Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 → Archive 20

New page patrol noticeboard

Based on discussion at WP:NPP, we are piloting a new lightweight noticeboard at WP:NPP/N. One goal of this creation is to centralize issues with individual new page patrollers, which to date have been largely handled on individual user talk pages. The intention is to help us better identify and coach patrollers that may be engaging in behavior such as hasty tagging and overzealous CSD tagging. You are invited to assist with this page's development, and to post there to alert the patrol team of patroller-related issues you may encounter. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Would you be kind enough to explain to me what New page patrol is. Is it a wikiproject? Who are the New page patrollers? Do they have special powers? Who appoints them? How do they impact on editor retention? Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
@Ottawahitech: As far as I know: NPP isn't a WikiProject, and participation is purely voluntary, without appointment or special powers. Since patrollers can be the first contact that a newbie article creator receives, it could affect editor retention if mistakes were committed. This noticeboard would be an informal way of helping improve the standards of patrolling. benzband (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I stand corrected per VQuark below. benzband (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
@Ottawahitech: more information on patrols in general can be found at WP:PATROL. NPP is a wikiproject focused on reviewing new pages, especially rapidly identifying pages with content that needs to be quickly removed for legal reasons such as libel and copyright violations. Participation is voluntary, and patrollers have no special powers. A list of people who self-identify as new page patrollers can be found at Category:Wikipedian new page patrollers. For a new editor that jumps right in to creating an article, their first interaction with another editor is likely to be a new page patrollers so poor execution of patrols can be a major factor in creating a negative first impression. VQuakr (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
@Benzband: @VQuakr: Thanks for taking the time to explain some of the mysteries of New Page Patrollers. I noticed that there are 1,646 editors registered as New Page Patrollers and 17 registered as New Pages Feed patrollers (not sure what that means). I am just wondering what the value is of maintaining this category list when there are many other editors who also perform the same services (I know because I am frequently on the receiving end) who are not part of NPP? XOttawahitech (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
@Ottawahitech: Wikipedians in Category:Wikipedian New Pages Feed patrollers specifically use Special:NewPagesFeed, a new tool developed by the WMF as an alternative to the older Special:NewPages (see WP:Page Curation). benzband (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Given that anyone can execute the actions of a patrol, there is little practical value to that category. There is, however, also very little effort required to maintain that category as-is since it is mostly populated via userboxes. VQuakr (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
As far as I know, and I've been involved with efforts to improve the process for around 4 years, NPP is not a Wikipedia project in the true sense. It does not have a list of members and apart from a small group who initiated WP:ACTRIAL as a possible solution, and editors such as for example, but not only, Ironholds, DGG, and myself, it has seen no coordinated efforts for improvement. The Category:Wikipedian new page patrollers with its 1,654 entries is totally misleading as the actual number of patrollers at any one time is extremely low - as few as two, one, or even none at any one time.
Just over two years ago a survey was carried out that targeted all users in that cat, plus a couple of hundred more who had been identified as having patrolled pages during a certain period leading up to the survey date. The number of junk responses to the survey (if I remember rightly, around a third of the 1,200 or so respondents) was the most indicative single result of that survey.
Admittedly some of the patrollers are doing a good job, but IMO they are very much in the minority as my own patrolling of the patrollers seems to bear out. The creation of a NPP Noticeboard is a step in the right direction, but I see it becoming increasingly inevitable to set down some minimum criteria for experience for patrolling as has recently been done for AfC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Do we btw have (recent) patrol statistics per user?--Ymblanter (talk) 12:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I doubt it very much. I expect it would be possible to extrapolate but I wouldn't have any idea how to do it. The users in the cat would be of no use as that cat is (or was) populated only by the userboxes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I guess it should be taken by bot from the logs, similarly to how admin actions statistics get compiled, but I am not an expert.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Would be extremely interesting to find out though. (Create a table: Username | first edit | Number of patrolls | first patrol | last patrol). Scottywong is very good at that sort of thing and was a huge help with the NPP research we did in the past but I believe he is in semi retirement now. Probably stats from the last 6 months would be enough. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it has been migrated to labs, but Scotty's tool at [1] appears to be working again. A quick review of the current patrollers shows at least one who has an extremely low mainspace edit count and therefore should probably not be reviewing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Kudpung, you assume that they are incompetent based on editcountitis? Or, you assume they have not demonstrated sufficient moral dedication to the goals of wikipedia, based on editcountitis? I would only agree with the latter (and only then if they had not edited on other wikis or under other uids/IPs/whatnot). For the former, determining competence, a better system than using edit-count as a proxy, is to have many more reviewers, and build in some checks and balances, so that the computers will *tell* us who is doing a good job, and who is doing a poor one. That is a better use of Scottywong's talents: rather than writing a wiki-tool for counting secondary criteria like number of edits, why not develop a wiki-tool which measures the primary criteria of number of dorrect decisions? That's the RfC which I'm planning to launch, after Anne Delong's passes, btw. The edit-count demonstrates moral commitment, but the decision-review-tool demonstrates competence at the task. Both are required; both are orthogonal to each other. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
As I understand it has several meanings. The purpose of the page at WP:NPP is a general sort of advice and instructions that represents a very rough consensus about what is appropriate, which of course many people interpret in different ways. NPP is also Special:New Page Feed and its associated macros and templates, a set of procedures for optional use in evaluating new pages. For it to work, there need to be instructions for using the associated devices. There are other ways of evaluating new pages. Long before we had that special page and its macros, we had Special:New Pages, and its associated procedures. The way most people use it makes heavy use of twinkle. I work a good deal with new pages, and I sometimes use New Page Feed, sometimes New Pages, sometimes various new page alerts that appear on various wikiprojects, sometimes other ways of identifying new pages, sometimes happenstance, sometimes intuition. .
The actual effective things we do with any of these methods depends upon the formal policy at WP:Deletion Policy and WP:NOT, and the associated guidelines for speedy and prod and AfD and for moves and merges and content disputes and COI. The various ways of identifying and working with the articles are just front ends to these.  ::There are a group of people evaluating new pages with various means, but I do not think they constitute a formal project, though there is no reason why they should not do so. Anyone may start it as such, and anyone may join--the expectation would not be agreement with everything about the project, but the willingness to be non-disruptive (I am a member of a few projects where I'm essentially there as a rather skeptical watchdog) There are also somewhat more specialized groups of people who pay attention specifically to Prod, or AfD, or speedy, or the other processes; some of these are organized into projects. I tend to move around a good deal in the different components, and I;d advise anyone else to do the same, because the work of assessing unsatisfactory articles tends to lead to overhasty judgement, and some variety in approach is helpful. (just for the record, I have for many years at least looked at every prod and every deletion review; at one point I looked at almost every afd; lately, I've mostly been working with AfCs. DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
While orchestrated attempts to improve AfC have been made over the past few months, the progress appears to be spiralling out of control with users/admins accused of acting outside AfC recommendations, AfC accused of 'owning' the submitted drafts, while other major contributors to AfC are suggesting they may withdraw their support for the project if they are subjected to sanctions. Although essentially an AfC initiative, progress on the 'draft' namespace also seems to slowing due to many discussions around the site by other users and Foundation staff as to how else it could/should be used.
Due to the many similarities between AfC and NPP, I have suggested many times that it may be worthwhile looking into the possibility of cloning and adapting the New Pages Feed and it Curation toolbar for drafts. However, there has not been a single response to this suggestion and I'm wondering why. Such a solution would require software tweaks that are beyond the access of Wikipedia editors. The Foundation however remains polarised with some having adopted AfC within their plans for new user recruitment/retention and others insisiting that AfC is not within the WMF's remit.
At the end of the day, the goals of both systems are the same: helping creators understand what is and what is not wanted on Wikipedia, salvaging articles that stand a chance of being improved to mainspace quality (and that are likely to receive the necessary attention), deleting articles that will never stand a chance, and keeping blatant trolls and unmitigated crap out of the encyclopedia.
Last but not least, in spite of WER, we need to dispel the Foundation myth that every page creator is a potential permanent prolific producer of appropriate pages - that is one of the arguments they come up with when they run out of reasons to satiate their hunger for stats. They've been told often enough since WP:ACTRIAL that a proper landing page will do most for both user and article retention and significantly reduce the load on patrolling/reviewing and deletion processes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
This is a lot of points, so I'm just going to pick the One True Point That Really Matters(™) and harp on it. Yes, strongly agree NPP and AfC ought be merged, and called WP:Drafts. Furthermore, in the long run, AfD also ought to be merged with them, and Article-Incubator, and the rest. These all serve the same broad function: they bring new eyeballs to a particular article, to give it an experienced review for potential issues. Yet they are not merged. Even suggesting that they be merged, whether by an anon or by an admin, is strongly resisted by the current patriots of each separate group. AfD is seen as too brutal. AfC is seen as pandering to spam. Incubator is seen as a ghost town.
  The end result of having all these teensy-weensy groups is balkanization, infighting, division of effort. This in turn leads to backlogs, widening frustration, arbcom drahmahz, and both experienced and beginning editors alike, leaving wikipedia. The declining personnel count, split up into innumerable tiny little wiki-boxen, is the main thing we must solve. But let us begin slowly, to build Wikiyugoslavia from these balkanized groups: can we unify NPP with AfC, and join forces of those two groups? Kudpung suggests that NPP should be run exactly like he wants AfC to be run, with a reviewer-user-permission, min 500 edits, min 90 days. This is a new wiki-caste, above auto-confirmed, but below rollback.
  So my question is... can we not combine the groups, and combine the wiki-tools, without combining their bureaucracies? Let the people who want to do NPP work set their own criteria, if any (right now there is none). Let the people who want to do AfC work, download the same exact wiki-tool, and use the same exact project-pages, but set their own criteria for AfC-type work. That way, instead of bickering over who has the best wiki-tools, and who has the best wiki-bureaucracies, we can unify the wiki-tools and unify the editor-pools *without* the up-front-cost of getting everybody and their dog to agree on how to run things. Unifying the tools, and especially the pools, is what matters here. Division of effort, and declining editor-count, are the key problem. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Draft-space creates a unique opportunity to establish a new smoother draft management process. I would love to see a Draft Management Project emerging that takes the best from NPP, AFC and other "new article management" procedures to become a coherent integrated new editor-centered system that takes the newbie through the entire process without having to face conflicting advice and processes. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
You are certainly right it presents an opportunity to start over. But the last thing we need is a third process. Rather, as Kudpung says, we need to combine or at least harmonize the existing processes into the new one. WP is complicated enough for beginners as we are--adding too many additional options will confuse them further, increase the work for the reviewers, increase the tendency to have various incompatible standards, and encourage OWNership. Since NPP seems to work better that AfC -- at least in the extent to which there is general acceptance of its processes, it would seem rational to build upon it. The complications of AfC are unfortunate, especially as they have become further elaborated. I think the only serious question is whether we should freeze it to the articles already in the process, or whether we should take whatever has not yet been accepted into the new processes. But this can be delayed until we have the new processes. I am therefore reluctant to translate the AfC processes into working in Draft space, out of concern we might leave it at that. The need, rather, is to devise the simplest new process by which articles can get commented on and screened. DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
(RE to the top idea of creating a notice board) Don't create a noticeboard. A notice board allows editors to coordinate their efforts in quality control, suggesting that certain editors not participate in the space, and general canvasing. Having a noticeboard means that editors who get called on bad judgements can point at a "cabal of walled garden editors who are group thinking to the detriment of Wikipedia". Let the dispute resolution happen just like any other conduct dispute resolution, post on the talk page, be ignored, post on AN/ANI, have a full out drama war in which the project as a whole looses. Oh and if you couldn't tell my entire response is sarcasm up to WP:POINT Hasteur (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

To avoid any confusion or misunderstanding, I'll elucidate some of my points more succinctly:

  • I have not suggested that the functions of AfC and NPP should be merged. Indeed, I do not believe they should.
  • I may have suggested some solutions for improving AfC but what actually happens is, and will be, a community decision.
  • AfC and NPP both suffer from the same problems, namely: too few reviewers, disparate personal standards and criteria when reviewing, low levels of experience for reviewing.
  • NPP has never had an organised project. Creating such a project would help patrollers work as a team, share their ideas, provide a forum for helping each other, and invite the assistance of other, more experienced users.
  • A NPP noticeboard would provide a central location that would help creators understand why their articles have been tagged or deleted, and/or address any patrolling errors.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, that is clearer, yes. Thanks. But how do you reconcile point three (not enough AfC reviewers && not enough NPP patrollers) with your stance in point one (AfC and NPP shouldn't merge). Merging them together reverses the balkanization. The trouble is not just reviewers, but volunteer devs: AFCH and Twinkle and the PageCurationTool and such are all designed/built/debugged/maintained/improved by distinct groups. So we end up with duplication of effort, and not enough devs. The obvious fix is de-balkanization, methinks. Kudpung, why do you *not* think we need to merge? Or to put it more simply, you suggest creating an NPP noticeboard and creating an NPP wikiproject... but why don't we instead just rename WP:WPAFC as WP:WPAFC&NPP, and rename the AFC talkpage the AFC&NPP talkpage? And then convert both of them over to draft-space. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Firstly I'm not opposed to any intelligent suggestions that would significantly imporve both AfC and NPP. If the community came up with a well crafted logical solution for merging the two operations I would probably support it.For the moment however, I have not been able to think of an approriate argument for it - but of course I don't think of everything and there are people around who are cleverer than I am. Close the gap between AfC and NPP by all means but only if it will address the core issues surrounding NPP and if the WMF would support the technical requirements.
  • Technically, AfC and NPP have almost identical reuirements.
  • Main diifference: NPP targets pages creaated in mainspace and therefore has a more urgent need for rapid response while AfC submissions are (to be) made on a dedicated 'Draft' namespace that is not indexed
  • Edit count is not the main reason for the failure of NPP to function well. The problem is one of experience - that said, it is most unlikely that patrollers with only double digit edits will 'have' that experience. While requiring a much higher level of knowledge of guidelines and policies than vandalism and PC patrolling, there is no control over who does it, and very little mechanism for identifying and helping patrollers who don't get it right and no central location for discussing such issues..
  • AfC has a Wikipedia project complete with a coherent set of sub pages. It has a cohesive team who interact regularly especially for discussing what should be done with various submissions, but also for discussing various improvements to the system. In this latter it has demonstrated that it can evolve and has been successful in getting the Draft namespace created and a set of 'qualifications' established for reviewers.
  • NPP was 'given' a superb piece of software - the feed and the curation toolbar - by the Foundation who reasonably assumed that the daily flow of new pages was sufficiently important to create a more streamlined interface for patrollers pages; in this it was successful.
  • Over AfC, the Foundation is polarised. While they concede that this falls within their remit to investigate and provide solutions for Editor Retention, they feel that the AfC process itself is not within their remit and they have stated that they are unlikely to provide any priority to technical solutions requiring intervention from authorised engineers at site level. I interpret that as meaning that they, as the developers of the NPP software, will not entertain any consensus for a merging of the two operations, or at best, they would delay (as they attempted to with the Draft namespace) until hopefully the idea gets 'forgotten' or the community simply gets tired of the bickering that goes on at Bugzilla.
  • NPP does not have the support of an organised, cohesive, active group of members.
  • The Foundation considers the NPP software as complete and has withdrawn technical support for it. AFAIK, Ironholds whichdever hat he is wearing, is the only user to continue to pester Bugzilla to address occasional software bugs in the system.
  • Until such times as NPP has a 'user right' it is unlikely to attract more personnel. User rights are a magnet to hat collectors, but we have to live with that; however, not all users are hat collectors and such rights apparently 'do' attract more editors to a task, and give them a sense of purpose for the work they are doing.
  • A current RfC is attempting to address all these points with the objective of creating a separate feed with its own 'curation' toolbar for AfC. As with all RfCs however, much of the discussion will inevitably wander off tangentially in to other areas that are not up for discussion (yet).
  • The community solution at WP:ACTRIAL would have made both AfC and NPP largely redundant. The solution was devised to address the poor performance of NPP and the Foundation's reticence to develop a proper landing page for newly registered users and/or page creators. The Foundation will still not prioritise anything of the kind, so the community is still left to its own devices. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Slow squeeze on the number of active editors – official statistics

Here is a statistical table for those interested: the same slow squeeze on the number of active editors. I got it by asking a question on the Request for adminship of Piotrus. XOttawahitech (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Another retirement

User:HectorMoffet

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
@Kudpung: Thanks very much for posting this one. User:HectorMoffet is someone I don't remember ever interacting with directly, but it's an account that I have always had respect for. It is a shock to see such a level-headed editor be blocked indefinitely for harrasement! What is going on at wikipedia -- are we losing our way? Ottawahitech (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
He was first demoralized, then expressed that, then was blocked. He left open DYK nominations, such as this, - can we take care of them? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Project Editor Retention logo change proposal

I propose a change of logo for the project. For some time we have actually had two logos. This one:

and this one, which is used as an alternate logo for our userbox:

I would like to begin using the logo made by Kelvinsong:

I would like to make some visual changes to the project mainpage and use the new logo and the basic concept design by Kelvinsong. I think it is unique and professional, yet still very readable and presents a look I think fits well with the project. Something like:

Members - Templates - Talk
Nomination page

--Mark Miller (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know that I'd call it unique, really. While I'm not 100% enthused about the current logo, it at least speaks to giving editors a "hand up" when they need it. The proposed one is...well...very corporate and doesn't seem to have the same sort of symbolism. Great if you're going for a corporate look, but maybe not the best choice for something that was supposed to be somewhat informal and friendly. Intothatdarkness 14:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I like your logo change and support its use. ```Buster Seven Talk 01:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Mythical retirement

I began to notice last fall that half of the user talk pages I was visiting had a banner saying that the user was retired or semi-retired. But I only ended up at their talk pages because I had a question about an edit or comment they made. So, clearly, while they might have had the intention to stop editing, they clearly continued.

I found this puzzling but I couldn't think of a place to ask a question about it until I came across this talk page with all of the announcements of retirements. On the one hand, it's great that the editors in question have not left Wikipedia and have continued to edit (and some without any lulls at all). On the other hand, I think by placing a banner saying they are no longer active, it seems to discourage other editors from engaging with them because, who knows, the editor could vanish tomorrow so why bother reaching out to them or raising a difficult question? I think saying you're retired (or even on a WikiBreak) can allow an editor to continue editing without having to interact with other people, you can just ignore other editors' concerns because, hey!, you're not really active. But, yeah, you are.

I'm not saying this is a big concern or even causing major problems, I just think it is interesting to see so many "retired" editors who aren't actually retired. Has anyone else noticed this? Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes I've noticed it. Just like I've noticed an increase in editors being fed up yet active n general. I think keeping the banner there is just a way of communicating one's disillusionment. Maybe it can also be interpreted as a signal not to expect too much involvement. Of course they could vanish any moment. If you're objective is "reaching out to them" then, in my experience and observation, your efforts will be appreciated and answered frequently, even if they include a "difficult question". The disillusionment likely has nothing to do with your request. If you encounter unsatisfying non-responsiveness, I suggest handling it the way you'd handle non-responsiveness by a user who doesn't have this banner on their page. My two cents, that's all. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
A few points. One, I am one of those "retired" editors. I am actively editing this week because I am confined in a stuck in a hospital because of gastrointestinal problems, which limit my ability to do things on other entities. The circumstances also bore me horribly when they don't pain me equally horribly, and this gives me something to do between bouts of voicing epithets about new invasive treatments I had never previously experienced and the boredom of being confined to a bed between bouts of voicing epithets. Also, at least for me, the primary purpose of the template is to basically serve as a statement that, yeah, don't expect much of any input from me away from individual articles I might be for whatever reason involved in in the short term. And I had noticed one still active editor who, while active editing, kept the retired template on his talk page for a year or more, without any real problems. In many cases, including mine, the fundamental purpose of the template is to say, basically, don't expect to get me involved in anything away from the few pges I might currently be working on or involved in, and I think that is probably true of several others as well. Unfortunately, however, I still haven't purged my roughly 10,000 page watchlist, which is how I saw the comment from Sluzzelin above. John Carter (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I consider (and have labelled) myself semi-retired because I may go a week or two without an edit, then edit a few times in one day, plus I am not actively patrolling any admin areas. Semi-retired means just that, partially active but not fully engaged and may go extended periods without being here. For me, it really isn't a statement of politics, just of fact. It lets users know that if they leave a message, I might see it tomorrow, or next week, or next month, so they should find someone else to reach out to if the problem is urgent. If I were not an admin, I probably wouldn't have used the template. Being semi-retired doesn't prevent me from getting deeply involved with an issue if I so choose, it just means that I'm not likely to, as I've made the decision to focus most of my free time on activities besides Wikipedia. Two years from now, I may be fully active. Or vanished. Who knows. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Mathew Martoma stuck in AFC

Resolved

Is the editor who created Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mathew Martoma worthy of retaining? If you believe so, do you think a simple recognition, such as freeing this article from wp:AFC jail is warranted? Sorry for asking, but I don't even know how to bypass the tag-bombs. Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 15:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The editor was informed why the article is not appropriate at this time. Either they can fix it and resubmit or they can vanish into the ephemera that a great many of the mayfly editors we have do and leave us with this maintanance liability. Ottawahitech, you're a autoconfirmed user. You can, if you want, move the article into mainspace,but realize that if you do, you'll probably incur the scrutiny of New Page Patrollers or CSD fiends looking for pages to quickly punt out of the encyclopedia. All things being equal I'd much rather give the author opportunity to improve the submission in a safe space than to feed it to the wolves in mainspace. AFC is not a jail (it is a place for new editors to create an article with the training wheels and guidance of other editors), and as such I would appreciate if you did not use that language. Hasteur (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I find the question at the top if this section disturbing. An article's suitability for the encyclopedia should surely not be based on whether we like its creator or believe that he or she would make other positive contributions. For the same reason, if the community decides an editor should be banned, but has made good contributions in the past, we don't go back and delete them.
...and, ahem, Hasteur, calling Afc a jail is not nice, but don't you think that characterizing editors (or, I suppose, bots) which nominate pages for deletion as "fiends" is just a teensy weensy bit over the top? —Anne Delong (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
@Anne Delong: And how would you categorize the editors who troll the front of the new page backlog looking for anything to nominate for Speedy Deletion 3 minutes after creation? I prefer to "Call a spade a spade" rather than be wishy-washy on the categorization. Hasteur (talk) 13:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, a term less linked to "demonic supernatural evil" might be "party poopers".... but I was just teasing anyway, Hasteur; your use of such strong negative terms while asking another not to do so just struck my funnybone - I actually agree with most of what you said. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Moved it to mainspace. When Bloomberg and the NYT are using their name in headlines in relation to trials on this scale, then that's notable. Comments and edits welcomed of course on the details therein. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Ottawa asked me about this, and I suggested he move it himself. The individual seems to be certainly notable. However, there are obvious BLP problems, and since BLP is a serious matter, it was not unreasonable for Ottawa to ask advice. But it seems OK in this regard to even the most skeptical BLP scrutiny, , since the individual has now been convicted, and the article is fully sourced to clearly acceptable sources (I checked, and found every individual point to be supported), I cannot imagine the article likely to be deleted at AfD or otherwise. I made the suggestion only that the article text be expanded. I note that at the time the article was first submitted he had not yet been convicted, and I am not sure I would have approved it at that time. The original reviewer made the point, in my opinion properly. Hasteur, I do not see what brings forth your comments. The purpose of AfC is for articles to be improved to the level that they would likely pass AfD in mainspace, not to have them perfect, or to ensure that nobody with an agenda might nonetheless try to delete them.
I am personally check AfC submissions based on the date they were submitted, I look at most of the few accepted AfCs from the days where I check for rescuable unaccepted ones, and I am sending about 10 to 20% of them for deletion discussions, usually for excessive unremovable promotionalism . Most, but not all that I nominate, are being deleted. (that's thesame proportion of unaccepted ones I think rescuable) I think I'm acting as a minimally alert watchdog, not a wolf. DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Even without the conviction, or after an acquittal, they would be notable. Most of the sources here are pre-verdict. For a trial on this scale, just going to trial with this sort of RS interest paid to them is ample. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
@DGG: In the very initial statement Ottawahitech indicated that they were trying to bypass process and not work with any of the editors who had worked on the page before. They asked a question here away from the people who might give them a policy based answer on the article, and instead framed the question as wanting to retain a editor who probably has had their mayfly-day already. If the initial request is hostile, then there should be no manacles on editors who see a end run around established consensus to educate and try to get others back to the established paths Hasteur (talk) 13:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Hasteur: They do not have to work with the editors who worked on the page before. They even have the right to completely ignore them and put the article directly in mainspace. Nobody owns an AfC, nobody owns an article, nobody has the right to restrict comment on an issue. Any editor anywhere at WP can ask anyone they like for assistance or advice. This can ask a question at any reasonable page, and this is a quite reasonable page for the question, as AfC and editor retention are very closely linked. The diversity of opinions expressed at successive reviews gives at least a chance that one of them might be helpful. If someone who declines to accept an AfC sees it accepted by someone else, the proper course of action is AfD. I've done that several times already, with variable results.
More generally, the current procedures at AfC are custom, not policy, and they seem not to be very well established custom, and certainly not very successful custom. I and many others sometimes make page moves and edits and comments outside the usual procedure when it seems to be more helpful. Nor am I the least reluctant to say that I disagree with what the someone else may give, though I try to do it politely. DGG ( talk ) 20:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Let me present a redacto ad absurdum response to show why asking a question about AFC process here at editor retention is just plain silly/wrong. If I had a problem with an admin's actions and was trying to get them desysopped by opening a thread at Village Pump (Misc) I would be shut down and redirected to one of the Administrator's noticeboards. If the user is complaining about AfC jail, they should be coming to AfC rather than than trying to override AfC from outside. Hasteur (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
That's an odd comparison. The OP was asking a question about what to do with an AfC from a retention POV. This WikiProject is a fine venue for that. I don't see the user "complaining about AfC jail" either. I get the feeling you are getting upset about the whole issue, and I don't really understand why. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

With 27 DYK and 7 GA

Another user has retired. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

@Kudpung: @anyone, please help me out here: how in your opinion can others emulate user: Taylor Trescott's formula for success? Responsible for 34 Did You Know/Good Articles while also ridding wikipedia of bad content (some of it my own as my talkpage attests), and all this in less than two years? XOttawahitech (talk) 13:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I will probably be back eventually. In real life I'm kind of in a bad place and I don't want to stink up Wikipedia with my bad humor. Plus editing it isn't very fun for me because of circumstances off-Wiki. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 14:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

@Kudpung: User:Taylor Trescott is nothing but retired, he is actually very active on Wikipedia. Since your posting on 4 February 2014 he has edited: 14 deletion discussions (4 nominations, 3 of which involved women), participated in one Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, and of course participated in discussions at wp:DYK, wp:GA, and wp:ITN . Just thought this may be of interest to wiki-editor-retainers. XOttawahitech (talk) 15:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Editor review closure RfC

An RfC has been started to discuss whether Editor review should be closed and marked as historical. You are invited to join the discussion here: Wikipedia talk:Editor review#RfC: Should we mark WP:ER as historical? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia WikiProject Editor Retention Editor Review?

It has been suggested that editor review be moved to our project space as we are best suited to handle the backlog and future editor reviews. I kinda like the idea. Thoughts?--Mark Miller (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a useful move. Lack of centralised control is one of Wikipedia's weaknesses. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Exactly and on top of that is the fact that we have been discussing the direction the project is taking and how useful it has been. This is a chance to be useful in ways we may not even be able to imagine right now.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I like the idea of expanding the vision and positive effect of this project. I'm all for imagining ways we can be useful. But.....lack of centralized control is also one of this Projects weaknesses. Let's not put the cart in front of the horse. Editor review is a lot of work. Let's be sure we don't take it on until we get an "I'll do the work" level commitment from editors here. I support the idea and I want it to be a success. ```Buster Seven Talk 22:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
That is actually a pretty good point considering how few are able to help out currently with EOTW. Point well taken.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted to say hi to everyone

Hello and greetings to all I am new and love reading everyones things here on Wp (Kittiemaehey (talk) 02:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC))

Invitation to Participate in a User Study - Final Reminder

Would you be interested in participating in a user study of a new tool to support editor involvement in WikiProjects? We are a team at the University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within WikiProjects, and we are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visual exploration tool for Wikipedia. Given your interest in this Wikiproject, we would welcome your participation in our study. To participate, you will be given access to our new visualization tool and will interact with us via Google Hangout so that we can solicit your thoughts about the tool. To use Google Hangout, you will need a laptop/desktop, a web camera, and a speaker for video communication during the study. We will provide you with an Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC).

Please comment about General References vs Inline Citations in Afc submissions

Dear editors: I have started a discussion at the following location about whether and to what degree inline citations as opposed to general references should be required in Afc submissions before they are accepted to mainspace. My comments there are based on my understanding of relevant Wikipages such as WP:GENREF, WP:MINREF, and WP:Notability. I would appreciate discussion about whether I have interpreted these pages correctly. Here is the discussion:

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2014 6#Please comment about General References vs Inline Citations —Anne Delong (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Articles should be accepted to mainspace once they're clear of CSD. Anything else is cleanup – and if it offends you personally, you get to start fixing it.
AfC is supposed to be there as an incubator and encouragement, not as quarantine. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Andy Dingley. Perhaps you'd like to add your opinion to the discussion! —Anne Delong (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Strengthening articles

I have for the moment stopped writing articles. I have been spending some time strengthening articles of others by adding sources, etc. Strengthening articles prevents decent articles from being nominated for the Articles for Deletion process, which can dicourage any writer. Bill Pollard (talk) 05:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

  • I find myself swapping around. Some months, I'm all about new content, others, I gnome, others I build stuff up. Keeps it from getting boring. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • @Wpollard: Yes I believe deletions can discourage editors. When the history of a respected editor such as user: Dennis Brown shows that more than nine percent of his edits have been deleted, and that 9% of his volunteer work on Wikipedia has not produced any visible results, I wonder how other less prominent editors feel about their own accomplishments here. XOttawahitech (talk) 13:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
    • To be fair, a good portion of my deleted contribs might be articles I tagged for CSD for being vandalism or vanity pieces, before I got the bit. Plus other maintenance stuff that gets deleted for housekeeping reasons. I've never had an article I created get deleted, but then, I spend most of my editing improving existing articles rather than creating new. I'm just wired that way. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Actually what causes new editor loss is reversion, and the way it's done (huggle & template messages are a major cause of it) according to multiple research papers on editor retention on wikipedia. What's interesting is the research also shows that reversion improves the quality of contribution by the new editors that do stay. I'd love to see scholarly work out there on AFD. I'm sure the process (the AFD discussion) is just off-putting as the loss of an article.
        But TBH we could all spend years (and have since this project began) talking about what we believe causes editor loss, or we could look at the research and try to act based upon it. There's a great piece by Jonathan T. Morgan, Siko Bouterse, Sarah Stierch, Heather Walls on how effective the teahouse has been. There's other great research out there such as 'Effects of peer feedback on contribution' by Haiyi Zhu, Amy Zhang, Jiping He, Robert E. Kraut, Aniket Kittur that actually contradicts the belief expressed here by Wpollard. Their finding that was "mildly worded" negative feedback increased motivation. However it is well documented elsewhere that the run of the mill way we do negative feedback on WP is destructive (for everyone not just newbies). I would encourage everyone here to google scholar "wikipedia editor retention"[2] and read around. There are very concrete things that could be done by putting the research into action, and indeed looking at how we do AFD and how new editors recieve the feedback of deletion could be one--Cailil talk 16:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
        • We also need to consider whether some editors need to be retained, either by WP:NOTHERE or WP:COMPETENCE issues. It is better to "turn" editors rather than discourage or (in some cases) block them, but discouraging is better than blocking. A certain editor with name including that of a Canadian city might very well fall into that category. There are many people who wish to use Wikipedia for purposes other than that of creating and improving an encyclopedia, or whose actions (even if it good faith) damage the encyclopedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
          • Simply put, I understand and agree that are many who are wanting to subvert wikipedia for other agendas. BUT that's generally not the case with the huge numbers of people we're loosing. We are loosing people because of POV-pushers but bizarely its the more banal, everyday unfriendliness that is the biggest problem. According to the studies--Cailil talk 09:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
          • (edit conflict)@Arthur Rubin: As you know, you are definitely not alone in your thinking that a particular editor is damaging Wikipedia and should not be editing here. Since you seem consumed with this topic why not join forces with this other editor here and have your voices heard by the community at large? XOttawahitech (talk) 10:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict)That is good to hear. I've a habit of not using templates, and my automated edit percentage is in the single digits, which is unusual considering the amount of automated clerking I've had to do. I use a lot of "Dear friend" warnings with extended reasons, glad to see that actually helps. Of course, it is easy to find examples of where that didn't matter since they only wanted to vandalize ("a waste of time" some say) but every time it helps a potentially good editor by not putting them off, it is worth the times it didn't make a difference with the vandal. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the problem is we have teams of people working in the best of good faith with these automated tools. I've seen a number of people doing hundreds of automated edits with AWB etc and I see a lot of (patronizing) huggle/twinkle usage. I think returning to personalized constructive criticism might be the only way forward. For me the "dear friend" method isn't great either. This might be a cultural thing that divides the Anglophone world but the "have a nice day" approach rankles with me. But again maybe the research can help us find what the best tone actually is--Cailil talk 10:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Mentorship IEG Proposal

Hi folks. There is an Individual Engagement Grant proposal related to creating a new approach mentorship that a small team of us have devised, based largely on the proposal advanced by the late Jackson Peebles before his passing. We intend to review current programs and create a pilot to test a more lightweight kind of mentorship. We believe this approach will be a good fit for many editors who wish to mentor as well as for editors who want to learn specific editing skills through mentorship. Feedback is helpful for us as we'd like to address any concerns or suggestions the community may have, and will also help the grant committee in guiding their decisions. If you are interested, we look forward to hearing your feedback on our proposal over on meta (but you're welcome to leave some here if you'd like). I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I assume @Worm That Turned: is familiar? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
    Familiar, but cannot actively support people being paid to help newbies. If the community has got to the point that no one is willing to help then we're not a community any more. WormTT(talk) 10:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
    Paid? I can see conflicts on the horizon. Are the paid employees "more equal" than unpaid volunteers? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
    Indeed. Before arbcom I put a lot of effort into mentorship and adoption. I worked with a large group of people doing it and doing it well. I've been rather out of the loop for 15 months, and I do believe that mentorship and adoption on wikipedia has fallen by the wayside. That's fair enough, especially since the Teahouse has picked up the slack of being nice to new people.
    I just cannot agree that 4 editors should be paid a stipend for leading a wikipedia project like this. I don't want to stand in it's way, because the end may justify the means and the goal is admirable, but nor can I support it. Wikipedia is built by a volunteer community and one of the roles is welcoming and helping new members of the community. It's one thing to pay a developer to create new technical methods to make welcoming easier, it's quite another to pay the helpers. WormTT(talk) 13:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
@Worm That Turned: I think one or other of us has misread this proposal - I was under the impression that the reimbursement was being granted for the purposes of developing a new mentorship program, not participating in it. I would expect the RI project, when complete, to have produced a body of evidence and a number of tools which will allow the actual (unpaid) mentors to do a better job. It's clear from both yours and my efforts at the Adopt-A-User project that what we had in place needs to be improved, and I don't see an issue with paying someone to work towards improving the technical and systematic elements of that process. I don't think anyone involved with the RI project was considering paying people to actually mentor new users. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps I was being over dramatic, you're right, I don't believe that the intention was to pay people to actually mentor. However, I also see very little there that can't be done by volunteers and needs a paid stipend. WormTT(talk) 14:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, you may inadvertently hit upon something... I might put in a grant proposal for paid mentorship. £50 for every adoptee taken up, £1 for every constructive edit they make, £50 per hundred words of advice that you give them, £200 when they pass your adoption school and £500 if they create an article rated B-class or better. We could probably retire and make a living from that. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Plus, y'know, some editors might get some help... that was obviously foremost in my mind. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, the plan was not to pay mentors, and was never a consideration. @Worm That Turned: Can I ask you to clarify what roles/tasks on this project should and should not be funded through a stipend? Perhaps we just need to do a better job of describing roles and tasks on the proposal itself. I, JethroBT drop me a line 16:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I had not really thought of it the way Worm's initial comment characterized it ... ideally, as much as can be done by volunteers acting as volunteers should be done by volunteers acting as volunteers, but to be blunt, we do not have as many volunteers as we used to, which means that to assist the new editors, we have to look at other avenues. Actually, I have not been asked to adopt someone in a long time, and the one person who started adoption with me disappeared, so I do not know what to think. I used to have a rather "hopping" adoption course, not so anymore. Go Phightins! 22:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I'd second Worm's comment here, but my greater concern is just who would get this stipend. At least in some parts of WMUK, the people closest to the party are those least appropriate to be there. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley: I'm not sure what you mean by "closest to the party." The people, in short, who would be getting paid in this grant would be responsible for research, data analysis, programming, graphic design, project management, and conceptual planning of the program. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
@Worm That Turned: et al. I just wanted to chime in on this thread and agree that the payment is purely for getting design and development work done. I also agree that it is a bummer that we can't just do everything with volunteer time, but the sad fact of it is that many of those lending their various expertise to the project need to eat. The cool thing about an IEG like this is it allows Wikipedians who usually work on wiki stuff in their volunteer time to tackle substantially larger projects without sacrificing food, shelter and security. I see an IEG as more of a living stipend that's available to help us get important work done that would otherwise be impossible. If the IEG was actually paying people a competitive market rate (for contractors in the US/Europe) for all of the hours that grantees will end up working, the proposal would probably be 3-4 times more expensive. --EpochFail (talk • contribs) 14:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
@Dennis Brown:, re. "Are the paid employees "more equal" than unpaid volunteers?", as a volunteer on the project myself, I'll be pushing to ensure that is not the case. --EpochFail (talk • contribs) 14:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Attracting and Retaining Volunteers

See: Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention#External links XOttawahitech (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Another missing wikipedian? -- Kudpung

Kudpung (talk · contribs · count) -- last edit 2 March 2014. XOttawahitech (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC) [(updated 13:19, 12 May 2014‎)

  • I emailed him about that time and never got a reply. He and I will chat from time to time, so it was somewhat unusual to not reply, but I didn't draw any conclusions from it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • He's only been gone for a month. Wait and see; I'm sure he'll be back soon. Kurtis (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • This seems unusual for Kudpung. I hope everything is ok with real life. I know how hard reality can be.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • May is here and he still hasn't edited. He just stopped - leaving his status gadget snnouncing that he is "around". —Anne Delong (talk) 11:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I emailed him again two weeks ago, no reply. I might try to Skype him this weekend. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Redirect of potential interest

See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_6#Wikipedia:AN.2FS. I'm notifying this project as the redirect in question seems intended to deceive new editors.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

User Cynwolfe, and other editors who may retire from WP

I am sad that User:Cynwolfe, an invaluable editor in the field of classical studies generally and all things to do with Roman history and Roman society and civilisation, has not edited WP since October. This is a great loss to the project, I just hope she's OK. I know that admins read this page and I would like to draw their attention to the fact that editors are talking about leaving the project because of the article "Jews and Communism", see the discussion on this page -[3]. There have been more or less continuous AN/I threads about that article for about a month now, admins do not do anything except wait for someone to close them as "no consensus". I don't think the usual lengthy bureaucratic procedures are appropriate in this case, that article is a terrible blot on WP and if something is not done about it soon there will be editors who will leave rather than be associated with a site that is pushing antisemitism.Smeat75 (talk) 04:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

That page was made neutral, and then deleted on the grounds of non-neutrality. Which is probably a good thing, but confusing. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC).

User:Lfdder and User:StAnselm

Two more prolific editors gone (the latter with an impressive list of article creations). While there were unquestionably other problems involved here, I find it interesting that both at least partially involve cases where admins blocked without warning for edit warring before 3RR was breached. (User:MrX comes to mind as another recent example, though he seems to have resumed editing.) Again, though these aren't textbook examples of bad blocks (policy was followed), these for me are two more data points in a trend I'm seeing. (Note, I'm not talking about Yunshui's block of Lfdder for personal attacks, but the questionable blocks of other users that precipitated Lfdder's personal attacks on the blocking admin.) I'm not trying to start a discussion thread, I just wanted to leave a note here, perhaps for future reference. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@Adjwilley: I have not come across these editors and don't know if this applies in their case, but I thought I saw someone comment about many editors posting retirement notices but proceeding to edit as before? As far as blocking is concerned it sure appears to be one of the energy sinkholes of Wikipedia. Just mt $.02 XOttawahitech (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
The "retire" thing is a topic on it's own, so I'll start one below. • Astynax talk 18:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Lfdder got mad when I politely asked them [4] to remove a clear personal attack against someone at ANI. After it was clear they wouldn't, I just quietly used the REDACTED template and removed that portion of their comment [5]. Then they posted a personal attack against me on my talk page [6] which got them blocked. They had already put up their retired banner before my reply [7]. They replied on their own talk page. There is no way I could have been more measured or polite in dealing with the problem, and it was clear I had no intention of issuing sanctions at ANI. No one goaded him, he chose to keep ramping it up in spite of being treated fairly. Had they asked, I would have unblocked him myself, but his actions afterwards didn't indicate that is what he wanted. It was almost like he was trying to get blocked. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Dennis, you are right of course about Lfdder, and I agree that they were 100% responsible for their own actions. Whether this was a case of suicide by admin, an excuse to retire, or WP:Diva, we can only speculate. What attracted my attention was what seems to have ticked him off in the first place: the ANI thread about editors being blocked without warning after 2 reverts. What would have happened if instead of blocking two established editors who were in a minor dispute, the admin had protected the page, warned the editors, attempted mediation, or done nothing? ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't know, but it was very clear that the community was fully engaged and holding the admin accountable, the admin was participating fully, someone else had unblocked the editor, so this wasn't sweeping this under the rug in any way. It was an example of how the system works. I find it hard to believe that he was in a good mood, stumbled across that thread, and everything went south from there. And I can't blame Yunshui for blocking him, most admin would have blocked. Had I seen the comment when it was fresh, I would have engaged him to prevent the block (I'm pretty immune to name calling), although I'm not convinced that would have made a difference. He does have 3 prior blocks for just personal attacks, and others for edit warring, so he knew exactly what he was doing. He might could argue about the NPA qualities in the ANI comment, but the comment on my page seems to be solely to get blocked, presumably by me, although anyone that knows me knows I wouldn't have blocked him for a comment against myself. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
(EC)Lfdder was warned most recently in April for personal attacks by Favonian[8] and has previously been blocked 6 times[9] - 3 for harassment and 3 for edit-warring. Furthermore this relatively new (15 months of editing) user gets involved in RichFarmboroughs ArbCom dealings. This is not exactly a person who's been walking the golden path Adjwilley. This is someone who after being blocked for 6th time responds with this[10]. Lfdder's wikirage is the problem here and not acknowledging their less than adult behaviour doesn't help them.
And StAnselm was socking, and their block on May 6 was preceded only days earlier by another one[11]. I haven't seen the ANi thread that your referring to but its these guys own behaviour that they need to address. Using WP:WER to excuse that kind of behaviour wastes time and damages the credibility of this project in terms of actually retaining good faith users lost because of people who editwar, harass and sockpuppet--Cailil talk 19:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I had serious issues with Lfdder about a year ago when he insisted an article should have been speedied and I nominated it for AfD instead (or advise to nominate, I do not remember now). His reaction was clearly well over the top.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Personally I am pleased to see editors with no axe to grind comment. Lfdder gave one external view (supportive of me I believe), another relatively new user Gwickwire was of the opposite opinion (that I should be b& foreva!). All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC).
(Not trying to start a discussion either, but since this thread exists, might as well dump my thoughts too) Blocking regular and serious, non-POV-pushing content contributors for edit warring or for (often selectively perceived) incivility or for anything else that doesn't directly diminish the encyclopedia infrequently produces fruitful results. At best (and very rarely), the contributor will actually "lean a lesson" (yes, I know, blocks aren't supposed to be punitive, but that's theory ...), at second best, they'll ignore, sit out the block, and then continue building or improving content (though possibly with less enthusiasm). Frequently, however, these editors will feel bitter, wonder "why even bother?" and disappear - some admins sometimes call this "rage-quitting", but that label won't bring them back either. I believe and keep believing that the block button should be pushed very sparingly when it comes to regular no-nonsense contributors. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
This is correct. Outside of vandals and trolls, I view using the block button as a failure on my part; a failure to communicate properly. Sometimes, good editors just lose their good judgement for a day and go 6RR. Protection and a stern warning is way more effective than a block. Lfdder is not that kind of editor, they have a history of problems, and have a history of not only shooting themselves in the foot, but of constantly reloading. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Translating effective methods of dealing with a culture of bullying from other organisations

In case other users are not aware, there is another word to describe the culture on Wikipedia, and that is bullying. Users are expected to be 'tough' enough and 'mature' enough to deal with insults and the behaviour of other editors. They are also expected to find their own ways to 'deal' with the situation. I would remind all editors that this is exactly the culture which describes many organisations in which bullying is rife. 'Weaker' users who are not able to stand this culture leave. This is not a healthy state of affairs. This attitude condones and perpetuates a culture of bullying. However there are numerous organisations that have come to grips with and dealt effectively with a culture of bullying. Is there a way to engage with outside pro bono consultants, or get some experience from these organisations, to help us here? Bullying is not a unique problem and a lot of experiences exists outside of Wiki that may help us address the issue here. This may be an issue best addressed at a WMF level. --LT910001 (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the problem - and Wikipedia is far from unique in this aspect - is that human communication is poorly suited to the internet. A lot of the time, you can trace flared tempers and aggravating behaviour back to simple misunderstandings. I don't think anyone has ever slapped {{db-band}} on a page in bad faith, but the end result is, from my experience, likely to result in one less editor staying around, all things considered. An expert level of management and communication is not required to edit here (although one would hope that at RFA it is checked with high scrutiny), and therefore you're continually up against a minefield of people who get offended and upset through straightforward confusion and disagreement. While I accept there is some genuine bullying, I think an overall clamp down would probably end up in a huge backlash of editors, upset that somebody would even consider them to be a bully. Yeah, I wish some editors used the F word less, but they don't usually come out with it for no reason whatsoever. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • YES, User:LT910001, you have put your finger on a major problem at Wikipedia. Bullying has become accepted behavior here and is a major cause of editors leaving. Not only the bullied are affected by it, but also those on on the sidelines, who feel uneasy about remaining silent. In my humble opinion a big part of the problem is the the notion prevalent here that being a conformist is a good thing. Editors are rewarded for voting with the community and punished when they are in the minority. This does not encourage editors to stand up against those who seem to have the support of the majority, even when their instincts tell them otherwise. Just my $.02. XOttawahitech (talk)
  • Well, it's true that human communication is poorly suited to the internet and that's a big part of it and I don't know what the answer to that is. But also, some of this is intentional. There's a point of view, I don't share it but I'll try to articulate as I understand it, alone the lines of "Look. Community-building is important, but at the end of the day, all this is a means to the end, this being making good articles. It's not a garden party and if someone's making idiotic edits let's not pussyfoot around that problem, let's stand up as men and call a spade a spade." Obviously that's wrong, but there's no law against people believing wrong things. There's not a lot of people who believe this but there's enough so that all this is, to some extent, a matter of deliberate ideology rather than something that just happens. Dunno what to do about that, but it makes the problem even harder. Pro bono consultants are not gonna help much if there's a reasonable contingent holding that bullying is feature not a bug. Sorry I can't be more sanguine. Herostratus (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Keeping student editors past the end of the semester

Student editors who contribute to WP "under duress" as participants in an educational course get fairly intensive training on the ways of the wiki, thus many of them perforce become reasonably competent editors in a very short time. The overwhelming majority of them disappear the second their college assignment is completed and never come back. I believe they could become valuable Wikipedians if only we can keep them here after their assignment is over. How do we convert "student SPAs" into long term Wikipedians? Perhaps we need to collaborate with the Educational Program to try to figure out a strategy. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

  • I would imagine that the environment as a whole, rather than a single thing, would play into that. If they enjoy it when are forced to do it, they are more likely to come back. They again, the very act of being "forced" to for credit may taint the experience. Since student projects are becoming more common, that is a very good set of questions. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Encouraging the student editors to come out of their walled gardens (or at least just peep over the hedge) while they are here "on assignment" might help. Pushing subject area WikiProjects to directly engage with relevant Education projects and vice versa is one way to show the students that there is a practically infinite variety of topics and things to do here - WikiProject Medicine has started such initiatives. I have a gut feel that the vast majority of student editors never click on a link that goes outside of their immediate project pages unless their teacher or an Education Project "coach" tells them to. The attitudes of "regular" Wikipedians to students seems to range mostly between indifference and bloody nuisance - very few seem to constructively engage with them. This can be seen by the almost total absence of posts by "regulars" on students' talk pages or their project talk pages - except for various bitey warning templates of course! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
In my very limited experience, the students have, for the most part, not interacted with editors when they do offer any feedback to students. See for example here [12]] under "Planned Addition", which was my first interaction with a student. Gandydancer (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Having posted comments / feedback on hundreds of students pages I would estimate that response rates are in the 5% range. Agree this is a huge issue. We are putting both a great deal of WMF funds and editor community effort into the educational project. If no long term Wikipedians come out of it, the education program is not scalable. I have not seen any long term Wikipedians come out of the education efforts yet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

  • As a point of reference, when you say you haven't seen a long term editor come out of the program, how long a period are you talking about? Over the last year? Longer? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Have been doing student outreach since 2011 Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Editor_outreach Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually I would not be expecting that one would expect a student editor to be making many edits outside of their assignment while they are in school. I know that many of our editors are in school, but speaking only for myself, I was so busy with work or family needs that editing Wikipedia would have been at the very bottom of my list of things I needed to do. I would expect, however, that the student programs may well be planting the seeds for future editors that edit when they have more time to do editing for enjoyment or a sense of playing their part in building and maintaining a "people's encyclopedia". Gandydancer (talk) 19:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Editor retention is not the focus of the education program -- increasing the quality and quantity of the content is. But I just pulled the numbers from Fall 2013 in the US/Canada program -- 3.9% of those students made at least one edit in the article namespace in April (so 3-4 months after the end of their term), and 3.0% made at least five edits (qualifying them as "active editor"). Jmh649, I'd point you to Kevin Gorman as an example of a now long-term Wikipedian who started editing as a student in our program -- Kevin is certainly the outlier; most of the students who keep editing do so on a small scale, rather than being as involved in Wikipedia as Kevin is. Dennis Brown, I wholeheartedly agree that it's a matter of enjoyment: if the students like editing Wikipedia when they learn to through the education program, they'll stick around. But if they don't enjoy it, they're not going to, and there's nothing we can do to make them stay. People don't spend volunteer time doing things they don't enjoy doing.

I said about editor retention isn't the focus of our program, content is. Instead, here's how we think about retention: We want to retain the good instructors. Learning how to do a Wikipedia assignment effectively takes time. The first term an instructor adds Wikipedia to their course involves a lot of work from the education program staff and volunteers to get them up to speed. But once an instructor understands how Wikipedia works as a teaching tool for their class, the amount of time that goes into that course from the staff and volunteers goes down. Then each term, the instructor brings 25 new students to Wikipedia editing. If we train one good instructor who continues doing Wikipedia assignments, we are ultimately training 50 new student editors each year; those students are working on 40-50 new or expanded stub articles each term, and thus the content on Wikipedia in the subject area the instructor teaches gets better through their work. We see a measure of retention success as how many of the instructors participating are returning: this term, 65% of our instructors have taught Wikipedia assignments before, which we consider a good measure of success of the program. --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

  • I completely agree that focusing on instructors is the best use of your time, and it seems the efforts are paying off. I've seen what happens when ill informed instructors send a swarm on students to Wikipedia with no pre-planning: it is ugly and problematic. Here, we ponder ideas on how to keep the students, and just wonder if there is something we can do to increase those numbers. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I sure do agree with Dennis here! Above I mentioned my first experience with a total slacker of a student. I tried to find his/her instructor but was unable. In my experience this seems to have improved and instructors seem to be more available.
Worth mentioning, I wonder if instructors realize how very difficult the students task is when it comes to breaking into an article. Thinking back to a student that attempted to add a section to "World hunger" or something like that, though she put a lot of effort into her work it was obvious that the extent of her knowledge was very limited. I realized that when although she sometimes asked for input, she had not the slightest idea of what I was talking about when I mentioned a very basic hunger issue. Plus, the existing article was the usual repetitive, undocumented, hodgepodge that well describes so many of our articles. Maybe it's just me, but I find that trying to improve an existing article can be more difficult than starting from scratch. Is there a place where students give feedback about their Wikipedia experience? There should be--we could all learn from it. Gandydancer (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Ah, did not realize that Kevin came to Wikipedia through the education program. That is definitely a success story. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you :) I did indeed. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Perhaps the training students get is not adequately making the point that editing is a co-operative process and they should be encouraged to actively seek out interaction with wikipedians outside of their class/group. How many students ever post on subject area WikiProject talk pages? Education project garden walls need a few windows and doors. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I have a significant number of thoughts on this that have been piling up in my head over the course of the semester (previous semester I was a volunteer focusing on other stuff; this semester I've been a paid part time person focusing on education, which also involved me transitioning from no instructional duties to basically being a TA,) but am in crunchtime for the next ten days or so. I'll pop back in as soon as stuff slows down and try to contribute what I can. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I came here from the note at the Education Noticeboard, and I agree with comments above about how important it is to get instructors on board. I'd like to see instructors get pointed towards reading WP:INSTRUCTORS. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I will stir the pot here a little and ask this: as students are, essentially, conscripted to work on Wiki for that limited time span, if at some hypothetical future date student editors constituted a large part of our mass, would we be happy that a large portion of our mass constitutes editors who were involuntarily introduced to Wikipedia, however green the grasses are here? --LT910001 (talk) 08:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

  • I got a significant enough concussion last night that I pretty much lost myself halfway through writing a post after the ping reminded me to post some thoughts here. I'll pop back in in a couple of days. As one comment: LT - in most classes I work with a Wikipedia-based assignment is one choice of several possible assignments, so even though students are writing for a grade, I wouldn't really describe it as involuntary, especially because most courses involved are electives and assignments are introduced before the add/drop period is done. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention/Archive_16&oldid=1142661363"