Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Editor Retention: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:36, 11 August 2012 editMistyMorn (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,492 edits →20 (or more) things that cause the most "climate" damage: expand/ce my contribution← Previous edit Revision as of 00:14, 12 August 2012 edit undoQuiddity (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers40,758 edits →A question of morale and "good editor" retention: quick background explanationNext edit →
Line 362: Line 362:
:::I saw that conversation, because of your linking, and agree it isn't a simple issue, which is why I haven't offered an opinion there at this time. Obviously, retaining editors that are highly skilled is a top priority, but as you both point out, that isn't always a simple thing to do. The goals here are to help create the environment to make it more rewarding for them to stick around, which often means mediating fairly in disputes and helping reduce the drama in those discussions. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 13:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC) :::I saw that conversation, because of your linking, and agree it isn't a simple issue, which is why I haven't offered an opinion there at this time. Obviously, retaining editors that are highly skilled is a top priority, but as you both point out, that isn't always a simple thing to do. The goals here are to help create the environment to make it more rewarding for them to stick around, which often means mediating fairly in disputes and helping reduce the drama in those discussions. ] - ] ] <small><b>]</b></small> 13:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
::The thread has now been archived with relatively little input/response. Had the "disclaimer" not been there, I guess the thread would have gained much more traction, but mainly as an excuse for a general brawl. That sort of dynamic encapsulates for me one of the main communication issues on Misplaced Pages. A significant ''culture'' (or ''cultural tendency'') here seems to be: 1) threaten to be heard; 2) use ridicule as a weapon; 3) vaunt you're perceived strength by being 'above' caring. —]] 12:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC) ::The thread has now been archived with relatively little input/response. Had the "disclaimer" not been there, I guess the thread would have gained much more traction, but mainly as an excuse for a general brawl. That sort of dynamic encapsulates for me one of the main communication issues on Misplaced Pages. A significant ''culture'' (or ''cultural tendency'') here seems to be: 1) threaten to be heard; 2) use ridicule as a weapon; 3) vaunt you're perceived strength by being 'above' caring. —]] 12:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
:::Asking at jimbo's talkpage pretty much never helps. (Context: Until you've tried it once, it can seem like a potentially good idea! But if you watchlist his page for a few months, you'll see that it's a wormhole for a huge quantity of crackpots, misassumptions, and ]. Hence most of the background-regulars will start with an eyeroll, if something has been brought there.) It's just one of the many "mistakes/lessons that we all learn the painful way". ;) -- ] (]) 00:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:14, 12 August 2012

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Editor Retention and anything related to its purposes and tasks.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36Auto-archiving period: 12 days 


Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12
Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15
Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18
Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21
Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24
Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27
Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30
Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33
Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36

This page has archives. Sections older than 12 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Comments from Jimmy Wales

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

If I'm honest, my general perception in recent months is that the number of decent contributors who know how to write good starter articles and GAs has actually been steadily climbing. I personally believe that the quality of new articles is generally at an all time high and I see evidence of a broader coverage on an increasingly wide range of topics. Yes, we have lost a shocking number of decent editors through stupid wiki bureaucracy which could have been avoidable through a lesser stiff assed "community" where civility is not valued above content, but I think our focus should be more on attracting a new pool of editors and breathe new life into the project by offering monthly competitions like Core Contest of the month and Best Article of the Month which actually offer incentives to editors to produce the goods. The key I think is incentive to edit, which would not only retain many of our existing editors but bring in a diversity of people from all walks of life. It might even prompt some of the lazy sods here who do bugger all to contribute to content but sit around moaning about everything to write something substantial for the first time in 5 years. You advertise over the internet, on Facebook and Twitter than wikipedia is offering $500 Amazon vouchers as a top prize for writing the best article of the month and suddenly you have people knocking on your doorstep joining the party screaming "Its Stifler time baby"! Well, not quite, but I think you'd be amazed. I have brought this up with WF and I believe Wikimedia UK have shown the most interest.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Jimbo's article was an interesting read. I think he was spot on describing one of the difficulties seniors face trying to edit wikipedia, the editing interface. Has anyone done research on other barriers to seniors' participation? Imagine a world where millions of grandmas and grandpas were "active editors"... --Rosiestep (talk) 06:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
easier to imagine than today's editors still being editors by the time they are grandparents. It is a good idea to improve the interface, it's a huge chunk of the problems and the solutions right there. Penyulap ☏ 07:15, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Not all grandparents suffer from IT illiteracy. One of the huge advantages many of us have over the newbies is that we can type quickly on a keyboard having been brought up with typewriters -- at least those of us from the English-speaking world. If you look carefully at the rather better new articles, you'll see quite a few of them are written (or improved) by retirees. That does not mean, of course, that we would not like a better editing interface. If we could cut down on all those ALT-triggered keystrokes for square and curly brackets, vertical bars and strange accents it would certainly help. And there must be an easier way to deal with wikilinks. --Ipigott (talk) 08:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Speaking both as a grandparent and as a female editor, we do have to remember that there are indeed a goodly number of those in either set (and in both) who are fairly clued-up! I cut my programming teeth on COBOL, back in the 1970's, for instance. In terms of making the editing interface much more user-friendly WYSIWYG is the obvious move to be making here; at the same time, though, we all need to be a bit careful with making apparently ageist and / or apparently sexist remarks, because those just in themselves can drive people away. Pesky (talk) 03:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm a five-time grandfather and a five-year WP veteran editor. I would point out to Mr. Wales that plenty of females have been involved in computing since the beginning—think Ada Lovelace, Bletchley Park and Grace Hopper. HTML code and wiki markup are no more difficult than other means of interfacing with computers; in fact, they are arguably easier. Believe me, Grandma is not lacking in the ability to figure this stuff out. What Wales is seeing is probably a lack of motivation. Binksternet (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
My biggest problem is my rocking chair which forces me to only be able to edit as it rocks forward. The one advantage is that I have the time to think about what I am typing on the back swing. Every cloud has a silver lining. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC).

Some projects dying

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

you changed your name, was there conflict ? Penyulap ☏ 12:06, 25 Jul 2012 (UTC)
I've been Jenova20 since i joined in 2010 to work on the Arabian KSU Ghazal vehicle. I've never had a different identity, only a differnt signature. Conflict? Yep, too much. Thanks ツ Jenova20 12:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
First, many projects are dying not so much for the reasons given above, but rather that the basic content relating to their central topic is to some reasonable level developed. As articles get better, it is harder to improve them, and generally requires much more work. And while several comparatively minor topics relating to the subject of a group do, obviously, remain in poor or nonexistent levels, that is often because of the difficulty in finding sources to use. I know, as someone who has studied religion, particularly Christianity, for about 30 years, even some of the clearly Christian articles in the Encyclopedia of Religion, one of the most best and most comprehensive sources in the field, are about people or individuals I admit having never even seen mentioned before to my memory. The list of those articles can be found at User:John Carter/Religion articles, and, yeah, I had never even heard of some of these subjects before, particularly articles relating to the Armenian, Syriac, Assyrian and other churches. One of the problems with editor retention is finding ways to make it easier to find material for content and to develop content, and that is a reasonable point, but I'm not sure it is or really necessarily should be on of the focuses of this group, although I would obviously welcome input from others on that. John Carter (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not saying it's only this group, i'm giving an example of my experience and saying that for this group in particular members are constantly increasing for LGBT studies and most of the article content will actually be easily sourced on the internet as it's recent, in the last couple years or a bit longer, but...I'm not the most active Wikipedian and yet i'm one of the most active on the talk page of LGBT Studies and get little response. The automobile wikiproject on the other hand is getting stronger by the day and gets a massive audience.
I've also noticed an issue in some cases where we specifically have bias on a lot of articles where we end up in a tug of war with religious wikiprojects and editors and even references from LGBT news sources are accused of a bias, while reporting a more factual account of both sides than what the other side puts up, leaving nothing that can be used without this accusation being thrown at it. Thanks ツ Jenova20 15:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The religion/LGBT battleground is not a fun one, I know, even though I personally tend to be less involved in that field. And, recently, we've had editors saying journals published by historically evangelical universities, like Baylor University, aren't RS material simply because of the school's historic ties to a religion. But for battleground topics like religion/LGBT, and others like it, it might be nice if we had some sort of unofficial standing "compromise committee" along the lines of the groups ArbCom has set up in the past for abortion, Palestine-Israel matters, and the like, No idea how to institute such, though. John Carter (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
It's a pain in the arse to even edit articles with any remote relation to religion and LGBT issues because of that. I really do think that contributes a lot to the LGBT Studies member retention. Thanks ツ Jenova20 15:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
@Jenova20, I'm still a new enough editor that I've never even seen a newsletter. The LGBT Studies Wikiproject is one of the more active projects I've seen, so kudos to you for helping to keep it alive. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Also at @Jenova20, I don't have the answers myself, but I can clearly see how LBGT editing problems can contribute to editor retention issues, and by all means, you are more than welcome to setup a subsection and recruit others. As someone who is fairly outspoken in the real world on the issue (and who works with many less enlightened but otherwise kind people) I fully support the efforts. Everyone should be free to add to Misplaced Pages equally, without constant hassles or harassment from POV editors. Sounds like an issue perfectly in line with our objectives here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
If overall editor numbers are broadly stable, and despite the slight increase year on year I think we should count them as such, we should expect that individual WikiProjects will vary in their activity from year to year and even month to month. Most "active" WikiProjects have only a handful of active members, and it might only take a couple of enthusiasts to breathe new life into a project. Conversely one key retirement can greatly weaken a project. Personally I think that it is healthy if instead of a small number of consistently active projects we have a much larger number of projects many of which are only intermittently active. But perhaps we need to find ways to encourage our newer members to pick up and revive old projects. ϢereSpielChequers 18:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
There hasn't been one since 2009 so i haven't seen one either. I've offered to help out create one in the last few days though. You can find it and suggest content at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Newsletter if you have time. Thanks ツ Jenova20 19:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I swear I am going to try to get to work on finishing the list of dictionaries reviewed on JSTOR come Monday. I think making it easier for newer editors to get a good grasp of a subject will make it a lot easier for some projects to be revived, and for some marginally interested editors to develop related content. I could probably use several rather colorfully phrased messages on my talk page early Monday morning US time to help remind me, though. John Carter (talk) 19:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
You can do it! Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
What's JSTOR? Thanks ツ Jenova20 19:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
See JSTOR. LadyofShalott 02:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Community De-adminship

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

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

User box

Tranfering from project mainpage:

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

Userbox suggestions (1)
Userbox suggestions (2)
  • I made the second one but like Dennis prefer the first one. I'd have no problem with the second one being replaced with new content and moved to become a template--Cailil 13:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Newbie icons

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

Great idea. Some Internet poker rooms use a star to designate if a user was .net or .com. (which informed veteran players the "newness' of their competition). Some non-descript code would help at recent changes, for instance. It would assist in finding editors that have just begun their WP career and have made some timid steps into WikiWorld...lets say 50 edits worth but still have a redlinked user talk page.. A warm welcome to them would enhance their experience. The chances of retaining them would be much higher. And, the opportunity to watch over them (unbeknownst to them) is also greatly increased. This may sound harsh but its not meant to be....they have shown that time spent nuturing them has value. Good suggestion. ```Buster Seven Talk 16:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
This idea of a flag or icon that signifies newbies in a positive way has been bounced around at the Foundation too, though admittedly in a vague way. After having a hallway chat with one of the designers, I'm going to write up some notes. I'll make sure it's shared here too. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
That sounds good, thanks Steven. There is some downside, obviously, but I think the upside benefits easily outweigh them. Like a "do not bite" button, but obviously something less intrusive, something welcoming and inviting. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Then the only issue is doing it in a way that doesn't degrade them. I doubt professors would appreciate anything that makes them look inexperienced (even if they are). In addition, how would we make the distinction? Would all new editors have it until they turn it off in their preferences? I think that would be acceptable because it allows an editor to state when they no longer feel they are new. Ryan Vesey 19:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I'd be wary of making it user-settable. It would be too tempting for a disruptive editor to masquerade as an old-timer or even as a bureaucrat - and that makes it something else to police, yawn. I'd rather see it be wholly transparent, based on something hard to game. For example, the number of days on which edits have been made (so multiple quick-fire mini edits don't rack up). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I like Steelpillows suggestion. It can be something casual and un-noticable....like the current (UTC) at the back of our signatures. ((What does that mean anyway?)) For, instance, add (NE) for new editor or the # of ediing days. Believe me. The college professors won't even know. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
It means Coordinated Universal Time and we can't add anything after that in our signatures as that would mess up our archiving bots which are triggered by that last trailing timestamp in a thread. Our talk page guidelines do not permit altering this.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
How about....lets see.....in front of (UTC)? ```Buster Seven Talk 01:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
It would have to come after "talk" in your sig and before the first number of the timestamp...or before your sig started. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Why not a green + graphic, before their name? It is neutral to slightly positive, it won't interfere with archiving by being a leading feature. It is a graphic so it won't interfere with copy/paste. It can be easily identifiable at any size due to the simplicity. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and I wouldn't want it to be optional, make it automatic until they have $NUMBER of edits or $NUMBER2 months, or a combination. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I actually like this idea. Non-optional, $NUMBER of mainspace edits (don't know that I support the $NUMBER2 months, or a combination), green is a pleasant color, small/simple graphic. Yup, I like this idea. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm flexible :) I was only thinking like after 3 months if they didn't do say, 100 edits, but I see the logic in making it a hard limit on number of edits only, in case they leave and come back they are still a newbie, etc. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I support non-optional and any graphic that is easily discernable at Recent changes. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good. For some of us with really long watchlists, I might like to see an icon next to the article name as well, something indicating that the page relates to content under discretionary sanctions. Sometimes that can be easy to forget, given the number of them, and it might help get a bit more attention to those edits. And, yes, I acknowledge that I am one of those who forgets what counts under discretionary sanctions unfortunately frequently. John Carter (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Request for Admin Sanctions

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

Indexing the project

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

Penyulap breaching the request for admin process

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

I figure there is no more useful data to be obtained, so I'd like to discuss the differences between the RfA voter demographic and a more general mix of the community fauna. For background I would actually suggest someone else's example of what I did, it's someone I had never heard of before, I would have gone with Salvadore Dali myself as an example, because he is someone I relate to who did the same thing repeatedly (breach testing community norms). Someone who I've discussed the RfA incident with suggested another example called Joshua Bell.

This is foot in mouth territory so please read this in full and understand what breach experimentation is before jumping in to comment.

I expect Dennis will argue that we should all take an interest in RfA's and I say he is right, but that treats the symptom rather than the cause of the problem which is the process itself. I expect there may be others who may see the objective of the process subverted into pleasantries, edit counting, and other distractions. In my case, the very idea that barnstars should be given in exchange for votes makes me want to vomit, which is why I have never taken any interest in that sector of the project until I was asked to do so, and after 3 editors in good standing suggested without prompting, on different occasions, their opinion. The process appears to attract a type of commentator, who upon seeing a challenge to the social norm waits for cue's from other editors on how to respond. I think it's a bit difficult to grasp for some people, and unfortunately some of wikipedias articles on the subjects I haven't really looked into, or are too complicated even if they are American. I don't know if this should go onto the administrator retention‎ page or here, as I have literally no idea if this reading level is beyond the people here or not. (not the last wikilink, but say, just the Joshua bell experiment and breach testing) Penyulap ☏ 15:27, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC)

  • We should all take part in the RfA process (didn't want to disappoint you). On a more serious note, this last month has proven to me that RfA isn't as broken as I once thought it was. It isn't perfect, but it was able to deal with several high quality candidates, one candidate that falls into the category "other" ;) and several sockpuppets voting, yet nothing broke. Being that I've been in marketing for over 2 decades, and I speak "demographic" fluently, I have my own ideas about the average voter, but they would be anecdotal, so it is more useful if I keep them to myself. I'm not completely clear how this fits into Editor Retention, I have to admit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Indeed, a good question as there isn't much room under this bit on the Administrator retention subpage.

User talk:Fastily is a good example. There have been plenty more. Check out WT:RFA, where several people have pulled out statistics based on logs of how many admins are REALLY active, doing admin things It is close to 200. Many admins tire of the hassles they get, so they edit and stay out of harms way, which leads to too little of a pool of active admins, which could lead to more of a monoculture. Diversity is a good thing for the admin corps, as is experience, so I agree with you Doug

— some guy
  • Maybe it can be stuck somewhere else ? personally I think that the process is distasteful to some fauna, because of the barnstars for votes, superficial gratuities, the assumption that people all are supposed to be clawing to do something which they can already do better than anyone else as a nadmin, but are being bugged by certain sectors of the community to do more work, the solution I see it is to streamline the process so that idiots can get past the distasteful pleasantries :) No but seriously, this system is fucked up. Read the documents posted, then read the RfA, and look at how many people did not read anything let alone do any kind of study. I mean, just count the ones who stated plainly that they did not read anything. I love that whole thing because of the flawlessness of it, you get people laughing at something they refuse to attempt to understand, then you've got someone else, not me, laughing at them for being so incredibly blind, then they are agreeing with each other, but they are both laughing together at different things, I myself laughed, because you see people talking past each other quite often but these people were laughing past each other. A spectacle such as this is historic, just for the comedy alone rather than as a critique or a study. It's a masterpiece. Penyulap ☏ 17:57, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC)
    • Surely you aren't suggesting Literacy tests for RfA participants? If you want community participation, you take what you get, and the Bureaucrat has the authority to completely discount any vote he chooses, so the real trust is in that position, not as much the uninformed !voter. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

What do we do about editors who never discuss?

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

  • Ugh, wish I had an easy answer for that one. I have seen circumstances where what the editor was doing was in good faith but genuinely disruptive, and we have blocked to force them to talk, but this doesn't seem to justify that strong of a reaction. All I can recommend is a hand written note with the header "Dear Friend...." in absolutely huge letters, and a polite invitation to discuss. It might take being a little absurd to get their attention. Other than that, it falls under the "he did part, you finish the rest" part of building a wiki. Aggravating perhaps, but better to have his good articles with flaws than not have them, I suppose. That is my take, anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)it's pretty hard to start an argument with the editor if they won't talk to you, hmm, I know just the approach to use here, from my dealings with ‎‎Jssteil, go and improve the articles they are working on, help them along by filling in the citations, then, after a while, they'll let their guard down and start talking, then BLAMMOOOO!. works every time. (although I only tried it once with ‎Jssteil <shrug>)
Dennis, Dennis, tsk tsk tsk, large letters ? shouting, that is so 5 minutes ago, unless it is McUnoHoo, and then it's all last month, this month, and for the foreseeable future, no if you want to betray someone's trust you must earn it first. Go and annoy them by improving their work as if you were trying to help them, they fall for it every time, suckers. Penyulap ☏ 17:42, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC)
I've found that usually, it isn't about trust, it is just that some people avoid confrontation, or even contact, at all costs. Some creative types are just that way. Sometimes you try what you can, and in the end, you live with how it is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Start an argument? Who said anything about starting an argument? ```Buster Seven Talk 01:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I still think that dialog is an essential part of editing. As an example, making work for other editors to fix raw urls, etc may be one thing, but repeatedly adding bad sources is quite different and something that we really shouldn't let continue. But I guess in a case like that, one would simply warn the editor and if the warnings were ignored block. Ditto incomprehensible writing. Dougweller (talk) 06:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Sometimes, there isn't a choice. I've had to do that once, and I absolutely hated it, and tried everything else first. But when everything else has failed, and it really is disruptive, sometimes we have no choice. :/ I would add, that this isn't just necessary to get them to talk, but because what they are doing is causing a burden and frustration with OTHER editors, and that is a retention issue as well. Some editors do leave because of frustration from the disruptive habits of others, as we both know. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Official logo and userbox

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

= Official logo

This user is a member of WikiProject Editor Retention

Make this the official logo and userbox?

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

Inexperienced editor needing assistance

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

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

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

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

Penyulap blocked

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

First contact and why it is important

  • The New Misplaced Pages Editor senses the Misplaced Pages Community and they want to be a part of it. They reach out to shake hands and that first handshake should be friendly. Reciprocity. It's why Wal-Mart has a greeter stationed at the front door of ALL their stores. They create a bond with their customer. It makes good business sense. Using the Wal-Mart greeter as an example, the First Contact Veteran Editors (FCVE) should not be there to help the New Editor decide on a red hat or a blue hat (or which aisle to shop in) but merely to point out where the HAT department is. The FCVE is the face of WikiPedia; a warm smile, a friendly greeting, assisting, re-assuring. The Initial Contact (FCVE) that the new editor has with a real live fellow editor should be smooth and real and it should create an opening for the new editor to "walk" into. Reciprocity. It should never be an attack. "You broke the rules. You walked on the grass. You left the assigned area and dared to think you could edit. You need to be reprimanded and, perhaps, placed in detention, until you read the 57 page manual and learn what is right"! The focus of the First Contact should never be about rules. It should always be about "Welcome to Misplaced Pages"!
  • It should be obvious that the majority of new editors do not come to do harm. And yet, it seems that the way things are now, that's not the assumption that many veteran editors envolved in the "early life" of a new editor have. Many New Editors are casual users that will either "sell" or condemn Misplaced Pages (in RL) based on their experiences here. We should do everything possible to make that experience a good, fertile one. POINT:every New Editor should be specifically, and with a determinite effort, be referred to as EDITOR not user or newbie or n00b or whatever. They are editors at their first "Save". WE need to change the conversation, the 'meme', that is prevelant about New Editors. We need to respect them right from the start as equals.
  • FCVE's need to let them know, right from the start, that they are not alone; that they are part of a community, part of a partnership. We will walk alongside them, a short way down the path into WikiWorld. Sounds sappy but is necessary to counter the less than savory moments they will definitely experience. They don't know it yet but there are Grenades (Toxic Editors,as Jimbo has called them) on the path. If they pick one up...and pull the pin....POW! Let them know there is a friend they can call to soften the blow.```Buster Seven Talk 05:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely magnificent. I started Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is a community. I hope that other editors will take this and run with it. We could use some useful shortcuts WP:FC and WP:FIRST are already taken. Ryan Vesey 05:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
WP:Initial Contact wasn't taken. I've made a copy of the above and moved it there.How do you make a shortcut to WP:IC? WP:ICE is also taken. (Damn that Bjorn!)```Buster Seven Talk 06:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Crap, I apologize, I used the wrong link. I created WP:First contact. Ryan Vesey 13:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I like WP:First contact. But, now what do I do with WP:Initial Contact? Shouldn't it be deleted or something? ```Buster Seven Talk 13:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Redirect it if you like first contact better. It would make sense for any initial contact shortcuts to go to first contact. Oh, and you create a shortcut by creating a redirect. Ryan Vesey 13:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Redirect.  Done ```Buster Seven Talk 13:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
You might take a second look. It looks like an underdeveloped "hi" with basic tutorial for new editors to me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I like the look of HI but why whould we build one of our structures on someone elses foundation. Plus, I'm not sure the building is abandoned. The original owners may be a bit upset if we go in, gut the place, re-hab, and then open for business. Just a thought. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Maybe I'm confused. It seems like a similar goal, a welcome to new users. Taking the idea farther by developing it should be seen as a good thing. It is obviously incomplete. And of course, you can contact the heavy contributors there and ask them to join us here, but this is a wiki, anyone can edit, right? ;) But WP:HI is a good shortcut, and it looks like the idea they have fits. Of course, it is your call, this is just my observation. I always look to bring new folks in that have similar ideas. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
When I saw Buster's comment and created the essay, I meant for it to be something that experienced editors read. Then hopefully they can change the way they contact new editors. I have no opposition to improving WP:HI, but I feel they are separate things with a similar goal. Ryan Vesey 13:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
On that note, I made {{Welcome only}} If people think it is a good idea for a welcome template, it would be great if you can improve it or give me your thoughts. Ryan Vesey 14:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
WP:HI is excellent. It certainly can be one of the many places we send New Editors (via our Welcome). I'll let one of you knock on the door to see if they want to work with WP:WER. :~) ```Buster Seven Talk 14:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

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

A receptionist? ```Buster Seven Talk 14:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I think we need some nice throw pillows and some nick nacks. I will take a minute tonight (need a break from real life project) to sort out the front page and box up the formating with a pleasing look.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Dennis, I'd prefer to see the list (of reasons people leave) remain as it is, and I'd like to remove the note that it should be shortened in case it discourages people from adding to it. The list is contradictory, of course, because people have different perspectives, but that's the reality. SlimVirgin 18:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Watch

Some ideas are better than others.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Every now and then a veteran editor puts a noose around his/her neck and threatens to jump off the chair. Right now User:AndyTheGrump is perched on the edge. We need an ALERT! function that can respond to these moments of editor depression. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

O well. He has been blocked for a week. But its not really about Andy but about editor retention. As we members roam around WikiWorld we are going to run across situations like this. In this case, I was roaming Recent Changes looking for red-linked talks when I saw a strange comment, by Andy, on a user page edit summary. Went to his talk and found him standing on the chair (sic). We all watchlist this project and a "........ in Progress" thread would draw attention and response B4 blocks and bans and retirements, maybe. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
In either case we shouldn't call it a "suicide watch". I dislike referring to on-wiki things as real life dangerous events. On an unrelated note, Buster, can you look at my comment at User talk:Worm That Turned#Adoption? Ryan Vesey 13:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Agreed! But I hope you see my point. If we are Editor Retention, we need to respond ...in the moment. We need some available dialogue...some eloquent words that have worked in the past...some script that convinces the troubled editor to reconsider and to get off the ledge...what a negotiator would say. I'll check Worm's talk out. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It's all very selfish. I would hope someone about to commit suicide would at least tell us first so we can place the appropriate tags on their user page. This is of course a joke but i do support some kind of mechanism where we are warned people are digging a big hole for themselves. I'm unsure how that would work though ツ Jenova20 13:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


The comparison here is not a good one. Many of us have lost family and friends in the real world to suicide. Next week is a difficult 1 year anniversary in my life, for instance. We should be a little more careful of the words we use. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Inconsiderate on my part. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
We all can be sometimes, being human. I don't take it personal at all. Sometimes we just need to remind each other when an idea is not a good idea. That is part of the goal as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Departing editors

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

Yes, I know. I've read Meatball. Also, I've made many attempts over the years and always failed. But, Ive lost many Wikifriends and I'd rather not lose more. Wishing them well etc. is the best course, agreed, it just seems like surrender. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Not a surrender, just the best way to avoid riling up an upset person further, while leaving a face-saving way to return when ready. isaacl (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Messages for new-page creators

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

Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(proposals)#rfc_B207991

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

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

Guess how many IPs are blocked

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

To put that into perspective, there's 4,294,967,296 possible IP address out there (on IPv4, and many more than that on IPv6)... so that's about 0.2% of IPs blocked. Given the grumpy editors who believe that you should have to register to use WP, I think that's a fairly reasonable number. Worm(talk) 09:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
These aren't generally random IPs. By their nature they are skewed towards ones that are likely to be used by potential editors. EN wiki gets editors from all over the world, but disproportionately from English speaking countries, and guess where those range blocks tend to be? Also some organisations have huge underused or even unallocated IP ranges and others make much more "efficient" use of them, guess which ones are more likely to have editors in a range, and consequently to have been range blocked. 0.2% of potential editors would IMHO be uncomfortably high, but for those two reasons it will be way more than that. ϢereSpielChequers 10:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
You are right of course, and looking at the way that those 10 million are blocked, it's quite worrying. Range blocks taking out large groups of potential editors because of one single person's abuse? It seems like madness. Worm(talk) 10:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I suspect the problem comes from the length of the rangeblock, also it is easy to see the price of an unblock - if you boldly unblock a few ranges and nothing really bad happens then nothing will be said. But if you unblock a range that unleashes a vandal then you might be considered responsible for their actions. Combine that with our shortage of active admins and an atmosphere on wiki that isn't exactly supportive of admins and you have a clear recipe for becoming increasingly closed to IP editors. ϢereSpielChequers 16:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Rephrase it to "how many do we expect to get blocked?" and you're good to go.I'm assuming creating an account is a way around an IP block anyway? Thanks ツ Jenova20 09:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Only if you also have access to an unblocked IP, and are sufficiently motivated to come here despite the rebuff. If range blocks could be circumvented by creating an account then I don't think they'd be so heavily used. ϢereSpielChequers 10:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

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

  • Comment Rangeblocks are typically hard blocks, meaning everybody is blocked. IPs can not edit or create an account and previously registered editors are also blocked. This comes as a shock to existing editors wondering why they are blocked. Another problem is that most rangeblocks are WP:AUTOBLOCKed. So when a registered user finds they are blocked and tries to edit from another place, such as work, their new IP address is autoblocked by the software. The autoblock only lasts 24 hours, but it's reset everytime the person tries to log in from a different place. This has the effect of cascading the rangeblocks in to all sorts of other networks. When it's just one person, it eventually resets itself. But when it's 10 million, the autoblocks cascade everywhere effecting many innocnet people as can be seen by the comments at Misplaced Pages talk:Autoblock#How to get rid of newbies and elsewhere. Most people just say screw it and leave, so it's a major concern. Best regards. 64.40.54.10 (talk) 11:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
    • We had a /19 come up last night at ANI, which is just over 8000 addresses. Kww did a softblock on the range, which means logged in users can edit and IPs can create accounts. Can't wait until IPv6 is fully implemented, I imagine there will end up being billions of IPs blocked :/ But it is necessary to do so at times, so it is a lose/lose situation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I recently saw a statistic somewhere, I think it said 94% of vandalism edits come from unregistered IP editors. Certainly in my experience of fighting vandalism this is a plausible figure. I do not think it is unreasonable to have so many IPs blocked, especially considering that IPs are not blocked indefinitely, so the vast majority of these blocks are temporary and due to expire, eventually. Elizium23 (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
And I think it's worth pointing out that blocks are a vital necessity for editor and reader retention. If we don't block enough disruptive editors, the quality of Misplaced Pages degrades. Readers perceive our articles as unreliable and poorly-maintained and avoid coming. Editors in good standing see their contributions vandalized, their work challenged by tendentious editors, edit wars and drama that drive them off. It's unfortunate that we have to block so many people, but keeping out the bad eggs, in the long run, helps us keep around more of the good ones. Elizium23 (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
The opposite side of the coin is that a 2007 study found that 81.9% of edits by unregistered editors were not vandalism, and about one third of all non-vandalism edits are made by unregistered editors. All the same, 80.2% of the vandalism edits were done by unregistered editors. I don't know how representative the sample was for this study (the sample size was quite small), but the study generally illustrates that any plans to address vandalism by unregistered editors should look for ways to preserve their useful edits. isaacl (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I know that at least a few of the range blocks are to stop banned editors from making vicious attacks on some of our good editors. Dougweller (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
And a big part of editor retention is creating an environment that quality editors want to participate in, without fear of POV warriors, edit warriors, vandals or personal attacks. Prompt and fair blocking plus equitable policy enforcement are important parts of Editor Retention. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think this is something that has been glossed over in some of the discussions: there are some editors that the Misplaced Pages community does not want to retain, and retention efforts should be directed appropriately. isaacl (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Apparently somebody blocked the whole world yesterday . That would for sure avoid any vandalism ;) benzband (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I don't think it has necessarily been glossed over, even if it isn't a main topic here. A couple of us work at WP:SPI, including myself, and there are a large number of admins that are members of the project. It isn't much of a discussion topic here, since blocking isn't something everyone can do, but it is the motivation for many of us admins working the problem areas. I've been mulling over some ideas on helping admins in this exact area, but it is quite complicated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if I was unclear; I was referring strictly to the discussions underway on this page, which largely seem to assume that every editor who has been rebuffed in some way deserved to be treated in a kinder way. I agree than in many (most?) other places on Misplaced Pages, this is not assumed. isaacl (talk) 03:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Anybody wanna fix this problem?

I should have been more specific.

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

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

I can appreciate it is a delicate and pretty thankless balancing act: which is the more important to overall quality, universal access or a sane working environment?
I started out thinking it would be neat if there was some way to identify the good accounts affected by a rangeblock and allow them past the block. Maybe new account requests from within the rangeblock could be checkuser-ed before activating. I don't know if all this could be done; some kind of "firm" block, intermediate between soft and hard, perhaps?
Then I realised, this was all just a variation on the theme that users with different status get different privileges. In this view, rangeblocking is something you do to the account privileges, not to the IP connection itself. And that's cleaner - fixing a user-space issue down at the IP level is pretty dirty engineering practice. But again, a design challenge.
— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism

i just want to tell you also this:

On the Talk Page of the article of "Israel =>> " and also Here =>> There are whole paragraphs of anti-Semites calling delete the word "Jerusalem" as Israel's capital, And this is in addition to some trolls who write Against Jews. Thank you !. פארוק (talk) 13:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • This isn't really the proper venue. Additionally, I previously left you a warning on your talk page (which is likely how you found this place) because of your vicious attacks against Wesley Mouse on his talk page, unjustly associating him with anti-semitic behavior and trolls, which was unfounded and block worthy, although I chose to warn you first. WP:WER isn't a soapbox. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Personally I have several times attacked by trolls that sent me pictures from the Holocaust on my personal page just because my name is appears in Hebrew. I don't think it's a reason to block someone just because he tried to defend some articles. פארוק (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
You defend articles by discussing what is in the articles (or what should be in the articles). You do not defend articles by attacking other editors. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
A couple issues which i will spell out if you don't already know פארוק:
              • Don't use personal attacks. Challenge arguments and statements but without attacking people. WP:AGF.
              • Don't use your presence here as a walking soapbox shouting out the same thing over and over. People ignored you on the Israel talk page because they were arguing over content and you were shouting the same thing and trying to use the bible as a reference, which isn't appropriate in many situations.
              • Don't use talk pages as forums for general discussions of a topic. WP:NOTFORUM
              • Do use reliable sources to formulate a decent argument.
              • Do keep your cool and take a break if the situation gets heated.
Thanks ツ Jenova20 12:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Regular templating of user talk pages

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

This is refering to users receiving template based messages such as the ones listed at Misplaced Pages:Template messages/User talk namespace. Most veteran users prefer not to get those template based messages. See also Misplaced Pages:Don't template the regulars. Best regards. 64.40.54.8 (talk) 11:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Most veteran editors are probably not too worried about it though, because they realise that such templating is often done by newbies. What we are probably mainly concerned with is the over templating of new users. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't imagine that any veteran editor has left because of templating. It would be like saying someone divorced his wife because of the color of her lipstick.```Buster Seven Talk 13:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I hear a few people get upset over templates, but it is rare and I never understood the big deal. I don't use them very often, except with socks and vandals, and use hand written notes because I think they are more effective, but I'm not offended by getting them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

A concern

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

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

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

Hear! Hear! ```Buster Seven Talk 01:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
We don't want to duplicate the Tea House, we do want to support them because they do excellent work, and don't require our input to do so. I left a msg on Sarah's talk page a few days ago, asking her to put up a stronger presence here, so we can refer people to the Tea House when appropriate, or so they can find it more easily as this Project isn't designed to deal with that, even if many are interested in help with new users. WP:WER is a broad concept, and we can't save all "lost editors", so I agree with that point, even if I would like to keep from losing editors due to fixable issues. For many, being here can no longer be a joy, they lose interest or the real world is demanding, and we can't change that. As to the environment, I agree. I seek out someone regularly, usually someone quietly working in their own area, and just say "thanks". When I see a retired banner, I ask why. I don't talk them into staying, I just try to find what the problem is. Often, they are just discouraged by edit wars and drama and appreciate someone just listening. And we need to all take responsibility on talk pages and the boards, to encourage a calm, rationale discussion, lead by example, and politely try to direct heated discussion into productive discussion by keeping a moderating tone, or simply moderating the discussion fairly. There is no "silver bullet" and it is the little things that add up. I think it starts with all of us having a positive and constructive attitude, and spreading it in all the different areas we work. Of course, I would love to hear ideas on larger initiatives as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I tend to agree with SlimVirgin. 'Retired' users are not a significant number of all registered accounts, and scouring the site to find them and badgering them to return (if in fact this is happening), is probably not the optimal way to address this issue. The environment angle is the best way to prevent users from leaving, and active users should be encouraged to use more forethought when tagging articles, leaving uw, or making non-admin comments (and/or closures) on WP:AN/I, WP:AN, Unblock requests, etc., or indeed making flippant reports to such noticeboards. Extremely important is also the way communications are conducted over CSD, PROD, and AfD cases; many of the concerned users are new, and hence can hardly 'retire' - instead, they just quietly slip away. Recent concerns are being expressed over areas where new users are involved, such as at Articles for Creation. See WT:Articles for Creation#standards for current discussion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
The only way to Change the Conversation is to...change the conversation. We need to confront arguing, quarreling and bickering when it begins around us. We need to confront the stance of 'Adversary' when we see it. We need to step in the way of incivility and remind editors that collaborators don't talk to each other in that way. The more "changing the conversation" happens the more it becomes commonplace. I've seen the 3 of you step in front of (between) attacking editors. More of us need to do that. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, Buster, though one problem with confronting it is that it can sometimes have the effect of prolonging things. Sometimes it's good to step in, and sometimes to ignore, and it can be really hard to know which is best. I also agree with Kudpung's point about established editors really needing to watch how we word things, and taking care not to tag articles frivolously, propose things for deletion unnecessarily, etc.
I'm wondering whether we should draw up a checklist (top 20 things that cause most "environmental" damage, as it were), so that people interested in editor retention can try to avoid doing them. SlimVirgin 00:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
If the list hasn't been started, I will do so below. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

20 (or more) things that cause the most "climate" damage

  • Tags that are more BITEY than necessary.
See Misplaced Pages talk:First contact#un-intentionally biting a New Editor for an example.
  • Having a generally constant but limiting "We are Adversaries" mindset rather than a habitual far-reaching "We are Collaborators" mindset.
One is a closing. The other, an opening.
  • Choosing words that degrade or attack the other editor or his edits vs. taking the time to realize the fragile nature of the novice editor.
  • Forgetting that conversation is the natural way that humans think when they are together and, at times, it can get messy.
  • Sarcasm.
Sarcasm rarely works in RL. It is certainly out of place here. It leads to confusion, hurtfulness and trouble, even when tagged as sarcasm. It is an aggressive, dishonest form of communication.
  • Alienation through use of aggressive idiolects or slang.
Highly personalized or slangy writing styles are fine for friendly chats but not when debating serious issues with other editors, for whom such productions, which are not even amenable to machine translation, may turn out to be effectively more obscure than a different language.
  • The interplay between (1) our affirmative and prompt deletion of certain types of articles (copyvio, unref BLP, attack, etc.) and (2) the complete lack of guidance to new article creators of those critical requirements before or during the article creation process.
The combination of these two factors is the moral equivalent of a 20' pit lined with punji sticks. We can cover the punji stakes, but the problems remains; the pit, the lack of warning signage, and the stakes themselves. Please read Attractive nuisance doctrine. Suggestion; Since we are unlikely to give up the punji sticks (the copyvio deletions, etc), we put up a "sign" i.e., give new editors instructions in our policies before they create an article.
  • Most times the new editor is concerned only with the article. But, the experienced editor is more concerned with the encyclopedia.
The new user holds the article and his edits and his word choices as precious and can't bear to see them changed. They have great pride in their work and saving it becomes a mission. They need to be reminded that editing is not just a matter of deciding what to include. It's more a matter of what NOT to include. Because they misunderstand this fact, they see experienced editors as having a "cruel hands".

A question of morale and "good editor" retention

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

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

I've spent the last 3 days, drafting (and editing and rewriting and refining) a response to that particular battlefield, in an attempt to mediate. I was emailing some people to try and get preliminary feedback, before posting anything publicly, but the people I poked haven't replied. I'll contemplate posting what I've drafted, in the next few hours. I strongly agree that this is both an interesting and relevant example, but also a delicate situation... Anyway, more later. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, that's good to know. I understand your concern that this particular situation may be delicate. I do hope that by focusing on the broader issues my intervention won't aggravate any personal grievances. —MistyMORN 20:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I saw that conversation, because of your linking, and agree it isn't a simple issue, which is why I haven't offered an opinion there at this time. Obviously, retaining editors that are highly skilled is a top priority, but as you both point out, that isn't always a simple thing to do. The goals here are to help create the environment to make it more rewarding for them to stick around, which often means mediating fairly in disputes and helping reduce the drama in those discussions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
The thread has now been archived with relatively little input/response. Had the "disclaimer" not been there, I guess the thread would have gained much more traction, but mainly as an excuse for a general brawl. That sort of dynamic encapsulates for me one of the main communication issues on Misplaced Pages. A significant culture (or cultural tendency) here seems to be: 1) threaten to be heard; 2) use ridicule as a weapon; 3) vaunt you're perceived strength by being 'above' caring. —MistyMORN 12:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Asking at jimbo's talkpage pretty much never helps. (Context: Until you've tried it once, it can seem like a potentially good idea! But if you watchlist his page for a few months, you'll see that it's a wormhole for a huge quantity of crackpots, misassumptions, and histrionics. Hence most of the background-regulars will start with an eyeroll, if something has been brought there.) It's just one of the many "mistakes/lessons that we all learn the painful way". ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)