This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
SPA Welcome #5--Expanding your Wikipedia experience (Montanabw)
Note:This Welcome is under construction in response to a need to salvage SPA editors. It is SPA W#5. a work in progress. Feel free to add or create your own.
Please, stick around! Just because you got smacked around doesn't mean you are unwelcome. We hope you won't be discouraged from participating in other areas of the encyclopedia. Here are some suggestions and guidance that may help:
I just saw this possibility and actually I kind of appreciate its raw but truthful impact. Buster Seven Talk 05:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
My personal feeling is that "smacked around" implies blame on others, and so serves to increase division and battleground behaviour. Perhaps some editors would react differently? isaacl (talk) 05:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm hardly a civility cop, but if I were the patroller giving someone a legitimate warning to a spammer, or the admin doing the thankless-but-necessary task of clearing out CAT:A7 (genuine article which I've just deleted: (redacted) was born in 16 July 1991 to a Christian family. He has nine other siblings including 5 sisters and 4 brothers and his is the youngest one in the family.; at the time of writing there are 36 others in the queue), and a third party popped up to accuse me of "smacking people around", I'd treat that as a personal attack. This kind of wording is only viable in cases where the original action taken against the new user was incorrect, in which case it's almost certainly going to be better to give a personalized explanation of and apology for what happened. ‑ Iridescent 09:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
My sense is that some of the articles that are declined or AfD'd occur not because the editor wrote trivia (and Iri's example above would clearly be trivia) but rather problems with recentism, systemic bias, or a lack of knowledge of legitimate subjects of niche interest. I see far too many articles on notable women being tagged, as an example. If nothing else, we need to figure out that line between well-meaning newbies who just need education and the true nonsense editors who want their garage band in WP. I don't know the answer, but I do think that sometimes we are too harsh. Montanabw(talk) 02:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
My own take is that I would read it as meaning that the editor offering the welcome thinks that the editor being welcomed was mistreated. It certainly isn't what is needed for editors who initially came here as SPAs. If another editor actually thinks that the editor being welcomed was smacked around, they should say so directly to the editor who did the smacking around. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Looking at it from the perspective of the SPA's, they certainly feel smacked around and it doesn't matter to them who is at fault. They don't think they did anything wrong and if they did break somes rules ...well "So what. The rules are stupid and should be changed". My point is, no one wants to be wrong. We all fight "being wrong" and reject the idea that we are at fault. But our objective should not to lay blaim somewhere but to retain editors that, without some friendly outreach, will forsake WP, never to be seen again. When I search my WP history, I can remember 2 or 3 incidents where making me and my edits wrong was of extreme importance to a cadre of editors of substantial renown in WP circles. They were fringe articles at best, of little importance, but the vehemence and rancor that was used to smack me into line was stunning and coordinated (at least it seemed coordinated at the time). I'm sure we all have stories of being smacked around. To some editors that do the smacking, its the normal order of business. So...I think using "smacked around" is sending a unifying message. As far as the editor who is getting the welcome, its a message of understanding and acknowledgement and a challenge to forget all that "smacking around" and move on to bigger and better things. Buster Seven Talk 14:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, I used "smacked around" in a colloquial sense, in that the user perceives themselves as a bit battered. Like Buster7, I too -- even though an experienced user -- have had the experience of dipping my toe into a new "neighborhood" on wikipedia and encountering "the vehemence and rancor that was used to smack me into line was stunning and coordinated." On the other hand, I have, at times, been one of the people who has delivered a "smackdown" too; and often felt both justified in doing so and very, very frustrated that the SPA account just did not "get it." (For example, over at evolution of the horse, the recent creationism crowd feels the need to hit that article on a routine basis, and there is a certain level of fatigue and exasperation in editor response there). I agree that we need some method to explain to SPA editors that they are welcome if they will step out of their narrow room and look about a bit. While civility is a good thing in general, some of these SPAs need a "good cop, bad cop" approach. I've found that when one is trying to enforce WP policies on NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR, and other WP:ABCDEFG on new users, they are often quite resistant to the "bad cop" also giving them advice on how to be a constructive editor. This is where this concept can be very helpful: the "good cop" tells them they are welcome and shows them how to drop the stick. They then can decide if they want to be a net contributor or if they really are only here for a soapbox and need to leave. Montanabw(talk) 15:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Overenthusiastic new editor
Could someone less liable than myself to lose my temper, see if they can calm down Daniel kenneth (talk · contribs)? This user is obviously enthusiastic and trying to help, but is plastering every conceivable deletion discussion with dubious-looking "delete" votes, almost always just with some variation of "per above" or "not heard of it". ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] all from the last hour alone, and that's barely scratching the surface.) Given that the people who frequent the more esoteric XFD areas like WP:TFD and WP:RFD include some of Wikipedia's more 'forceful' characters, he's highly likely to get bitten spectacularly if he keeps this up, and it would be a shame for someone this enthusiastic to be flamed off the project. ‑ Iridescent 19:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
They are also templating lots of editors. Also, they don't seem to be replying to their talk page comments. The only edits they have to their talkpage is to set up archiving. They were blocked on April 1 by Floquenbeam. Kingsindian♝♚ 20:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC) Kingsindian♝♚ 20:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Having archiving setup so soon is unusual, to say the least. I added a note myself. Time will tell. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
The elephant in the room
For 2 years, I've been saving this on my User page for just the right occasion. If this isn't it I don't know when. Apologies to anyone that is offended. I couldn't resist. Buster7
I see new editors getting jumped regularly and the elephant we are not discussing is that the reason is too often bias related. There is, for example a bias against faith-based topics Take Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of St. Albert (Albertville, Minnesota), and see also [9] and my response [10]. Or, a far more egregious example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Sea Islands Museum, an article about a small museum with a remarkable collection of artifacts that appears to have been brought to AFD by someone unfamiliar with evaluating small museums for notability, but who assumes that this one is non-notable because he, mistakenly, thinks it is "run by a religious college." As though religious institutions were incapable of running good museums (the Vatican runs a very good one.) Here [11] is what the article looked like when Nom found it. A collection of significant artifacts in need only of sourcing. Creator, whose first editor was this museum article, was attacked so viciously that he has quit. IMHO, bias and nasty POV-pushing editos who are expert Wikilawyers are the serious issues that drive editors away. Some biases, like that against faith-based articles, is a consequence of a world-view that Wikipedians may be scarcely conscious constitutes a bias. In other areas aggressive, POV-pushing editors WP:PWN topics, spot new editors and wikihound them until they leave. We miss a very large elephant that accounts for the departure of many new editors if we assume that mere impatience with inexperience or actual COI are the sole or even the primary problem.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I have seen that more than once too; it seems like reviewers love killing religious articles but are perfectly willing to let porn articles in, which is bias whether they know it or not (or want to admit that they don't follow NPOV). It also seems that some reviewers and members of the AfD police have a "if I've never heard of it, it's not notable" viewpoint. That is not using sense. I have a fairly good idea of who is notable in the American horse industry, but I have no idea about who is notable in science, engineering, or aerospace industries. Thinking you know everything isn't helpful to newcomers, but it's probably worse for experienced editors. White Arabian FillyNeigh 20:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I think our focus will be on editors, whatever we call them, that have been around awhile, struggled within a certain room and don't even consider that thousands of other rooms are right outside the door. They are caught up in and stressed about decorating the room they are in. Our welcome is just a tap on the shoulder to suggest they look out the window and find another room. Buster Seven Talk 05:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
The issue of systemic bias is related to this, but not hand-in-hand. On one hand, it is important to not have tunnel vision, but on the other hand, people often come to wikipedia because they have a specific passion for a topic. The trick is probably helping those editors find the line between passion and obsession. For example, speaking of religion, the whole set of articles on Scientology wound up under very restrictive editing rules and several editors were sanctioned because people crossed the line. On the other hand, it seems that, other than the usual wikipedia "drahmahz," articles on Catholicism don't seem to be subject to the same level of rancor and vitriol. Montanabw(talk) 15:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I love this "may be scarcely conscious constitutes a bias" statement and find it to be true, as well as the statement that passion often crosses the line to obsession. Some of the most egregious editors on here have no idea how much they are biased, and yes it is indeed "if I've never heard of it, it's not notable" POV. The cadre that pushes no regionality, and no inclusion unless the subject meets their definition of top tier, fail to see that they are pushing a POV toward inclusion of only upper-class people and their values. Encyclopedic content provides balance. If a major city, state or a province or even a region has declared someone or something to be notable, why would a WP editor consider themselves an expert above that entity? But they do. There is a mistaken belief that GNG is not the standard of review, but all notability stems from GNG first. I wrote a simple article on a nun that was such a hotbed of obsession that I took her off of my watchlist. Her notability was not contentious, but her nationality was. I briefly stated the historical context of the region. The warriors rewrote the history almost daily to give more import to one country or another. I stated on the talk page that the focus of the article should be on her and not the politics of a region, to no avail and walked away. I refuse to edit war. There are lots of ways to write about the topic you enjoy and avoid the drama. I like your idea Buster7 of looking out the window to find a different perspective. SusunW (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Part of the problem is that there are more articles than active editors, meaning many articles have 1-3 active editors who may have a singular view of what that article can say. It is virtually impossible to monitor all these owned articles and catch a newish user getting pummelled. Systemic bias, or simple POV plays a role, but there are simply too many articles where a good editor can get turned off and we either catch it late, or more often, never even see the editor we lost. S/he is lost in the history of the article; they never existed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Much is simply the impatience of overtaxed editors with bumbling newbies. (and, of course, unintentional biases) But there are subject areas in which experienced editors with highly a developed POV target and attack new editors with the intent of driving them away. I have edited on Islamism enough to have discovered, and been discovered by, these aggressive POV-pushers this. My response has been to back away from those topics. Wikihounding works. It is especially effective when a new editor shows up, gets jumped and hounded, gets his first new article taken to AFD, gets deleted and gives up. My 4th new article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Binyamin Meisner was taken to AFD; editors who reliably vote to delete every article in which an Israeli is killed tried to delete it. I backed away from the topic for a while. I've since gained confidence and have created and supported article about Islamist attacks in various parts of the world. It is always an unpleasant experience. Nothing like the collegial, intellectual exchange I often have on other AFDs. I could, of course, stick to pleasant topics, and too often I do. I say too often because that leaves important areas of Wikipedia to be dominated by aggressive POV-pushing editors. This is a serious problem affecting the entire project. Bias starts when aggressive POV-pushing editors attack new editors, and (because the newbies don't don't think like wikilawyers) WP rules protect the attackers, increasing the bias on specific topics within the set of active editors. I doubt that just being nice to newbies will solve it. Aggressive recruiting of a more diverse pool of editors might.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
In the last issue of the WikiProject X Newsletter, I discussed the upcoming Wikipedia Requests system: a central database for outstanding work on Wikipedia. I am pleased to announce Wikipedia Requests is live! Its purpose is to supplement automatically generated lists, such as those from SuggestBot, Reports bot, or Wikidata. It is currently being demonstrated on WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health (which I work on as part of my NIOSH duties) and WikiProject Women scientists.
Adding a request is as simple as filling out a form. Just go to the Add form to add your request. Adding sources will help ensure that your request is fulfilled more quickly. And when a request is fulfilled, simply click "mark as complete" and it will be removed from all the lists it's on. All at the click of a button! (If anyone is concerned, all actions are logged.)
With this new service is a template to transclude these requests: {{Wikipedia Requests}}. It's simple to use: add the template to a page, specifying article=, category=, or wikiproject=, and the list will be transcluded. For example, for requests having to do with all living people, just do {{Wikipedia Requests|category=Living people}}. Use these lists on WikiProjects but also for edit-a-thons where you want a convenient list of things to do on hand. Give it a shot!
Help us build our list!
The value of Wikipedia Requests comes from being a centralized database. The long work to migrating individual lists into this combined list is slowly underway. As of writing, we have 883 open tasks logged in Wikipedia Requests. We need your help building this list.
If you know of a list of missing articles, or of outstanding tasks for existing articles, that you would like to migrate to this new system, head on over to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Requests#Transition project and help out. Doing this will help put your list in front of more eyes—more than just your own WikiProject.
An open database means new tools
WikiProject X maintains a database that associates article talk pages (and draft talk pages) with WikiProjects. This database powers many of the reports that Reports bot generates. However, until very recently, this database was not made available to others who might find its data useful. It's only common sense to open up the database and let others build tools with it.
And indeed: Citation Hunt, the game to add citations to Wikipedia, now lets you filter by WikiProject, using the data from our database.
Are you a tool developer interested in using this? Here are some details: the database resides on Tool Labs with the name s52475__wpx_p. The table that associates WikiProjects with articles and drafts is called projectindex. Pages are stored by talk page title but in the future this should change. Have fun!
On the horizon
The work on the CollaborationKit extension continues. The extension will initially focus on reducing template and Lua bloat on WikiProjects (especially our WPX UI demonstration projects), and will from there create custom interfaces for creating and maintaining WikiProjects.
The WikiCite meeting will be in Berlin in May. The goal of the meeting is to figure out how to build a bibliographic database for use on the Wikimedia projects. This fits in quite nicely with WikiProject X's work: we want to make it easier for people to find things to work on, and with a powerful, open bibliographic database, we can build recommendations for sources. This feature was requested by the Wikipedia Library back in September, and this meeting is a major next step. We look forward to seeing what comes out of this meeting.
SPA Welcome #4--Expanding your Wikipedia experience (D. Brown)
Note:This Welcome is under construction in response to a need to salvage SPA editors. It is SPA W#4, part of a continuing work in progress. It is a work in progress. Feel free to add or create your own.
Please, stick around! Many editors run into difficulties (or maybe we can say "situations") at first, so we hope you won't be discouraged from participating in other areas of the encyclopedia. Here are some suggestions and guidance that may help:
I think "situations" is vague, so prefer using "difficulties". (Is the clause within parentheses intended to be a side comment for discussion, or is it intended to actually be within the message?) isaacl (talk) 05:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Just for discussion purposes. D. Brown didn't like difficulties but he did not offer an alternative. So I came up with "situations". For discussion purposes it could be a case of "fill in the blank". Buster Seven Talk 05:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
If the message is being targeted specifically for editors who have encountered difficulties, then mentioning this is appropriate. If it is for all editors who have, to-date, only shown interest in one topic, whether or not they've had conflicts over their editing, then a more generic message is better. Which audience are you planning to welcome with this message? isaacl (talk) 05:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm beginning to think that we continue constructing asst welcomes for a week or so and then collect them somewhere for members to pick and chose from as the need requires. I think each interested editor can facilitate their own action plan as to discovering start-up editors that need a smiling face to balance the stern ones they have experienced. Buster Seven Talk 18:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid that discretionary sanctions warnings such as this one are contributing to Wikipedia's long-term shortage of editors. Most of these warnings are placed on pages about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but they also appear in some articles about other controversial issues, such as genetically modified organisms, abortion, and the Syrian Civil War. Is there any way that these sanctions can be enforced without creating a hostile environment for Wikipedia's editors? Jarble (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I tend to view these as a necessary evil and the best of many bad options. Having no DS available would allow these articles to remain un-editable cesspools of disruption. Having DS in place but no warning about them would be utter chaos. People would not know and get blocked, or they would lie about not being told and be able to disrupt freely. Having a message delivered to everyone who edits these articles would be a mess given the amount of socking that goes on. Also, people deserve to know going in that things may be heated.
In fact, sometimes I wish these kinds of ArbCom sanctions were more visible. As a new editor, I got involved in a discussion on talk:Nazi gun control theory. Everyone was very nice to me and I did do some productive editing and learnt a lot. However, I kept finding the dynamics of the discussion a bit odd. It was only later that I realised this was because there were some Ibans between some of the participants. People also kept making oblique references to past happenings. Being more above board about the situation would have actually made it more confortable for me as a newcomer.
As for improvements, perhaps the template itself could be calmer. Maybe it should lose the exclamation mark. Also, I would support getting rid of the last paragraph. Happy Squirrel (talk) 00:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
@Happysquirrel: Since I posted my last comment, the enforcement warning was removed from the Syrian Civil War article. These warnings are still included in about a hundred pages related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but they are rarely used elsewhere. Jarble (talk) 03:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
A similar one is displayed on talk:Nazi gun control theory. Since these warning reference the case in question, there is a different one for articles related to different cases. Happy Squirrel (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Here is my thought, about editor retention and about dealing with both inexperienced editors and troublesome editors. While most Wikipedia editors are net positive assets to the encyclopedia, a few editors, both new ones and old ones, are net negatives to the encyclopedia. That is, a few editors do more harm than good. New editors require patience; most of them will be assets to the encyclopedia, even if they need to learn how Wikipedia works, et cetera. I personally think that we sometimes go too far to continue to be patient with editors who do more harm than good. That have been said, the question has to do with warnings in controversial areas. I think that those are helpful because new editors who go to controversial areas fall mostly into one of two classes. The first, and perhaps the larger class, are those who are on their way to become productive editors, who need to be retained. The second are those who have come in as single-purpose accounts with a side in areas that have had battleground editing, sometimes because they are historically real battlegrounds. If new editors who venture into articles on Middle East areas are deterred from editing there, they are likely to edit in other, less controversial areas (and maybe, just maybe, later be voices of reason in troubled areas, but that is just maybe). At the same time, if the templates and warnings deter new editors who are primarily interested in partisan editing in controversial areas, that is all right. That is my thought. Either the new editors can go to other areas, or, if they are SPAs in troubled areas, we don't need them. In fact, if we didn't warn new editors away from troubled areas, we would take a greater risk of losing them as they got caught in cross-fire. That is my thought. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
To me its a matter of "stern-ness" and when it should be used. The new editor (hopefully) will understand sternness if its balanced with a touch of "Welcome. Get a feel for the place before you try to do too much." And the more veteran editor should understand a direct statememt of policy without any frills. Of course, congeniality is always needed to keep the words lubricated and harmless since they can easily be misunderstood...2¢. Buster Seven Talk 17:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
I basically agree. The question doesn't so much have to do with how an experienced editor should address a new editor, as with how the banners, which are impersonal, should address a new editor. In that respect I am entirely in favor of having the banners in troubled areas be a little intimidating. I am more concerned about losing a new editor because they try editing in an area like the Gaza Strip or abortion and get flamed by one side or the other than I am about losing a new editor because the banner for the Gaza Strip or about abortion is itself intimidating. I also think that if the editor whom we lose because of the stern banner was only interested in presenting the rightness of the Israeli side or the Arab side might not have been a great loss. But that is my opinion only. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
That proposal is to delete them after five years. If that's your idea of a short vacation, your country appears to have better employee rights than mine. ‑ Iridescent 20:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
A new Editor of the Week waiting to get thanks
This weeks EotW is Shearonink(talk·contribs·count·logs) who helps editors constantly. He deserves some words of thanks. Take a moment and congratulate him. He collaborates with those he works with for the benefit of our readers. Thanks to all that responded to the successful recent mass mailing. The queue is full and will take us into the Fall. In order to close the time gap between nomination and awarding, we MAY, occasionally, dispense two awards in one week. Not sure when, just letting those interested know of the possibility. Buster Seven Talk 01:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
@Buster7: Two awards in one week seems like it will diminish the significance of the award. I would suggest raising the bar for who qualifies for the EOTW award. By being perhaps a little more selective about whom is nominated, the back log will not pile up so fast. Wikipedia already has many of its awards handed out like candy albeit by well intended editors. We shouldn't however do the same with the EOTW award, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
EOTW anouncement
How is the average editor or reader ever to know about who is the Editor of the Week? It would be nice if the EOTW was announced on the front page. All it would take is one sentence: e.g. This week's EOTW award is awarded to: 'The Jolly Editor'. Congratulations! As it is, the award is something of a silent celebration, known to only a handful of editors, and probably none of the readers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
When EotW first started we requested (don't remember who we asked) to be included on the front page. At the time we were unsuccessful. Maybe a second try might work now that the Award has a long history of success. This template displays the Awardee on the Main Page of WER and EOTW It might be easilt expanded to include the front page, if permission is granted by the "over-see-ers". Buster Seven Talk 12:526, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately most editors don't even know of such a page. I would recommend making a second appeal, with the idea that the announcement of the award is presently something of a whisper in the dark and that a brief sentence on the main page, with link, would attract more potential editors from the body of readers. Perhaps a Request for Comment or some such forum would help. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Gwillhickers Well...I won't assume to know what most editors do or don't know but I do know this---the awards are looking for a new facilitator, or maybe a team of facilitators, to handle the varied aspects of creating and dispensing the awards going forward. Maybe you might consider being part of the new and improved award? You received the 41st award...and I was the one that nominated you. In total there have been over 200 nominations for the weekly award and you are absolutely right, it should have been promoted and advertised better. I challenge you to be a part of helping make the next 200 awards even better. Buster Seven Talk 07:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
There were 40 EOTW awards given out before I received mine, and until that time I had not even a clue about the awards, let alone any presentation, and I get around a lot. I think it's probably safe to assume most others don't know either, esp the readers. In any case, I am willing to help in the effort of promoting the awards on the main page. As editor who manages the EOTW awards it would seem you would be the best one suited to get the ball rolling. As I said, I'm not sure of the best approach or forum for which to accomplish this but you would have my complete support. I would suggest that before we proceed that we gather a group of supporters, perhaps here, (ping!), brief them on the prospect, and then make the appeal. It just seems sort of a shame that the award is given out in 'the back office' and not shared with Wikipedia editors and readers at large. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
the need to recognize someone is outside the pervue of Editor of the Week, usually an administrator. This barnstar may be something that might substitute:
The Teamwork barnstar
Teamwork barnstar
WP:WER is honored to present you with this Teamwork barnstar for your tireless efforts on behalf of the Encyclopedia and its readers. Collaborative editing is a hallmark of Wikipedia, and is one of the surest ways to retain editors and to make Wikipedia a better place... and you have done both. Teamwork and concern add to the pure joy of creating articles. Thank you, User: Yournamehere
Hello. You are invited to join WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia, a new project aimed at improving Wikipedia's content quality and its governance. It will actively propose and advocate for long-overdue reforms to this website—one of its goals for governance is reducing the widespread hostility toward new, good-faith users by overhauling the deletion process, templates, the blocking process, etc. Of course, editor retention is the sole focus of this project, so I believe that some members here would be interested in joining the new reform project. Thank you for your consideration. Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 19:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
EotW facillitatorship
Back in May, I accepted the EotW facilitator baton as "a temporary stop-gap facilitator until at least September", and I've been honored to have been the interim facilitator since then. I've awarded the Award eight times, each to highly deserving editors, and the process has been gratifying and insightful.
Due to my having substantially less time than expected, however, not counting the two weeks without an Award for a good reason (one as a transition period from Buster to me, and one as a switch in the dates of the Award), I've failed to deliver the award twice now as of this past Sunday. It's certainly not that facilitating the Award takes much time, per se, simply a good memory and a regular internet connection. More recently, I've felt guilty about falling behind on Eddybox curation and simply did not know how to handle some technical aspects of the Award.
Per my original pledge, I will serve until "at least September", and tonight, I will get caught up with the Eddybox creation, curation, and archival. I'll also look into possible changes to process, including (specifically) that all nominations be accompanied with a proposed Eddybox blurb and picture. I'll stay on as long as there is no replacement facilitator. I anticipate, however, that I will become even busier soon, and it would be a good idea if someone else took over the reins of the Award as soon as possible. The Project itself (EDR) may need some focusing as well.
Without going back into the talk page archives to find any relevant discussion threads, I presume the page creator was collecting statistics in order to perform some analysis. isaacl (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
That editor is enjoying a lifetime siteban. Is anyone opposed if I nominate it for deletion? Chris Troutman (talk) 22:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't see a pressing need to delete the page. The information is there if anyone wants to make use of it; there are various threads in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 1 that discuss it. It seems the data was compiled to try to capture a profile of editors who were no longer editing, with an eye towards trying to encourage them to resume. @Ryan Vesey and Zad68: should either of you be checking in, can you let us know if you (or anyone you know) made use of this data? isaacl (talk) 00:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
That editor may be site banned but he will never go away. Every time you see something from one of those highly knowledgeable IPs, chances are he's behind it. I actually met him once a few years ago, I believe I'm one of the few people to have done so. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Loss of core editors
Alarmingly we've lost Tim riley, SchroCat, Cassianto and We hope within ten days. Perhaps Editor Retention should start hiring some thugs to fend off the infobox and pullbox guerillas ;-) Seriously though if we can't retain editors as prolific and able as these this project is going horribly wrong..♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
It's really a shambles, Brianboulton and Ritchie333, if you join them too I may just start weeping into my magma pool and throw the bloody Noel Coward infobox into the piranha tank to be devoured to the bone!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
So the usual gang is still driving off content editors? Frankly, I'm not surprised. I tried an experiment in deliberately avoiding them by editing a very obscure area of Wikipedia but it was to no avail. The usual suspects still turned up there along with mysteriously reactivated sleeper accounts (it's funny how many of this mob turn out to be sock puppets, often of banned users). I'm used to this kind of gang warfare in nationalist areas but now it seems to be spreading elsewhere. Probably an inherent design flaw of the Wikipedia model. Oh well. --Folantin (talk) 08:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Debating "What's wrong with Wikipedia" is about as useful as debating religion or politics: We all have strong, deep-seated opinions and no one's mind is going to be changed much. Ergo, nothing short of outside intervention will improve things significantly. I can't imagine this thread going anywhere constructive, but it does have a good chance of being destructive. It's also outside the scope of WikiProject Editor Retention, so wrong venue at best. ER is not about pointing fingers at any group or class and saying "they are the cause of the problems"; actually that is the problem. ―Mandruss☎ 09:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Discussing why some of our leading writers are leaving Wikipedia is entirely relevant to the topic of "editor retention". If you don't want to take part in this discussion then no one is forcing you to do so. --Folantin (talk) 09:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
That is precisely the kind of hostile response that is out of place on this page. You have unwittingly added credence to my comment about constructive/destructive. ―Mandruss☎ 09:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh enough, please, this is the editor retention project, and we've just lost some key editors. It's perfectly relevant. Now stop.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
If anything constructive happens in this thread, I would appreciate a ping or a user talk post. I could be wrong, and I'm always open to learning something. Absent such information I'll assume that I was right, just a hijacking of ER as yet another divisive battleground. ―Mandruss☎ 04:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Uh OK. You're "always open to learning something" but you dismissed my comments out of hand. Apparently, WikiProject:Editor Retention is not here to retain editors but to provide User:Mandruss with an ego boost by proving "he is right". Maybe you might want to look at your own attitude and take your personal feud with Cassianto elsewhere. This is about a much bigger issue.--Folantin (talk) 08:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
@ Mandruss. And you are? I'm just wondering what gives you the right to express your opinion in the way you like but if others make use of the same freedom then it's "destructive" or "hostile". I note you have recently had a run in with Cassianto. This issue is much wider than that.--Folantin (talk) 10:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Cassianto hasn't gone, he has flounced and will be back shortly - to deliver yet more of his regular bile to any other editors outside his circle of friends. Yes, he edits content well, but he's also utterly toxic to many more people. I won't miss him.
There's also the clear statement all over WP - if you don't want your stuff edited by others, get a blog not a WP account. Is Cassianto so magical that his every word must be preserved inviolate? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Nvvchar joins the list of productive contributors bullied into submission I'm afraid.. Cwmhiraeth should know all about that one and who did it..♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps WP:Project Accuracy should be revisited as it speaks to the protection of FA articles that have passed a high-level of accuracy review, and while it may not address every single aspect of MOS, it may help with ER or maybe not. Atsme📞📧 23:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I totally agree with Blofeld. This is absolutely the right venue for such a discussion. On the other hand, I'm totally dismayed by the lack of reaction on Wikipedia to Tim riley being bullied away. I can't think of one single other editor of his calibre and I would gladly give up my own hobby and its tools to have him back. The people who caused it have not a fraction of his tact, talent, and skills and they should fall on their swords whatever their gender. Instead, they innocently shrug and say 'What? me?' and continue to trample round the site with mud on their shoes. The place to make known how horrible the environment at Wikipedia is of course the Signpost but sadly I don't have time time to do a write up - and if I did, I'd probably also find myself running for shelter. Wikipedia behind the scenes is turning into a farce. Perhaps ot should be renamed Fawltypedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Response to general rudeness towards other editors
Hi, I've been editing Wikipedia for some time now and I've encountered my fair share of curt editors but never anyone who was so consistently rude and condescending as this Thomas.W. Here are just a few snippets from his talk page conversations with other editors:"Are you doing machine translations from Greek to English? "The Jaguars what it means" has no meaning at all in English, it's just gibberish. If you don't know enough English to communicate with other editors here you shouldn't edit the English language Wikipedia... " , "Thanks for the link to WP:Verifiability and your advice, which would no doubt be of benefit for a new user, but I have had this account since 2006, have made ~38,000 edits, check sources every day and know the rules better than most. I also know what the established practice here is, unlike you obviously, so I need neither your advice nor your links." OR "Those cartridges exist, the articles just haven't been written yet. As you would have known if you had known anything about the subjects you've chosen to meddle with." These are just some of the comments made by this editor to other editors in the past
6 days. Can someone advise me on how to get this editor the care and attention he clearly craves? Many thanksMonopoly31121993 (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Accusing me of "general rudeness" is outright silly. Monopoly31121993 has repeatedly added totally irrelevant material on Germans (primarily the religious affiliations of people living in Germany, regardless of ethnicity), an article that is explicitly about the ethnic group, regardless of where they live, not about people who live in Germany, regardless of background, ethnicity and nationality (which the material they've repeatedly added is about). But all attempts I've made to make them understand why it doesn't belong there have been to no avail, since they still don't seem to understand. An edit summary of theirs (see the diff I provided) even showed that they don't know the difference between Germanic peoples and the ethnic group Germans, a subgroup of Germanic peoples. Anyone who is interested in the discussion on Monopoly31121993's talk page can find it here, including Monopoly31121993's final comment to me: "Get a life". Thomas.W talk 21:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Collapse removed
@John from Idegon: I uncollapsed the above section which you collapsed on 22:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC). In my view there was no need to collapse user:Monopoly31121993’s comments who simply asked for advice about dealing with what they view as a rude editor. One of the functions of Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention is to "guide editors with questions to the best venues and connect users for their specific needs with those best able to assist". Ottawahitech (talk) 03:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)please ping me
John from Idegon, I belive Ottawahitech was acting in good faith when he unfolded this thread about Thomas.W, but IMO, WER is not the venue for complains like this, especially where it has nothing to do with editor retention. On ANI, following a full investigation, it would be closed (at least by me) with a clear Boomerang and I've left a (belated} message on the OP's talk.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
It went to ANI and was closed with exactly the same advice I put in the collapse header. Go to your talk page and settle it colligially. John from Idegon (talk) 06:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Back to basics?
Back in 2012, in the early days of this project (before it became the project for promoting wp:eotw) one of the topics discussed here was: Increase retention of quality, experienced editors at Wikipedia . May I revive this tradition? If so here goes:
Stefanomione(talk·contribs·count) has been around for a long long time, quietly working in the shadows doing what few editors do: building parent categories that house the categories built by other wp:categorians. I admit I am not up on wiki-gossip and am not intimately familiar with his wiki-work, but it appears he somehow managed to antagonize several wiki-editors and is now banned from doing any category work
I admit I did not check carefully the volumes of information available on the topic: if I did that I would have no time left to contribute to wp:mainspace, but I would hate us to lose a longstanding editor who does the type of work many others build on. Any comments? Ottawahitech (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)please ping me
I believe having the link under the "Resources" section is more useful for editors, and so the originally inserted link can be removed. isaacl (talk) 04:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I have removed the originally inserted link. isaacl (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
August stats are finally out. Looks like there has been an increase in number of Wikipedians and number of new Articles. Ottawahitech (talk) 22:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)please ping me
Ottawahitech, are you looking at something different to me? I see the "new editors" count at its lowest level for any month since November 2005, the "new articles" count at the lowest it's ever been for any August since 2004, and the "active editor" count at its lowest for any August since 2005. (It's only statistically useful to compare months like-for-like, as Wikipedia is so heavily dependent on the academic cycle.) Basically, every editor metric (aside from the aggregate totals, which by definition always go up) is at its record low for the past decade. ‑ Iridescent 15:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Off topic
Not within the scope of this project. John from Idegon (talk) 02:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia's climate is in my opinion somewhat hostile to content creators. Threads above as well as on other venues have discussed this where prolific content creators are consistently leaving. The problem is that some editors dont seem to realize the discouraging effect they have on editor retention rates. For example, the editor User:Rebbing when given the option of deleting content or placing a tag besides content needing work, will usually resort to removal. Also when given the option of citing easily verifiable content or removing it, will usually resort to removal and hence leave the tough hard work for the content creators. I have seen them tag pages for deletion or remove content even when said edits are still under construction. I have also seen the same editor insinuate there's some sort of hierarchy on Wikipedia where newbies are at the bottom in terms of the deference they should receive. Pretty sure no newcomer will find such a website amiable. He/she is by no means the only such editor as I've seen hundreds of other editors behave in a similar way, but the point stands. Content creators are arguably among the hardest-working people on this website, yet there is no real platform for content creators to fall back on. The odds are stacked against them on this website. Unfortunately, the more content creators leave, the less power they have to change their plight. I'm not sure what needs to be done but one idea I have is that editor retention topics should feature more prominently on multiple platforms so the issue gets more attention from more editors. Pwolit iets (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Pwolit iets: This is not the place for you to air grievances about another editor. Your section title is completely inappropriate. If you want to talk about a general state of affairs and have some concrete ideas on what to do about it, then this is the place for that. I see no evidence of you trying to work it out with her (the fact that she clearly identifies herself as female on her userpage shows just how little effort you have put into trying to discuss it with her). The only post on her talkpage from you is you, an editor with less than 1000 edits, ordering her to stop misinterpreting Wikipedia policy. I don't know what other things you've done in your life, but in my life experience, more experience (she has well over 5000 edits and a far lower ratio of edits to deleted articles than you) generally equates with greater familiarity.
In short, if your problem is with Rebbing, work it out with her and if you are convinced that you are correct and you cannot work it out, let it go or take her to a noticeboard. If you are trying to created a dialog on a problem you percieve, depersonalize the discussion. But in any case, the title violates WP:TP and must be changed. John from Idegon (talk) 01:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I decided to see if I could work out what this was about, but stopped after seeing User talk:Rebbing#I would (permalink). Wikipedia is a project to build an encyclopedia and editor retention refers to the desire to retain editors who help achieve that aim. Not every contributor should be retained. Johnuniq (talk) 02:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Johnuniq, I'm going to take that as a rough consensus to hat this. IMO, these kind of things are disruptive here, but last time I hatted a discussion I got spanked for it. John from Idegon (talk) 02:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
@Pwolit iets:, In regards to Wikipedia's climate is in my opinion somewhat hostile to content creators, I would go even further and take out the word somewhat. It is subtle, but yes, the climate here is definitely hostile to content creators (I won't provide examples because it seems to be frowned upon here). Ottawahitech (talk) 23:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)please ping me
Is this section a coincidence or does it reinforce some thoughts I have been having for some while about Rebbing's participation on Wikipedia that give me pause? She may have a point however, in her comments to Pwolit iets, I haven't checked. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Ryan Vesey
Does anyone have any news of Ryan Vesey. Once a prolific editor and script writer, , after having significatly reduced his editing in May 2013he abrptly stopped editing completely in April 2016. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
According to his Linkedin profile, he took a new job right around then. John from Idegon (talk) 04:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I received an e-mail from Ryan this morning and we can all be relieved that he is alive and well, and might, his personal circumstances permitting, return to Wikipedia sometime in the future. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
I haven't closely watched User:Mannanan51's edits, but s/he has been around for a while. I just noticed s/he blanked his/her user page and most of his/her talk page, possibly in response to a warning notice regarding copyrighted material. Perhaps s/he merely misunderstood something recently about material s/he was adding, and now is upset about having been issued a warning. If this editor generally makes constructive edits, it might be worth looking into this so as not to lose a good editor. – Corinne (talk) 02:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
@Diannaa: Their last interaction was with you before Mannanan51 undid about 50 of their edits. It does seem like a sour grapes overreaction. I know we have editors with mental health issues that might go off the deep end on occasion but I don't know this particular editor. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The user received warnings about copyright violations on January 28, February 3, June 17, and yesterday. Posts on my talk page show that he thinks it's okay to copy stuff as long as you add a citation. I will post him another message. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Content Adjudication?
It seems to me that Wikipedia could be losing editors because there is too much convoluted disputation generated by the lack of content adjudication. Disputes over a few words that fail to be resolved at the editor level can go on and on wasting lots of time and energy, and end up in incivility, gaming the system, criticism of behaviour etc. It seems like a huge unnecessary shemozzle to this new editor. There are no doubt reasons content adjudication is not generally part of the process of dispute resolution, but I haven't found them yet. Surely if a content dispute is not resolved on the Talk page, or DRN or NPOVN etc. then why not simply both sides state their case and send it up for a quick content decision. It could be over in a few days and both sides can then move on without acrimony as a higher authority is taking responsibility for how the encyclopedia should be, rather than editors battling over that. Jed Stuart (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't disagree. Wikipedia doesn't care about content disputes because they take on faith that crowdsourcing works, they hold "experts" in contempt, and they refuse to spend money on editors. Wikipedia also doesn't care about editor retention because crowd sourcing dictates that any aggrieved editor that quits in frustration can be replaced by some new editor. Indeed, it's a strategy of controlling content by provoking opposition into an ARBCOM case where they'll all be blocked. Sockpuppets and survivors get their way. Besides, WMF's goal is not to improve our content. Wikipedia is a game people play that the WMF gets to run regular funding drives on. If we didn't have a flood of new eyeballs trying to "fix" content on Wikipedia there wouldn't be enough money flowing in to pay for new furniture at WMF offices and the like. Yes, it's sad we've lost many good editors to content disputes with crazies. Ultimately you have to take responsibility for your own sanity. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
I have suggested professional mediation and binding content dispute resolution previously. The editing community, however, remains suspicious of any process that would introduce a hierarchy to manage content matters. Unfortunately, the lessons from Clay Shirky's talk, "A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy" aren't being learned by English Wikipedia: interpersonal issues always come up, and trying to manage them away through a set of rules to avoid a hierarchy inevitably fails as a group grows in size. Consensus does not scale up, and what worked well with a small community may no longer be effective with a large one, as the number of good-faith editors become outnumbered and as the good-faith editors increasingly disagree on the best approach for the project.
Eventually, English Wikipedia's editing community will shift in one way or another. For a binding content dispute resolution mechanism to be put in place, most of the community will have to reach the conclusion that the overhead in maintaining an elaborate system of rules is less effective and much more time consuming than managing content dispute resolution (including mitigating its pitfalls, such as the risk of funneling viewpoints through a small group). It is a difficult problem to resolve. isaacl (talk) 04:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
@Jed Stuart: Thanks for starting this thread. I don’t think there is any dispute about the statement: too much convoluted disputation. However, there may be disagreement about how much it affects Wikipedia and if it does, what can be done about it. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)please ping me
Newcomers and contests
I have observed that quite a large number newbies signup in our various contests like WikiCup or 10000 Challenge series. Unfortunately, not many of them stay or even actually compete. I think while retention is something difficult to attain, getting more newbies is a bit easy thing. In pursuits of that I have started refabricating the Wikipedia:Contests page to make it a common place to reach all the contests and challenges and then wish to push it ahead to be displayed on main page under "Other areas of Wikipedia". I know that Wikimedia Commons gave a permanent place to "Photo challenge" on their main page on top right and although I do not know who useful it has been, I think it should be given a try on en wiki too. I would need opinions and help of editors from this taskforce to attain this. Thanks. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Recently, I have spoken with multiple editors over IRC regarding WP:RETENTION. Although people generally seem to admire the project, I have heard multiple comments regarding people not knowing what to do to help out at WP:RETENTION. Looking back at the home page, my feeling is that we give people such a full idea of what the mission is and why the mission is important, but not enough of what needs to be done. My proposal is to include the two todolists at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Editor_Retention/Editor_of_the_Week/todo on the front page (collapsable--so they don't take up much space, but clearly denoted/marked/highlighted). What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustBerry (talk • contribs) 00:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I suggest you modify the section you created earlier so it asks people for help with the Editor of the Week project. I think the greatest gap is in nominating new recipients and seconding nominations. The second most time-consuming task is creating the infobox. The actual announcement is straightforward enough and just needs one person able to do it each week (or a rotation between persons).
As I discussed in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention#Apparent retirement of Dennis Brown, it would be great for new initiatives to be started. There have been a few threads on this page that people can follow up on, or people can chime in with their ideas. The key is to have interested parties who are willing to dedicate time and investment in persistent efforts. isaacl (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I just make sure to encourage recently retired editors or editors contemplating retirement, to change their minds. GoodDay (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I try to do the same, generally after seeing if there is any particular recent circumstance which may have prompted their retirement and seeing if there is any way to address that. Yeah, that is more reactive than pro-active, and that is less than optimal in itself. Having some sort of "early-warning system" about potential retirees would be great, if anyone could think of one. John Carter (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Good point, John. I'll look into making a tool for that. --JustBerry (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Editor of the Week Discussion
FYI for those that are not aware, there is an on-going discussion here too. Cheers, JustBerry (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
The Editor of the Week initiative needs help to continue!
Nominations of unsung contributors are needed: who do you know who does good work but has gone unrecognized? In particular, what novice editors could use a little encouragement by knowing their efforts are appreciated?
Not only do many hands make work light, but they engender greater satisfaction from the recipient and build a stronger connection to a community of support. Your participation is appreciated! isaacl (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Using newcomers to help identify sections of policy & guidelines that are unclear
We have a wonderful and somewhat untapped resources in new editors... not just for their freshness and unique approach to article content that interests them, but they are reading all of our how-to pages (essays, policies, guidelines... everything) for the first time or two. Since these editors are seeing that stuff with fresh eyes, one way we could tell them we value their participation is to invite them to flag any area they had trouble understanding. Auto-invites could go out at predetermined intervals (3, 6, 12, and 18 months). Established eds could opt in for auto invites too.
This idea would need to define a place where they can make these observations.
In this way, we might overcome the tendency for our policy and other rule pages to stagnate from "status quo" inertia. I'm not saying we should change the rules, only that we should tell newcomers that we feel their pain when they find these pages confusing... and their input is very important so we can try to keep on improving the way we explain the rules.
Maybe...the place where they can make these observations about flagging an area they have trouble understanding is here at WER? Not sure what that would look like. Can we try an auto-invite? We need to promote ways of capturing the new user beyond their initial desire. I comment so that this potential conversation isn't lost in the archives. Ideas need fertilizer. Buster Seven Talk 07:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Lest we forget....
Dennis may have retired for now but "t(his)" project lives on. The following are some words of encouragement from March of 2015
I'm not around much, and you don't want to be me this month, but I will take the time to reiterate one point, a point that addresses some of the questions above and in the archive: What is editor retention really about?
Let me offer a different perspective, a different way of looking at how I see editor retention in general. WER isn't the only effort to retain editors, although we are arguably the most visible project doing that work. There are many other valid analogies, this is just one of many....
WER is a group of farmers. Like all farmers, it isn't a binary job, but rather one in which you do good work and you will get good results. Put a little more effort into it, and you will get better results, etc. Our first focus is on the soil, the medium in which our crop grows.
We try to give Wikipedia better soil, a better environment, so that good things will grow from it. We do this by encouraging policies that help new users, and ones that make it possible for blocked users to come back if we reasonably believe they will be an asset. We improve the soil by helping out in dispute and content resolution, by welcoming new users, and taking the time to help someone. It all starts with the soil, the foundation, the overall environment at Wikipedia. The more people you have working the soil, the better that soil is likely to be.
Editor of the Week and other programs like the T-shirt giveaway (which isn't WER but does the same function) is like fertilizer. it takes existing editors and makes them stronger, more vigorous. This has additional benefits, we have learned, in that it helps us identify new leaders, as we have several admin come from the program.
The crop is articles; the primary product that Wikipedia produces, and the only reason it exists.
Reading is the harvest. The beautiful part is that the crop is infinite. It is literally like an apple tree that never runs out of fruit. Once we have retained excellent editors, and they produce well written and sourced prose, it is available to be enjoyed by 1 person or 100 million. The most important Wikipedian IS the reader, and they reap the greatest reward from a competent editor retention program. Keeping high value talent here means better accuracy and sourcing, more readable prose, all on a well maintained page.
While it is easy to think about the individual editors we try to assist so they can be happy, productive members of Wikipedia, it is important to remember that all our work here at WER, just like all the editing, admin'ing, coding and even the people running payroll at the Foundation, is all about and for the reader. From Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not certain if you're really Dennis Brown, but anyway, I spend little time here (at WP:RETENTION), but rather concentrate on persuading editors to not retire :) GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry if I caused your confusion (or anyone else). A check of the history would have shown that it was not Dennis. I see now that I should have signed my preface. I posted the above as a reminder of Dennis's words of advice. The archives are a rich source of encouragement and I just wanted to re-kindle enthusiasm. No harm intended. Buster Seven Talk 17:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Adjusting the RETENTION Menu Bar/Header
Considering adding WP:RETENTION/todo as one of the tabs to the project tab menu. Please leave your thoughts below. --JustBerry (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Personally, I feel the Editor of the Week tasks should be kept distinct from those of the editor retention project. Not everyone interested in editor retention is interested in the Editor of the Week recognition. isaacl (talk) 05:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
In that case, we may need to section off two todo lists. Work with the bot (currently being setup; see bot todo list on that page), for example, is relevant to both projects and can certainly use help or ideas from all project members. --JustBerry (talk) 11:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
January 28, 2017, the week following, and long-term project goals
Looks like White Arabian Filly is up for receiving the award this upcoming Saturday, if I am not mistaken. @Buster7: Regarding the infobox notification for this past week, I have just notified Tyler of their infobox here. The notification, though, seems to have gotten lost in the midst of the week. It may be beneficial (for now, i.e. until there is more project involvement), to keep the infobox notification day on Sunday. Alternatively, we can notify the recipient of their infobox at the end of the week following the Saturday they receive the award, informing them that their infobox has been featured on the project main page for the past week (another round of appreciation, which seems to be the intention behind keeping the infobox notification day on Monday or Tuesday). The end-of-the-week day would be at the top of the todolist (prior to starting the tasks related to the new recipient).
I also feel as though we should begin setting long-term project goals. A primary goal seems to be increasing project involvement (or awareness at the least). Along with brainstorming ideas, such as mass-messaging still-active project 'registrants,' I think breaking down the ideas into doable parts and setting realitic deadlines for each part would be helpful. I realize the deadlines seem limiting. However, everyone is welcome to chip in to move the project along. My hope is to reactivate interest, after which the need for deadlines to efficiently utilize the handful of editors that are left in the project will not be needed.
Further, I have been considering algorithms and ideas regarding making a bot to generate a list of quality contributors, who seem to be getting progressively less active, i.e. heading towards retirement, with a fellow Mediawiki sysadmin. Since the bot would mainly be doing searching and analysis (not editing articles), the bot could dump the list into a userspace, avoiding the need for a bot approval proposal and such (for now). Then, we can easily transclude the userspace dump onto a project page. I whole-heartedly encourage everyone to vigorously participate in this discussion, leaving criticisms, ideas, etc. below. --JustBerry (talk) 06:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Additional Note: Also, thank you, Lepricavark, for tag-teaming with me in working through the checklist and processing the nomination, notification, page updating, etc. in a timely fashion this past week. --JustBerry (talk) 06:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes I was quite happy earlier today to see the eddybox on the Project main page and at Tyler's talk page. I like the idea of the Saturday following with a note that informs them of the Front Page Prominence for the past week and maybe adding a reference to the Hall of Fame while were at it. Contacting editors as they consider retirement has always been presented on these talk pages as one of the top programs that this Project should undertake. Nothing has ever taken wing but the archives are full of the many dozens of times that the subject of retaining "almost-retirees" has come up. Once your idea for a bot gets going maybe we could scour the archives for editors that have brought the issue to "our marketplace for ideas" and we can inform that the time has come and their idea needs fertilizer and some gardening. Buster Seven Talk 08:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good. I have modified the weekly todolist here, Buster7. I certainly think getting some stats/names on our list (from the bot) will be great in sparking more conversation and generating more ideas for the project. I do want to quickly distinguish, though, that there are two agendas we're talking about here regarding the bot's functionalities: 1) figuring out and considering (for nomination) almost-active retirees 2) figuring out and contacting still-active project registrants. --JustBerry (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Curteousy ping:@GoodDay: I noticed your note about WP:RETENTION on Dennis's talk page. It is certainly unfortunate that the project founder has themselves felt the need to retire. However, I pinged you because I wanted to let you know that discussions about revitalizing the project are still active, and you are more than welcome to give your ideas, call other editors who you think are interested in the project, and help with administrative tasks as you desire. --JustBerry (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm content to leave any changes or improvements here, in the capable hands of ya'll. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
@GoodDay: Surely! Thanks for stopping by. --JustBerry (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
@Buster7: I will be updating this todolist to provide insight into the bot development/discussion. --JustBerry (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
As I said earlier, my personal preference would be to put the infobox on the recipient's talk page (and the Editor of the Week page) at the same time when the recipient is notified of the recognition. It's like getting your award statue on stage at the same time it is announced.
Regarding project goals, I'm unclear if you are referring to the Editor of the Week initiative, the editor retention project, or both. For the latter, discussion should be held on the wikiproject talk page, rather than this one.
Regarding setting deadlines, I think more time is being spent talking about them than finding someone (or volunteering) to do the tasks in time (it takes just about the same amount of time to write down a deadline as actually putting the infobox on the recipient's talk page). Again I suggest that each week, say on Sunday, the weekly to-do list is updated and everyone claims tasks. Without volunteer commitment, deadlines aren't helpful. isaacl (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
It looks like you and @Buster7: are on opposite sides of the spectrum regarding the gap between initially awarding the recipient and giving the recipient their infobox. Kindly discuss.
The discussion has been moved here to the main project page accordingly. Thanks for advising, Issac.
Regarding deadlines, I think the todolist has refined itself. We are working on getting volunteers involved in the project. This will need time, and cannot happen right away. For now, though, the todolist seems to have kept the tasks moving along between Lepricavark and I this past week. Anyone else is welcome to chip in and mark tasks with {{resolved mark}} ~~~ upon completing each one (chronologically). --JustBerry (talk) 22:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Whatever happened before was totally at my discretion and for my convenience. I am no longer committed to a time separation between Award and eddybox. At the same time would be perfectly fine with me. Buster Seven Talk 02:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
In that case, Buster7 and Isaac, Sunday should work fine. The problem with sending out the infobox on Saturday is that the peer reviewing of the infobox is set for Saturday. --JustBerry (talk) 02:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Sure, if the infobox were to be sent on the same day that the recipient is notified, then peer review of it would also have to be moved up. As I suggested before, I think it would be good to have the infobox ready when the nomination is accepted. isaacl (talk) 04:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Let me take a moment to point out how splendid and informative the 2 recent eddyboxes are. Well done, JB. Buster Seven Talk 17:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Apparent retirement of Dennis Brown
User:Dennis Brown, the founder of this group, has, apparently, more or less, retired. I salute him for his years of effort on this project, and wikipedia in general, and I think can say that I with the rest of you wish him all the best and hope that, if he sees fit, he may return to active editing again. And, yes, he had his e-mail disabled, and he's blanked his user talk page.
I note that we do have one barnstar which is already named for a single editor, Template:The Newyorkbrad Dispute Resolution Barnstar. Would anyone have any interest in maybe creating a barnstar for the basic tasks of this group in Dennis's name? John Carter (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I support the idea in principle but I think it's a little too early to be discussing a memorial barnstar for a Wikipedian that has last edited yesterday. Unless there is a volunteer here for it, I think the reward board would be a good place to make the request. This WikiProject could solicit a few designs, decide collectively which one we like best, and perhaps offer a {{The Barnstar Creator's Barnstar}} for reward. But again, let's wait a year or two. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Given that Dennis did not want to lead this project, and that he wanted to help facilitate the work done by many interested persons, personally I wouldn't choose to do this. The real legacy would be to revive this project. The Editor of the Week recognition needs a community behind it just to keep it running, and to help recipients feel like they are indeed being recognized by more than a single person. Maybe the criteria could be revised, or maybe it's time to shift gears and target a different type of editor (say, a rookie of the week award for someone who started editing in the past year). It would be great to have another initiative launched: can we examine Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Reasons editors leave and look for ways to address some of these issues? isaacl (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
isaacl, that was actually the intention when we started it. I cannot say when it drifted away. I'd like to see the original purpose of the editor retention project (which was to facilitate discussion such as the thread immediately above this) revived. However, since Dennis left active participation here, virtually every discussion has ended in a quagmire of negativity. Buster7 tried hard to keep things positive, I've tried to head off negativity by closing negative threads only to be told I had no right. Simply put, IMO, what we tried to do here died in the overwhelming negativity of the past two years (both on-wiki and off). It may not be revivable without a popular charismatic force like Dennis's presence. I'm being negative, I know, but.....look at the thread above. Great thought! How encouraged do you think the proposer is now? And want to take bets on the amount of crap that would be added if anyone had bothered to reply? I'm just as guilty as anyone else, no fingers pointed. John from Idegon (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, as you know, I was there, and I've written about how Wikipedia's consensus tradition can dissipate focus. (I can identify certain points where this trend took place, but it's water under the bridge now.) Dennis is the most well-known member of the project, but the only initiative that has come out of it to date was not primarily guided by him, but by Buster7, Go Phightins!, Mark Miller, you, me, and others (my apologies for those I have omitted; I'm writing this list from memory). Although big changes need broad support, tasks that can be done by small groups can move forward: all that's needed is creativity and commitment. isaacl (talk) 02:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
@John from Idegon: (as the one who objected to your "closing negative threads") I know you meant well, but stifling discussion, positive or negative, is the wrong way to go about trying to revive a group, on top of it being against wiki gidelines/spirit. I learnt this the hard way when my own, apparently unpopular post, was removed from this forum years ago, with the full support of User:Dennis Brown. Ottawahitech (talk) 11:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)please ping me
Ottawa. Mistakes happen. Things get said and done that are regrettable. Whats that old adage? Time heals all wounds. Looking back is not the medicine we need right now. You have been a member since the beginning and I hope can recall when this page was a hotbed of conversation and stimulating ideas. Lets get back to an open forum, a marketplace to share ideas and solutions. I support your reminder that we should all be watchful for censorship and the stifling of input. The problem was that until recently there was very little input. Buster Seven Talk 17:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
@Buster7: I am not as sure as you are that this was not delibertely done. As a matter of fact I continue to see my own edits removed from talk pages. Actually I am starting to believe this is a common problem for many other editors who are being silenced by more popular editors. Ottawahitech (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)please ping me
Back on July First 2012...when the project was only a few hours old...and Dennis warned about watching for the wet paint...he laid the groundwork for what he intended:
I'm trying to start conversations in singular, digestible chunks. Of course, I can't control where the discussion goes, but I try to keep it focused on ideas for solutions, and put different problems in their own full thread, all on the same page.
By the end of the year he said this:
You have to remember that the sole purpose of WER isn't to deal with civility, although that is one issue that fits the goals. We still do many different things via WER, typically not on this page. Often people drop off problems and a member will go and try to help, often with success. The Project is more a place to discuss problems, create awareness, and provide a venue for both sides of debates. If WER has done anything, it has allowed the discussion to take place in a public area, owned by no one. The real work that gets done never happens on this page. But you are right that I am not smart enough to figure out the solution on my own, and you may be right that it is structural and will require core changes, I honestly don't know. I do know that opinions are very split, and getting consensus seems hopeless at this time. And yes, usually I come across more hopeful, perhaps more so than I really feel, but it is just my way to try to project an optimistic view. For now, myself and others try ad hoc solutions in individual situations where we can, but that is a very hit or miss proposition. It is better than nothing, but still less than optimal. As for being a de facto leader, I understand why others see it that way, which is why I sometimes ride the fence, as to encourage discussion and not force the Project into my particular point of view. It is still not the role I wanted, and it is a bit uncomfortable at times, to be honest. There are a great many issues that affect editor retention, and if I had the answers, I would have no need for the project. The purpose is to get people to talk so we can learn and develop ideas. Some solutions are obvious and everyone agrees, but many (like civility) are not. The whole reason to start the project was that I knew the best ideas wouldn't come from me, but from others, and this would provide a forum for them.
A look at the original edit Dennis made to start the project [12] gives us an idea of his original intent. To me, what I heard was I can't control where the discussion goes and it is just my way to try to project an optimistic view and The purpose is to get people to talk so we can learn and develop ideas. What happened was we stopped talking. I agree with isaacl...the real legacy would be to revive this project. Buster Seven Talk 05:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not certain that Dennis has retired, though if he has that would be rather ironic. Anyways, I'm going over to his talkpage & try to persuade him not to retire. GoodDay (talk) 14:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think he has necessarily retired as in left indefinitely, but he has turned in the tools of adminship and blanked his user page, which at least looks a lot like retiring. And, I acknowledge my own off-again, on-again editing pattern has made it harder for me to keep up with things myself, which would make me far less than ideal to revive it. Regarding the matter of civility, and the related matter of stalking of some sort or another, which are two of the big reasons long-time editors retire for less than optimal reasons, maybe, if nothing else, some sort of place for individuals to indicate that they think someone might be "following them around" for less than good reason, with the possibility of maybe getting a few more people involved in the relevant discussions and maybe reducing the impact of the stalking, if that is in fact what is taking place in that instance? John Carter (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
He posted somewhere (can't remember where) shortly before he disappeared, saying that the medical marijuana votes in the US in November meant he'd be very busy (his day job is selling agricultural lighting systems for hot-housing greenhouse plants). I very much doubt he's stormed off in a huff. ‑ Iridescent 21:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
editorial break
John Carter. Your comment about getting people involved in relevant discussions elsewhere in WP rekindles a 7 year old idea. When I first started to edit WP and I was roaming around various article and editor talk pages, getting my feet wet, it struck me how often I found editors singlehandedly trying to fend off attacks from other editors. Many times the individual was new and the "others" were veterans. I thought how good it would be if there was a group of editors (I planned to call them WikiKnights) that could provide assistance and a friendly voice so, at the very least, the lone editor didn't feel isolated and forgotten...so that there was a group that could get them past this moment of stress and strife and help them move on to bigger and better things. I was too young and inexperienced to get it past the draft stage. Maybe it now has possibilities. Buster Seven Talk 05:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Isaacl The WikiKnight idea fits with your "small groups". Kind of like cadres whose mission is to retain the troubled editor. I'm not taking about troublesome editors; more about editors that have gotten into trouble because of their inexperience. Buster Seven Talk 06:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm reminded of a village pump discussion on an anti-bullying task force, which I tried to recast in terms of dealing clique behaviour and setting expectations, both for experienced editors and newcomers. As discussed later in the thread, there are lots of challenges in making this operational, not the least of which is managing the helpers themselves: how can their interactions be guided towards helpful intervention, as opposed to making the situation worse? Unfortunately it is the textbook definition of a difficult-to-staff initiative in a volunteer group: lots of investment in time required in stressful situations, with likely a low number of successes. The Teahouse might provide a function similar to what you are thinking of. Last time I checked, involvement there was drying up, so maybe trying to reinvigorate it would be a good step forward? I encourage anyone to think of tasks you can do yourself or with a small core group, and try them out—if you succeed, great; if not, re-evaluate, and try something else.
On a side note, I think the thankless task of mediating disputes or even just providing some gentle intervention to get everyone talking constructively is an area where it would be useful to have paid staff, simply to ensure there is someone dedicated to the task. As far as I can tell, though, there isn't much support for this amongst those most likely to participate in a Request for Comments on the matter. isaacl (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
In terms of dealing with the helpers as a group, maybe the first step might be for them to leave polite notes on the bullies' talk pages, indicating that they are coming in as, well, observers, in a discussion. They could also then use the same user talk page to address concerns over problematic behavior, while using the article talk page or bullied editor's talk page to discuss the broader issues. Should an individual become too familiar to the anti-bullying task force, they could obviously seek administrative or arbcom attention.
To my eyes, part of the problem might be where to have the anti-bullies discuss things in a way which doesn't maybe contribute to the problem in some way. John Carter (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
In my experience, bullies don't take kindly to notes about their bullying, no matter how polite it is phrased. I think the helpers should just show up in the arena and show concern for the editing future of the bullied editor (who is most likely a newbie). Whatever "the issue is" is of secondary importance to retaining the editor. "The issue" will be handled by the machinery of WP. What WER members should be most concerned with is the possibility that the new editor will be chewed up in the machinery process and spit out. I'm advocating that we don't need one more voice to handle the issue. Those voices are not rare. What is rare is a voice that speaks to the "bullied" editor with support and understanding.Buster Seven Talk 18:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
That works too. John Carter (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
data-sort-value="" | What a loss for Wikipedia if it sticks. I don't think anyone needs consensus if they, on their own, want to create a barnstar in his honor to award to another user. His legacy of starting this project, being a tireless dispute resolution advocate, and a genuine good guy left this project better than he found it. GoPhightins! 17:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Election for New Page Review coordinators
Advance news of an upcoming election for two coordinators to assume the non-official voluntary job I've been doing for 6 years. Candidates who must be New Page Reviewers (or admins), are already invited to nominate themselves (or be nominated by anyone). All autoconfirmed users will be entitled to vote. Full information is available at New Page Review Coordinators. Dates for actual voting will be announced later. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
