Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 4

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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

WER Welcome on Twinkle? A thought.

I was just thinking, might it be easier for editors who wish to use the WER Welcome template if it was listed as an option when welcoming new users with Twinkle? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Good idea, Auto. Just the other day, I created a second WER Welcome template at Template:WikiProject Editor Retention/Welcome 2. I was going to ask you to take a look at it and see what you think. It is the Welcome I have been using as a cut-n-paste. ```Buster Seven Talk 02:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC) ALSO, the way it is now, it has my sig so it will need to be changed accordingly. thanks. Buster Seven Talk

Frankly, I prefer the other one, but that's just my opinion. You're still welcome to use that template and I hope it helps to retain lots of new editors. I'm glad you like my idea. If you want me to look into fixing the sig, I'll be happy to, at some point. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I doubt we are big enough of a group to justify their changing TW. There is a way to add the template as a drop down menu, however, by adding a little code to your common.js (or vector.js if you prefer). Maybe a code junkie will help here and save me from trying to figure it out. I haven't greeted many users lately and I keep forgetting the template name :/ Between admin duties and pretending that I'm an editor, I've been busy indeed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Ryan! Are you out there, Ryan? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I did this once. Go to Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences. Scroll down to "Welcome user" and click the button that says "edit items". If you have to, click add in the popup menu. Put in the template name of the welcome menu in the left column and put the name you want to display in the right column. If it doesn't work, I might be able to figure out how to add the code to your twinkle options.js Oh and don't forget to scroll down to the bottom of the page and tell it to save changes. Ryan Vesey 02:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I tried, but it didn't work. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Did you bypass your cache? What browser are you using? Ryan Vesey 02:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

No. Was I supposed to? I'm using Firefox. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Yep, your code appears to be correct (although you didn't add a label). Try holding down ctrl and shift and then pressing R. Otherwise try completely clearing your cache using the instructions at Wikipedia:Bypass your cache#Mozilla Firefox and other related browsers. Ryan Vesey 03:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, now it is an option, but I have another problem. It adds my signature twice, because the welcome template is pre-signed. How do I work around that? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you'll need to create an alternate version of the template that doesn't sign automatically. Ryan Vesey 05:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll have to look into that at some point (unless you want to do it for me?). AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 05:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting ready to go to the airport. Not sure if I'll buy wifi, if I do I'll do it, otherwise I'm not sure when I'll have a chance. (I'd normally never buy wifi, but I'll be at the airport for 5-6 hours before my flight leaves). Ryan Vesey 05:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I see. It's none of my business, but if you're going home for the holidays or wherever you're going, have fun and be safe! I can look into the template myself. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 05:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Men at Work. Norm aka Buster Seven Talk 14:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is the unsigned version. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It's still not working though. I got this result using Twinkle. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Twinkle, twinkle little star how I wonder what you are Ottawahitech (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Twinkle is an automated program that allows editors to easily tag pages, leave welcome messages, leave warnings, and take a few other actions. Ryan Vesey 03:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

What if we made it a default option under "Wiki-Project welcomes"? Wouldn't that be easier to configure, as it would appear for all users who are welcoming new editors? Go Phightins! 13:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe I fixed the template, my internet is running at a pace that would make dialup look fast so I can't test it. Ryan Vesey 03:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

It looks to be working now. Ryan saves the day again with his ingenious understanding of the coding! AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't have time to analyze this so I'll just give you the link

I don't have time to write much about this, but this statement is important for editor retention. Ryan Vesey 06:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm just out the door, but I just wanted to comment that the notion of random acts of nice comments, especially validating work done (and not just by wikiangels, wikielves and others), is a good one, too easily forgotten in the hurly-burly of fighting for our very lives in the shallow puddles of strife-torn talk pages. --Lexein (talk) 18:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Your thoughts

Stands in the open doorway, and looks around the place...

So, I've been watching this off and on since it was started, and I was wondering: What is your opinion on how it has helped? Both you personally, and "editor retention" as a whole? - jc37 03:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I've probably intervened in over a dozen cases that were brought here, with some success in helping people, and many dozens of other instances where intervention in the name of WER has been beneficial. It has taken the idea of "editor retention" and given it mind share in the community. I see the phrase used much more often, so the community is thinking about it more. It has given people a "catch all" environment to discuss topics that don't really fit anywhere else. Sometimes a place to bounce ideas, sometimes a place to vent. It has been active less than 6 months and is still in development, building its own niche yet has over 100 members. It serves as a noticeboard to point to areas where we need assistance. It is a marathon, not a sprint, and it will forever be mutable. It is the type of project whose greatest contributions are the people and the things they do every day, off this page, but influenced by the common ideas we share here. Is it helping? Yes. Can we do more? Yes. Will we ever be done? No. I also have a couple of ideas in the wings, but not ready to bring here yet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I enter the day of Wikipedia editing with the intention to retain editors, to deal with the editors I meet with a handshake and not a fist. Membership and envolvement in WER has given me a focus, not just here at WER, but throughout WP. Is it helping? Yes. As is evidenced above WER talk provides a soup caldron for brainstorming new ideas. Instead of blocking the doorway, why don't you sign up and see for yourself. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
All this discussion has encouraged me to take a more kindly, positive and proactive approach to others here on Wikipedia. And to consider the bigger picture when adding content or editing myself.Edwardx (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I've also been watching this from the sidelines since around the time that it started. I think for me, personally, it's helped me become aware of things I didn't know I was doing wrong and problems I didn't know existed. Every now and then it will spark a good idea and I'll go out and try to fix something. As I believe others have said above, it would be hard to measure the effects of the project, but from my perspective the net effect is definitely positive. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Mechanised edits, discussions, and editor retention

Ok, let's see what you all think. This is intentionally stream-of-consciousness, so happy reading : )

While from my experience there are several overall issues Wikipedia should deal with in regards to edit retention, one that we could talk about is so-called "automated editing", whether using AWB, twinkle, bots, etc.

There is a clear sense of "fait accompli" related to editing this way. One editor with twinkle can nominate a LOT of pages for deletion in various ways, that it takes an editor editing manually a lot longer to try to keep up with,

And we have reversion tools which, while well intended, can be rather soul-less in dealing with well-meaning editors.

One possible option might be to have a "no automated editing month" to help nudge editors to actually take a moment and actually edit, which might help with the "Wikipedia the video game" mentality. ("Look at me, I've reverted 3000 vandals") An editor is not a vandal. That idea should be ended. Performing test edits is not vandalism. And for that matter, (except perhaps in the case of a clearly vandalism only account), we shouldn't be involved in placing labels and calling anyone a vandal.

This without getting into the BLP issues and how that has utterly changed editing of ALL articles.

I have a lot more examples, showing ways that these things all interrelate, but I fear tl;dr : )

Anyway, thoughts, ideas, comments? Discussion welcome. - jc37 07:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I think one of the big problems with Twinkle and the like, and I'm as guilty of it as the next guy, is the fact that we "over-template". An editor performs a test edit, we slap a level one template, he does it again, level two, etc. Editors can clearly see that it's a template, and often times, I think they ignore it. As mentioned, I'm guilty of this, and have been trying to rectify it in recent weeks, but I still find myself reverting, and slapping a warning. Huggle even does this automatically, so even less thought goes in to the template. Perhaps that would be an area to start trying to rectify what clearly is a big issue. Go Phightins! 11:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

See talk:Synchronous motor for a variant of this. One editor armed with The Flaming Sword of Policy can come to an article on a topic they have no knowledge of, blank half of it for being uncited (whilst editors familiar with the article had reworking it on their to-do lists somewhere after polishing the cat), then generate pages of argument over their actions at the ALLCAPS boards. Editors who could be doing something more useful are wasted on defending what we already have, whilst the original editor wanders off to find a shiny new clicky-button of Twinkle on another page. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

That is a real concern, one that I even take seriously for myself. My automated edits have gone down since my RfA, 10.5%, but were only 12% then. And SPI forces me to use automated tools, it really isn't optional. I had to check, and noticed Jc37's has ONE automated edit (how is that even possible if you block people? I guess you add the template manually.) Go Phightins! is 29.51%, Andy Dingley's is 14.07%. These aren't good or bad, but it just shows that it isn't always how much you use automated tools, but how you use them. There is absolutely and positively a group of well meaning people who use TW for new page patrol and recent change patrol and overuse the automated tools. It can become a way to rack up contribs, like points in a bad video game. They revert vandalism and bad edits by the hundreds per day, but even being right 97% of the time is a problem is you are reverting 5 or 10 good edits and templating them in the process. We don't have the ability to remove someone's access to Twinkle as an administrative sanction, something I wish we could remedy. Some people, even with good intentions, should not be using the automated tools. It only allows them to make more mistakes, quicker. Improper use pisses off good editors and the person doing the templating is typically working so many pages, they never see the reply to their template on that users page, thus the user thinks the templating editor disagrees or doesn't give a damn. There is a task that would help us at WER, Jc37, get us a policy and technical change that would allow TW access to be physically taken away from an editor when it is needed. That IS a retention issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Lol, believe it or not, DB, but you really can edit doing everything manually : )

(What was the one edit?)

I did sign up for awb (and created user:Jc377 for use with it), but I'm just not comfortable with it.

I seem to recall trying to start a discussion about tools, but those who use them balked, and said that there was no way to stop them. - jc37 17:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Like and agree. I don't get my lunch from an automated vending machine. I like the personal touch I get at the local "greasy-spoon" diner. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The black list used by Twinkle was removed; from a technical perspective, as I understand it, anyone could make use of a customized version with the check from the Twinkle script removed (though to do this surreptitiously is a little more involved). See Wikipedia talk:Twinkle/Archive 30#Blocking specific users from using Twinkle for links to more discussion. From the discussion, I think (though am not sure) that actions taken by the tool cannot be distinguished from manual editor actions. isaacl (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Still, the extra work of having to write a script to run Twinkle might be enough of a barrier to keep out some of the people we don't want using it, 14-year-olds for instance. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that use of tools per se is a problem, and if there are problematic aspects I don't believe they are as bad as say template bombing of articles. I use Hotcat for categorisation, and I doubt many people mind categorisation; In fact I count the edit that categorised the first article I created as my first interaction with a wikipedian. Similarly with AWB, not that I use it myself, but I do a lot of manual typo fixing and people very rarely object to it, why would it make a difference if one was using AWB? When it comes to deletion one of my bugbears is over editors who tag an article for deletion but don't bother to inform the author - I think it would be a lot less bitey if we could get such manual editors to install twinkle, at least then the author gets some sort of an explanation. Ϣere SpielChequers 18:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Jc37, Oh I know you can do everything manually, and I've been here long enough that I have done just that: CSD, AFD, you name it. Yes, manually entering the templates, notifying the creator and transcluding the AFDs, I have probably done hundreds of those. Most people nowadays probably don't even know that you CAN do that. I don't do those manually now since TW does just as good a job for those purposes. I still enter the vast majority of my talk page warnings and notifications manually. I prefer the personal touch on those issues. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
WereSpielChequers, I don't think that AWB is the main problem, I think vandal patrol, new page patrol and recent change patrol is where I see the most problems. New editors that want to be content police. Good intentions, but not enough experience to do it well. CVU was started to fix that, and it has helped, but some people simply do not need to be patrolling. User:Anderson (aka User:Scott Delaney) was a good example of a bad patroller that I had to follow around through his different names and couldn't get blocked at WP:AN for months, until he was caught socking. His having the tools and our inability to prevent him likely cost us a few editors. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Heh. I was thinking of Scott when I made the reference to 14-year-olds above. It would have been nice to have been able to block Twinkle for him. He was putting these big high level vandal templates on well-intentioned editors right and left. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown, I think we are more in agreement than you might think. My concern is with the drift from improving articles to templating them in the hope that others will improve them, and I see that at its worst at newpages and recent changes patrolling. No newbie is going to be offended if someone fixes a typo, and few are likely to be offended if they come back and find that their contributions have been wikilinked and maybe rearranged a bit. This thread started off as a critique of tool use, and I'd concede that a templater or an overenthusiastic deletion tagger can do a lot more damage if they have tools. But generally it isn't the tools that are the problem, though perhaps their use by people who aren't ready for them can be an issue. Perhaps we need some way to restrict editors who've misused a tool from continuing in its use. Ϣere SpielChequers 19:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

That is kind of my point. There are times when the best "sanction" would be the community taking away TW access, to slow them down and make them think about each edit. That is better than blocking them. We currently have no way that I know of to achieve this. We can technically create the sanction and tell them that they have to uninstall TW via their preferences, but we can't enforce it except after we prove they have used it. Right now, our only option that is enforceable is to block them, which is often overkill. We need a way to disable all tools, TW in particular, as an optional sanction at an administrative board. If they had to put a link in their common.js file, we could remove it and protect that page, but that isn't how it is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that, for some tasks, Twinkle or other automation is easier than doing it manually, and for those I usually use it. But especially when I revert edits using Twinkle, I usually leave an edit summary, rather than just reverting it as vandalism, even if it is vandalism. For things like starting deletion discussions, CSD, PROD, or talkback, I think using Twinkle makes more sense than doing it manually. I agree, however, with Dennis that having a way to ban users from Twinkle would be helpful in some cases. Correct me if I'm wrong, and I might be as all I have is a vague recollection, but didn't someone (I have a name but don't want to share it in case I'm wrong so as not to offend said person) get banned from automation for a while? Go Phightins! 20:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive221#New Twinkle blacklist proposal had similar proposals for managing a black list of editors. The end result of the discussion, though, was that editors should incur the same consequences for problematic edits using Twinkle as problematic edits made manually, and given this, a black list was not deemed necessary. Perhaps a discussion should be restarted on this topic? isaacl (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

@Dennis - I've been saying that for quite awhile. Perhaps you all will have more success than I have had with it. - jc37 03:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Concerning discussions

More and more I am seeing discussions consisting of opinioned "votes", and less about policies related to WP:NPOV (such as WP:V and WP:OR). And treating the MoS like it's etched in stone. These days, presentation seems to have way more weight in a discussion than the actual content under discussion.

And imagine a new editor wading into this seeming bureaucratic world of project space with its arcane processes, and endless miasm of policies, guidelines, and opinions. Wouldn't they feel like they are a stranger in a strange land? And since they are a volunteer, do we think they will take the time to understand the issues, especially when the "voters" in a discussion consider discussion as "badgering"?

Drive by voting is a bane, and the dismissive animosity given out, rather than sharing and even better, educating other Wikipedians, should be dealt with. And since when is an XfD supposed to be an adversarial debate?

One thing that could help is re-affirming even more clearly how closers are to weigh comments per policy, and not "count votes".

What do you all think? - jc37 17:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I actually pitty new editors. It was bad enough back in 2006, but the spiderweb of rules is mindboggling. Of course, that is one of the driving forces behind WER. Lots of members work the teahouse, do welcoming, I jump into a lot of new user issues at ANI, many others jump into disputes to help out as well. We catch as many as we can before they slip through the cracks, but it is like carrying water in a colander. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

- My first article was proposed for deletion within a day or two if its creation. It was eventually kept, but that experience really upset me, and for that reason, I didn't start editing in earnest for six months after that. I think the Teahouse is a great project, and wish it'd been around when I was a newbie, as I would have probably been its biggest customer for questions. Paulmcdonald was my personal Teahouse for awhile, however. Anyway, I agree with Jc37 that AFD is turning into a vote, not a consensus building discussion. Go Phightins! 03:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  - I think JC37 really does have agood point. Closing discussions should not be done by just counting the !Votes. The closer should take the time to read all the comments and see the true consensus of the involved, not just the raw vote count. Many times the editor is voting a particular way, but has caveats or more to say about more of the situation. Some !Votes may actually have comments that may lead a closer to dismiss the vote as a misunderstanding of the situation or find it is accompanied with a clear agenda to disupt. Closers have to look at the bigger picture about what is being asked in the original statements and whether the discussion may be asking a malformed question so confusing that it is clear !Votes are for an entirely different expectation.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
    - This is how it is supposed to work, and why we prefer admin to close the tough decisions, based on the theory they have more experience doing this. You have to be very careful closing against the vote count, so it doesn't look like a "supervote", and some admin just don't want to deal with deletion review, so the easy way is to just stay in line with the tally unless there is a real issue with the votes. I've seen reviews for AFDs that ended "no consensus", which is silly as that isn't a decision, it is a "lack of decision, so default to keep". Honestly, most discussions that is moot, since it is usually fairly one sided, thankfully. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 04:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Current Signpost

Note: See Technology article below, about Snuggle and assisting new editors as they make their way around the sharp corners of early editing. Also, the article about Sandy Hook points out that many of the early arriving editors at the article were brand spanking new and made well-intentioned but problematic entries. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

News and notes: Arbitrator election: stewards release the results

WikiProject report: WikiProjekt Computerspiel: Covering Computer Games in Germany

Discussion report: Concise Wikipedia; section headings for navboxes

Op-ed: Finding truth in Sandy Hook

Featured content: Wikipedia's cute ass

Technology report: MediaWiki groups and why you might want to start snuggling newbie editors

Honestly, I think the issue has gone fairly smooth, with only two or three blocks. It has been hectic as hell, to be honest, but a great number of people have pitched in to help keep the talk page calm, and we have been able to deal with problems in a rationale way. There were problems, but we expected as much, and they were dealt with in an even handed way. Drmies wrote that article so he wouldn't mention himself, but he has actually been an important voice of reason there. So has LadyofShalot and others, including many that aren't admin. The admin could not have done it without the help of the experienced users helping, we would have been forced to fully protect the article, so kudos to them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

"This is your Wikipedia article calling"

This is a forget-me-not reminder from Wikipedia article The article you contributed to, which you recently expanded:

It's been 3 months since you worked on me. I'd like to invite you to come back and edit me some more! Since you've been gone,

8 editors have added(subtracted) a quarter-page of text
3 citations have been added
The Production section has not been expanded
Two other articles you touched1 2 have not been modified
One article has been nominated for deletion, but was kept
Two people left 2 comments and a question on your Talk page.

If you have some free time, come on by!

Key points: opt-in at signup, four reminders per year maximum, no reminders if 1 edit every 3 months, stop after a year, summarize recent edit activity, note areas/articles needing attention, round text size to pages/page portions.

--Lexein (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

If this was a separate "watchlist" like feature, and not on all articles I watch (my watchlist is in the thousands), then that is a very interesting idea. An opt in feature that keeps you from forgetting about articles you want to check back on. I keep some lists, but they are muddled. Obviously, that would be a technical thing and not something we can just "do", but I would like to hear some opinions on it. This is the kind of thing you would take to the village pump if you thought it might garner enough support. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be very helpful if an editor could set a timer to have a reminder come up on the user talk page after a certain number of days, weeks or months, or by an exact date. Sometimes the topic is scheduled to have a major change happen to it in the future. Binksternet (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly, like a drop down menu with many time options. You know what, I'm not programmer, but I bet a script in your common.js and a bot could do those things without any change to the actual wikicode. There would be some limits as to functions with a bot but it only needs to be a simple thing: article name, period to wait for timer, one line summary to serve as the reminder as to why you are being reminded. It would be a drop down, like how twinkle is, and pop up a simple menu. This isn't trivial to do but not beyond reason. I wonder how much support and/or need there is for something like this? This doesn't address all the things mentioned above, but it does some. I wonder what else could be done with a bot like this.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Oooooh, I was thinking of email (registered users), and y'all are thinking about Talk page notices. That's good, too -- with a short email reminder? --Lexein (talk) 02:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Both email and talk page are good options to have. Binksternet (talk) 02:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

What would be helpful is to have someone who knows bots come here and offer guidance on what is reasonably easy to do and what is not. With that info, you can formulate a basic outline of a plan, take it to the village pump to gauge interest. If interest is high enough, the tough part is then finding someone willing to manage the bot. MBisanz might be a good person to ask early, he is a crat and involved with bots and approvals. I will ping him to just get an early opinion from him. This might have been covered or discussed before. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Would pinging Ironholds/OKeyes be helpful? He seems to be involved in this type of thing. Go Phightins! 03:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

NOOOOOOO!!! He should be spending all of his time solving my popups for readers idea. In reality, the WMF is rolling out a new notification system. I've got no idea if this could be integrated, but I'm assuming most of the work will need to come from the volunteer side. I think a user generated bot would be the best idea. Let's leave a note at Wikipedia:Bot requests at least to see if it's feasible. Ryan Vesey 03:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

This particular idea has never been tried before. It's similar to SuggestBot, but not the same. I think it would be a fine idea so long as it either was a) opt-in for any article or b) opt-out + nobots compliant and only applied to articles a person created as a newpage. MBisanz ^talk 03:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's not limit the idea to pages the user has created. Binksternet (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

- I was thinking opt in with a script in your common.js, which made a drop down menu so you could choose that article, and a period of time and summary to be echoed back to you. There are lots of articles I wish I could get a talk page note "Dennis, three months ago you said to ping you to follow up regarding notability" or similar. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  - Dennis, and this is a wacky way of doing things I know, but for example today, I was asked to keep an eye on the TFA, James Tod, so I told my Google Calendar to send me an email yesterday, so I'd remember. I use Google Calendar's email notifications for roughly this purpose. Granted, a bot would spit out more info. than simply, hey Go Phightins!, go check out the article you created, but if all you want is the reminder, that's one way of doing it. Go Phightins! 03:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
    - I hate calender software, I want it to be almost as easy as adding to watchlist :) I'm still pondering this. This is a very interesting idea that Lexein has dropped on our laps. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Formalised exit interviews

In order to retain editors we need to find out why they leave. As far as I know there is no good quality data on it. It is anecdotal and not collated and only a small amount of info. This project should have a system of formalised exit interviews to gather this sort of data. Over time we will see trends. We can then make changes to reverse the trend. But we only want to retain the good editors of course! But that is a matter of opinion! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

@ Alan Liefting, You and I do not seem to agree a lot on things.

Could you please tell us which editors you feel wikipedia should retain, and which ones ones we should make it clear to that they are not welcome? Ottawahitech (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

What a bizarre idea. Whilst the information gathered would no doubt be useful, how on earth would we persuade an editor who we've just driven away to spend further time with any sort of questionnaire? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Some may be driven away and some decide to leave for other reasons. Even some those who are driven away may remain very supportive of WP and want to help out in some way. What is so bizarre about the idea? It is no different to exit interviews in other organisations. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

But will the system make changes based on those interviews? That's usually the downfall of exit interview processes...there is often little faith that what is learned will be used correctly or constructively. The temptation will always be there to ignore unpopular results by saying that "they were just pissed off so this isn't a real issue," to give one example. Intothat darkness 23:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Good point but that is only conjecture. Based on what I have seen to date it will certainly be difficult to move the bureaucratic behemoth that is Wikipedia in any direction. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we're short on information as to why new (or old) editors are discouraged by the atmosphere. How big a list would you like? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you ever done exit interviews? They're either impossible to arrange, owing to no-shows, or else they're made compulsory by some heavyweight compulsion (which we can't really impose here) and so they're far from an open communication. "We should have exit interviews" is great in principle, but impossible to implement. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this a great idea. People leave for all sorts of reasons, and even those "driven away" may be quite willing to share their reasons, and we may learn much of value. Sometimes we need to pay more attention to things we don't want to hear. Edwardx (talk) 23:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Many people who feel driven away are going to be reluctant, or even hostile to the idea of an exit questionnaire. I often leave a note on their talk page, saying I understand their frustration, offer my email and talk page if they want to talk about issues, thank them for what they have accomplished, etc. I don't try to talk them out of the situation generally, as that has a boomerang effect. Sometimes I email them, if I know the circumstance, but I don't pressure them, I just find a common area we are interested in and just chat about general things and allow them to open up at their own pace. This is why the majority of work that is done via WER go unseen, these are often private matters. At the heart of Editor Retention, we have to accept the reality that we can NOT stop everyone from leaving, not even the best people. We put some effort into it, but we put even more effort into solving the problems that led to them wanting to leave in the first place, the environment here. As a project, I don't see us using questionnaires, which of course doesn't stop anyone from doing it of their own volition, but I wouldn't recommend it for the reasons stated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

This might work if the exit interview is initiated by an invitation email (or Talk page post) after (say) a month of no edits,

gated by observation of a dispute, lots of reverts or bitey comments,

phrased "Have you left Wikipedia? If so, we'd like to discuss why."

Directs to a real poll form, or a mentor editor's Talk page

If no evidence of problems or disputes is initially noticed, then maybe try the "This is your Wikipedia article calling". --Lexein (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Help desk controversy

Resolved

Please see this exchange and the subsequent blocking that happened on the help desk today - Wikipedia:Help desk#Cease and desist notice: Jackie Kong and then User talk:Favonian#Blocking of Wstreiff. See also User talk:Wstreiff

Certainly a case of non-careful admins blocking at will, and without explanation. We really need to see how block-easy our admins are and whether or not they give sufficient explanation to those being blocked.

I also suggest a mandatory layman's explanation to be given to all blocked users so they can actually understand why what they did was wrong (even the vandals and the socks!! They also might just be cases of people not knowing they were wrong!) [If the admins cannot do it, I suggest our ER project try to take this task up to make sure to comment in atleast 2 lines explaining what was wrong, and what can be done to help it. At least in the most important of these cases]

[I recently also had to deal with a blocked editor asking for help over email to me. It was pretty clear that the blocking box was not sufficient for him to understand the intricacies of blocks, removing them and the policies involved].

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

We don't usually deal with admin actions here, since this isn't a good place to analyse their actions, and wouldn't be fair. I see you have contacted him on his talk page, which is where I recommend the conversation take place. WER isn't a review board or admin board, we really can't do that. We can focus on the bigger issues, but one of the few rules we have here is "don't point fingers". This keeps this place drama free, and the problems in the proper venue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

What will be the proper place for this? And do you think the admin must be told further that his actions were incorrect. I believe so.TheOriginalSoni (talk) 04:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Any time you disagree with the actions of any editor, admin or not, the place to go is their talk page. Just discuss it calmly. Maybe there is something you didn't know, maybe they did make a mistake, or maybe the two of you just disagree on it. The key here is that you don't run off somewhere else, you first try to discuss it with the person, doing so calmly, politely, thoughtfully. Sometimes this means waiting a day if you are very upset. Like anything, treat them with the same respect that you want to be treated with. Every admin I know will gladly explain any action they made if you just politely ask about it. Really, we are obligated to. So, wait if you need, go ask, and discuss but don't debate. Most of the time, that will solve the problem, or at least allow you to understand their actions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Tshirts

This is the kind of shirt I received. Thank you, now go share the love with someone more deserving!

Has everyone noticed Wikipedia:Merchandise giveaways/Nominations? I think this particular WMF initiative has potential, at least in this case they are trying to improve editor retention. Ϣere SpielChequers 02:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I announced it when it first came out, but it is worth repeating. I ended up with a blue tshirt after being talked into accepting it, even asking everyone to not vote for me, but I appreciate the kindness, and made a donation to cover it. It is a very worthwhile program, and I agree that everyone should stop by and at least look. Lots of new names up there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I received the offer of a virtual one and responded that it is exactly what I like - no discussion about what I do (it's all on my user and talk), and no stuff for me please ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I found this interesting

[1]

This was posted by an IP who said that he previously had an account, but abandoned it to edit as an IP. It's rather telling; I'm not sure what if any correlation it has to editor retention, but if nothing else, it's worth a read. Go Phightins! 23:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

That is interesting. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I dropped them a note. I've done this exact thing before. Note the gap in my history: [2] I don't want to pressure anyone to get an account, I'm just glad they found a way to contribute in a way that is comfortable for them, but I still invited them to talk if they would like. I would be interested in hearing their perspective. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I only made a handful of edits as an IP, less than a dozen, before creating my account. The gap in my history was just due to a loss of interest...I got fed up with some of the same things that we are seeing younger editors get fed up with, and pretty much abandoned ship for four months, and then started gnoming, and then got up to my present level of activity. Go Phightins! 01:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I gave up as an IP due to the assumption of bad faith practiced against them(me) at the time (2006), apparently due (then) to just a few recent-change patrollers with sticks up their butts. Registering a) raised the stakes apparently, so that editors seemed to assume they were dealing with a person with a name, instead of an assumed vandal, and b) made my edit history an asset to keep and protect. That's why I wrote, "I am not a number" on my User page. But I don't have any advice to offer anyone from that. --Lexein (talk) 02:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

IP's are the "illegal aliens" (O how I hate that term) of WikiWorld. They are a hard-working trust-worthy bunch that get castigated because of the actions of a few. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Editor of the week

I've been kicking around the idea of an "Editor of the Week" program. I had originally thought of a daily thing, but don't think we have the resources to put into that. But a weekly award, basically to highlight someone who might otherwise fall under the radar. A way to simply acknowledge some otherwise ignored contributors. It would probably lean towards the content side, simply because building the encyclopedia is why we are here. It would require more structure than we normally have around here, with a few people sort of clerking it, anyone able to nominate and providing a reason, people to check them out, a simple discussion on it. It would be important that we stay completely neutral in how it was done. It would take some work, however, and follow through, so I wouldn't even throw out a proposal unless I felt like there was very strong support, not just in the idea, but in running it. Or maybe someone here has a better idea. We all work to give up barnstars and such, I just think a more formal way of doing it might be more efficient and consistent. It would also allows us to have a queue, to allow for busy weeks, etc. Your thoughts please. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Question: What do you mean "we all work to give up barnstars and such"? I think this is a good idea, I just am confused as to what the aforementioned phrase means. Go Phightins! 22:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I suspect Dennis meant "out" as opposed to "up." Interesting idea, but there would need to be serious structure to prevent it from being corrupted or used for specific ends and/or agendas. Intothat darkness 22:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I see...that makes sense. Go Phightins! 22:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Intothatdarkness nails it on both counts. I'm really tired, by fingers are losing their connection to my brain :) We would need something like the DYK process but simpler, oversight, and participation from a dozen people part time. I know from email that we have many members who come here weekly but don't leave comments, they are more interested in reading than pontificating. Maybe some of them might help. A barnstar, plus a userbox declaring that "This user was chosen as the Editor of the Week Dec 23-29, 2012 because of their exceptional work". I think that swinging 52 of these a year is doable, and again, we could expand if needed, occasionally allot the entire month of December 2012 for some particularly high goal achieved, etc. even if we don't assign every month. The key is to focus on people who actually work on the content in some way, gnoming, creating articles (anyone that reaches 100 articles created would be an easy nominee, for example). Admin would be eligible, but I think the focus should be on building. Again, first we would need enough people to work it a few times a week, then we can brainstorm and design. But the real question is, is this a viable enough idea to get enough people willing to help? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd be willing to help out...I can't guarantee that I can full-time clerk, but when I'm around, I would be willing to pitch in. Go Phightins! 22:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea. I'd certainly be interested. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Count me in as a helper after the First (once my part-time job W/ Santa is over). ```Buster Seven Talk 22:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I had confidence you two would be intersted (and appreciate it), and guessing Buster will be interested as well, he likes these kinds of programs. I have a few others I want to hit up, might need to do some emailing. This would be our first real "program", it will take more than a few here. (I edit conflicted, I knew Buster would show up :)Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I imagine Gerda would like a program such as this, it seems to be in keeping with her efforts to brighten other people's days. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

She does :) I got her opinion before coming here. It isn't exactly compatible with her program, which is of her own design and she wants to keep it the way it is, understandably, but I'm hoping we can talk her into at least being a regular visitor. She has some experience with similar programs (as does Automatic) that will be helpful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes ;) (next year, family first) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

If you'd like, I should have some time early next week to draw up a mock-up of what it might look like as far as the policy, the logistics, etc. in my userspace. If you already have, or if someone else wants to, go ahead, but I should have some additional time on my hands the early part of next week (e.g., the morning of Christmas Eve). Go Phightins! 23:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

If you want more input, you can start a subpage here and link it. Or in your space if you want to start solo. I started one in my space but didn't get far enough before I realized I was headed in the wrong direction, and needed to come here. Keep in mind, I have yet to see if there is enough interest in actually running the program. I can't, I'm booked for time, and honestly, I think that I need to not have my finger too deeply into everything we do here. It isn't my project, after all, it is everyone's. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)(edit conflict) I'll get something started in my userspace and link here. Go Phightins! 23:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
You might look to User:Bibliomaniac15/Today/Archive for ideas. MBisanz ^talk 23:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- That is the inspiration for it, Matt. I think that daily is beyond our resources, manpowerwise, but those ideas were sound, they just ran out of people able to help. I'm hoping that if we cut it to once a week and have the support of over 100 project members, we can make it a steady program. Like Shakespeare said, good authors borrow, great authors steal ;) This is simply building upon those great ideas. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

mentioned above, my program based on models. Rlevse made "my day" in 2010. He said "Peace" every time, once a day, for 3 years. Talking about editor retention: Did you know that he is missed? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

- Yes I did know that. I've been debating dropping him a line, actually. Wanted to give it a little time, but the time may be right. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

'tis the season ;) - a signature would do, y'all (learned "y'all" from Dennis, also in that inspiring talk on the automobile culture mentioned several times here - and some signatures from above are there already) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Done and

Done Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest, in order to avoid excessive heat-generating discussions on every single detail of an editor's record, that editors be nominated for specific tasks they perform that benefit the community's ongoing mission to foster a collaborative environment that writes and edits an online encyclopedia. It can be a set of many tasks that have taken place over an extended period, but the key is to focus on the good work being done overall, and not overly scrutinize the nominee (after all, negative moments can be found for everyone). isaacl (talk) 00:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Like Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER

Like Buster Seven Talk

I would be willing to be a helpful clerkish type in this effort, without a doubt. Gtwfan52 (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I also support this idea and would love to help around with it. Only one condition - No editor can win the EOTW twice. (Twice, or twice in a year or something like that?) Or else the rest of us will just remain sitting while one or two people take all the awards! TheOriginalSoni (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I like that idea. But how about an editor of the week and and editor of the year? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's try to get the editor of the week project going first, otherwise we might get overwhelmed. However, the editor of the year idea is a good one too. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think an editor of the year fits the specific objectives being discussed in this thread. As I understand it, editor of the week is just intended to give someone a pat on the back, not compare them with others. Having to decide on an editor of the year would introduce a comparison between editors, and it would be a very different kind of award. isaacl (talk) 03:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

You do make a valid point there. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Editor of the Year is necessarily a good idea, I think we just want to recognize editors who do a good job and don't always get recognized for it. Go Phightins! 03:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I have posted some initial thoughts on this page. Feel free to start a talk page there, modify, add, etc. This was strictly to get the ball rolling. Go Phightins! 01:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I would strongly disagree that RFA works. LOL! But don't disagree that something similar could work for us. However I would feel that there should be limits to the discussion. No Questions to the nom, no threading of discussions, just allow editor to make a seperated comment. Strict rules against discussing the negative aspects of the editor. Either post a reason to agree or disagree in a neutral manner and a warning that all uncivil comments will be removed etc. Maybe a few other things but I don't want to see this turn into "why the editor nominated is an evil monster".--Amadscientist (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Good point. We don't want any drama. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the Request for Adminship process is the right model for "Editor of the Week" (I assumed that Alan was commenting on his merit barnstars proposal when he referred to RfA; I haven't formed an opinion regarding this as of yet). I think it should be a very lightweight process, with an editor nominated for specific accomplishments that have improved Wikipedia or its community. My suggestion above was specifically to avoid dredging up all sorts of negatives of the nominee, if not directly related to the nomination at hand, as we'd run out of nominees pretty quickly if they all had to be squeaky clean, and the acrimony of the discussion would far outweigh the benefit of the award. isaacl (talk) 02:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

This idea has some merit, true – but it's all about "popular" editors, not about editors having the opposite experience. Editors being praised, or even just visible to others, aren't the ones who are likely to be leaving. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- That's why we would want to focus on those who work behind the scenes, or who do a lot of quiet content creation. The ones who don't normally get recognized. Go Phightins! 02:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

- - Exactly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

To whom it may concern, I've moved it out of my userspace. It now sits here due to the support it's gotten thus far. Go Phightins! 02:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Looking at your draft (which is a good start, btw) I'm a little reserved about people that are good in discussions. Not closed minded, just saying I really would like it to be mainly about content: article creators, people who source articles, clean them up, fix grammar, the people that actually BUILD the encyclopedia, that make the reading experience more pleasant for the reader. Not necessarily disqualifying mediators or vandal patrollers, just saying I think the main focus should be on writers. Some of us mediators probably get too much attention as it is ;) That is one of the reasons I used "Editor" instead of "Wikipedian", although I'm not attached to any particular name at this moment in time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- I believe I understand Dennis' concern, but I wonder if we would be moving too far away from our project purpose to center only on content contributions and not allowing some attention to be given for editors that contribute to a calm environment. Editors that take extraordinary steps to move discussion is the right direction and serve, in their own wau towards a civil environment on the project. I like the idea that an editor can be recognised for contributions in areas that are about editing in places not just seen by the average reader.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  - I too understand Dennis's concern, but I agree with Amadscientist that facilitating calm and productive discussions is also worthy of recognition. Go Phightins! 03:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- I would like to see recognition for those who improve the community, whether it is by adding new content, copy editing existing content, filling in references and other maintenance work, helping others with their tasks, providing advice, and otherwise encouraging a productive environment. Based on my earlier suggestion, the nominator would have to state the specific set of tasks being recognized; though I would not say that being a skilled communicator is a task in itself to be recognized, it is certainly worth noting as an asset used to accomplish the work that is being recognized. isaacl (talk) 03:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  - Right, that's why in my proposal I said that the nominator must describe in 100-200 words why the user deserves recognition. Go Phightins! 03:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

- - - One thing I am glad not to see in GP's proposal is some sort of minimum experience level. In my ten months here, I have given a helping hand to a few brand new editors whose first contribution was a C class article right out of the gate. If you can do that, you are worthy of very special attention. Is there any possibility of getting this award posted someplace where at least the editing community, if not the Wikipedia user's community, could see it? Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
      - Once this gets going, there is a user I have in mind is relatively new...he's one of my adoptees right now and is doing some great work. Go Phightins! 03:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
        And so have I! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
        I would say we shouldn't rush things too much, but the sooner we get this going the better. How soon do we think it can get started up? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
      - We should certainly announce the WOTW far and wide once it is established. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we need a solid foundation before announcing this, we don't necessarily need a free-for-all in to modifying and adding. Perhaps a Village Pump discussion once we've got the framework? Go Phightins! 03:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Good suggestion. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, GP. It should be completely ready to roll before we go to the community at large. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- EOTW should be announced in the Signpost? Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  - Yes, great idea. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  - Given the holiday season, I would prefer that more time be given to allow for discussion and revisions. isaacl (talk) 03:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
    - I actually believe it should be proposed formally through the Wikiprojects first. This is simply a way of getting more editors to jump aboard. We can still continue to develope it through the subpage.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, I didn't mean to announce the development of the concept in the signpost, I was meaning to say that the winner should be mentioned in the signpost. Should specifics be taken to the talk page of the proposal? Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I was just coming over here to suggest perhaps transcluding everything above to the talk page, that way discussion on this stays in one place. At the very least, we already have some discussions going on over there regarding logistics, clerking, etc. on which more input would be appreciated. Thanks. Go Phightins! 04:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The ball is still rolling at Wikipedia talk:Editor retention/Wikipedian of the week proposal. Join in the discussion. A working deadline of Jan 15 is being discussed. Will this discussion get moved over there? ```Buster Seven Talk 06:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

You do know you have that under an odd subpage system, with no main page and not under WER, right? ;-) A move might be in order, perhaps to Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/???Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, the proposal page (the main page if you will) still allows you to click to go to the main WER page. Go Phightins! 15:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Amnesty

How about getting a significant number of old sanctions wiped? I came across an IP that was blocked 5 years ago, and should really be unblocked. We have blocked people for trivial offences, people have been denied access to their talk page because the blocking admin picked up the unblock requests. Rich Farmbrough, 10:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC).

unless it is an open proxy I don't know why an IP would be blocked indefinitely. But we had some discussion a year or so back when it emerged that we've blocked millions of IPs, more even than Conservapedia, and it would be easy to lift editing rates simply by unblocking some of the old IP blocks. Ϣere SpielChequers 10:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

We do have a few forms of amnesty, WP:STANDARDOFFER and WP:CLEANSTART are examples. As for IPs, yes, very few IPs need to be indef blocked. I volunteer a fair amount bit at WikiProject on open proxies (WP:OPP), which is a good place to drop off any IPs that you think need to be reviewed if they were blocked as an open proxy. As far as improper blocking of talk pages or improper blocks, a lot of admin will review cases, myself included. I will say that the vast majority of time, the admin is within policy, however. Realistically, if someone gets indef blocked, comes back with a new account 6 months later, and just avoids the same areas and doesn't go back to the behavior that led to the block, no one would ever know. I know that happens a great deal. We catch a lot of socks at SPI, but realistically, we only catch the obvious ones, the ones that repeat the same mistakes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

@Rich Farmbrough, thanks for bringing up what appears to be a taboo subject at Wikipedia. I have come across a surprisingly large number of editors who have been blocked indefinitely' and no way to find out why without spending an enormous amount of time (which I do not have) Ottawahitech (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Greatuser

This is the user under question. He has been a very enthusiastic member of Wikipedia, and being new, I would also saw way too enthusiastic. A regular fighter of vandalism, he was (sadly) given the rollback tool a little bit before it was time, leaving him to make uninformed edits and reverts, which drew the ire of the community. As of now, his rollback tool has been taken back, and he is on the verge of retirement.

Regardless of his experience, I have found Greatuser to be very friendly and forthcoming to help others, and do believe he can be one of the most important contributors of this community if given a proper guidance. If anyone can help me in convincing him back and to get him to understand WP Policies, it will be awesome.

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 01:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

LOL! I used that font for my user name at the top of my page for a while. Of course....you have to have the font to see it! (Rocky Horror style free font called "Double Feature" by David Shetterly)--Amadscientist (talk) 01:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Hi, I'm here about User:Allisgod, who I think has excellent potential but unfortunately almost immediately showed a bad case of ABF and hostility, and when I tried to explain to them how their edits appeared to others, the situation quickly unraveled. See User_talk:Allisgod#Reply_to_your_post_on_Talk:God and the subsection for current situation. I cannot manage to get across to this editor that I'm trying to be of help, and that personal attacks are not helpful for their continued good standing here, but they're taking any guidance, advice, or explanations of policy as an attack from me. I'm dropping discussion with Allisgod for now (unless there are specific questions asked of me, or the situation changes in some other way), as they seem immune to the concept that I'm not out to get them when I try to explain policy or behavioral guidelines. Mind you, this is a fairly new editor, and not one who has made lots of contribs, so I'm not sure if y'all will be terribly motivated, as this project seems geared more towards ending burnout, but I have hope. Thanks in advance. Killer Chihuahua 02:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

You are being incredibly patient. I don't know if I would have lasted as long as you are.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

This is kind of pushing the boundaries of what we normally try to do here, more of a WP:WQA issue, if that hadn't been shut down, and we aren't an official board and all. I will still take a look and see if I can help them. We have to be very careful about what we bring here, ie: nothing that could possibly require sanctions, for example, as we are NOT an admin board and don't want to upset the community by trying to be one, as we do not have any community permission to act as one. It is better to drop behavioral issues on the talk page of an uninvolved admin or non-admin that is known for mediating problems. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I've left them a message, I think they are all wound up and just not receptive. Sometimes it helps to have someone to talk to that isn't interested in that event or those articles, someone that will just let you vent a little, so you can calm down. All I can do is offer, and we will see. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
(ec) Dennis, you are an angel[3], thank you. This page is watched by more than one uninvolved editor who is interested in mediating problems or helping editors, and so I tried here rather than spin-the-userpage wheel. And you know as well as I do that WQA sucked almost out of the gate, because it was used 99% of the time as a tool to attack editors, and not to try to help them learn behavioral guidelines on WP. (OMG [user] was rude block him! kindof thing.) Thanks again, and good luck. Killer Chihuahua 02:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

We just have to be very careful as some admin will complain if this starts to look like an unofficial admin board, and I understand their concerns. Not everyone has the same opinion of this project. If you ever have someone that just needs a "Dear Friend" letter, feel free to ping me on my talk page, I do that a lot. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

You are probably right, there is always one. But admins can and should respond to any post made anywhere, we are not supposed to be that hide-bound (yet). Rich Farmbrough, 17:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC).

We should, I did, they replied in a positive way, so a dialog has started. Don't worry, I wouldn't ignore an out of venue request. Just saying it is best for this project if it is instead done on a talk page if there is even a small chance of sanctions/admin action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Userbox

This user is a member of WikiProject Editor Retention.

I finally got around to creating a userbox in main template space {{Userbox wer}}, which will automatically put you into Category:WikiProject Editor Retention members. I think, as I'm new to templates and cats. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

[4] Snazzy! I'll take a quick look at the template, but I'm sure you got it right. KillerChihuahua 13:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- Happy dance. I couldn't have figured that out if I tried. Well maybe, but it seemed like a duanting task...so I never tried! Good for you Dennis.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
  - Yep. And there ya go! Thanks Dennis! Mines up!--Amadscientist (talk) 05:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I still like the old one. I'm gonna keep that one on my front lawn. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Old one? We only have three I think....and they were made at about the same time. Which one do you mean. The one with the two figures reaching out? I liked that one as well....you could just copy the coding from this one and replace the image so you can keep the one you have. If you want drop off the box here and I can do it for you.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Old one

This user is a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention

The above is a manually coded userbox using: {{userbox | border-c = black | id = [[Image:Together.png|40px]] | id-c = #00ff00 | id-fc = #ff0000 | id-s = 9 | info = This user is a member of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention]] | info-c = #fff }}

New-old one with category

This user is a member of WikiProject Editor Retention.

{{Userbox retention}}, which will automatically put you into Category:WikiProject Editor Retention members, and is an additional option for member editors.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Someone should probably normalize the names 1,2. I don't care which standard we use and will leave that to others (although both should add to the category), but rotating from one to the other should be easier and have similar names. I had forgotten about the first userbox I had created, so that was my mistake to not look back. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- OK. Good idea. probably the WER name is best.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

A wee snippet of info to tuck away

that I chanced across here. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Simple appeal process

We have a system where if someone is blocked they can effectively only get unblocked by admitting wrongdoing and promising not to do it again (unless they are editors with standing) this is not how most editors word their first, or sometimes second unblock request - those that do are often gameplayers who are destined to cause trouble, funnily enough.

I think we should give an option to have the block reviewed by another admin. If it is supported, the blocked editor will probably take advice more easily from the second admin than from the person who instituted the block. Rich Farmbrough, 10:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC).

You are talking about the Innocent prisoner's dilemma, we had a dedicated page for discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/current discussions/innocent prisoner's dilemma discussion but it died down. You might check there for ideas. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- I read it at the time and again since. Not sure what the action points are though. Maybe something to mull over. Rich Farmbrough, 19:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC).

Editors on the Fence

I'm sure as we all wander around WikiWorld we come across an editor whose decision to stay or go is hanging in the balance. The one I have in mind is User:My76Strat. If you know him or have concern for him, stop by and give him a peptalk. I hope you ALL don't run over with milk and cookies, but a friendly hello goes a long way to remind a fellow editor that it should be fun to edit. Also, this brings to mind the need for a subpage that WE can refer to for editors that are on "The Fence". In fact, if I can be so bold, I'd like to suggest that WE call it WER/The Fence. WE can each check periodically for editors we might know or have worked with or whatever. Retaining editors is our challenge. Eventually we will have dozens of ways we are accomplishing our goal. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with dropping the concern on this page, but long threaded discussions should probably be avoided. Not sure we need a sub page, it just gets confusing, one more page to watch. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

We could add here, and archive to a sub page that doesn't need much watching. "It should be fun to edit", right. Should be. I was shown the "civil"-card on two pages ;) I find it hard to retain myself, so will give myself a peptalk ;) - The project is on Jimbo's page, in case someone wants to add. Last entry was an invitation to look at BarkingMoon - my classical example for a user the project should have tried to keep, factual, polite, enthusiastic, well organised - lost, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

ps: I am impressed by the depth and courage of My76Strat, a peptalk won't be enough for a member of "a stringent minority of thoughtful editors" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Gerda, I agree, at least when it comes to the "minority of thoughtful editors." Most of them won't publicly ponder retirement. They'll just leave. Pep talks will really have a minimal impact on those who are burned out or disgusted by the culture here. It's just another band-aid on a hemorrhaging wound, and some might actually find it insulting. It doesn't really do anything to correct the underlying cultural flaws, and instead may lead to them becoming more disillusioned. It could also lead to some unintended consequences. Intothat darkness 14:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Dennis. My idea is just a list of names. One of us sees an editor mulling retirement? He gets added to a running list. I/You/WE check the list every now and then and say..."O yea! I remember him. He was one of the good guys. I think I'll go say Hi." No discussion here at all. Just a list. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Or maybe one of the members that is interested in the WHY of Editor leavings can go and interview him. This project is a receptacle for information about Editor Retention. Editors threatening to abandon ship is information. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

List

Calling ALL editor retention editors!!! Red Alert! We need your attention now!

There is a time and place for everything, but this thread is no longer about "editor retention", so recommending it be moved to a different venue, or dropped altogether. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

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

User talk:Malleus Fatuorum has retired! This is his right (the only true right an editor really has on Wikipedia) but his reasons are a true retention concern. I don't always get along with the editor, but his leaving is of major concern to our project and the over all Wikipedia project. PLEASE take a minute to post on his talkpage and try (in a very civil manner) to convince him that this is NOT the right momne to leave. His absense is a great loss and is NOT an improvement to Wikipedia. I am pleading with you all to find a moment to encourage his staying! His work and abilities cannot be easily replaced! This is a major editor retention issue! Get to work. I beg you!--Amadscientist (talk) 23:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

If you are concerned about editor retention, please consider that Malleus's abrasive behavior has led me to consider leaving the project in the past. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 23:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Look. I have had very bad run ins with Malleus, but please don't think of yourself only on this issue. That is not the true spirit of this project. Editor retention means more to me than what abuse I have taken from any editor. Get over it and get on. Stay calm and carry on!--Amadscientist (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

You should be saying that to Malleus, not me. He's the one who retired (again) as a result of his own incivility. I'm not too thrilled about this thread, mainly because I don't look forward to being vilified for daring to complain about his rudeness. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

You should not be vilified for being honest and expressing your concerns. I just ask that you remember that we all have to accpet others for who they are and just try to encourage better behavior. I won't make this about you AS.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate that. However, I'm not sure that some other editors will take the same approach. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

You may have noticed that I placed it on Jimbo Wales talk before it happened. He was never rude to me, quite the contrary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, you are a hard one to be rude to. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Malleus is a good guy that takes it too far with the language some times, and can be "grumpy". Sometimes more than grumpy. That said, I accept him as he is. I have pointed out when I thought he was doing something over the line (sometimes in private). He's someone I just started working with on an article and found him to be exceptionally easy and helpful to work with, even if it didn't always work that way with everyone else. I've already talked to him several times. Actually, we chatted regularly anyway. I accept that Malleus is likely not coming back, and understand why. This wasn't a singular issue or one time event. I expect to keep in contact with him, as I appreciate and enjoy his perspective on a number of issues, but he won't simply be talked into returning with kind words. It is way more complicated than that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I try to say wherever I can that civility is not using some words but an attitude to respect people, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

While I am aware of the complications...I don't accept that he can't be persuaded....OK, more like...I am not persuaded that the attempt is not worth the effort. There...that sounds more accurate to what I think. We can try, can't we. He is an important part of our community and every effort should be taken to retain him!--Amadscientist (talk) 01:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be some doubt in people's minds here, so let me state categorically that Malleus will not be returning; not now not ever. I've explained to Dennis and several others why that is. The recent ArbCom request was certainly a triggering event, but not entirely for the obvious reasons. I'm sure Wikipedia will do quite well enough without me. Or it won't, whatever. Malleus Fatuorum 01:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for stopping by Malleus. I will miss you here a great deal, friend. I do understand and hope you find joy and fulfillment in whatever you pursue next. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about too much in terms of overall editor retention. He's just one editor, and he's really sui generis. He may have been extraordinarily good (don't know personally) but on the other hand he alienated some editors, plus of course the constant drama takes up man-hours, and then there's the overall them-versus-us vibe and so forth that he brought to the community. So meh. Nothing really to learn from or do about this special unique case, I'd say. Herostratus (talk) 03:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

See, I think a little differently, but at the end of the day it is more about what he wants. I made the effort, because I felt he was worth it. But as Herostratus says...meh. For me, I will look at the overwhelming facts that he was, at the end....outdated by those the Us against them" mentality. I always felt he was one of the better grizzily types. So I will look on the bright side. Maybe it will help the GA project without the attitude. Of course we all know there is pleanty of attitude there and elsewhere. But I hate the way he is leaving because it does look like he is being shoved away. I tried to pull him back, but I am just a single editor without much interaction with, what looks to be, more than many want.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Look at it this way: While some editors may be more important to the project than others, no single editor's leaving will cause the project to die. In other words, it's not the end of the world, even though it apparently is ending for other reasons ;). AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I have to say I am FAR more put off by dickish admins, admin wanna-bes, and passive aggressive POV types than I am by folks like Malleus. I think the Malleus case is of interest in that the passive aggressive and dickish types tend to swarm around him. They, and the cultures that protect/encourage them, are still here. I will be interested to see where their focus shifts IF in fact Malleus remains gone this time. One factor that was often ignored in the Malleus saga was the role that baiting and provoking behavior by others played in his outbursts (and yes, that behavior WAS ignored...just mentioning it doesn't address in a real or meaningful role it played in the whole saga...and it has clearly factored into other semi-departures by others). No one seems especially interested in that side of things. His departure encourages that sort of behavior ("see...it worked with him") unless others take a stand against it. It's amazing to me how often those behaviors are excused or brushed off (Pesky talks about this a great deal, but often to what feels like an empty room). I'm just one editor, and don't matter in the great scheme of things, but each "one editor" that is driven away by the nasty behavior that hides behind AGF and false civility is another loss. I also suspect that there's no real appetite in the community at large for taking on that culture, if for no other reason than it's difficult to address in a collective manner by a group that has a notoriously short attention span. Intothat darkness 15:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Great post. I cringe to think that the Eddie Haskells are taking over the place. Gandydancer (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

We can't all agree on what "civility" even means here. This is partially due to the fact that we are such a culturally diverse group. This is why I've stayed away from blocking anyone unless the behavior crosses the line in a clear and obvious way. Of course, I've received some static from others that I've been too slow and too tolerant, which is probably true in some cases. "Civility" is likely to be the big issue for the next few years. I say few years, as I don't have any hope that we can quickly find consensus on it. The recent Arb election turned into a referendum on it, and half the Arb cases seem focused on it. I don't want to name names, or point fingers (that is one of the few rules we have) and I will be the first to admit I'm not smart enough to come up with a simple definition or rule and I have tried. I do think that those that view civility more strictly than I do have the best intentions of Wikipedia at heart, even if I think that viewing it too rigidly does more damage than being more tolerant. We are human, after all, we will bump heads or be rude sometimes, myself included. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure it's about "civility" anymore, Dennis, but rather cause and effect. There is a tendency in many cases here to focus on the effect and not necessarily the cause. As Gandydancer pointed out, Eddie Haskell types tend to thrive in such an environment. They can provoke others in a seemly civil manner, confident that the community writ large will normally pay more attention to the outburst than they do the events that led up to same. It's not necessarily a healthy culture when bad behavior remains unchecked, but I contend that it's also not healthy when someone in an authority position can refer to those who elected them as the "puling masses" and escape without many batting an eye. The assorted Malleus incidents also pointed out a tendency (highlighted again by Pesky in many places) to tar those who may not agree with something he said but also don't agree with a proposed punishment (and let's not kid ourselves...in most cases we are talking about punishment here) as members of his "posse" in what certainly felt like an attempt to stifle discussion. I'll drop the stick now, since it's likely to make no headway, but I wanted to point out that the issue is more one of culture than specific buzzwords or individuals. Intothat darkness 17:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. WP projects a hostile and abusive environment. (I didn't notice it right away as newbie, but after awhile the shit-throwing got on me, and it was a little hard not to notice then.) Fact is, Malleus has never initiated any shit. He just doesn't take it. He tells people where to go, who deliver hostility and abusiveness. And then ... blame Malleus. Nothing could be more fundamentally unfair and unjust. There are two, at most probably three ways to deal with a situation when you're given crap (hostility, abuse). One is the "Jesus" route, the one prescribed by WP "policy", to ignore it and not respond to it. (How many of us are Jesuses? When I signed up to edit Wikipedia, I don't recall committing that I'd have the patience of a God, and walk on water, that I'd be expected to heal the sick, and turn water to wine.) The other is to respond as Malleus does: to give the initiator some appropriately-measured flak back. That is what Malleus does. (And he does it ideally, by not carrying long-term grudges, as much as humanly possible. He blames his "bad memory" for this, but I'm sure it is a conscious, ethical choice. Carrying a grudge is a tiring, self-defeating negative energy. Just plain inefficient, and Malleus is as efficieint with his energies as he is with words.) Has anyone done a study of flair-ups with Malleus involved, to pinpoint the causes? Was Malleus "offending", or "defending" with his giving someone flak? I think no one has done such a study. Though it could be done. I put my money on that Malleus has been in a defending posture, whenever giving someone shit back -- not the offender. I wager that is 100 percent the case. So the only fucking moral conclusion here, is that shame shame Malleus for not being a Jesus, and that it is not Malleus's fault, his responses have been healthy responses in a very sick environment, the current culture of hositility and abusiveness that exists and has existed at WP for some time. [There is no measure on dishonesty here, only "bad words". There is no measure of fabricating about another person here, only "bad words". There is no measure of pretension, or of condescension, or of dishonesty, or of underhandedness, only of "bad words".]) It's the environment, plain and simple. If an editor responds to hostility and abusiveness in any manner not "Jesus-like", he or she is more likely than not, the one selected for sanction. This purpose of this Project is in part to retain good editors!? And one of the best has left in disgust?? (Time to talk it up and get to the bottom of it, me thinks! And not "golly gee golly gee this problem is so difficult that gee whiz gee whiz all we know what to do is keep on keeping on". Yeah, right. [Go ahead if you like, ask me if I have a better idea. Because I do!]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

If an editor hasn't commited vandalism, sockpuppetry or continious edit wars? then he/she shouldn't be blocked or banned. I find that editors tend to want to make other editors 'go away', too often. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little bit alarmed by this thread. Your own project front page says "Editor retention is a Wikipedia-wide problem. The focus of this wikiproject is NOT on individuals," but you're now attempting to spend project resources and time pursuing one editor, because you collectively seem to feel he is personally more important than others. Guys, you need to decide whether this is a project that focuses on making the atmosphere of Wikipedia more hospitable to editors, or whether it's one that focuses on dashing from one editor's talk page to the next, telling them how much more important than others they are. If you want to retain editors, as a group, you should concentrate more on community-level trends ("What's causing Malleus to feel so uncomfortable here? How can that be changed to help everyone?") than on individuals ("Oh no, Malleus is leaving! Everyone, quick - beg him to stay!"). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

That's what my comments are aimed at. There are wider trends and mindsets at work, and there seems to be a reluctance to deal with those broader trends.Intothat darkness 18:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

When it comes to negative threads about individuals, I'm quick to shame them shut. When it is a comment about a problem to help an individual, people tend to be more lenient and just steer the discussion in a proper direction when possible. Obviously, individuals names will get mentioned in the larger discussion, but we should focus on the larger issues, simply to understand. So yes Fluff is right, the larger issues are what matters here. Personally, I am stumped as to what we can do at Wikipedia to solve this. There is no consensus on where to draw the line with civility and it looks like it has broken into two camps. The lack of clarity on "Civility" is dividing and conquering Wikipedia right now. I could adjust to and live with any set of rules on civility if they were clear, but it is a moving target. I am not sure if we can make a set of rules that you could just look at and instinctively know how to apply it to every situation. I tried and I can't. It's why I set the bar pretty low and don't make civility blocks. Well, that and the fact that they can easily backfire and make the situation worse, again due to the clarity and the perceived unfairness, a Catch 22. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Intothatdarkness made some important points; unlike Malleus, I've never been blocked for incivility and I've yet to choose to retire, permanently or otherwise. But like Malleus, there have been times I have been baited and bullied, mostly for my content contributions and defense of them, until I am ready to quit. The only reason I'm still around is that I have a tolerance level with conflict that may be a little higher than some people's. I also don't like to let the bullies win. So I cry, I pound my head on the keyboard (at least figuratively) but then I dust myself off and start again. However, if the only people who can survive this toxic atmosphere are the masochists and the trolls, we have a problem. Malleus is a curmudgeon, but he's not a troll; but a lot of his attackers fail to understand the difference. I do notice a certain increase in toxicity this time of year in general (seasonal affective disorder for northern hemisphere users?) but not sure if there is an actual correlation. Montanabw^(talk) 21:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I also updated that mission statement to make it clear. We do talk about individuals who leave, get updates here when someone leaves, we have lists of missing editors them around here for that matter, but the real focus is still on the larger issues of why and what can we do to fix it. Typically when someone leaves or there is an editor retention concern about an individual, someone just goes and offers them an ear, but we don't bring those discussions back here. One thing we do NOT tolerate is pointing fingers at individual editors or admins and lay blame on them. But yes, we do help some individuals, in particular, new editors that are lost. We refer a lot of people to the Teahouse, for instance, as we don't try to duplicate their good work. Some members also work over there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

There doesn't seem any "lack of clarity" about civility on Wikipedia. Civility police rule here, and have succeeded in wrecking Malleus and disheartening significant contributors. It's not just happening on Wikipedia, the rot seems to be setting in. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand the frustration, but this isn't helpful. Both sides yelling at each other won't fix it. We have to find a way to actually bring the sides together, I just don't know how. Pushing them farther apart hurts the process, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is not helping. There's plenty of editors quick to cast the blame on the "civility police", but I'd like to know what is so hard about treating other people with respect, even if they don't have the most impressive edit count or GA total? A lot of times, the content creators complain about getting mistreated and bullied, yet these same editors can be quick to ridicule other editors that don't have as many accomplishments as they do, as if that makes those other editors inferior and less intelligent. Having a nice resume of content work is not a pass that allows one to be condescending to seemingly inferior editors and immune to sanctions for boorish behavior. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

This just proves my point: good people with the best intentions and the same goals have different ideas. In the end, it will likely take some kind of compromise that is understandable, and like most compromises, guarantees no one will like it completely. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Civility is the lubricant between editors. When it is missing there will be friction. I fail to see how grown adults can not recognize aggressive negative behavior when they see it. I can understand not calling someone out about it to avoid retaliation but I think we all know it when we see it. The "civility police" didn't (and don't) ruin anybody or anything. Maybe we need a Civility Czar. Dennis, are you busy? ```Buster Seven Talk 23:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Um, NO. The community would not be willing to have me as the civility czar, I'm pretty sure of that and understand why. I'm more tolerant of strong language and bumping heads than most admin. I also loathe civility blocks because I think they often make the civility issue worse. This is due in part due to muddiness of policy. I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong, I just have a different view than many and think that one on one interaction is better for many cases, although that is expensive, manpower wise. Unquestionably, I want Wikipedia to be more civil, I just don't think you can achieve that by mainly using the block button. I know incivility when I see it too, but sometimes, we DO disagree on what is incivil and what isn't. I see people call comments "uncivil" daily that I don't consider uncivil. "That is the worse idea I've ever heard", "You have got to fucking kidding me" or "why the hell would you do that?". The context matters, not just the words, those could go either way depending on who you ask, and where it is said. It might just be sarcasm, it might not. Some confuse swearing with incivility, and it isn't the same. Some things, like telling someone to "fuck off" are obvious, but the passive aggressive incivility is just as bad, even if it is dressed up with sweet words ("I hope you receive from life what you so richly deserve" kindness or snark?). That is the problem: you block only the blunt people, you are left with a bunch of passive aggressive rude people. I think I have a fair bead on the problem, but I am clueless as to how to form a compromise at this time. Besides, we don't or want ONE czar, we need consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Civility police are a very real phenomenon on Wikipedia. They are certainly not "lubricants". Perhaps, Buster, you are confusing civility with basic courtesy. Basic courtesy is an authentic value, civility is a manipulative construct, often just a control mechanism used by religious fundamentalists. The civility police on Wikipedia emphatically do wreck able editors and do far more long term damage than legions of vandals will ever achieve. Generally they contribute next to nothing of real value themselves in building the encyclopaedia, but are are principally here to pull down the actual builders. They are often found on the drama boards trying to get some able editor sanctioned. They will use any weapons, but what work best is attacking editors on the grounds of "civility", often just primitive and puritan notions which they pretend are universal values. Generally they don't acknowledge that that is what they do, and pretend it's not happening. How can "consensus" be possible given such conflicted goals? --Epipelagic (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

If I was to call you a gullible fool for saying that or to say you were dishonest, you probably wouldn't like it (and I'm not simply fabricating those examples). Guess what, I don't like being spoken to like that either and promoting an environment in which anything goes is not in our best interests. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 23:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Well now, there you are... --Epipelagic (talk) 23:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Civility is derived from the latin 'civus' or citizen. But, for me, its never about the naughty words. Its about the anger and mean intent behind them. What is more workable is peer pressure. But...I must say that I tried it with Malleus...once. It didn't work. ```Buster Seven Talk 23:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

"Civility" fits nicely if you you look at the RfA that made PumpkinSky leave, termed a attack page while it was running. - Rlevse would have said Peace ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Well yes, I completely agree with that Buster, particularly with the peer pressure bit. And Malleus could be difficult. An example of a true lack of basic courtesy is AutomaticStrike's suggestion above that I am a dishonest and gullible fool. If he is "not fabricating" then he should say what he means. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You completely missed the point. I was not suggesting that those things are true about you. I was asking you how you would feel if those things were said about you. See, those things were said about me, by Malleus. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh... yes, Malleus needed a good rap on the knuckles from time to time. But it was crazy he was driven off Wikipedia. The people responsible for that are now a net loss to the project. Incidentally, I am not "promoting an environment in which anything goes". Quite the contrary. I am all for courtesy, and that includes the courtesy of not seeking to block a user just because he said something hurtful. Buster's peer pressure approach would be much better, except for really hard core cases. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree that Malleus was driven off the project. He chose to leave and to cast the blame on other editors, allowing himself to be painted as a victim. In reality, all he had to do was treat other users with respect and that was apparently too much to ask. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC) My apologies for the misunderstanding above. I should have been more clear.

Hey Automatic! I am pretty much sick of your arguments, because they are twisted and false. You have tried here to paint a picture of Malleus: that because he is (while active) a valued editor-contributor, he got away with "not treating others with respect". As though Malleus, for no other reason than because he wanted to or could, went around insulting others and being offensive. That is simply hogwash. The picture you paint is a false one. (A sort of personal attack initiated by you, in fact.)

Let's take an objective look. Let's start with your most complained-about protest of Malleus's behavior that you seemingly most resent and is the basis for your accusations against Malleus: that he called you a "gullible fool". Simply put, Automatic, that is not really precise. In fact, what you say, didn't happen. Here is the exchange between you and he ... You:

Well, what about blocking Malleus for the personal attack he just made? I believe that is number 4,801 for him this year. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

He:

If that's what you believe then you're a gullible fool. Malleus Fatuorum 20:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

First, Automatic, take notice that you have in the above, accused Malleus of being guilty of making personal attacks. ("4,801" of them.) That's a serious charge against someone. Especially someone like Malleus, who has reason to take pride in his integrity (as editor, and as person). You don't prove. You don't show how Administrators have done any sanctioning for these numerous "personal attacks". You simply, flippantly, make up your accusation, with free-wheeling exaggeration to boot. (That shows civility from you?? To accuse someone of serious breaches of policy, of integrity, without any backing up this assertion at all?? Just a smear from you?? And you don't call that a breach of civility?? I think policy would be against you on that one, even. You don't go around claiming others are guilty of making personal attacks, that is both serious thing to do, and can be extremely offensive. Basically it is an unsupported smear, and I doubt you could muster the facts to support such a claim. If you rely on prejudice, and saying "whatever you want" because you can, then well, aren't you behaving in the same manner you are falsely attacking Malleus for behaving? That is called hypocrisy, hello.)

Now, let's take a look at Malleus's response to you. He told you that "if you believe" that he has committed the personal attacks you've accused, that you would be a "gullible fool". (Did he call you a gullible fool? No. Only conditionally. Only if you believe he is guilty of committing the personal attacks you asserted he has: "4,801 [personal attacks in 2012]".)

The fact is, you insulted Malleus, with a personal attack, in claiming he was guilty of an uncountable number (even if you had claimed he'd made only a few, or even one, your accusation still remains unsupported, I doubt you have the backing to make even a lesser claim, only your opinion, only your desire to insult) of personal attacks made against others on the English Wikipedia, in 2012. Completely untrue. And an irresponsible, false, offensive accusation to make. (Who made it? You did!)

How do you fucking possibly then draw the conclusion, that somehow Malleus just "doesn't treat people with respect", and that *you do*?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

I'm ready to deal with your other false accusations and personal attacks as well, not just the above one. And I'm ready to reply to any of your followups. (You started this!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Please refer to Dennis' advice above @ Help Desk Controversy. Can I get you two to agree to take this 'barn fight' somewhere else....one of your talk pages for instance. This adversarial challenging is better suited for private conversation. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Here's an interesting case study in treating others with basic respect. It concerns Malleus' most recent interaction with another editor, User:Cornellier. They started a Good Article Review of the article on ferret legging, where he is the primary author. Now, the review rationale is wrong on one basic point of policy, and presents a personal opinion as part of the review rationale, but it was clearly not a malicious filing, or done to provoke or annoy Mallues. It can quite easily be dismissed as over-zealousness and/or misunderstanding of policy, neither of which are fatal errors, and certainly not errors that you'd want to see someone leave over after being attacked for making. Yet here's how Malleus has approached the situation: after making it clear what he thought of Cornellier on both a related article page (an ignorant idiot who can't tell his arse from his elbow) and on someone else's talk page ("now I've got some fucking idiot basically claiming that I've invented the sport of ferret legging"), he then says on the review page that Cornellier "appears to be calling me a liar and of having invented this article and its sources", and of the review that ("maybe it's just payback time for something or other"). Let's get real here - diff 1 is a blatant personal attack on another editor, diff 2 is the same with a complete misrepresentation of another editor's statements, diff 3 is again another complete misrepresentation of another editor's statements, while diff 4 is simply a bad faith allegation made about the motives of another editor without a single supporting diff provided. But what say the folks interested in 'editor retention'? Chromium Oxide (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Wiki-qualification (pulled out of previous discussion)

One idea that I have been mulling over for other reasons is a system of wiki-qualification, i.e. wiki-Undergrad, wiki-Batchelor, wiki-Doctorate, wiki-Professor etc. It could be task specific as well, eg PhD in Wikipedia administration, Professorship in history articles. It would be performance based of course and awarded by an impartial committee. Some editors like to work to some sort of goal (edit count, FAC count, ITN count etc) and aspiring to a wiki-qualification may be a goal that will keep editors here. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I have a feeling that such a system would lead to a sort of hierarchy in which some editors would wind up being viewed as more valuable than others. Also, rewarding editors for the quantity of their work could lead to an emphasis of quantity over quality. Just my two cents. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I imagine this would basically be barnstars awarded by a committee; if the categories were kept light-hearted, in the spirit of barnstars, I think issues of hierarchy could be avoided. isaacl (talk) 00:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I had suggested something like this on the the village pump recently in an RFC that was opened about another subject. I like the idea. Is this something that we want to be a part of WER or as a new sister project "stand alone"?--Amadscientist (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of it being a part of WER, but not under "the authority of". An official but independent project of WER. I think it will be easier to get human resources that way as well, since WER has significant momentum, where this is a new idea. Well, a new spin on an old idea. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A standalone project is an idea. We could trial it here on enWP before taking that step.-- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I thought the issue of hierarchy might come up!! Anyway, there is already is ~~a grading~~ an informal way of valuing editors: the vandals at one end and the content creators, wiki-gnomes etc at the other end. I would want to have the wiki-qualification based on quality and quantity. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

If that is possible, I'm all for it. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is possible. It would be like a WP:RfA. That seems to work and gets plenty of commentary. Wikipedia:Editor review also gets comments. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Alan, to make it easier to follow your proposal for a set of, let's call them merit barnstars, can you move it and the associated followup comments into a separate section from the "Editor of the Week" discussion? isaacl (talk) 01:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC) Thanks for creating the separate discussion thread! isaacl (talk) 03:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

New day, new thought: how about finding the "unknown Wikipedian of the week", someone who was NOT awarded awesome Wikipedian before? - I escape the problem of grading by taking the first name coming to my attention any day, and I was advised to encourage new talent by giving it to someone on their first DYK - which I had done without being asked ;) - I will go now and look for today's, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Gamification already exists to some extent with the "experienced editor" awards, barnstars, DYK/FA and so forth. The nice thing about barnstars is that they are sort of random, people don't feel miffed if they don't get one, but getting one is a nice surprise. I would be very careful with other "rewards" because sometimes, for psychological reasons, they can have the opposite effect to that intended. Rich Farmbrough, 10:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC).

Not a huge fan of either proposal in this section...the EOTW is designed to be someone who's not necessarily known, so I think they'd overlap. This Wiki-qualification, while interesting, I feel might become to bureaucratic, so that would have to be closely monitored if it were to begin. Interesting concept, just not entirely sure it's feasible. Go Phightins! 15:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I have a lot of reservation about this "certification". First, it would put us in the position of "Judge", which I don't like. Second, it does create a tier system, which has pros and cons (it encourages moving up, and discriminating). This would outside my original intent, which is to focus on people who put words into articles and improve the readability and usefulness of the encyclopedia, through the eyes of the reader. Really, that is what we are doing: Saying "thanks" to the editors on behalf the readers, who aren't involved enough to know who to thank. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I think a lot of hard core editors won't be too impressed with a set of merit barnstars, but the honest truth is that achievement badges, whether obtained from the Scouts, Stack Overflow, or Xbox Live, are sought after by some, and can contribute to a more congenial environment. Though I'm not sure yet where I stand on this proposal, I do think if the categories can kept sufficiently whimsical, it may be a harmless version of Wikipedia:Hat collecting, since no actual additional powers would be given. I agree this idea has a different motivation than the "Editor of the week" proposal as described above (and this is partly why I suggested that it be discussed separately). isaacl (talk) 15:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

They could be handled together, and if they were truly whimsical, not "ranks" that you worked your way up, then I would be more open. Like buttons or pips on the collar for 100th article started, 200th article started, 10 DYKs, etc. "Flair" to display on their userpage. That would make it fun, without establishing a hierarchy of ranks to achieve. We already have "ranks" so to speak, via Wikipedia:Service awards. But pips for reaching milestones is an interesting idea to add. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I strongly oppose any system set up, ever, which applies labels to editors which suggest anything but "We're all Wikipedians here". To do otherwise simply sets up drama and contention for no good reason. And goes against the spirit of one of the project's fundamental principles: anyone can edit. - jc37 00:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

There has no suggestion that such a scheme will be used to prevent editing. Anyway, given that the community is on the whole egalitarian to the point of not recognising editor experience and editing quality it is not likely that the suggestion will go anywhere. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

can we unblock a million or so IP addresses?

I've been having a few thoughts about the millions of IP addresses we've blocked and the unknown number of editors caught up in blocks intended for other people. I'm sure being blocked as collateral damage for someone else's block must be negative for editor retention. I'm starting to draft a proposal at User:WereSpielChequers/IP and OS blocks - collaboration welcome, don't worry about it being in my userspace. If we can turn it into something that could work and the community might accept then I'll move it to WP space and file an RFC. Ϣere SpielChequers 01:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest ping some or all the CUs and maybe some of the folks at WP:OPP like User:Materialscientist, as they have the greatest experience with these issues. The CUs would have to be in the loop anyway, best to do it early. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
We could perhaps start with 212.92.0.135, blocked indef about 6 years ago by Curps. Rich Farmbrough, 00:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC).

Wikipedia's demise

Much has been said recently, here and elsewhere, about the crumbling Walls of Wikipedia. Predictions of collapse because editors are leaving has a Mayan taste. It's difficult to make predictions. Especially about the Future! ```Buster Seven Talk 17:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Are "hog wild" administrators chasing away good editors?

That was what was said here with a retirement edit summary. I know this editor had other frustrations on Wikipedia, but can we focus on the question of admin conduct? I see Wikipedia:Administrators#Review_and_removal_of_adminship says "lesser penalties may also be assessed against problematic administrators, including the restriction of their use of certain functions or placement on administrative probation". How many "problematic" or "hog wild" administrators receive probation or other punishments? If there aren't commonly levied punishments for poor administrator performance, that seems bad for Wikipedia. Biosthmors (talk) 21:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Generally admins are sanctioned only if they cut across the decisions of other admins, for example wheel warring. It's most unusual for an admin to be sanctioned for upsetting users who don't count, like content developers. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

We concentrate so much effort on attracting new edits. We really need to spend more attention keeping the great editors we have. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems that in the enthusiasm for throwing examples around, some details are being carefully omitted here. "Generally admins are sanctioned only if they cut across the decisions of other admins ... users who don't count, like content developers"; in the instance that was the immediate proximate cause of this, actually the person sanctioned was an admin, and the admin who blocked them was (and is) very much a "content developer".

The phrase "hog wild" might be considered discriminatory against those editors who subsist principally on bacon. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

If you pay attention to what I said, Demiurge, you will find that I prefaced the comment with "Generally...". I was making a general comment. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Strange that there are complaints all year round about admins blocking non-admins but never being held to account themselves, but the loudest and widest protests occur when a few admins get blocked themselves (even though, as far as I can see, none of them were blocked for more than a few hours.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocked on the whim of a single admin

This thread has been transferred to WT:BLOCK. Please make any further additions there. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Here is a classic example, fresh off the press, of the current power imbalance that can exist between a dubious admin and a competent content builder. On the one side is arrogance and the sense of being untouchable, and on the other side is the sense of injustice, of being unrecognised, and of hurt. I think this is an important example and cuts to the heart of the editor retention problems.

Long term, experienced editors who have demonstrated overall competence and commitment to content building should never be blocked at the whim of a single admin. Whether blocking is appropriate and on what terms should be decided by a panel of the content builder's peers. Blocking is a useful tool for dealing with vandals and hard core disruptors. It should be used on experienced editors only in exceptional circumstances. Blocking an editor is a deeply humiliating experience, and should never be undertaken lightly, certainly not in the throwaway manner some current admins have. Many editors leave the project after what they perceive is an unjust block.

Over the last few hours there have been a number of these stupid blocks. Some the content developers who were blocked were admins themselves, so the admin system is even biting itself on the arse. As a result, we have lost major content builders, and sorely wounded others.

Here is another example, also fresh off the press, made with no warning on competent content developers, and resulting in the loss of SandyGeorgia.

If these attacks are to continue, they could at least be made a little more workable and benign. Inappropriate blocks made against content developers should be acknowledged by other content developers as wounds that have to be endured by developers. Content developers attacked that way should be marked with awards of honour. Admins will never police themselves, and they are so numerous that they negate any attempts to make them accountable. As a group, they have no will to rationally overhaul the admin system, only to prop the existing system up. The more destructive clowns among admins should be separated from the responsible admins, and treated for what they are by the rest of the community. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting reading, and reassuring to see that one is not alone. I've been given a final final warning by an admin who seems happy to endlessly quote policy yet unwilling to discus how the different policies interact. Edwardx (talk) 23:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I was under the impression that it was standard practice to warn editors before blocking them. Does not appear to be done in a number of these cases. Even simple vandals are given this privilege. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope. A lot of users are banned with no warning at all and worse...the blocks are a mistake by the admin. There is little to do put suck it up, shut up and scream your head off when the block log is used against you.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Well that does not sound fair. I could see a few exceptions like "death threats", "legal threats" and "sock puppets" but other than that. Maybe we need to see if we could get consensus around this? Something like "Before blocking a fellow editor one must verify that they have been warned for a similar issue in the recent past" With of course the exceptions above. Otherwise any admin should be able to come along and revert and the banning admin should be warned. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I think I saw a discussion on this very issue the other day. Can't remember where, but it was about warning before blocking.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

IMO it should be mandatory. Do you know where one would propose something like this? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I looked through my Watchlist and the discusion is here but only in regards to civility blocks.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks and a similar discuss has been begun here Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Blocking_policy_alterations Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

There was also this editor, apparently topic banned without notification by an admin, after the admin was approached on an obscure thread by another admin. [5] The accosted editor stopped editing for a couple of months. Contrast this to a current disruption issue, where there is a proper RFC/U, but the individual in question is still editing in the topic area. And don't forget the Perth case, where ArbCom appeared to have desysopped an admin without notification that they were being discussed. The solution seems to be that individual editors seem to be getting more and more aggressive in their rhetoric, stopping just short of incivility. (Unless they are truly disruptive, in which case nothing stops them.) This is creating an editing culture that is contentious rather than a collaborative. So what is the answer, an ombudsman? (ombudswoman?) Neotarf (talk) 10:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Admin can't topic ban someone unilaterally unless there are discretionary sanctions or special sanctions previously agreed to at WP:AN or WP:ARB. For instance, there are special sanctions at MMA currently, so I could topic ban someone from all MMA articles but I have to warn them first. There are some reasons to block without a warning first, ie: socking, gross BLP/vandalism but the vast majority of times, editors should be warned first. Policy doesn't require this however, and it would be very difficult to force admin to warn first via policy for a number of reasons that might not be obvious at first glance. It is impossible to list all the right times to warn first, for starters.

Admin are just as different from each other as non-admin. There is no cabal and certainly a lot of disagreement (and sometimes, vitriol privately) between them regarding how to deal with blocks. Screaming at admin that are quick on the trigger often backfires and makes them dig in. I'm not sure how we encourage more gentle handling by them, except leading by example. More importantly, there are a number of techniques to prevent a block, but it is a lot of work and not every admin is willing or patient enough to learn and use the techniques. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Well the process can be abused in a number of ways. For example a single admin can impose an editing restriction. For example an editor can be blocked and then unblocked on condition that he avoid a certain area - effectively a topic ban. An admin can use unreasonably wide interpretation of a topic ban to achieve their own ends, and people will be reluctant to get involved (if indeed they can be notified by the wronged editor). All these I have seen occur. Rich Farmbrough, 21:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC).

The admin's note on that talk page looked to me like a warning, and the next action from the admin would be a block. The situation seems to have now been contained by a series of comments from several editors, some more congenial than others. And if you look at something like Talk:Men's rights movement, I made one small edit there, to remove what appeared to be vandalism by a drive-by IP, and I got templated by the involved admin and my name placed on a probation list. Reading the probation page, which contains such uninformative and condescending gems as "We actually know when we cross the line; we are all intelligent people", I interpret to mean the admin has broad latitude to define which edits are "bettering the article" and would block me if I edited there again. As a relatively new user with barely a thousand edits, I don't know what to think. I don't see this stuff spelled out in a policy anywhere, or any way to take an inappropriate block off someone's record. This wikipedia place seems to have hidden landmines all over the place. One dare not set foot in it without a posse. Neotarf (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a notification about the status of an article which clearly stated the admin was finding no fault with your edit. NE Ent 00:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, right. That template was dumped on my talk page in the context of the same admin making uncivil and unsupported accusations against me and others during a 45,000-word RFC that is now archived. Also note that a request for an ArbCom judgment was lodged involving that page, and the same admin. I had recommended, along with other editors, that the requested title change be the lower cased "Men's rights" instead of "Men's Rights", per WP:TITLE, and the request for the title change be made via Wikipedia:Requested moves instead of RFC. Note the Byzantine wording of the notification, also the fact that some editors are notified and some aren't. Neotarf (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Many good points are made above, and I urge you to move this discussion to WT:BLOCK, where MONGO has recently started to get the ball rolling on a proposed policy change that would make such blocks as the OP describes a thing of the past. (Header: "Blocking policy alterations".) No sense in spreading the subject over several boards, and proposing changes to the blocking policy — which is what WT:BLOCK does — is more likey to lead to actual concrete change, than letting off steam here at "editor retention" (though that certainly has its uses also, for consciousness raising). Bishonen | talk 02:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC).

Things that are difficult and easy (1 edit/day)

These things are very time consuming and difficult.

Researching details for an article
Creating high-quality content
Writing high-quality prose
Finding and formatting high-quality citations

These things are very quick and easy

Reverting edits
Edit warring
Joining in a fight at a notice board or talk page
Nominating articles / files for deletion
Tagging articles
Deleting articles / files
Blocking users

The things that make a high-quality encyclopedia are completely overwhelmed by the things that don't.

The obvious solution = One edit per day

With one edit per day, one may create a new article
With one edit per day, one may add a whole pile of references.
With one edit per day, one may copyedit an article
With one edit per day, one may NOT get in to a huge fight
With one edit per day, one may NOT go block crazy
With one edit per day, one may NOT revert a bunch of good edits
With one edit per day, one may NOT go tag crazy across article space or user space

Restricting people to one edit per day makes them slow down and think about what they are doing. It also makes them decide what is the most valuable thing they can do with their one edit for that particular day. It levels the playing field in the direction of building a high-quality encyclopedia.

Of course we all know this is an awful idea, so please feel free to shoot this down very quickly—and without thinking—by using your one edit for today. It's the most valuable edit you can do today. 64.40.54.37 (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes thank you. That is a salutary perspective, and not such an awful idea at all. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Unworkable in practice of course, but it does illustrate a deeper truth. Sometimes it is all too easy to lose sight of the bigger picture and our main goal of building a better encyclopaedia. The content creators are key to this, and it seems ever more the case that the hard work they do is not being treated in a decent and respectful way. Most of them are reluctant to allot a large proportion of their limited "Wikipedia time" to reading seemingly endless policies and then trying to puzzle out how the provisions of a relatively obscure policy can somehow take precedence over the apparently clear strictures of a much more mainstream and central policy. They can never win such discussions with a well-versed Admin, especially ones who are too focused on winning the debate, when their efforts could be better spent guiding and mentoring. One hasty and ill-considered intervention can and does lose us a lifetime of contributions. Wikipedia:Editcountitis is an issue here, as are lists like WP:MOSTEDITS. If only there was some way of objectively measuring the average value of a content creator's edits too... Edwardx (talk) 15:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that a hasty and ill-considered intervention is too much of a problem of itself. It becomes a problem when no-one will reverse it, and when the intervener becomes defensive. These are calcification processes of the individual and the community. As to objective value measurements, there are some beginning works on this, in the literature. Rich Farmbrough, 21:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC).

Absurd and interesting as an academic exercise. I wonder what people would do if they had a limited number of edits per day. 1, 10, 20, etc. At what point would it be enough to waste one or two on useless drama? It is like of like "live each day like your last". What if people made each edit like it might be their last? Again, an interesting thought experiment. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Sadly I think edit warring would just be slow-motion, people would learn to answer multiple points at once, and generally continue to be as intractable as ever. Very few of these people realise that they a causing drama. I suggest to one such that he might, instead of using bad words and being negative, begin with a cheery greeting and a positive remark. The response "I will not lie!" One is on a hiding to nothing in these cases. Rich Farmbrough, 21:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC).

Now this interesting. Going a little more fine grained: if one had, say, only one block of an established editor per day, people may well be inclined to "keep it in reserve" rather than use it on a borderline issue. If one could only list 1 item at XfD, people might be inclined to focus on stuff that needs deleting rather than just "tidying up" deletions. One could still nominate 365 items a year, which is a lot. (I am more worried by the editor who boasts about how much stuff he has deleted than the editor who boasts about his editcount.) Maybe 1 ANI/I per month and 1 Arbcom per year. Rich Farmbrough, 21:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC).

Interesting idea. While one edit, period, probably won't worksomething like what Rich just said seems like probably a good idea. Buggie111 (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

That, Rich, is an excellent idea.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 00:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Negativity

This is just one man's observation, and it may be related to the not uncommon increase in depression around the holidays, but it sure seems that everyone talking here has been overly focused on the negative lately. Problems exist, but we are probably not going to solve them here. Instead, why don't we try to refocus on the good things that exist and try to promote them? Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I tried (a while ago), User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 122#Continued: civility and team spirit, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

It was a good try. While there is no way to stop all the negativity....the one on one interation does help...from both of you, so don't give up! How about joining the Dispute Resolution Noticeborad? There is great need in our little community to extend the work of retaining editors and fostering a more positive collaboration by helping resolve disputes. Think about it.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I am watching that. - My other approach for positivity is to look for one editor a day whom I want to praise, not ranking, just taking one who comes to may attention. Follow the links in the lists to find a lot of positivity. (If a link doesn't take you to "Precious", please try to find if it was archived, and fix the link. Thank you.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course we should focus on the positive, no question. There may be something to the idea that this time of year makes people moody. I've been less chipper than usual, due to external reasons as well as the perception of a lot of events onwiki that upset me but I'm powerless to do much about. I has been a discouraging couple of weeks. It doesn't mean I've lost hope or have changed my perspective on how we should move forward as a community, but I can't deny that I've been discouraged by a number of recent events, including losing several good editors lately, some permanently, some temporarily.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennis Brown (talk • contribs)

I'm certainly not sure at all that "Of course we should focus on the positive, no question", which translates to "Of course we should always focus on the positive, no question." No we should not. And that is especially true for our editors who are gifted "peace keepers" (such as Dennis). Some peace keepers feel a great deal of stress when things become emotionally stressful. I have worked in group therapy settings and one often sees the peace keepers come to the aid of the person on the "hot seat". In a group setting one just cringes when a peace keeper speaks up to relieve the tension created from a gut-wrenching, heartfelt, event being told by a group member. It can be stressful to remain in an unfinished situation, but it must be done if one expects to ever resolve it. Furthermore, it is like spitting in the face of those who have been injured, in this case by Wikipedia policies that have put some sort of robotic "thinking" over humane dealings with each other.

I learned a lot in those years that I worked in that setting. For another thing, I learned to swear. When MF says fuck, cunt, or whatever swear words he's been accused of using to destroy!!! Wikipedia, he is using those words because he is expressing a deep Truth of some sort or another. Move forward Wikipedia, don't be stuck in the juvenile past. Grow up. Or have I had too much New Year's eggnog? Sometimes it's hard to know... Gandydancer (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess everybody knows by now that I am with MF (who was always gentle to me and probably is to everyone who respects). That I wiki-linked one of those words in another editor's comment, is perhaps less known ;) (Needless to say, I received the other's blessing afterwards.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Finding a balance of focusing on positive things, while still trying to fix or deal with the negative things, well, isn't always easy. Most of the work I do myself on the negative stuff is done outside of the WER talk page, but there isn't much I can do after the fact in these situations, at least not any single stroke of the pen. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

When MF says fuck, cunt, or whatever swear words he's been accused of using to destroy!!! Wikipedia, he is using those words because he is expressing a deep Truth of some sort or another.' I grant you that may be true when he "says" those words...but not when he types them. And that is the big difference. In RL, we blurt out things...say things in a quick emotional response...triggers that go off because of habit or culture or setting. With a keyboard there is a time delay, a moment to ponder, to decide, to reconsider past behavior, to evaluate the consequences. And its not the words (fuck, cunt, etc.). Its the power play behind them. Humane dealings with each other doesnt include aggresive word choices.```Buster Seven Talk 19:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think that I should not have tried to discuss Truth while I was in such a jolly good New Year's day mood and I'm a little embarrassed. ;-) You are right Buster. I've learned over the years to set a strongly emotional reply aside for a few hours or even a day before I hit Save. Almost always I end up deleting rather than keeping it. I've also learned to never PWD (post while drunk), but I forgot that rule yesterday. Gandydancer (talk) 13:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

False sockpuppetry

I was reading through the guide to appealing blocks and this sentence leapt out at me : If you are improperly blocked for sockpuppetry, you should realize that it may not always be easy or even possible to correct the situation.

Has this happened? I'd be interested to know if we lost any editors who were incorrectly accused of sockpuppetry and left because the situation couldn't be resolved. I know one that came close but was resolved by (iirc) a Skype call. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The phrase "or even possible" should be removed. Binksternet (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I know a case of someone who was "incorrectly accused of sockpuppetry", had himself blocked, left and never returned. Top of my talk. It was the first but not last time that I felt we are losing the best, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

ps: once you are there, find "But I'll try and be gentle. Malleus Fatuorum" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

A very difficult one was solved recently by Alison, and I think using Skype. I was involved with that one previously. I'm just 6 months into working at SPI, and most cases are fairly obvious, but there are some that are very difficult to determine. Those are kicked out, at least most of the time, but it would be naive to think we have never been wrong. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd be ecstatic if all sock blocks came out of SPI instead of some editor invoking duck because a new editor didn't meet the expected level of incompetence (maybe they RTFM?). NE Ent 19:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You can always send it to SPI to get some review. We have a backlog most of the time, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me also add this: I'm confident that the vast majority of the blocks at SPI are accurate, and have a great deal of oversight. Not perfect, but two or three different people at a minimum see each case, and often many more. Blocking socks is important to stop edit warring and other problems that chase off good editors. No one wants to have to deal with 4 people "outvoting" you at AFD or a page move discussion to discover they are really just one person. That is discouraging enough to make people give up and leave. The key is being sure when you block, and that isn't always easy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Alteration to the block policy

I have proposed an alteration to hopefully aid retention here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a key proposal, which is attempting to restrict the ability of admins to block users without any warning, a matter which definitely affects editor retention. However, the motion as it stands applies to all users, and it will fail because some users should be blocked without warning. Still the comments there provide interesting snapshots of entrenched admin attitudes towards control, and highlight why changes for the better are probably not possible, short of jettisoning the entire admin system in its current ridiculous form. The proposal could perhaps be relaunched in a form which confines it to long term content editors, though it's still unlikely to succeed. Some admins are insisting that after one block no further warnings should be given. Blocks will just descend out of the blue. The more you contribute, the more you become at risk. The admins who are pushing for approaches like this are notably deficient in their own content contributions, and presumably lack any empathy for what it is like to work in the hostile environment they are promoting. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia loses editors and no one notices?

Another one gone. This is interesting reading. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

@Kudpung, just wondering why you picked this example. This particular editor is one who got discouraged becuase he/she was not voted as an ADMIN. Surely there are also other reasons for leaving Wikipedia? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, there is a problem with editors who run for RfA and get unfairly trashed, thus leave. These are often very experienced editors, so it is a concern. It is bad to lose someone this way, when they are asking to volunteer even more and are badgered off the 'pedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  - I agree Dennis. Hearing that your 100s of hours of unpaid labor are insufficient because of some failing you didn't know existed, is so minor that no one in the real world ever mentioned it, is based your failure to live up to a demigod ideal in every conceivable manner, or is based on the fear that you're a total lunatic who can't be trusted is a great way to drive off people willing to donate 100s of hours of unpaid labor. MBisanz ^talk 15:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
    - My RfA had plenty of drama and I vividly remember how stressful it was. Had it failed, I would have taken a break but think I would have come back, but that is just a guess. I was trashed on CSD (using incorrect numbers), yet DGG supported me, showing how bipolar it was. I wouldn't wish my experience on anyone. It drove me to get involved in admin issues and RFA, something I was never involved in before. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it's exactly accurate to say that he retired because he failed RFA. Reading his explanation, it looks like he took a wikibreak after his RFA, and then when he was preparing to return from that, found himself too discouraged about long-term problem editors being enabled to bother returning. And he has a very good point - sometimes we spend so much time and energy trying to "retain" people who are repeated drains on community patience, time, and goodwill that we just sort of forget that the very act of draining those things from the community's (and "editor retention" specialists') finite resources of energy deprives non-problematic editors of that energy. I'd be very interested to see how many non-big name editors - the ones who are just gnoming away, doing good, and occasionally get bitten or snapped at and get upset - we could save if we spent more time supporting them and less time fighting to keep the usual suspects happy. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
That has been the topic of a few discussions, how do you find those people? Most of the time, the topic du jure is about those people, only recently have a few high profile names come to dominate the discussion. This was what I talked about before, why SPI is a part of retention, as socks interfere by causing POV fights with legitimate editors, who finally get fed up and leave. We know that we miss the majority of these departures because the editor who gets fed up is just a regular Joe, low profile, and just plugs away until he gets fed up one day with either edit warriors, socks, drama queens or the process itself. We likely can't find those editors, which is why working on the overall environment here is so important. That is the only way I know to keep from losing those editors. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Certainly none of us have psychic powers super enough to give us "random user is leaving" radar, no. But those aren't the low-hanging fruit, anyway. The low-hanging fruit is things like "Newbie X is getting yelled at by Oldie Y" or "Editor X, new to Content Process Z, trips over standards that Experienced Editor Y isn't willing to explain". This happens so often it's almost laughable. What do you do when you come across it? Who do you support, from an editor-retention perspective? What tends to happen is that a lot of people - a lot of the names I see commenting heavily on this talk page, even - will attempt to address that by either counseling X that they shouldn't have angered Y, or begging Y to stay on as an editor when Y threatens to leave because they have to deal with X. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone if X's response to that (or the responses of uninvolved editors Q, A, B, D...) is to quietly retreat, from the situation and possibly from the project. After all, they've not only not been supported, they've been told this is all their fault and that Y is the victim. This is what I mean when I say that too much energy gets put into "saving" frequent fliers, and not enough into "saving" the people who clash with or are alarmed by them. And I think that was part of Dayewalker's point, as well - on any given day, you can load up ANI and probably see at least one long-term problem editor who's taken a chunk out of the hide of someone else...and 90% of the time, those threads end in the person who lost hide being castigated, while the hide-taker remains an editor in good standing subject to no sanction or, perhaps worse, sanctions that they're protected from by friends. It's not a happy thing to see, especially from the perspective of someone who's maybe afraid enough as it is that they might accidentally run into the hide-taker. It's quite enough to make people of a certain non-confrontational mindset throw up their hands and decide that the only way to avoid the abuse is to leave, because they're obviously not going to be supported if the hide-taker's attention ever falls on them. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
And if the hide-taker's an admin? Or one of the flock of superficially-civil POV pushers? <shrugs> But I give up. Best to simply duck down and suffer or go. Intothat darkness 20:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

@ Fluffernutter. You bring up a VERY good point....Fear. Ive had ten of dozens of WP occasions where I was reluctant to speak up because I didn't want the bullies eyes (and "the posse' eyes) to turn to me. I think most editors might be reluctant to put their necks into a noose. Plus, I worry less about the regular combatants (editor and admin) than I do about the New Editor that is speechlessly surprised by angry words and tone. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure what you're getting at here, Intothatdarkness. Admins are subject to the same policies as everyone else, as are POV pushers. You could certainly make an argument that some aren't always held to those, but the same could be said of certain non-admins or non-POV pushers. The divide is less admin/non-admin than politically-connected/unconnected, in my experience. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
My point is, quite simply, that being subject to policies isn't the same thing as being held accountable to them. There seems to be a disappointing tendency to focus on those who scream the loudest and not look further in. And I've seen enough POV pushers hide behind the whole AGF mantra to have much faith in their being subject to policy except in very obvious cases. Wikipedia often appears to function more as a collection of tribes, and those tribes can be counted on to protect their own. Intothat darkness 21:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- - - - I personally get a lot of those cases dropped on my talk page, here, email, etc. I go do what it is I do, mediate, help the new user, sometimes mentoring the new user, and explaining to the barking party that they need to not bite the newbs. Honestly, success with the barking party is limited as some people are just that way but being short fused once in a blue moon isn't enough to justify blocking them either. As far as the newb who is bitten, we often escort them to the Teahouse, adopt them, and follow up a while. Several editors here are really good at that. See User talk:Allisgod above if you want to see what I do personally. Unfortunately, they have yet to come back and that was a bit unusual of a circumstance. Some do keep editing, some don't, all we can do is try. Of course, I'm all ears for suggestions. That is what we do here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
        (edit conflict) That's definitely a start, Dennis, and it's good work you do, but mediation and compromise, while useful in the majority of cases, can lead to missing the point when someone is actually, literally wrong in how they're treating the other person. Asking a cat and a mouse to compromise on the mouse's fate is likely to end in the mouse missing a tail, and it shouldn't be surprising if eventually the mice just opt not to come to the table in the first place. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
        I've been debating how to redesign the project, and we've talked about it. What can we do to expand what we do without crossing any lines and causing problems WP:WQA doesn't exist, which handled some of those issues. Most don't belong at ANI or even an admin board. You don't have to add your name to the official membership to participate here, but honestly, nothing would please me more than if you did and helped us figure out a more formal way of helping people. Since starting the project, I've kind of taken a little bit of a back seat on the direction it takes, and just tried to let it grow organically. I don't have all the answers, I know that. But you have some experience, and it seems the desire, to help us formalize the place, maybe where we have a section for reporting "editors who need help", and helping them. Not sanctions, not the negative stuff, but like I did above, and more. I look at WP:OPP for instance. It isn't an admin board but it is a project that performs a function. If you have some firm ideas or are just willing to help with this, I would spin off a new page and help develop the idea. We need ideas and help to make sure we don't overstep our authority, which means admin experience like yours. We aren't afraid of change here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
        I'm afraid that as far as your suggestion that I work from within this project, I'm unlikely to be either comfortable or welcome here. My idea of an ideal "editor retention" project would focus on encouraging good faith and supportive behavior among editors, and on working hard to hold all editors to minimum behavioral standards - if we want to retain editors, we need to stop desperately "retaining" the editors who drive others away and start working to encourage the people who are being driven. Given that, as I noted above, a lot of the loudest voices here are voices that I find to be taking something resembling the opposite approach, and that I expect the owners of those voices would be very upset indeed to see me trying to push through my approach instead...I don't think this project and I are suited for one another. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 05:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
        This project isn't of one mind :) There is no singular agenda, other than discussing ways to keep editors. There are often debates about particular editors, and trust me, there is a split on those points. Half the place already agrees with you, check the membership roster. I try to focus my efforts here on stuff we do agree on. Many of the members volunteer at the Teahouse, for example, do new page patrols to find and help new editors, etc. But there is no "WikiProject Editor Retention Official Stance" on the controversial issues, we aren't a political group. We often just agree to disagree on some issues or individuals and don't take it personal. It is actually easier to do that here, since we all agree on the general principles that retention is an issue that needs addressing at every level. You would fit in just fine. You and I might disagree on a few editors, but seriously Fluff, we agree on 90% of everything else. The key is for us to cooperate on those things, like new editors getting bit. Like I said before, only recently have a few editors in particular dominated the discussion, and I go out of my way to never tell people what to say, even if I try to gently steer the discussion in a more general direction. For some, it is a place to vent a bit, and we tolerate that here. Better here than elsewhere. All opinions are welcome, but what actions we focus on here should be more universal in nature, including the positive things you would like to see happen. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
        Editor Fluffer. We really are just a bunch of marshmellows. Forget the occasion rants. The couches are comfy and the TEA is good. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict @ 20:04) The comments and soliloquies an editor leaves as they depart are often inciteful and informative. WE should collect and archive them for future research. User:Dayewalkers case is not one of discouragemnet over not achieving Adminship. Far from it. He is discouraged by the continuous and foreboding actions of editors that are repeatedly in attack mode, getting blocked, and yet still participants in the process. Dayewalker states: "So upon seeing that regular troublemakers were still shaking off blocks and going right back to their semi-civil disruption, I didn't really feel like contributing my time to the project any longer. If you don’t protect actual editors in favor of making troubled, obsessive editors bulletproof, eventually you’re going to run off people who are…well, sane." That's not sour grapes. That's an accurate report from a quality editor doing quality work. We should listen rather than label him chastised and pissed off because of it. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

There are a great quantity of editors that leave over their disapointment with the way article promote figures using non RS and throw fact away and place tabloid journalism references over verifiable information that cannot be cited. Jimbo has stated that being verifiable does not mean there has to be an RS inline citation, but only that the infor CAN be verified. We need to sart addressing anything we can as editors that is a ligitimate complaint and see if we, as individuals can do something to address their concerns. I think Fluff is a great editor to work in this manner. He/she may not want to support very editor (nor do I) but...we do try to retain everyone who is registered. We give it a shot and then we stop when they make it clear they don't care about our concerns. Even the editors who may be very controversial. Everyone deserves a second chance. Maybe not a 3RD, 4TH and 5TH....but we at least try to reach out and help everyone.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Bully admins at wikipedia

I have been a contributing volunteer member of wikipedia for a little over five years. I have had a lot of good interactions with other editors and some I consider hostile. One thing I noticed, and wonder if others share, is what I believe to be bullying behavior by a minority of admins, which to me was and is a big problem because it forces me to waste valuable time (pardon the expression) covering my ass, rather than spending every free minute I have contributing content to wikipedia.

I would be happy to post refs to this type of behavior if anyone is interested. Ottawahitech (talk) 02:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

That is a tad unfair really. Look, the last admin I thought was being a bit bullying was User:Dennis Brown. However, after a good deal of interaction with that admin I have discovered my own bias with admin was more of an issue than anything he was doing. Somethings don't look right throught the red filter of anger. Just calm down and look at what they have to deal with. It has been my experiance over the last year that admin are over worked and terribly tired and this can sometimes show through. What is the answer....? Take some of that work yourself. There is no reason each of us cannot begin to work in areas that do not need admin specifically. As I said before...we all need to help out at AN/I, DR/N, RS/N etc. Try to see it this way...I don't ever want to be an admin. I would hate the obligation. So help out where you can and see if that doesn't help.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

My first run-in with a bully editor was with a MUCH revered administrator. I was an innocent lamb and he basically left me stunned with his force and venom. If I told y'all who, you would not believe it. He was much loved and looked up to but my impression was he attacked me for no reason...and left a scar. 'nuff said. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. Neotarf (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)