the simple." (C. W. Ceram)

• "Simple style is like white light. It is complex, but its complexity is not obvious." (Anatole France)

… all from Higgins, Cindy (2001). "Condensing and Translating "Researchese" for the General Public" (PDF). The Research and Training Center on Independent Living. Retrieved August 20, 2012. Pesky (talk) 05:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Editor retention versus editor education

I'll tell you where I am with all this. A number of people I know actively shun Wikipedia. They could do great work on here, in fact they're the sort of diligent people who think nothing of going to libraries (including some seriously big and scary ones) or researching content to prove verifiability. They won't touch Wikipedia because they've been alienated by a couple of unfortunate experiences that stem back some years, with everyone generally getting the wrong end of the stick.

I've been having a think about what the cause of this is, and I notice the following problems :

• Understanding of policies : If you've spent time at Articles for Creation, you'll quickly realise that our core policies, particularly verifiability, reliable sources and WP:NPOV, are not at all obvious to newcomers. Typical errors (which I've seen multiple instances of in each case) include :

• An article about yourself
• No sources
• Sourced entirely from blogs, Facebook or Twitter
• Sourced from several news articles that mention the article subject in one sentence

The latter one of these is really interesting, because to the untrained eye, it may look like an excellent, well formatted article that looks aesthetically good, but if it's not backed up by references that determine notability, it's got a good risk of heading off to WP:AfD and getting wiped. We need to make sure that when something fails a core policy, we must explain to people why, and do our best to make sure they understand. Otherwise they'll just get brassed off, call us names, and go elsewhere. Mention of AfD brings me onto....

• Unawareness of discussions : I've seen a number of people say "hey, I was reading this article about 'x' a few months back, and I can't find it. Where's it gone?" Of course, somebody decided it wasn't notable enough and sent it to AfD, where the regulars all got their whack-a-mole sticks out and shouted "Delete per WP:N, WP:RS, WP:SFoD". How is an intermittent editor going to spot that? Granted, our policies state you should send the main contributors to the article a note, but somebody just casually browsing an article and not being able to find it some time later doesn't come under this remit, so they'll get left out. Still, at least with AfD you can find the discussion, where you might have a hope of working out why the consensus went to delete, which you won't get for...
• Understanding CSDs : I cannot overstate this enough - there is a legitimate time to speedy delete stuff, but we have got to make really, really sure, we get it right. I've stated my opinion recently on AN/I here about this, but to quickly recap, I think if an article doesn't make you go "So what?" or "Big deal!" at the end of it, it's not a valid candidate for A7 or A9. Let's take our hypothetical casual browser - all he sees is a note saying "doesn't assert importance", which doesn't really mean anything unless you have a basic understanding of Wikipedia policies, ideally with a bit of experience at AfD. He can't find out why the article was deleted. Well, he could ask the deleting admin - if he can work out how to do that. And if the admin can remember. Let me give you an example of the sort of collateral damage a CSD can do - this comes from a forum that requires registration and assertion of an interest in the subject, so I'll requote part of it here. As you might expect, it's a response to a thread that started with somebody saying "Where's the article about 'x' gone?" I've blanked out the names to avoid mentioning the guilty party! :

Wikipedia's deletion log wrote: [date and time] [name redacted] (Talk | contribs) deleted "[article name]" ‎ (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content))

(a quotation from WP:CSD#A7 follows)

God, why can't these people write in plain English? Even after reading the so-called explanation of code CSD A7, I'm none the wiser. I have to say I don't think I've ever looked at the Wikipedia page on [article], but if it explained briefly what [article] is, who has the right to take it upon themselves to decide it's insignificant? I think there's something I'm not getting about Wikipedia's deletion policy, which isn't helped by the impenetrable gobbledegook its administrators hide behind.

...and a short time later on the admin's talk page (to, IIRC, no response)

Why did you delete this using "speedy deletion"? [Article] is quite possibly the foremost authority on [subject], and the [article] name has been mentioned in the media a few times - certainly, enough to give it notability.

I request that you either revert your deletion, or place the matter up for discussion.

Thanks.

And that's written from a person I'd consider to be reasonably intelligent, too.

I could go on, but it's a sunny day outside and I fancy going for a run. Anyway, I thought I'd throw that lot up in the air, to see what people think.

Discuss! --Ritchie333 <sup>(talk) (cont)</sup> 10:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Your implication that an admin unilaterally deleted the article in question without explanation is disingenuous to say the least. What actually happened was that the admin in question painstakingly explained what the issues were regarding the article, gave long lists of suggestions as to what might be done to prevent deletion, and when these issues weren't addressed after lengthy discussion merged the saveable parts of the article with the parent topic, in a way I'd consider absolutely exemplary for the way an admin should treat a well-intentioned user who's obviously devoted a lot of work to a topic which isn't really appropriate as a Wikipedia article. Certainly, some admins are more trigger-happy than others, but I've never seen a WP admin who's not been willing to explain their reasoning when questioned regarding any action they've taken. 188.29.235.116 (talk) 10:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC) — 188.29.235.116 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

That wasn't the admin in question at all. That talk page you refer to is fine - we discussed issues and reached a consensus. There wasn't any CSDing at all. In fact, the issue I refer to predates that by some years. --Ritchie333 <sup>(talk) (cont)</sup> 11:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm a reformed deletionist, and have the dubious distinction of being the only admin to pass through WP:RfA and get the admin bit based on a pledge to get mentoring for CSD. Fortunately, they saw other attributes worthy of adminship, and I'm always up for a slice of humble pie. I can honestly say I see the problem from both sides of the issue. Part of how we counter this is to catch up with editors early in the process, welcoming them, so they have someone to contact if they get an article deleted via CSD. Just ask, unless it is defamatory or a copyright violation, I will happily restore a copy of the article in their userspace so they can work on it, and even pitch in with a source or two. All the admins here will do the same, and a good chunk of the members of WER are admins. Just ask here, it will get picked up quick enough. Buster7's (and many other's) efforts to catch good editors early help as well. Anyone can periodically check Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and check out borderline articles, making an argument on the talk page of them, or simply removing the CSD tag if it obviously doesn't apply. A look at the history of the article and the history of the creator will tell you what you need to know. Of course, we aren't here to prop up SPAs, which is sometimes a difficult call to make for a new user, but a warm welcome and offer to help if they need it is free and will help offset any perceived biting by the CSD. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Not naming names, like, but at least one Wikipedia admin regularly runs a "delete all" script over every expired PROD and CSD without bothering to look at them first, on the grounds that "if they were worth saving someone will complain". This is what you're up against. As is people who slap {{spa}} tags on IP postings, come to that. 188.29.127.191 (talk) 12:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I had a similar experience creating a new article that was marked for speedy deletion before I had a chance to add more sources. The way I think about this problem - reviewers will be more cautious about speedy deletion, when there are fewer articles that need deletion. A good way to start might be with the edit notice editors get when they try to create a new article. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 02:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Experienced editors should draft articles with sources before creating their pages. I can't say that I'm sympathetic to your experience.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I had actually thought a while ago that it would be a good idea to require all articles created to be created on some sort of a template that required references and had a predefined structure. Not being much of a wonk, I wouldn't have any idea of how to implement that, but it seems a good idea to help avoid frustration caused by submitting a substandard article when the writer had no idea it was substandard. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

We do have one. It's here. It's not mandatory though (although even in its present cast it probably could be), and it doesn't get used very much (AFAIK, only 23,965 times in 4,000,000,000 articles). Created about 3 years ago, it was an excellent idea, but further development seems to have stalled. One of its problems as I see it, is that it still presents the new user with walls of text, and when they realise that they can create a new page immediately in main space anyway, I suspect they abandon it. A proper landing page for all new users was under discussion and pre-development by the WMF just over a year ago, but recent reports, if I understand them correctly, are that it is on hold, and at best, being 'revisited'. It is however a realistic concept, and its implementation, if mandatory, would go a very long way to solving much of the the problems at NPP , AfC, CSD, PROD, and AfD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I think if we slim down the article creation wizard, we could reasonably mandate it. The fact that it presents a small barrier to creating an article is a good thing. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 02:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

An orphaned essay

WP:DIG could be relevant here... an essay which is currently tagged as "orphaned". —MistyMorn (talk) 11:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the tag (present since DEC '09) and done a little editing. ```Buster Seven Talk 04:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Pending Changes

Pending Changes is due to go into effect sometime around the end of the year, and my guess is that it's not going to be possible to get consensus on any substantial change before it goes live. The biggest worry seems to be that we'll lose some editors because of problems with the current version of Pending Changes. It seems to me that we could find a silver lining in this cloud by measuring who we're losing and why; the data might help to explain how Wikipedia works and why we do things the way we do them. Is anyone interested in doing a study? Does anyone have a guess whether WMF Fellows or other academics might be interested? - Dank (push to talk) 11:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• I've not checked into PC as much as I should have, although I have to admit I've yet to warm up to it. I understand the desire to reduce vandalism, but I also wonder what it will do as far as putting off new editors. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

...or, as I read Dank's comments, it will cause the loss of existing editors (I'm guessing that are unhappy with the turnout).
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Can I get a nutshell common-talk description of "Pending Changes"...Not sure whether to hide in the cellar or celebrate w/ confetti. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012. Please read it carefully. The draft policy mentioned is at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012/Option 2. It might help in dealing with pov wariors, edit warring and disruption, and certainly with BLP violations. It might help retain editors who might leave because of the problems pending changes is meant to ameliorate. Dougweller (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

You can get to the second page Doug is mentioning by going directly to WP:Pending changes/Provisional policy; the RfC itself wasn't very enlightening for me, because people were already worn out and largely had their minds made up before the RfC started, so both sides were more interested in making their own points than in considering seriously the points being made by the other side. We've made more progress since then, but not nearly enough. I started looking at Pending Changes in May, and I was initially in favor of letting people give it a try because I thought experimentation and data-gathering would be preferable to arguing about it for another five years with no good data. I've had a role since the RfC was closed in June as a solicitor of opinions, and I've spent a lot of time on this, including at Wikimania, but I've failed more or less completely in this role. I can't be sure, but my guess is that Pending Changes will fail the next big RfC ... not because there's no possible scaled-down version of Pending Changes that could work, I think there probably is ... but because if you cut the brakes and the steering on a car that's going 60 mph, the odds are it won't get where it's trying to go. People are reluctant to work on improving it, and careful, non-inflammatory discussion will be even harder to come by after it gets started, because Pending Changes has inherited two very old fights, the fight over when and how to lock down pages, and the fight over BLP vs. BITE and NOTCENSORED. But, regardless of how it turns out, this strikes me as a great opportunity to try to get answers to a variety of questions that have been hanging around since Wikipedia got started about what turns editors on and what turns them off, and I wanted to solicit some ideas about what questions those might be ... I have some ideas. - Dank (push to talk) 15:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Re:Nutshell, There have been some good comments above, but I thought I'd also take a stab at answering the common-talk nutshell question. The concept of Pending Changes (PC) is that instead of protecting pages with Semi protection, you do Pending Changes protection instead. This lets IPs make edits to protected articles, but the IPs edits are "pending". They show up to logged-in users, but not to the general public. A pending change grabs the attention of a class of users called "Reviewers" who review the diff and choose to either "accept" the edit (making it go live) or "reject" (revert) it.

There was an initial trial a few years ago that had mixed results, and after the trial PC went into limbo...nobody knew what its future was. The RfC mentioned above is what finally brought it out of limbo. A majority of responders said that PC should come back with the provisional policy suggested in the RfC. A slightly smaller second group said PC should go away forever. A third group said that they kind of liked the idea but didn't like the provisional policy. The RfC was closed saying that PC was definitely coming back (Dec 1, 2012) but that it was up to us to fix what we didn't like about the policy. That's what's currently going on at WP:PC2012. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Adjwilley, and thanks for your work over at WT:PC2012 too ... you and others have suggested some very good ideas. One disagreement with your summary: I don't think we have enough information yet to predict who will win the fight over how many pages Pending Changes will be applied to, we'll just have to see. There are certainly some admins who want to apply it more liberally, and I can't tell whether they're going to get reverted; I don't recall that any admins have been willing to commit to what they will or won't do. - Dank (push to talk) 19:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank You All for your fine explanations and continued efforts in regards to "PC". ```Buster Seven Talk 11:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how we'd loose any registered users due to this as it will only effect IPs, at level 1, and at level 2 is equivalent to a lesser protection between full and semi. If we loose editors it'll be drive-by IPs and we have very little ability to retain them anyway. I'm just not sure what we can do to 'help' here--Cailil <sup>talk</sup> 12:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• FYI, if we want hard data we are going to have to collect it ourselves. I tried in person at Wikimania and later by email to get the Foundation to help out with research by an independent third party, and in the end was told that the chances of the Foundation committing any money towards PC on the English Wikipedia at this time were basically non existent. I got the impression they are trying to take a very "hands off" approach to this issue until they are sure we are really going to use it this time. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• • Since the press generally over-simplifies Wikipedia news, I'm concerned that many non-Wikipedians will get a garbled message about Pending Changes, something like "Now your edits have to get prior approval on Wikipedia". There's certainly a risk that that would undercut the main recruiting advantage we've enjoyed over our competitors all these years, and fewer new editors would show up. The reason I'm bringing this up over here is that, regardless of how Pending Changes turns out or what your position is, this may be the only opportunity researchers will ever get to get good data on what's drawing people to Wikipedia. There's a widely held assumption that "anyone can edit (without having to get their edits approved first)" is what set us apart, and let us go from zero to the top non-portal site in the world in a few years on a budget of zero ... but maybe that's wrong, and we've never actually been able to test that theory, because we've never required prior approval of edits before. Maybe it was something else ... the time was just right for us, or we got and retained great people, or something. If Pending Changes only lasts for a few months, this may be the only chance we'll ever have to find out how important "anyone can edit" is to our continued success. (Obviously, Pending Changes is more complicated than that, but I think a significant number of non-Wikipedians will get that message, and those are the ones we should survey.) - Dank (push to talk) 20:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

A Question

When someone puts the {{helpme}} template on their talkpage, where does that list? I would like to help out in that regard. Gtwfan52 (talk) 23:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• According to the template itself [7], it notifies people on IRC in the #wikipedia-en-help channel (irc.freenode.org), and you can also watchlist the category Category:Wikipedians looking for help. Please note that a little trolling and trouble making happens with that as well, but most are sincere requests. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• See also Template:Dashboard, which includes many related links in the top-right box. Not to be confused with Wikipedia:Dashboard which is similar in intent, but has mostly different content. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Informing new creators of article guidelines

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Informing new creators of article guidelines The debate for this pre-proposal is now closed and consensus assesed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Meetups

On Sunday I was at the London meetup, as were more than twenty other editors including a crat, half a dozen current EN wiki admins, a couple of former admins, at least three newbies, at least four of the 200 editors with the highest edit counts on EN wiki, half the board and employees of the UK chapter and quite a few other editors. Some people there were regulars like me, others come perhaps once or twice a year. I think that meetups provide a really important part of our social glue, perhaps one way to improve editor retention would be to expand the network of meetups to some of the areas which don't yet have them, obviously they won't be to everyone's taste, nor does everyone live within reach of other editors - but I do believe that we could usefully expand this, it is one of the techniques we are consciously trying here in England. ϢereSpielChequers 13:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Like a Birmingham meeting...Nice suggestion WereSpielChequers ツ Jenova20 <sup>(email)</sup> 13:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I remember that a couple of years ago, I attended my first WP meetup in London. At the time, it was pretty much the only meetup that existed in the UK, and it was a long way to travel. Scared the hell out of me, as a bumpkin who isn't keen on the big city. However, I ended up sitting between two very friendly wikipedians and did enjoy the meeting. I did manage to get along to another two and the more people I knew online, the more I enjoyed the meetups.

Last year, however, I noticed a new meetup, Liverpool. I've been to a few of them, and though there's only half a dozen of us, I make a lot of effort to get to it. I'm hoping to get myself along to the Manchester one too. I've got to say, the community feel at meetups that WereSpielChequers points out is definitely a plus for me and I do encourage the promotion of them :) Worm<sup>TT</sup>(talk) 14:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately a bit too far away for me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

For those of us state-side, Wikipedia:Meetup/Atlanta/Atlanta 4 is coming up 11/17/2012. I'm several hours away, but hoping to make it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Too bad Atlanta is so far from Philly, the Philly meetups have been less than a mile from my dorm but there hasn't been one in 2 years. Ryan Vesey 15:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

So organise one, Ryan! Worm<sup>TT</sup>(talk) 15:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I dunno, I don't actually live there. Ryan Vesey 15:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest Cabo San Lucas in the Baja. Wonderful weather year-round, sandy beaches, warm water (pool or Sea of Cortez), whale watching (in season), bikini's (always in season), world class golf courses and deep-sea fishing and Mexican hospitality. We could set-up a meetup for late 2013. ```Buster Seven Talk 23:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I would love to attend a WikNik in the New Forest, but I would definitely not love to organise one! (Though I can suggest some really nice locations ;P) Pesky (talk) 04:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. There is actually a proposal for an annual UK get-together somewhat more extensive than AGM + pub. I used to belong to an online organization that had an annual barbecue, in a location where some folk brought tents. Rich Farmbrough, 02:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC).

Virtual meetups

wp:WikiVoices is dormant now, but it could easily be revived. I don't see why those who can't make real life meetups can't have virtual meetups using Skype conference calls. Maybe it would be an idea to relaunch it but as a non-recorded meetup, as I remember it recording was a hassle and was based on the idea that we were producing an event that others would be interested in, so as a result the conversation was more focussed and orderly. ϢereSpielChequers 18:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent suggestion. One that is rarely exploited. I would also suggest that if there is a WiFi connection at a real venue, some other users could be invited to take part by Skype, and not restrict this to casual meetups either. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

This wouldn't work at the current London meetup, partly because the WiFi is rubbish at the venue, but also mainly because it is in a pub and the background noise rules it out. But we have had virtual participants in at least one of our editathons at London museums and I hope that we can repeat that. Though the emphasis there has been to bring in other languages, but we can make the technology and everything else work. ϢereSpielChequers 22:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Show Appreciation

There was some research last summer that showed that the community problems such as lower retention rates of new editors coincided with a shift from a culture of praising good work to one of negative feedback. Personally I don't accept that it was as simple as that, my feeling is that it has been the shift from collaborative editing to template bombing that is just as corrosive. But it almost certainly is one of the causes of our problems, and we can all take steps to counter that. If you have a nice message for someone then if they've earned say it with a barnstar. If it doesn't merit a barnstar then it can still be an excuse to say something nice on their talkpage or in their guestbook. ϢereSpielChequers 23:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• I think shifting the emphasis to rewards is indeed important. On a personal level, this is something I try to do regularly and encourage others to do as well. Sometimes it is more difficult to find these editors that quietly go about their daily life just making Wikipedia a better place. If you have any ideas to make locating these editors, I would love to hear them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Have any of you worked with the NewPagesFeed? It now includes the ability to leave a note for an editor when patrolling their page. If I place tags, I like to thank the editor for their addition and remind them that the tags are there to help them improve their article. I've already got some positive feedback from a new(ish) editor. Sadly, I've seen people using the comment field to leave notes (all on one editor's page) that consist of "Expand this article" (x2) and "Expand it". I've discussed this with the user in question, but we should look out for this (and all try to do some friendly new page patrolling ourself.) Ryan Vesey 18:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
    • While I like a lot about the new system there are some aspects that don't work as well as the old one. When using the old system I would make a point of patrolling articles by authors with redlinked talkpages and if the articles were good faith and at least borderline notable I would drop them a welcome. The problem with the new system is that the redlinking isn't updated in real time and I'd often find that they'd already been welcomed and often warned. That and the new curation tool bar obscuring the edit buttons on the right hand side means I may return to the old system. I do worry that people will move from templating articles that need work on them to the even more bitey level of tagging the author's page to assert that those authors should do that work. My experience is that if you wikify and categorise articles then new editors quickly pick up on that and copy what you've done in their latest articles. I'm not convinced that templating articles is as effective at teaching new editors as actually improving articles. It certainly isn't as effective at improving the articles. ϢereSpielChequers 22:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
      • We probably need to inject a little love over at New Page Patrol. I think you are right. I used to patrol new pages to tag them way back when, but instead jumping in and wikifying a few things, improving in even a small way, will have much more positive results, including letting the new user instantly know they are not alone and others are willing to help. This might help offset some of the quicky tags and bad warnings the new users often get. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• I am concerned that that work (and much other) assumes that there is an infinite pool of potential editors, and that the criteria for becoming and editor (either community imposed or self imposed) should necessarily be the same as they were. Those who know me will be aware that I am the ultimate inclusionist (of people), yet Wikipedia per se is not and need not be something that everyone contributes to.
• On the point about templates there is work being done on improving the templates, and one of the key points, which I'm not sure get home, is that it is much better if they don't look like templates with icons and stuff, but simple messages from actual people. Rich Farmbrough, 02:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC).
  

Making policies accessible

I'm working on a few ideas on Plain English for policies. It may or may not ever turn into a WikiProject (would be nice if it did; would almost certainly improve editor retention).

Anyone who's interested in this idea, please read over here. Adding any more good sources and summaries of same would be welcome. Pesky (talk) 06:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I was surprised this didn't come up sooner. The first thing a new editor sees on Wikipedia is a wall of policies written in Wikinese. I have a lot of real-life experience educating people on how Wikipedia works and could be very helpful here. I think it would be helpful if we added little plain english summaries for newbies at the top of various policy documents, sort of like the "in a nutshell" template, but larger and more likely to be read. User:King4057 15:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

And it can be really difficult to navigate and consult. I still find myself trying to remember where I read that relevant snippet and wondering how to find my way back there. If I don't happen to recall the relevant WP:ACRONYM, that can be tricky. —MistyMorn (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Providing a single page where all the policy documents can be searched would be neat. User:King4057 18:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Amusingly, I spotted this and was going to suggest Pesky look into it. Of course it's her brain child... and by the way Pesky, your font looks different of different machines!

Anyway, where was I. Oh yes, plain English. Now, I'm not looking to stop you at all, I think this a terrific idea and I do think it will help a lot of people. However, you must keep in mind that one of the reasons that policies are not in plain english is that they are so widely interpreted and the spirit of the policies means a lot more than the actual words. You've seen how much difficulty there was over removing two words from WP:V, people are passionate about the words they use. I would keeping the Plain English very short and sweet, and making sure it's clear that more complex situations will require reading and interpreting the more complex policies. Worm<sup>TT</sup>(talk) 17:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Objective should be to create plain-English interpretations, rather than change the policies themselves. This could be used to improve the welcome template as well. I noticed it links to a lot of very large and complex pages. We need to realize not every new editor has this level of commitment. User:King4057 18:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It's actually the recent RfC on the lede of verifiability policy that made me feel more optimistic. The consensus was so overwhelmingly in support of what was effectively the plain English version (Option D). I've been working (a bit) on someone else's brainchild, just introducing a few major policies, with a "read the whole thing" button to click after each introduction. Pesky (talk) 05:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Plain english policies appear to be a good idea but IMO rather useless in situations that actually matter. This is because for the most part policy isn't used as a guide to construct things on wiki, which is done more via common sense (discussion, copying what exists) and domain knowledge, but as a weapon. Thus in any real dispute at AfDs or AN/I or whatnot, a content editor pointing to the plain english summary is rather useless against the insider who can employ the technicalities of the real thing to to their advantage. Also, the claim above that "spirit of the policies means a lot more than the actual words" is empirically untrue. One only has to look at actual wiki processes to see that those who effectively dominate the discussion all speak wiki rather than english.

Thus a better approach to easing editors into the wiki bureaucracy are guides to teach how to use policies rather than what they mean. For example, if they want to save an article from AfD, don't waste effort looking for similar examples that pass scrutiny or use reasoning or even improve the article in some meaningful way as policy might imply, as that's all useless. Just google and paste in some related links from big-name sites for references or pick a few random points from N to throw in to at least sway the decision to "no consensus". This is the kind of stuff that's actually useful to folks who don't have the time to become an insider. Agent00f (talk) 10:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Official logo and userbox

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

= Official logo

This user is a member of WikiProject Editor Retention

The "touching hands" logo gives me the creeps. (Can't we do better??) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

“You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”. Any alternative suggestions?```Buster Seven Talk 12:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. (How about *shaking* hands instead of *touching* hands?? For Christ's sake.) Thanks for consider. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Why swear? What does Christ have to do with it? ```Buster Seven Talk 12:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You figure it out. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I think your Q is genuine. I didn't apply AGF. (Sorry.) I think the logo has obvious problems. I shouldn't need to specify an alternative, to fix. Nevertheless, I did. (Assuming the *hands* motif likes to be kept.) Ok, thanks for considering my point. (I think it's fully made, and don't wish to lengthen this thread.) Cheers and good luck, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I like the logo personally, but it is a group decision. I like it because they are almost touching, reaching out, but it obvious it is a "helping hand". Amadscientist did the design, you could talk to him. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I just think, in general, we editors need to be more specific when pointing things out. I can assume I know what you meant but I can't be sure. So, in order to be sure, I asked for clarification/example/a new logo. Which you provided. Thanks for that. What may be completely obvious to some, is completely missed by others. When it comes to the written word nothing is obvious. handshake```Buster Seven Talk 18:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Not going to discuss w/ Amadscientist, he is the designer so obviously the design met his approval, and wouldn't be in position to understand if my reaction is: ick. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, after scanning Commons am beginning to appreciate the problem Amadscientist may have run into. (Lack of "reaching out" graphics.) Let me work on this (i.e. look more). p.s. Qs though: Is the "reaching out" concept really a central theme at Proj EditorRetention? (I.e. does the project really do that, actively reach out to past editors? Or struggling editors? To the point it would be considered central activity of said project? If not, what is central activity? The symbol s/ echo that.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

{outdent)Not sure about what other WER editors do but I challenge myself to welcome 50 new editors a day. I use a welcome that, hopefully, is designed to warmly greet them and provide where to go for assistance in a jam (and retain them). While searching for new editors I am watchful for editors aldeady in a jam. And i communicate with them. All with the specific intent to retain their editorial participation..```Buster Seven Talk 00:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Individuals here do reach out regularly, although individual assistance isn't the central theme here. There is more than one central theme: Create a better environment that makes editors want to stay. Assist in existing areas that help us keep new editors editing (volunteering at the Help Desk and Teahouse are strongly encouraged) Reach out to frustrated editors who might need some help, new or old (again, we encourage others here to do this, it isn't a function of the group). Discussing and discovering what causes us to lose editors. One of the biggest functions is to act as a clearhouse for existing discussions and policy concerns, where people who share the same concerns can more easily find them to learn or participate.

I had already done an extensive search for images, when Amadscientist created this one. I still like it. It shows up well when reduced to 40px (userboxes) and is simple, clean and elegant. But again, no one has to use it, you can use any image you prefer if you want a userbox or talk page banner, like some of us do. We aren't big on rules for the sake of rules here. Bureaucracy is one of the reasons good editors leave, after all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for input on notifications for an RfC

Just a pointer to a discussion. - Dank (push to talk) 16:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Essays which create a problematic environment

I've been talking to a few editors recently about the environment and I'm finding that one of the largest problems is the way that people link to essays based on their title (or shortcut) in ways that they are not meant - or ways that the essay specifically suggests they don't do. This can be used to insult, belittle or imply authority where there is none. The essays themselves sometimes appear derogatory, furthering the problematic environment. Examples that I've had pointed out to me include:

• Editors who suggest that someone does not have enough competence.
  • I've seen an admin do this to an editor, a long term editor, in the last week.
• Editors suggesting someone should not be a dick
  • This hasn't happened as much since "don't be a dick" was deleted, but it's still on meta, and people still do it.
• Editors with a couple of years of service and a few thousand edits at RfA get linked to WP:NOTNOW.
  • In general, people are doing this less often, when it does happen, someone generally links to WP:NOTNOTNOW, which helps. But it still happens, as recently as Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Theopolisme.
• Don't template the regulars is another essay which has large problems, it seems to allow editors to get annoyed at being templated, even if the template is valid. I don't endorse the use of templates against regular editors, but ignoring the problem because it comes from a template isn't the solution.

Beyond those examples, I've recently found an administrator suggesting an editor has a history of edit warring on WP:NOTNAS-STAR articles. Now, that was new to me, so I clicked the link. That essay is fostering the very environment I believe is part of the problem. It stereotypes editors, tarring them all with the same brush. I was stunned that someone could write something like that... and then found out it was the same admin who'd been linking it, as if it's fact. I've left a note on the talk page regarding the essay, but I believe this goes a lot deeper into the power of essays on wikipedia, which are often referred to as policy - and to the untrained user they may be indiscernible from a rule. Worm<sup>TT</sup>(talk) 09:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree, except that I haven't read the last one. - Dank (push to talk) 11:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Couple of comments. "Don't be a dick" explicitly says calling people out for dickery is being a dick in itself, so citing that essay isn't a good idea. WP:NOTNOTNOW is interesting, as I had actually erroneously assumed WP:NOTNOW meant "come back when you've got a few more thousand edits / articles promoted to FA / cases of handling vandalism / good AfD calls etc etc". In general, citing an essay (I freely admit I'll plug WP:EOTW and WP:PRAM if I can) is okay provided you explain why it is relevant in this particular instance. If you explain why, somebody can rationally disagree with it. If you don't, then it's as good as a WP:VAGUEWAVE. --Ritchie333 <sup>(talk) (cont)</sup> 11:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:CIR also suggests you shouldn't suggest that the person is "incompetent", but that doesn't stop admins doing it. I've even seen editors blocked under WP:CIR, which is a particular bugbear of mine. One of the rules of the teahouse when it was first set up was to not use any acronyms, or link to essays, but instead explain what you mean. I think not linking essays in that manner would go a long way to improving the culture round here. Worm<sup>TT</sup>(talk) 11:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

See anyone citing essays or policies? Cite WP:DCE, block the offending editor and if they complain cite WP:PETARD. That'll show 'em. benzband (talk) 11:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Do you have a link to the editor in question? The only block I can see per WP:CIR is this one, and that doesn't look set to necessarily be a permanent one. What I tend to do when reviewing articles for creation is refer to an essay, but put it inside a "click here" link, like this : Hi. Unfortunately your article only cites your own website, which is a primary source (as it's written by someone close to the subject), and a Facebook page, which is not reliable (as anyone can create one without any editorial or fact checking.) Click here to read more about primary sources, and Click here to read more about sources that may be problematic. --Ritchie333 <sup>(talk) (cont)</sup> 11:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Nooo! Don't use click here! Verboten! (partially serious, but not completely ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

(Yet) another essay about competence: WP:SHUARI. benzband (talk) 11:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

That one I like ;) Worm<sup>TT</sup>(talk) 11:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking of User:Porchcorpter, who's 6 month block expired last month. There was a lot of discussion about comptence in the suggestion to block him - found here. Given the area I work in (helping editors who are close to being blocked), I see it a lot, I'd have to do a bit of investigation to give you more examples. As an addendum, your use seems perfectly reasonable Ritchie, that's exactly how I'd like to see essays used. Worm<sup>TT</sup>(talk) 11:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Examples of misuse of CIR.
  • 2 September 2012 - admin to editor he has blocked: "There appear to be real issue of competence here."
  • 23 February 2012 - admin to blocked editor: "Do you have the required WP:COMPETENCE to edit this project?"
  • 1 February 2012 block review declined includes "If you think that your latest edit was anywhere near acceptable, you are definitely not ready to edit the encyclopedia"
  • 9 September 2011 - blocking admin to blocked editor: "The editors in the thread assert there is a problem with your WP:COMPETENCE."

That is just from a cursory 5 min scan of links to the essay. Worm<sup>TT</sup>(talk) 12:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Interesting. The admin blocking Dunchamps_comb did not (imho) give a satisfactory block decline reason, and it seems obvious from reading Leandrod's talk page that English is not his primary language and a better outcome would be to divert him towards Portuguese (?) Wikipedia instead. --Ritchie333 <sup>(talk) (cont)</sup> 12:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

How about having the essays deleted? They detract from the actual policies anyway, are often opinion pieces and can misinterpret the policies they are essays on. Plus some editors use them to back their opinions in arguments as though they are policies. Just an idea ツ Jenova20 <sup>(email)</sup> 10:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that there are 1,329 essays in Category:Wikipedia essays, not to mention the ones in the sub categories. Some of them are really useful, such as WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions or WP:Deny recognition or the essential Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors. It's clear to editors who've been around a while that they're opinion pieces, but... well... it might be more useful to have an Essay: namespace? Worm<sup>TT</sup>(talk) 10:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks like that's been shot down recently... Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 97#Should we create a new namespace, for essays? Worm<sup>TT</sup>(talk) 10:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

That's certainly a good idea. We need a differentiator to new editors so they can tell a policy from an essay. Another problem is there are so many essays which say the opposite to another essay. Even for a joke that's a pointless waste of time. Thanks ツ Jenova20 <sup>(email)</sup> 10:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Essays can go to XfD if needed. As for WP:CIR, I've had to link to that in genuine cases, although I try to be very delicate about it. It is difficult to explain that someone needs to be blocked because they have an inability to fully understand their actions without linking. Maybe some effort to rewrite some of these essays is worthwhile. Essays can be abrasive and aren't heavily watched. I've only written a couple, like WP:BLUDGEON, which I tried to make informational rather than demeaning. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

It certainly was never the intention to be abrasive in the two essays I've written. I've tried to make them funny because I believe people are more likely to remember funny things with a serious message behind. I'm actually quite passionate about the principles behind WP:EOTW - it takes two to argue and edit war, and while it can be really frustrating and "wrong" to have stuff reverted, sometimes it's better to just walk away from it. WP:PRAM is similar - so often we see newcomers whose first "welcome" they get is a warning template, they respond angrily - because they think they've been insulted - then get a block for violating WP:CIVIL. The more we can stress upon newbies that responding in anger is counterproductive, the better, but it has to be done in an unpatronising manner - hence using humour as a vehicle to do that. --Ritchie333 <sup>(talk) (cont)</sup> 12:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Some are just really unnecessary. How often would this one get to be used here? I suppose the opposite is true on Conservapedia but it just strikes me as wasteful ツ Jenova20 <sup>(email)</sup> 13:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Essays can be improved just like any other article. With a bit of work, I'm sure that could be expanded to be something along the lines of Wikipedia:No conspiracy theories ie: if you're in a content dispute, don't assume that everyone on the other side out to get you. Here's one example. Although WP:NCT is already taken... --Ritchie333 <sup>(talk) (cont)</sup> 13:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, the point i was making is that we don't need tens or hundreds of articles on specific personal attacks on people when it just detracts from WP:AGF. Overcomplication of things = less editors. We don't need these essays, they're opinion pieces and they're covered in the policies. If i can't insult someone or make accusations without violating good faith then why do i need a tonne of essays telling me specific insults or personal attacks which also violate it? It's common sense and next to aggressive editors i'd put this as the second biggest problem for editor retention. Thanks ツ Jenova20 <sup>(email)</sup> 15:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Has anyone informed the people responsible for each of the blocks mentioned above, that their actions are being discussed here? On one occasion when I challenged an admin using WP:CIR in their block reason, the admin responded that they were aware of the suggestion not to do so, and had decided it was necessary after careful consideration. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• WP:BROTHER is another extremely problematic essay that I've seen used as justification for a block. Let's face it, it's natural for humans to have, on average, one sibling or more. It's also natural for people to share things that they're interested in, with their siblings. It's also natural for siblings - and others - to sometimes act inappropriately in such situations. (I've personally witnessed a case where an administrator, I think, had a bad case of WP:FLATMATE. Both parties subsequently apologised, but it does go to show that it can happen to the best of us.) Citing such an essay alongside comments implying "we hear that excuse all the time so we don't believe you" is just downright foolish. Anyone who spends even a moment thinking about it, would realise that the reason the excuse is heard so often, is that about 30% of the time, it's probably true. Now admittedly that's a minority, but it's a minority that will either not be back to edit Wikipedia, or will do so with much reduced enthusiasm and faith in the system --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• All of these essays do actually make valid points. But there seems to be a problem in that, no matter how valid the original purpose of the essay, and even the injunctions in some of the essays not to use them in certain ways, the Wikipedia community, and the admin corps in particular, have not proven themselves able to avoid misusing them entirely. Given those unfortunate circumstances, the essays should be deleted (or moved to userspace) until such a time as the community proves itself able to use them appropriately. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd go with the delete. I've spent the week trying to teach a user the differences between the policies and the essays and it's not as easy as it appears. Every essay has another saying the opposite. That's blatantly stupid and serves only to promote the editor who created them and not help in the slightest. At the end of the day the policies are required, the essays are to be ignored and the Wikispace should be reserved for articles or the serious stuff, not the opinions of editors trying to exert some influence over policies with their own interpretations. Thanks ツ Jenova20 <sup>(email)</sup> 20:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Paul Graham wrote about how essays are "essais" (French for "attempts") to figure out something, and how expressing ideas helps to form them. I think an outright ban on essays would rob editors of a valuable venue to work out and form ideas. Editors can legitimately have differing views on a topic, resulting in opposing essays; this is just a normal part of discourse. Essays cannot, however, be treated as the consensus view of the Wikipedia community, without clear supporting evidence. isaacl (talk) 23:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you have to write "should not" there, instead of "cannot", because what's been shown in this thread is that they are used in that way, and far too regularly.

Also, I don't think anyone is proposing an outright ban on essays. Instead, merely dealing with those that have a proven record of inappropriate use. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, when you said "All of these essays", I thought you were literally referring to all of them, and then when a reply said "I'd go with the delete... Every essay has another saying the opposite. That's blatantly stupid ..." I thought the suggestion was being made to delete all of them, and having essays with opposing views was undesirable. By "cannot", I just meant that the existence of an essay, by itself, does not demonstrate that it represents a consensus view. (Obviously, people can try to represent it as such, but that doesn't make it so.) isaacl (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Many essays are written by experienced editors in genuine good faith attempts to be informative, provide advice and guidance, and elucidate our often complex policies and guidelines in simpler terms. Unfortunately, occasionally some who push their own opinions, don't agree, or who misread the author's good intentions, criticise these essays in bad faith. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Or (hehe) you could write an essay about WP:Essays which create a problematic environment. (There is already WP:Essays are not policy and WP:Don't cite essays and proposals as if they were policy.) benzband (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, WP:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays. benzband (talk) 09:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I really dislike WP:RANDY. To an inexperienced editor, it really isn't all that clear on what it means. And I find the general stereotyping of any group of people, be it racial, gender-based, nationalistic, or regionalistic to be highly distasteful. Being from Idaho, I kinda take it personal. Gtwfan52 (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• I find the Randy essay often used out of context, to belittle someone that one editor thinks is less knowledgeable than themselves, which is incivil to say the least. There are valid points to the essay, referring to trolling, but not to someone who is simply less familiar with a topic than another user. I've warned an editor or two against using it in such a rude manner. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Anything can be used out of context, and "there are valid points to the essay" is totally right. (If you are content creator, they you would know how pertinent. For e.g., how do you think Malleus feels about the article? (I personally had an experience that tells me without a doubt the "Randy-enabler" prose was written by somebody who knows.) If you wanna get rid of an essay that is often abused and used uncivilly, then get rid of WP:BOOMERANG, it is a substitute for thinking and weighing individual circumstance; it is repeated often and stupidly, too. The essay is a menace to fairness and open-mindededness, seeming to assert anyone who speaks up is automatically at fault and as though there is some virtue to reflecting badness back on the person. (What a crock. The article is a classic example of dumbing-down, and has mind-numbing manipulative appeal since it is easy to say "I see a BOOMERANG here!" and gives the utterer a false sense of cleverness, that is too-easy to be real. Much damage is done with that article, even the author is displeased how frequently it is abused but also seems to find some gratification in its infamousness, IMO.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPI

One of the ways we help keep good editors here is by taking out the trash and keeping the place clean. POV warriors, vandals, sockpuppets and disruptive users cause good editors to leave in frustration, which is part of the reason I work SPI and ANI daily. Unfortunately, Sockpuppet Investigations stays so backlogged that we can't keep up. If any admins or non-admins are interested in helping patrol SPI, gathering evidence and helping present case info (pithy, of course), then it would be appreciated. Good things grow in good soil, and getting rid of trouble makers is one way we make Wikipedia more enjoyable for serious editors. If any former clerks want to come back part time and help, it would also be extremely appreciated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of experience with socks, but I see them as being a growing problem these days. One problem IMO is that the bar for getting a Check User endorsement seems to be too high. Yes, I understand there are privacy issues, but I sometimes wonder if we're just catching the dumb socks and leaving the smart ones to push their POV because nobody dares take them to SPI just to have the case declined for lack of evidence. Anyway, that's my 2 cents there. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Many cases won't require checkuser. I would encourage editors to patrol cases which would give them valuable experience and teach what constitutes a well-evidenced case for checkuser purposes. At the time of this writing, I see four cases which have received clerk endorsement for CU in the current case summary which shows that they are being processed.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Berean, for the response. I've had an idea that I've been chewing on for a while for a tool that would perhaps help users confirm suspected sockpuppets before dragging people off to SPI. I made a post recently at the village pump if you're interested. (sorry for the length) ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for interrupting. I came here for another reason, for knowing what this project exactly is. I did not quite understand it. Is this a helpline type project where editors who are quitting or editors you know are quitting can come and get guidance? Means does this project handle individual cases or does it work on generic terms. I happen to know one editor who is quitting for various reasons. One reason of many is false SPI cases filed against him. Now that you all were discussing SPIs i had this side-doubt; do bad faith SPI cases result in any strict action or block of the originator? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 10:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, no, we don't handle individual cases here. We discuss the general issue of editor retention and look for possible solutions. You can see a full description of what this project is about on its main page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention. That said, bad faith SPI reports are rare, but if a suspicion is raised it has to be investigated. We generally err on the side of caution and do not block suspected socks if we are not reasonably sure, but many suspected socks, even after having been proven through technical means will protest their innocence to the bitter end - the excuses would fill a book. We've even had socks file cases against their own socks! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thats bad. I thought you guys work that way. Like shrinks.
SPI against own socks is interesting. Never imagined that. Should read more detective novels. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 11:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

How about this only this morning: topic ban proposal for User:Anderson this a sock reporting one of his socks for evasion of editing restrictions! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

My own experience with the SPI process (see the half dozen unsuccessful attempts against just me) shows that it tends to be one of the weapons employed by the haves on wiki against their political opponents. After all, the main reason anyone would bother to sockpuppet in the first place is to get around the broken admin system (since those just looking to stir things up don't need a permanent account to do so). If this is the case more broadly than pretty much most of the instances I've seen, the question instead becomes whether it's worth retaining the kind of editors who see wiki's purpose as their opportunity for playing realpolitik rather than content expertise or whatnot. Agent00f (talk) 09:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I have been accused of sockpuppetry, along with other tactics, used to get me to leave WP - so I would not edit a certain article that I see taken over by a fringe POV (which would be seen as taken over by a fringe POV anywhere but on WP). This post is not about me, but all those others that have been run off due to these tactics. It's hard to come to WP and do the right thing when old timers stick up for each other instead of digging in deep enough to learn the truth. Tylas ✫ ♥♫ 17:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Agent, I know you've had your own bad experiences with SPI, where I took you there and was flat mistaken about it. That is part of why I got involved, to learn how to tell the difference, to be more effective. So far, so good. And the main reason why most people sock has nothing to do with admins per se, it has to do with their desire to edit in a POV manner. People trying to insert fringe ideas into science articles, or biased opinions in articles on Israel/Palestine, the Balkans, The Troubles, etc. That is one reason it is fairly simple to catch many of them, since the edits are the same. There is almost always some political element to why someone socks, or COI socks who are here to create articles for pay, but even that is much more rare than political socks. We see the same socks over and over at SPI, and typically the same clerk handles the same puppetmaster because you get to where you can easily recognize them. IE: if I see someone adding a bunch of stuff to New Mexico related articles in a sock like manner, I know to compare them to User:PoliticianTexas, etc. Most socks are not particularly creative, but they can be very persistent, which creates a lot of work. The fact is, if you let these POV socks get away, then good neutral editors DO leave from frustration. I don't know enough about the subject matter to edit those articles, I just know we need good editors who are neutral and can work on an article that isn't flooded with 6 bad editors who are really the same person. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

What you seem to be concerned about isn't so much Sock per se, but its side-effect on "consensus" or similar, not unlike that of vote fraud on democracy. This touches on Wiki's problem in general of a 'populist' bureaucracy (somewhat of a oximoron, but what I mean is an electorate of the gentry). For example, many of the rules target individuals (3RR) and are easy circumvented by any posse wise to the system. SOCK effectively counteracts this by creating one's own posse. It also counteracts bans, which are really more of a byproduct of cultural identity (not exclusive to wiki, but very strong here): namely, this fascination with personification of the avatar rather than the quality of the work (whether content or just making the right administrative decisions). This is why we see see folk refer to "editors in good standing" as if it meant anything to the world of wiki's readers. I do not doubt that it often coincides with poor content, but IMO it's also important to understand that Sock is in many ways the anti-thesis of everything the established order stands for and that its meaning to the system runs far deeper than a few troublemakers. Agent00f (talk) 08:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's not forget that a lot of socking has nothing to do with POV or advertising but this is simply a form of vandalism from children They are not intelligent enough to do any POV pushing, but chasing them away from admin areas and checking them out and blocking them can sure be exasperating. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I do focus on SPI in particular as it relates to vote fraud as I think that when you participate in a discussion, someone who opposes you shouldn't take away your voice by drowning it out by deception. Consensus isn't "majority rule", although obviously numbers do play a role. WP:IAR is our most important policy and was designed specifically to overcome the majority when the majority is clearly wrong. But I'm one person and I can't fight all the ills of Wikipedia, so I have focused on what I think is most important and needed: protecting the integrity of discussion and polling. Ironically, this means that I usually have to stay out of most discussions and let other editors make the decisions on content, and my role is typically limited to simply insuring the playing field is level. Referees don't get to play. And yes, socking does run deeper than individual articles as it undermines the trust and faith of others who are simply wanting to build an encyclopedia, leads to frustration, which leads to good editors leaving Wikipedia. This is why I consider WP:SPI as an ancillary part of Editor Retention. Not only to remove socks, but to protect people from being falsely accused of it. I often tell people "Don't call someone a sock unless you are willing to file at WP:SPI and put your judgement to the test". We all make mistakes, including me, but using the "sock" term as a weapon isn't acceptable, just as socking itself isn't. "Fairness" is unobtainable, but it is still the goal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Content editors who "simply want to build an encyclopedia" don't mire their efforts on bureaucratic processes, since that's rather the opposite of building an encyclopedia. There's zero overlap between the two functions, and the latter is at best a necessary evil when all else fails. If a process is so broken that one idiot with a few accounts is somehow meaningfully different than a few like-minded idiots, then the process should be fixed instead of introduced as some kind of solution when all else fails. Otherwise the need to police this and other artificial distinctions arises unnecessarily and start to beget more rules only to support themselves, and pretty soon we're left with the current sea of inconsistent and contradictory body of them which are completely counterproductive to the main goal. Agent00f (talk) 12:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

That is the $100,000 question: how do you have rules to insure a fair environment without bureaucracy? How do you create a structure that is conducive to creating quality content, but isn't burdensome to someone who only cares about the content? And at the same time, strike a balance between quantity and quality, without that process itself being disruptive. The answers aren't easy when dealing with so many cultures, opinions and even motivations. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to be sure we're talking about the same thing, let's back up a bit and consider why "rules" are useful. As someone who should be familiar with design, you're also aware that while there are certainly useful guidelines to creating a good one, they are just that; design is what produces good design, not rules. What we often see on wiki when processes are involved is a complete offhand dismissal of the matter at hand to instead focus on minutia of decisions made (which begot the rule) long ago with no consideration of what's going on atm. This is done IMO because content issue are hard, and often requires detailed knowledge of the details, while enforcing rules is relatively easy. That's what creates much of the political drama on wiki: forcing easy "answers" against hard issues.

I agree there's no easy solution to intrinsically difficult problems, or else we wouldn't need such an intricately complex justice system IRL. However, surely the path to any solution starts with at least acknowledging the difficulty of any task at hand instead of pretending it's trivially solved as long as we apply the right generic template (eg. rule) against it. For example, a personal bankruptcy case IRL isn't resolved by arguing that "if a defendant has a car, they lose any case", and should probably be filed in a BK court staffed with BK judges intimately familiar with the exact topic (as opposed to, say, family/divorce courts). Agent00f (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

If there was never a question of behavior, we would only need content guidelines and policies regarding verification. Every admin is very different, but most of my day is dealing with behavior problems. Usually, this means mentoring new users, calming down overly heated discussions, and more rarely, blocking people who are not capable of working in collaborative environment (typically trolls, vandals, POV warriors and of course socks). A glance at my talk page shows this, it is literally a bulletin board for personal disputes, something you might understandably find hard to believe, but this is what most people think is the best use of my time, and a large part of why I started this project. The vast majority of time, this is accomplished without any sanctions or going to the admin boards, by simply talking through the issues. Another reason I almost never use templates except for vandals and trolls, where it is just counting down to block.

Near daily I use the phrase "There is WP:NOJUSTICE here, only solutions." and it is the truth. We aren't courts, admins aren't cops, we are really janitors. We are not trained to judge people, even if it looks that way some times, and simply muddle along the best we can in a system that relies on our personal judgement rather than guidelines when dealing with behavioral issues. It will never be truly "fair" here any more than life in general is fair. Since getting the admin bit back in April, my perspective on many things has changed. Honestly, it is a bit different on this side of the bit, where if you don't block someone being mild to moderately disruptive, several people are screaming on your talk page that you aren't being fair to them. Admin'ing was much easier before I became one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure, politics is ultimately personal, but the solution to any such type of problem still depends on what the main goal is. My point above is that if the goal of wiki is better content (a very difficult one), minimizing strife via either rule enforcement or whatever even if successful is still tangential to this end. For example, given a subject you're familiar with, let's say web/computers, consider the tasks involved in writing a quality summary of it on wiki. You'd soon realize that almost NONE of the substantive tasks have to do with wiki's insistence on verifiability and other content "rules" except as a post-hoc checklist. Surely no generic set of what not to do can guide someone to a decent job of it, since those not familiar with the subject are doomed to doing a subpar job. Thus, if two editors have an argument over the substance of what's in the summary, no such set of generic rules can possibly settle the dispute towards the end of making wiki better to the outside reader. Enforcing rules tangential to the goal is tautologically no better than a coin-flip (eg. ban one, include everything, etc) and sometimes only aggravates the problem; that's why it's important to recognize that fundamental nature of the goal is inherently non-trivial. Again, any worthwhile solution (eg. admins who understand details of what's going on) isn't easy because it can't be, but debating over the best type of coin to flip isn't a solution at all. Agent00f (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree and not a fan of enforcing rules for the sake of enforcing rules, actually. I find myself often mediating in situations where both ideas are equally fine, and no policy can "solve" the problem of the two editors fighting over the changes. What do you do? Literally, a coin flip would be just as effective at determining the content as discussion, but the real issue (to me) isn't the content, it is the editors. In these situations, how does a mediator get the two sides to compromise, not for the purpose of the content (which would be fine either way) but for the longer term goal of helping them get along and fostering a cooperative environment? After all, the goal of mediating isn't to choose a side, it is to bring them together, which often means neither side gets exactly what they want. Those are the things I tend to focus on, the editor component, as those are what effects the actual editor retention. In my eyes, the key to better content is editor retention, ie: keeping quality content creators here. The more experts we have, the more collegiate the environment, the more fun the place is, then the better the content will be over time. Even while working many indivudal cases per day, my focus is the larger picture, not the individual disputes which crop up many times a day. This is done with the belief that it will average out as a better encyclopedia in time if you have a better environment, which is why that is my foremost goal. Good soil grows good things. Sometimes, this means hard decisions, like blocking someone who is constantly disruptive, even if they are brilliant, or being forced to make a decision that isn't fair, but it is simply the best solution and the lesser of two evils. But it is either that, or do nothing. Enforcing the rules isn't a black and white issue, everything is relative and there are more problems than admins to deal with them and every admin is different, so enforcement is uneven. I probably use WP:POLICY$x less and block less quickly than most admins. I just try to just use common sense, but even that is relative, I suppose. At the end of the day, each decision is based on this long term goal of making the place a better environment, not so much about fixing one article. This is why I'm quick to block sockpuppets, but very slow to block two people edit warring in good faith and instead full protect the article. There is no "good way" to do much of anything here, only solutions that work right now, that keep the long term goals in mind. Everything here (like life) is simply too dynamic, and it will always be flawed and will always be ugly sometimes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

None of this is disagreeable, but I still have to point to the resultant reality of the bureaucratic processes on Wiki. I've yet to see to any decision focus on the meat of the matter at hand, and in general I believe it's against general wiki policy to decide on specifics of content, but rather personal considerations. If that's the soil in which everything is grown, then it's not surprising that the personal politics is pervasive if not a priority. Consider that, for example, science very evidently moves consistently forward because the focus is on the results, and not on the often nasty politics coincident simply because it's a human endeavour. This isn't a knock on you, or any particular colleague, but the proof is in the pudding that focusing on people detract away from a focus on content. Agent00f (talk) 08:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The content is the goal, but conflicts are common and someone has to help deal with them quickly and fairly, and a degree of "rules" is required, although common sense is a better tool. Not everyone gets to be the quarterback, or even play on the field. It takes coaches, assistants and even janitors to clean up the place before and afterwards. I don't mind being the janitor. Wikipedia is a machine, and not every cog serves the same function. We only get to the end result, content, when all the cogs are doing their jobs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

There's no need to belittle yourself. It's simply my contention that if the admins were trained to force editors to keep the discussion on the substance track instead of the rulebook, much of the personal drama could be mitigated. At least then, there's a decent chance that good content would result instead of hoping that politics begets substance. Again, this isn't to say that admins are at fault, nor that they make the wrong choices when they get there, but rather the system tends to push them down the wrong path if not give them a dirty mop. Agent00f (talk) 17:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Points made.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You people and your "TROLL" labels. You make sure things go over the edge by using an insulting term, but that must be OK in WP for an admin to use insulting language as they were all jerks in the first place and deserved it...right??? Come on. "Troll" is in the mind of the labeller! and is used to make sure the editor in question becomes worse and justifies the admin block for worse behaviour. Most of these so-called "trolls" are created by the admins not-identifying themselves and then pushing buttons to agravate an already bad situation. I have so much hope for you DB as an admin with heart and a brain. I hope you don't cave in so easily. Oh yeah, I couldn't do it without better drugs. 99.251.149.32 (talk) 02:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC) This: 'Most of these so-called "trolls" are created by the admins not-identifying themselves and then pushing buttons to agravate an already bad situation ' is a totally inappropriate claim, and a potential PA against a group of editors. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC) But the IP is here to troll. He doesn't mind trying to pick out the "troll" label when he decides to call people "fucking cowards" and doesn't recognize that he is a hypocrite. RBI looks right to me.  — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Me thinks you are not going to do too well in WER when you are so full of hatred for others. Perhaps you need to rethink what you are doing in WP in the first place. Now I know you will attempt to "get even", as so many do. Me thinks this is what DB is trying to accomplish, here, and necessary to make this project thrive. Your battleground [attitude/behaviour] is a violation of policy for a reason. It is not productive and as mature humans we need to repress those primitive emotions and move on to produce something to be proud of. Try to think outside of your hatred from the other side once. Sorry for the honesty but people like you have attempted to hurt me as much as they can but I am still here. You can catch a lot more bees with honey than you can with vinegar. Will you be next to get your ass kicked?Maybe somebody willlearn to hate you because you edited the wrong way? Will it help the project any? Sockpuppet accounts are used for a reason. Who's winning? 99.251.149.32 (talk) 03:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Oh, I don't hate others...I generally get on quite well with folks. Not sure about the "get even" part as I'm not sure what there would be to get even about. This IP has acted like a sociopath and stalked and badgered others persistently - to me, that looks like hate especially after seeing the language and extents that he is willing to go to.  — Berean Hunter (talk) 05:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC) See there you go again making accusations based on imagination. Your technique seems to be comprised of lumping as many IPs as you can into a basket by saying they are all the same sockpuppet, and then attributing the collective negative aspects you can find into one personality so you can blame each and every one of them for the collective evil that you perceive. This amounts to looking for an excuse to vent anger from a different part of your life into "getting even" or "kicking somebody's ass". I have watched as you blocked IP editors after some whiny editor cries "harrassment" because an IP posted an objection on his/her talk page without even reading one piece of text. Again you demonstrate that behavior here with your quick jump to name calling plus more accusations that all IPs are the same evil one. This makes it easy to justify actions for a disciplinarian that is too lazy to care what is actually transpiring, no? Socks are not born that way. Socks are created... and for a reason. 99.251.149.32 (talk) 13:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Wow, you have an active imagination. I certainly don't lump IPs together but I have a good notion about you and what you have done. The only name that I've called you is hypocrite which I find apropos considering that you like dishing out criticism but accept none. Funny that you refer to others as "whiny".  — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC) I don't think he is here to actually troll, and he has talked on my page as well. I do think he is an editor who is frustrated at the process, has been accused of socking (and honestly, likely has but I'm not here to shut him down today) and doesn't do well in the dysfunctional system we call Wikipedia. I actually empathize with his frustration, but would tell him that the system that we have, as flawed as it is, is the best we have today. The only way to change the system is to become a part of it and change it from within. I've already done my periods as editor, hard headed editor, extended wikibreak, and then came back with the goal of becoming an admin and affecting change from within. Been there, done that. Complaining from the outside looking in serves but a few purposes. Forever the optimist, I actually think the IP is sincere and means well but I still think he is mistaken about several things, and hasn't found a constructive way to effect change or edit here without getting into trouble. I respect that, but good faith only takes you so far. Editor Retention isn't about "saving" every editor, it is about changing the system to give the maximum number of people an opportunity to participate in a relatively fair and enjoyable environment, for the purpose of building an encyclopedia. But some people are trolls, ie: get their jollies by causing strife. They do exist, and I've blocked a few. I don't throw that word around haphazardly, just like I don't throw the word "vandal" around lightly. As soon as you say there are no trolls, you are either fooling yourself or don't understand some aspect of the word. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Good luck. :) I hope you can prove me wrong about this one.  — Berean Hunter (talk) 05:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Dennis. I find this happens with lynch mobs in forums elsewhere. The label "troll" is derrogatory and should not be used on people. You know the ole' "comment on content" thing? Individual posts or edits are "trolls". Some editors may make a perceived one in a misunderstanding. Some definitely make a series of them purposely. I have witnessed forum members make a series of "troll" posts when angry but then participate constructively for years after that when they catch themselves doing it. They become embarrased about it. But you already know this stuff or you wouldn't be heading up this soft-approach to policing or janitorial duties, as you called them. 99.251.149.32 (talk) 13:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)