Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:21, 17 December 2014

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Editor Retention and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

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: 30 days

Editor Retention

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Editor Retention, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of efforts to improve editor retention on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Editor RetentionWikipedia:WikiProject Editor RetentionTemplate:WikiProject Editor RetentionEditor Retention

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

User talk:71.239.82.39

Losing another expert content contributor. (No analysis at Editor Retention?) Ihardlythinkso (talk)

Wikimedia's efforts in order to keep Misplaced Pages an open and self-organizing network

We submitted a request for an IEG grant at Grants:IEG/"Wikimedia's efforts in order to keep Misplaced Pages an open and self-organizing network.". It concerns a systematic assessment of the (essential) formal policies to keep Misplaced Pages an open and self-organizing network and of all informal practices of stakeholders to support or subvert this. Your thoughts and comments would be very much appreciated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.115.180.33 (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2014

Research article: Emotions under Discussion

Iosub, Daniela; Laniado, David; Castillo, Carlos; Morell, Mayo Fuster; Kaltenbrunner, Andreas (August 20, 2014). "Emotions under Discussion: Gender, Status and Communication in Online Collaboration". PLoS ONE. 9 (8). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0104880.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

Conclusions/Significance

Emotional expression and linguistic style in online collaboration differ substantially depending on the contributors' gender and status, and on the communication network. This should be taken into account when analyzing collaborative success, and may prove insightful to communities facing gender gap and stagnation in contributor acquisition and participation levels.

--72.223.98.118 (talk) 22:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

If I may ask... Who are/were you? GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thoughts on editor retention and women

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.

Reposting here a revised version of what came to mind in the course of another discussion, in response to an example of promoting a "foul mouthed boys club" atmosphere.

Perhaps causing offense and distress is the intention here-- that's certainly been part of my experience as a female editor. Painful and demeaning experiences tend to discourage volunteers, and it's increasingly painful to be told to "move on", assume good faith, develop a thicker skin, stop being offended, etc., and just get back to work.

But hey, I'm a woman, and I've already been told that if I think it's too rude here I should leave. Sometimes all this in-your-face sexual content and aggressive, sexualized interaction style is just tedious and wearisome. There's a difference between viewing this sort of stuff when you're looking for it, and having to see it when you're really not in the mood, or when a co-worker is looking over your shoulder, or when you are seeking legitimate redress of grievances through the community's established dispute resolution processes. When sexual content is no longer optional, it stops being fun. When I'm asked repeatedly, "you can participate, what do you think? Join Misplaced Pages! and this is the kind of discussion that is here, I feel like I am being cynically exploited by volunteering on this site. Come for the culture, stay for the swear words, and if you get pushback in real life for running with such a crew of barbarians, well hey, shut up and write more articles about women scientists, the cool girls like to swear and say sex stuff, if you don't, clear out!

When I tell male editors in person about some of my experiences here, they wince uncomfortably, and say they're really sorry. Yet, no matter how nice people are in person, this uncivilized atmosphere keeps coming up again and again online. We might as well be honest about what it can be like to be a female volunteer on this website. Many women have had a much worse time of it here than I have; I'm not the only one who's gotten to the point where there are better things to do with my time than persist with this unpleasantness. The more I'm told to "just ignore it and go back to work", the less I feel like editing. -- Djembayz (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Be stubborn & don't back down from anything, including 'bad' language. Never consider retirement an option. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the main problem with Misplaced Pages culture is necessarily one you can blame on gender. It's the toxic and confrontational atmosphere in general that's ruining this project for women, and it doesn't matter if the aggressive editor is male or female. This place can be overly contentious, and that's what drives most females away. The ones who stay either enjoy the drama or they find a way to avoid the drama; or perhaps they find a "healthy" balance of both, but make no mistake, until the vibe around here is more congenial, we won't see any significant improvement regarding the retention of female editors. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I still don't understand the complaint that swearing is a problem for women but not for men. Which women? All women? Which men? All men? HiLo48 (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• In my many years here, I've interacted a number of times with editors who found the occasional coarse language here to be intolerable. Much of the time, their gender wasn't obvious, but the times it was, it was overwhelmingly men who complained, not unlike the ratios of men to women that the Foundation claims exist here. This leads me to believe that the minority of editors who find fault in the "rough and tumble" atmosphere here do so not because of their gender, but because of their individual sensitivity, which may be because of religious beliefs, upbringing, or just their unique nature. I think we should not be declaring that women in general are less capable of tolerating the occasional swear word, as it is a stereotype that is unproven, unflattering and portrays women as weak, delicate flowers that require men to shield them from profanity. Instead we must accept that some humans are more sensitive than others, just as some humans are more prone to use those words. Making it about gender only perpetuates the type of stereotypes that women have been fighting for generations. It also assumes that if you are a male, your tolerance should be higher, which is equally problematic. Dennis - 2¢ 18:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

A wise response there Dennis. HiLo48 (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, you and Dennis Brown keep misrepresenting the argument. Where has anyone said that "that swearing is a problem for women but not for men"? Dennis' response to your questions at first seems promising, but then crosses the line by suggesting that others are suggesting that you treat women editors "as weak, delicate flowers that require men to shield them from profanity." Did you read the last section, Research article: Emotions under Discussion? Or any of the other articles that have been presented here and in related discussions? It's not that all men behave or communicate this way or that all women behave or communicate that way. (This is where Dennis' response seemed promising.)

It's simply that, generally speaking, women and men have different styles of behaving and communicating, and the style that is endorsed as the acceptable, "normal" one here is the generally male style. (Probably because the editorial body is mostly male.) But who said that style is the norm? Or that to behave differently is weak or inferior? (This, IMO, is what some can't seem to grasp.) 72.223.98.118 (talk) 01:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Would you PLEASE sign in? GoodDay (talk) 01:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

No. But if by not doing so I am breaking some rule, please tell me, and I will stop participating. 72.223.98.118 (talk) 02:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

You're obviously not here to build Misplaced Pages, according to your edit history & are displaying an SPA nature. GoodDay (talk) 02:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

There are 10 items under that banner. Which one are you accusing me of? I actually think I fall under WP:NOTNOTHERE (Advocating amendments to policies or guidelines, or just Expressing unpopular (?) opinions). 72.223.98.118 (talk) 02:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

(Further response to Djembayz) There's no such thing as a male editor or female editor. The sooner the community adopts that concept, the better. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep. HiLo48 (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Not so sure. Talking about editor retention, more men than women seem to be in the group of actually leaving, some more than once. Some courageous men and women made me stay by their oppose, Eric first, - do you know a single women in the (much larger) support group? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I would be surprised if a site with somewhere between 85% and 92% males amongst the regulars didn't lose a lot more of the male editors than the female ones. The real question is whether gender has an influence on retention, especially after you take other factors such as age and marital status into account. ϢereSpielChequers 23:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Rampant incivility will, in the long-term, decrease retention amongst editors of both genders. I think the issue here is really more about which genders are more likely to excuse and defend the use of derogatory terminology, such as: "twat", "cunt", "dick", "fuck", "idiot", and "moron". My guess is, few females will support the use of these epithets, even if they, in principle, support the editors who use them. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

My advantage is that, as not a native speaker of English, I knew only two of the terms ;) - I can't repeat enough that it's not words that constitute incivility but attitude, remember? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Gerda, I agree with you; context is everything. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

That's not exactly what I meant. I spoke about the soil, meaning the basic attitude. How can someone request civility (or "enforce" it, - a contradiction in terms, imho) who thinks of other people as, - well let's not repeat it)? - Back to my little example: I can't speak for all of Misplaced Pages, just what I observe where I look. Math: in a certain minority group, we have 13% women. None of the four left the project. (I admit that I was tempted several times, never because of civility, always because of the loss of a user.) Of the 29 men, 10 left (some more than once), 2 of those are gone. We women have to do the work ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

ps: look at the last linked longish thread for "Without a hard heart, you can't survive here." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

"It's not our job to toughen our children up to face a cruel and heartless world. It's our job to raise children who will make the world a little less cruel and heartless." — L.R. Knost Rationalobserver (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. What I found cruel was to loose people with whom I loved to work. I had to harden my heart (or grow a thicker skin) to still stay. - I don't know how I would react to coarse language because it has never been used to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

You don't have to be subject to cruel language to stand up for those who are, but from what I have seen you instead stand up for those who subject others to cruel language, which I do not understand. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that rampant incivility will run people off, just as intolerance or overzealous policing of civility will. The solution is not and never will be the use of admin tools, it will only be by the use of serious and calm discussion. What I have found is that if we are overzealous in policing civility, the process of policing becomes more disruptive than the initial incident. If someone drags another to ANI because they said "Fuck" one time, I can promise you that the word "fuck" will be said 50 times in that discussion. I've counted it, I'm not exaggerating. Even the best intentions can have absurd results. And I'm not so sure that women would be less tolerant of the seven dirty words. My mom cussed 10x more than my dad, who seldom did. Anecdotal, but applicable. Our culture in the US is still lacking in the US, and likely elsewhere, when it comes to equality and women. Personally, I find Misplaced Pages to be rather liberating. You can be a woman, or a man, or neither. Gender can be as irrelevant as you choose it to be when you choose an account. Female, male, black, white, Hindu, Muslim, we all look alike when we type. While it isn't perfect, it is a little island where (on average) people are generally judged by the merits of their editing, not their gender or race. Dennis - 2¢ 00:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

the process of policing becomes more disruptive than the initial incident, only as long as the prevailing culture ignores WP:CIVILITY. We don't need a philosophical debate to enforce it; it's already a pillar. A warning followed by a short block followed by a longer block is not disruptive to the community. You do it all the time for other reasons. You also picked the least contentious of my examples, which is a self-serving cherry-pick. If I was a new editor who registered a few days ago, and I called you a cunt you would block me. If I came back several days later and called you a twat you would re-block me, and if I did it again you would indef me. I don't see why "popular" editors should get a pass, when loners do not. The current level of discourse regarding this subject is disappointingly low. Unless she is currently a Misplaced Pages editor, the anecdote about your Mom is irrelevant here, and it's also a logical fallacy. If you want to take up the anti-civility torch, you would do better to present sound arguments and compelling evidence, instead of personal anecdotes. E.g., my Mother never swore, but my father did when she wasn't around, so I guess we're even ... lol. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You don't know me very well :) I've been called the same more than a few times, never blocked or asked for a block. I'm not a good example, it doesn't bother me if a stranger does a drive by and calls me a name. In mediation, a goodly portion of times when I have been called a nazi or jackass or whatever, I've continued the discussion as if they didn't call me a name, and it got hammered out. This is typically with new users. And at the end, I would tell them "btw, you don't want to do that. most admin would have blocked you". In the end, I try (I'm not perfect) but I try to focus on the merits first, and cover civility later. Telling someone who is pissed off "Don't call me a jackass" is, well, going to be fruitless. It is better to tolerate single instances and deal with the merits, then say something later. What is unhelpful is when the discussion is changed from being one about content of the article, to "is ok to say jackass?", then everyone jumps in with their opinions, and none of that improves the encyclopedia. That doesn't mean it is ok to call someone a jackass (and if you make a habit of it, yes, I will block you), it means there are too many people who get obsessed with civility and hold it up higher than content. They are both important, but content is still why were are here. There is the perception that civility has "gone off the rails!!! OMG!" by some here. That isn't exactly the whole story. Drama due to incivility has gone off the rails, but that is due in part to rampant intolerance of anyone who disagrees with anyone. To me, the intolerance poses a greater risk than civility, but we should be addressing both at the same time. Any attempt to fix one without the other will fail. I started here back in 2006. The place is more civil now if you are measuring the instances of being told to "fuck off" and such. It was under the radar for the most part then. Now we worry about even the smallest infraction with a debate, the pendulum has swung too far. We need balance. Dennis - 2¢ 00:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I see that as your personal style, but I'm not at all sure why this should be the accepted and applied standard for all Wikipedians, especially when one of the five pillars directly contradicts your position numerous times and in several different ways (please don't ask me to futilely quote WP:CIVILITY to prove the assertion. It's there for all to see.). If you want to throw away all expectations of civility, you should work in a transparent way to amend the relevant policy so that you aren't in absolute contradiction with it, but in the meantime you shouldn't try to mold this project to your liking, which is coincidentally exactly as you would make it, but not as it is currently formulated (read the policy nutshell, and then justify occasionally calling people idiots or cunts). Rationalobserver (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not asking everyone to mimic my style. My style just shows there is more than one way to view the problem, more than one solution. I'm not trying to change our view of civility. I'm trying to open people's minds about how to manage it, how to get the maximum amount of it. The block tool doesn't make people civil, it just makes them go away for a short time. Sometimes it makes the problem worse. Sometimes, it actually helps. But it is folly to think we can block our way to a more civil Misplaced Pages. WP:BIAS is also worth a read. What may be innocent enough to you, might be very offensive to someone from India, or Iraq, or Niger. The big words are easy to define, but the real incivility doesn't use swear words, and is often saccharine sweet. Dennis - 2¢ 01:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not asking everyone to mimic my style. You actively champion an especially relaxed standard of civility at several venues, but none of which are Misplaced Pages talk:Civility, where this discussion should happen. Why are you the "go-to guy" when it comes to defending incivility but you've never made a single edit to the Civility policy or its corresponding talk page? Rationalobserver (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Like I said above, I'm not interested in changing the wording of a policy, I'm interesting in making Misplaced Pages a more tolerant place and a more civil place. You seldom see me on policy pages, you often find me in the trenches. If you only notice my discussions on tolerance, then you aren't looking hard enough. If I'm championing anything, it is for us to take a balanced approach in enforcement. Dennis - 2¢ 02:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Dennis, some of these terms constitute not just incivility, but legal harassment; e.g., from Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.: "A raft of case law ... establishes that the use of sexually degrading, gender-specific epithets, such as 'slut,' 'cunt,' 'whore' and 'bitch,' .... have been consistently held to constitute harassment based upon sex ... If C.H. Robinson tolerated this environment, it may be found to have adopted the offending conduct and its results, just as if the employer affirmatively authorized it." Rationalobserver (talk) 20:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you making some kind of legal threat? Eric Corbett

Nope. I'm merely pointing out that unchecked use of the c-word may put Misplaced Pages in jeopardy regarding discrimination against a protected group, namely women. In E.E.O.C. v. National Education Association, "the 9th Circuit  ... that Harvey's employees did not need to show that he was treating them so poorly because of their sex. Even though Harvey was arguably an 'equal opportunity harasser,' his conduct was still potentially illegal because it hurt women more than men, the court said." Rationalobserver (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

And if someone calls you a bitch or a cunt, I would block them in a skippy minute. If they say "You're bitching about the source, but you missing the larger point", I'm going to completely ignore it. You might notice that one of the themes that I bring up a lot is "context". While a lot of the "sexual harassment" issues at the job apply just as common sense, Misplaced Pages is not a job and there is no legal recourse here. If you and I worked at ABC, Inc. and I called you a bitch, I would expect our boss would take action. If you and I were at the food court of the local mall and I said "Bitch, that is my seat", then you have no claim. That is the difficulty here. We can't enforce sexual harassment here like you would a job. For starters, it isn't a job. Second, there is no way to prove gender. I might be a woman for all you know, pretending to be a man. What we CAN do and should do (and sometimes fail to do) is enforce WP:NPA. If you call anyone a "bitch", you get warned, then blocked, etc. Gender isn't an issue. And frankly, it is rude to call anyone that name, male or female. That is the ultimate in equality: we treat everyone equal. And to be clear, WER's mission isn't political. We DO treat everyone equal here, and singling out special rules just for men or women, or supporting them as a group, that is completely counter to our charter. 100% equality for all races, religions, genders, with no special treatment for or against anyone. Dennis - 2¢ 22:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a job and there is no legal recourse here. That's not true: "The Court has rejected the defense that compensation is required to bring a worker within the employment discrimination protections of the Act. (Volling v. Antioch Rescue Squad, N.D. IL, No. 11 C 04920, 12/4/12.)" Rationalobserver (talk) 22:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

We can't enforce sexual harassment here like you would a job. Says who?"employers should be aware that Title VII may extend to cover volunteers in the workforce and provide volunteers the opportunity to bring suit alleging harassment and discrimination." Rationalobserver (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Gender isn't an issue. Again, says who? "a plaintiff can prove a hostile work environment by showing severe or pervasive discrimination directed against her protected group, even if she herself is not individually singled out." In terms of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the protected group is women, so gender is certainly a factor. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Gender isn't an issue. "At issue was whether the use of offensive 'gender specific' words such as 'bitch', 'cunt' and 'whore' in the workplace could support a sexual harassment lawsuit. The court ruled that while not all profane or sexual language would be actionable, certain gender-specific words could be, even if they weren't used explicitly in reference to the plaintiff." Obviously, the courts resoundingly disagree with what you've stated above. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• This is not a workplace, it's a website that anyone can join. There is no vetting process to join. If you want to debate if Misplaced Pages should be considered a "workplace" as a legal definition, you need to take that up with the legal department of the WMF, that is beyond the authority of the community. They own the place, we don't. No one want sexual harassment, but you haven't pointed to any. If your interest is to start yet another debate like the one that is wrapping up at Arb, you picked the wrong venue. You seem to be wanting to advance political ideas here, but WER is strictly non-political, without exception. If you know someone acting in a sexist way, WP:ANI is the place. If you want to change WP:CIVILITY, the talk page there is the place. But no, we aren't going to start debating "the C word" here at WP:WER. It is disruptive, leads to arguments over minutia, and is unrelated to the mission of WP:WER If you want to debate gender politics, I suggest going to a page or project whose focus is solely that. Our focus is on unity, finding under recognized editors who are productive, finding editors who are at risk of leaving, and informing members of upcoming discussions and polls that affect retention, but we don't have, nor will be ever have, a singular agenda or position on any policy. And again, we are not going to duplicate the mistakes made by those in the current Arb case and get into battles over gender politics. It isn't going to happen, it isn't an option. Dennis - 2¢ 23:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

unrelated to the mission of WP:WER I'll stop, but FTR, this thread is/was about retention as it pertains to women, and IMO the excessive use of profanity here, particularly the gender specific terms, is our biggest obstacle to retaining women, so I disagree that this does not pertain to WER. If you ban all topics that you deem political, you tie your hands regarding fixing any retention issues that relate to those topics, but I'll not waste my time here again, so your mission was accomplished, Dennis, well done once again! Rationalobserver (talk) 23:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome to talk about women and retention, we do it all the time. As for me, my record on equality for women, men, LGBT, race and religion is clear, I won't waste time proving it. What I can't allow is for discussion to degrade into political debates, whether it was about women or other topics that are known to cause disruption. Whether it is intentional or accidental doesn't matter. If the current Arb case has taught us anything, it has taught us that political activism has no place on Misplaced Pages, and certainly not in a Wikiproject on Editor Retention. And if you find an instance of sexual harassment or sexism, by all means, ping me on my talk page, or take it to ANI, or ping Bishonen, Drmies or any of the other admin who are known to be particularly intolerant of sexism. Regardless, WER isn't an admin board, not a project about political activism. Dennis - 2¢ 00:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I realise this is closed, but Dennis is away for a while so add my name to the list of Admins you can contact. Dougweller (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not political activism to suggest that some abhorrent language might be negatively influencing editor retention in general, specifically regarding women. BTW, a virtual workplace is not exempt from the Civil Rights Act or any other employment law. For all practical purposes we are volunteers who telecommute to work, but as I said I won't go on about this here. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

With all this legal stuff being discussed I have to remind everyone that this is the encyclopaedia (note the spelling) that anyone can edit, even non-Americans. While American law may sometimes theoretically apply here, a lot of our editors will be quite unaware of such law. While American linguistic and other customs are the most common, editors from other parts of the world will have their own. They can be very different. Some absolute statements made here about what is never acceptable (in polite company, etc) are just plain wrong when one broadens one's view. If you cannot be sure how a particular piece of the English language is used and received in South Africa, or New Zealand, or Queensland, or Hong Kong, or Yorkshire, then don't make absolute statements about it. If everyone could move away from an absolute definitional position, we could all relax a lot more. As an Australian I sometimes feel part of a much smaller minority here than women. Let's all accept that we don't always know what everyone else thinks. HiLo48 (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree, all absolute statements are wrong. NE Ent 02:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

all absolute statements are wrong is itself an absolute statement, but how about "all discrimination is wrong"? Is that absolute also false? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes. In the US, we don't let 17 year olds buy beer, for example. You seem to be using the word in a way that dictionaries do not. "Discrimination" is simply recognizing a distinction. Using that distinction as an unfair means to disenfranchise a class of people, or an individual, is obviously wrong, but to say "Discrimination is wrong" as an absolute statement is completely absurd. Dennis - 2¢ 17:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Discrimination is loosely defined as, "an action that denies social participation or human rights to categories of people based on prejudice". Can you name an example where discrimination is not wrong without redefining the term? Rationalobserver (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm a discriminating shopper. Dennis - 2¢ 17:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

You changed the word: discriminating and discrimination have entirely different definitions. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Your central point was refuted, yet you just contradict, you are clearly aware of but unable to admit the word "discrimination" is used in multiple ways. The declaration lacks precision, it comes across sophomoric, like a Middle School paper on MLK. You've dug in here, your're not interested in discussion, but instead being perceived as "right". I'm not interested in this pointless exercise. Dennis - 2¢ 17:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Dennis, you're the one who jumped in here to prove me wrong, asserting that "all absolute statements are wrong", which is a tautology, BTW. You're apparently the self-appointed retention guru, but you've called my ideas "absurd" and my approach "sophomoric". What have you done with this project page that tangibly improved retention, because all this looks like to me is a forum whereby you negate everyone else's ideas in an attempt to supplant them with your own? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

RE: All absolute statements are wrong, what about: The Earth revolves around the Sun, not the other way around.? Under what circumstances is this not absolute and correct? Rationalobserver (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I think WP:CIVILITY already makes it clear that certain words, namely anything that constitutes name calling, are inappropriate if not outright banned. From the "nutshell": "Participate in a respectful and considerate way, and avoid directing offensive language ... at other users." From the policy: "editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect ... editors should behave politely ... Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness and disrespectful comments ... Even a single act of severe incivility could result in a block, such as a single episode of extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor ... Editors are expected to avoid personal attacks and harassment of other Wikipedians ... The following behaviours can all contribute to an uncivil environment: (a) rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions ... (d) belittling a fellow editor", which is exactly what Dennis Brown has done to me here, BTW. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL, would need to make a banned words list, in order to clarify its stance. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea, but I think the stance against obviously offensive words is already quite explicit. Has anyone ever argued that "cunt" or "idiot" are not always offensive words when directed at someone in anger? Rationalobserver (talk) 17:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

AFAIK, there's no consensus in the community or among administrators, as to how to enforce WP:CIVIL & arbitrators are reluctant to push such enforcement without community/administrators backing. The only thing that would cause a big push towards censurship of usage of certain words, would be if evidence was provided that donations to Misplaced Pages was in decline & the reason for the decline was continued usage of 'bad' words. GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Calling someone a "sniveling dog" is more offensive than "an idiot" in some cultures. We aren't "Misplaced Pages USA" and all this cultural biased towards American usage is offensive to me, and I'm an American. If someone said "don't be an ass, Dennis" that would be less offensive than "you are an incompetent editor who has the literary skills of a chimp" which has no cursing. Context is everything, plus it is all subjective. Again, the place to debate what is and isn't civil is really WP:CIVILITY. WP:WER is about finding and keeping good editors, so bad word lists are off topic. Dennis - 2¢ 17:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I think a lot of our civility problems more or less are in a sense secondary to problems regarding quality and reliability of sources and notability. Very few people around here are going to call me a mindless, drooling, incompetent hack for producing a directly relevant quotation from the most recent Encyclopedia Britannica, for instance. And the few that do will be quickly recognized as trying to engage in evasion. The best way to reduce this sort of civility problem is to make it easier for editors on all sides to find at least decent recent reliable sources on topics. I'm right now working on developing the Bibliography of encyclopedias and related articles, and if and when I add everything from the various articles and books I've gathered together for those articles, I'm going to start developing some pages like Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Christianity/Encyclopedic articles for some of the topics which seem to have insufficient coverage relative to the leading reference books in the field. Several of the works in the American Library Association's online "Guide to Reference" directly relate to gender studies, including men's studies, women's studies, gender studies, homosexuality, and so on, and I think maybe one of the best ways to make it easier to develop good content in those fields without undue drama might be to get together lists like the one above from some of those reference sources and make them more quickly available to individuals looking to develop such content. John Carter (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

A lot of the "civility problems" that have been hitting ANI and Arb aren't even about articles, they are about things said at boards, on projects like this, which is frustrating as the problems center around things that, at best, are ancillary to building an encyclopedia. They are about the politics rather than content. Glad to see you working on those kinds of titles, those are core to using Misplaced Pages, although a bit out of my league as an old redneck. The Bibliography of encyclopedias is particularly interesting, in an era that seems to be hosting a decline in the number of encyclopedias. That will also serve as a rich host of redlinks to fill. Dennis - 2¢ 18:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Speaking of absolutes, WP:NPA says, "some types of comments are never acceptable", including: "Racial, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets." Well, "cunt" is an epithet, and is therefore "never acceptable". Rationalobserver (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Take it somewhere else WER doesn't exist to debate the civility of single words. You keep raising the issue, seemingly to pick a fight, and it has already been talked to death. I'm going to simply start reverting you if just want to do is argue and talk about the word "cunt". And that goes for everyone. Take it to the appropriate forum. WER isn't that forum. Dennis - 2¢ 18:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

IP participation

Recommend we ignore IPs posts, until he/she signs in or discloses previous registered account. GoodDay (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Why? Shouldn't quality of the contribution determine whether one responds or not? NE Ent 02:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

It's recommendation, based on the IP's contrib history. You're free to decide for yourself, of course :) GoodDay (talk) 03:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Being that we aren't an admin board, we don't fret about IPs quite the same here. Sometimes there are good reasons to be an IP. If there isn't anything of value to to respnd to, it doesnt matter if they are old or new. That said, I expected some extra traffic due to the Arb case, so it isn't a shock to see "new" faces. I wouldn't let it worry you, or be quick to judge. Farmer Brown 03:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC) (Dennis)

In agreement :) GoodDay (talk) 04:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Keep calm & carry on

I believe that any editor can have a pleasurable experience on Misplaced Pages, if that editor remembers that this is only a cyber world & not the real world. It's an approach that's much less stressful :) GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

What if it spills over into the real world? We have Commons admins stalking editors IRL and other admins defending their power to do it. We have the peanut gallery at Wikipediocracy who think it's OK to phone editor's place of work, and then WP admins who think that's OK because it's "off wiki" (in a WO thread full of active WP editors and even admins). Andy Dingley (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Symbolic change

I named Mark Miller, Buster7, John Carter, Go Phightins!, Doctree, Adjwilley as "coordinators", which is symbolic title as we all have equal say. I choose these because I know them, they are regulars here, half are not admin, and I trust their judgement. While being a coordinator is a ceremonial title in most respects, it does mean that if they agree on something, odds are good I would agree and likely the community as a whole here would as well. I made a note in the members roster. The same would be if they choose anyone else to include, I would consider that person the same. This is to make creating, deleting, modifying or moderating any content here easier. We have some old content that needs archiving from the front page, for example. If you aren't on that list, don't take it personal, I was fairly random in my selection, and it wasn't based on anything other than the names of those whom I know to be familiar enough with the place to make technical decisions. I did this as I expect to be around less in the future, and this just makes things simpler on the maintenance front. Dennis - 2¢ 19:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Even if it is only symbolic - not one woman? 72.223.98.118 (talk) 03:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

A situation that is easily resolved. Do you have someone in mind? The members list is here. Maybe someone will see this and volunteer?```Buster Seven Talk 07:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I name Anne Delong, Anna Frodesiak and SlimVirgin as coordinators from the above permissions. All excellent editors.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The only problem I see is being all admin. They aren't very active here, but I would trust the judgement of any or all. I even nominated Anna for admin, and supported Anne in hers early on. Slim has been around longer than me but I hope she knows I trust her. We can't just declare, so if most of the others agree, then its fine. That assumes these want it. Really, it has no power (he says after Mark makes a declaration....), it is more about willingness to rally the troops around an idea, or make technical decisions with the others, not solo. I really didn't think about gender when selecting, I just picked familiar names that are already involved. Slim is probably less likely to get involved, she has other projects like the Gender Gap that she founded, but Anne and Anna....I would love to see them more involved here. Not because they are female, but because I think a great deal of both of them, and they are new to being admin, with a fresh memory of how it feels to NOT have the tools. Dennis - 2¢ 20:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Mark Miller and Dennis, for your confidence. It's true that I haven't been very active in the project since signing up; I've been sidetracked into the G13 rescues, which is more about retaining content than new editors, but has to be done right away. I hope to be more active in the future. I do try to follow the discussions and have occasionally put in my opinion. I will happily help out in any way that I can, and it would be useful to know more about the inner workings of a WikiProject, but at this point it would likely be quicker for the more active members to make changes themselves than to explain to me how to do them. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mark, Dennis and Buster, thanks for thinking of me. I'd be happy to help out with Anne and Anna. SlimVirgin 00:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Excellent. I'm sure the others will approve as well, you have a lot of experience in helping others, as well as the tech stuff and the bit, so that works out swimmingly. I really thought you would have had too much on your plate or I would listed you to begin with. In an unrelated email, Anna told me she is looking at devoting time in other areas and probably couldn't help out. There really isn't much to do, but it still helps to have experienced people offering guidance when it's needed. Dennis - 2¢ 02:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

If nothing else, the ladies might know of some people who they think are deserving of EotW recognition who haven't been recognized yet. And, maybe, we can try to find a way to maybe try to find some ways to build strongly "collaborative" efforts here or in other WF entities which if "publicized" (like editathons) might help bring in some more ladies. John Carter (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Coordinators? cool. GoodDay (talk) 02:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome aboard, SV. Your guidance and wisdom will be a blessing. As John mentions, nominations are always needed. Maybe we can find a way to publicize it more. (BTW, both Anna and Anne are past Editors of the Week). ```Buster Seven Talk 03:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Like--Mark Miller (talk) 04:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks, everyone. I look forward to helping. I'll keep an eye on the page at first to get a feel for what others are doing. SlimVirgin 23:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

As there are no objections, I have added SlimVirgin's name to the list. Others can be added to the list in the future if needed, or removed, but it is my opinion that this is best done with a majority of active coordinators agreeing. The little things can probably done with less formality. Dennis - 2¢ 23:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Where a helping hand might come in handy

• Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Nominations Where an editor gets nominated. We like to have a total of at least 6 editors somewhere in the nominating process (nominated and waiting for a second or in The Q).
• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Nominations A discussion page about the nominated editor. Also, nominations wait here for at least two weeks to acquire a second. Co-ordinators and other interested editors might consider watchlisting this page to comment and/or second.
• Go Phightins! and I do most of the other daily maintenance EotW stuff with occasional technical help from isaacl. ```Buster Seven Talk 22:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Why have you linked Isaacl to the letter U? -- GoodDay (talk) 03:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Either because today's show is brought to you by the letter U ;-), or it's just a typo; I'm guessing Buster7 meant to use the {{u}} template. I've removed the link. isaacl (talk) 03:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@Goodday. isaacl is correct. I used the wrong brackets. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Just a reminder

that Misplaced Pages:Missing Wikipedians still exists. Got to thinking about it today, was wondering when or if MistyMorn was coming back. We only crossed paths on a few occassions, but I always found her to be so agreeable and positive in attitude. Not sure exactly why she left. The same with Bmusician who hasn't edited in quite some time. I crossed paths him several times and he seemed rather dedicated and hard working. So many names. I might need to do an email run and just say hi to some old familiar names. Dennis - 2¢ 21:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I know of a few editors who've disappeared aswell. GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with Dennis. Anecdotally, I can say that I might have been away much longer had it not been for a kind e-mail from Go Phightins! back in 2013. I might not have been "missing" per se, but it's nice to have fellow editors check-in. I, JethroBT 22:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Excellent example, and shows how the most important work we do in Editor Retention isn't what we say on this page, it is what we do when no one is looking. Dennis - 2¢ 23:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC

Interested users are invited to comment at Misplaced Pages:Administrators/RfC for an Admin Review Board. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for Admin

Not looking for any action, and doing anything this soon is probably a bad idea, but we have User talk:Thomas.W, who failed at RFA. It would be easy to say "Pfft, so what, he got mad, took his toys and went home", which is what many will say, but it is a lot more complicated than that. His RFA is Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Thomas.W. I'm not going to jump to conclusions here, it's too close to the event. I supported him, but we didn't hang in the same areas, so it was a run of the mill support. I do think it is worth looking at, as we have a well established editor, who volunteers to serve more, and feels dashed against the rocks. Losing editors after RFA is all too common, which sadly, makes RFA (as it is currently structured) an Editor Retention liability. Dennis - 2¢ 21:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

RFAs can be rough. Can you imagine what my RFA would be like? GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I do know that an RfA can be very ugly, and you can still pass, but instances like that are very rare. My RfA was like that, and I expected it to fail half the time, so that does give me a bit of empathy. Dennis - 2¢ 22:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

But do we want to create an environment where opposes are attacked and cursed at? Intothatdarkness 22:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

That is already part of the problem. Opposers are more likely to get jumped on now, but that doesn't stop things from spiraling down, as others jump in to defend them. I don't have the answers. A few ideas, but that is more for the talk page there. My goal would be to get people discussing it there to consider the Editor Retention perspective. RFA can not only run off candidates, but opposers and supporters as well. Dennis - 2¢ 22:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The culture already seems to be moving toward equating opposing at RfA with disruption (if not something worse), so I don't think there will be much concern about driving off those who oppose at RfA. RfA is just a symptom, not the problem. Intothatdarkness 22:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't think it's really moving that way, it has been that way for a while. Ask Eric. Keep in mind, it is pretty difficult be disruptive in a support vote, easy to in an oppose (if we look only at the initial votes) so it isn't shocking that this is where most the problems might be found, if we are honest. But what I see is an arguably "bad" oppose vote that should simply be ignored, and instead support people pile on the guy, giving it more credibility than it deserves. Yes, the vote is stupid, but so what. The Crats aren't. This is one of the reasons I wondered if getting rid of threaded debate in the poling section and forcing it into a bottom discussion session would be better (again, not a debate for here), but its another example of how the reaction to an event is often 10x more disruptive than the event itself. A stupid "I don't like him" vote explodes into a bar brawl with stools flying out the window, when it made no difference to begin with. I don't know how to fix that, really, but it is quite common. Dennis - 2¢ 23:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

When an admin refers to oppose voters as "fucking morons" there's clearly a problem. But again, I think you've got the wrong focus. RfA is a symptom of the overall problem, not the problem itself. In editor retention terms, RfA or any process that grants higher tool access will always be an issue. Intothatdarkness 23:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

That is very true, and all my efforts to learn from this experience may be for naught. Without judging any individual, it is still something you hate to see, so you feel compelled to say "why?" and "is there something I can do to make this better?". And you always hope someone has a great idea you haven't thought of, or at least a new perspective. Dennis - 2¢ 23:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I've asked Thomas.W to return to the 'pedia. GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

It will probably be a month or so before I email him. A scar that builds over a week won't heal in a day. Dennis - 2¢ 22:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I for one will be looking much more closely at who is doing the nominating from now on. Pushing average quality candidates forward on the back of a high profile Admin. nomination isn't going to be less convincing when we actually see an average candidate have their technical - and worse behavioural - qualities examined and found wanting as in this case. There are some Admins who should, frankly, step away from the limelight rather than pushing their latest protege forward. Leaky Caldron 22:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Leaky, we aren't here to debate quality of candidate or nominating admin, just the ideas about how the process costs us editors. This isn't an admin board, it is a project specifically focused on editor retention only. Dennis - 2¢ 23:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't nominate inadequate, fragile candidates as if they are they latest bright young Admin. nugget just discovered. Do better research before presenting candidates with skeletons waiting to rattle. Then they will not leave when rejected by the wider community. Leaky Caldron 23:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, not really the place for it nor really helpful. You are making generalized comments about a class of editors (nominators), but that audience is at WT:RFA, not here. Dennis - 2¢ 23:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

No doubt people will follow your view and ignore mine, we all know how things swing here. But if you nominate someone who turns out to be a dud candidate and then leaves, please don't deny culpability, because you nominated them without doing more background. Leaky Caldron 23:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The point is, this isn't the place to decide who is a dud and who isn't. As for your general concept, "dud" is in the eye of the beholder. If a candidate fails miserably with 67% of the vote, that still means that a supermajority of users thought they would be a good admin, so lets put this in perspective. I don't know that any US President has gotten 67% of the vote, ever. So I refuse to call someone a "dud" when more than half of the people want them to be admin. Dennis - 2¢

Indeed, there should be a way to screen RFA candidates before they are nominated. This would avoid frustration & retirement in that area. GoodDay (talk) 04:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I have my own way, documented at User:Dennis Brown/RfA. Nominating someone isn't something I take lightly, particularly if I'm at the top. And I document it so I can learn from lessons along the way. Things like this aren't common, nor mandatory. If you look down, most candidates get a full blown review page which includes all the same templates from RFA, plus itemized points, critique and coaching. And if they aren't ready, I tell them there. If they are, I try to prepare them for what to expect, give guidance on what to do (since most aren't RFA regular voters) and such. I'm sure there are other ways to do it, but I sincerely doubt that most nominators are willing to go through as much effort. The problem is, it is easy to just stick two paragraphs of flattery on top of a page, and if they become admin, you have one in the "win" column, if they don't, you can walk away from carnage relatively unscathed. I've had 6 pass, 4 fail and 2 pending. I'm not afraid to take risk in nominations (such as Carrite) but I do at least prepare them off and on wiki, to the best of my abilities. Dennis - 2¢ 13:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

While not going with the tone of the above remarks, it does seem relevant to editor retention to suggest that nominators consider the likelihood that their candidate might react this way if the RfA goes off the rails: Noyster (talk), 12:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

It is, which is why we are steering it away from individuals and onto general concepts. Dennis - 2¢ 13:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

In agreement with Polls/Surveys being seperate from related discussions. I believe it would lower the temperature at RFAs & other places, thus maybe cutting down on resulting retirements. GoodDay (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

As we discussed previously on the Requests for adminship talk page, I suggest the process would benefit from being moderated. In an initial phase, the moderator would consolidate people's feedback and build up a summary of advantages and disadvantages, rewording as required to preserve the points being made while removing personal animus. This should trim down redundant conversation, making it easier for the entire thread to be followed and encouraging more participation, since the summary provides a convenient manner to catch up on the discussion. A final phase could allow contributors to provide their views on whether or not, based on the overall summary, Misplaced Pages would benefit from the candidate receiving administrative privileges. The bureaucrats can then judge the outcome of the conversation, determining if in the end, a consensus of commenters supports the candidacy. isaacl (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Didn't read Thomas' RFA. I hope he didn't get borked. GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• Without respect to Thomas, I will just say that the success rate of an RFA is more attuned to someone else's ability to dig up dirt than it is your abilities, as anyone that has been here long enough to arguably have the experience to do the job, has skeletons or bad diffs. Dennis - 2¢ 23:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• Isaacl, as I have explained to you several times recently, the idea of RfA 'moderating' or 'clerking' has been rejected several times. The vast majority of RfA voters are one-offs, leaving only a very small group of serious, competent, regular voters. It's that pool of thousands of one-off pile-oners who need to get the message that their trolling will not be tolerated. There is another group who occasionally use RfA for tactical voting against all things admin. They know who they are, and they claim that as prolific content providers they have a right to disrupt RfA and be uncivil anywhere else. Some have been T-banned already but we can only hope that given time they will learn to treat Misplaced Pages as a serious project and not as an Internet playground where they can hide behind the anonymity that has become an Internet tradition. In Rl at board meetings or union meetings, people who can't express themselves reasonably and in context are rapidly shown the door. This page is about editor retention, but to be quite honest, there are some editors who I would gladly see the back of, because their attitude towards admins and other users completely negates any 'good' work they are doing.

For anyone to suggest that the sheer act of politely and reasonably opposing an RfA is considered disruptive, is absolute nonsense. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Moderation would be quite effective in addressing these issues—managing trolls, pile-on voters, and disruptive comments—just as it is in real life, so here's hoping consensus views will change. I'm not sure who you're replying to regarding politely and reasonably opposing a candidate; I agree that considered, constructive comments are not disruptive. isaacl (talk) 11:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Someone further up the page said: The culture already seems to be moving toward equating opposing at RfA with disruption (if not something worse). I think that is either a totally short sighted observation, or just plain POV in an attempt to stir things up. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I tend to think that your denial of the culture is either short-sighted or an example of OWN of policy. You're too vested in the process to look at it any other way, which is fine, but that doesn't automatically mean that you're right about it. Intothatdarkness 17:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Having suffered the "slings and arrows" of an unsuccessful attempt at adminship, I can speak from experience that the aftermath is an emotional low. In hindsight, I'm glad I didn't make it, but that doesn't lessen the pain of rejection by your peers. ```Buster Seven Talk 16:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Continuing the efforts of others

Much to my personal disgust and despite the opposition of a number of people, it seems to be a realistic possibility that User:Eric Corbett may lose his rights to edit here. Although I and others have seen some issues with the individual in the past, there is at least in my opinion no sound basis for such a decision, and it would very possibly serve as a serious detriment to the project, both in terms of article development and in terms of helping newer editors of the type Eric has fairly regularly collaborated with.

It would be a shame if we were to have no one around to help take up the idea of collaborating and/or "showing the ropes" to newer editors.

Perhaps, on a limited basis, there might be a way of selecting either a newer editor and/or group of editors for some collaborative efforts, or maybe some sort of invitation to newer editors to join with a group of older hands on an article or topic or two which would allow the more experienced editors to offer what assistance they could to the newer editors in a directly productive way. Thoughts? John Carter (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't wish to see anyone banned, who hasn't committed vandalism, socking, evading. In the end, it's Arbcom's choice. I only hope that the parties will respect that choice, whatever it is. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

This is tough. Obviously, I have an opinion in the matter, and I've expressed it at Arb and other places. At the same time, I don't want to see the whole issue debated here, so we have to respect those that disagree with you and I, John. So I'm going to punt on all things Eric in this statement, and focus purely on the idea of adopting and mentoring. Worm That Turned used to have a really rock solid adoption program, he is a WER member and is retiring from Arb in a few weeks, to live off that fat retirement check, we can assume ;) He would be the right person to be involved or at least a consultant, as he is extremely familiar with these kinds of programs, and has done it before. Even without this case, our mentoring/adoption efforts are lagging, on the whole. Dennis - 2¢ 21:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe something like a regular specifically "New Editor Collaboration of the (week, month, millenium)" effort might be best. Adoption is very useful, but is maybe a bit more time-intensive than a lot of us are ready for. But there are a lot of underdeveloped, and, in some cases, non-existent fairly important articles which might be both interesting enough for newer editors to maybe want to spend some time on them and maybe learn some of the ropes of editing and developing content in the process. Maybe, and this is just a maybe, maybe some of the tangential things that could be done in the process would be to develop wikisource content from older encyclopedias which could be imported here with attribution, give some pointers on how to use the internet and subscription databanks for finding content, helping newer editors pinpoint desired subscription databanks information that they don't have direct access to, that sort of thing. John Carter (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that, in principle, this is a good idea ... I remember a while ago I was considering proposing a "newbie FA collaboration", in which essentially experienced editors working on bringing an article to FA (or GA) would list the article on a coordination page and what they would like help with (e.g., finding sources, copyediting, expansion of a section, etc.), and a newer editor interested in learning about that subject could make contact and work to bring an article to GA or FA, which would have the effect of making those processes less intimidating, and getting new editors involved in content right away. Go Phightins! 21:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't mean to put too fine a point on this, but this is exactly how I got my first two GAs, an FA, and a TFA. All thanks to Eric. I wasn't new, but new to writing "real" articles instead of gnoming. Dennis - 2¢ 21:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Eric was also instrumental in introducing me to Dr. Blofeld and motivating me to get Keith Moon and The Who in the state they are now. The great thing about Eric is he won't let you sit back and do the "heavy lifting" for you, but he will guide you in the direction of writing content so you learn a lot more. That's the sort of mentor that would make a real difference around here. The problem is that learning that Eric is a good editor takes time and effort, knowing that telling another editor to fuck off is not exactly civil, er, isn't Ritchie333 21:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Eric's strength I think lies in copyediting. I'm yet to see a better general copyeditor on here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Co-op was looking for volunteer mentors to participate in a pilot program starting in January 2015. It's not quite clear to me what it entails—perhaps Go Phightins! can expand on this?—but the group has been looking at ways to improve the effectiveness of mentorship/adoption. isaacl (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I was about to say the same, and call User:I JethroBT over to give a rundown on it. I chatted to him about WP:CO-OP at Wikimania, and thought it was a great idea. We've also got WP:ADOPT, which I haven't looked at for a while... and the WP:TEAHOUSE, which is a pretty good resource for connecting old users with new. I do hope to get more involved in all 3 projects come January. Worm(talk) 07:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Worm. I already have one foot out the door here, suitcase in hand, with no map. I can't say when I'll be back. While WER isn't solving all the problems, it is asking the right questions, and unquestionably, has some of the finest people doing the asking. For that, I am grateful. Dennis - 2¢ 17:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned, Isaacl, and Dennis Brown: Sorry, that ping didn't get to me for whatever reason. But yes, we are definitely looking for people who are interested in doing some one-on-one mentorship with newer editors at the Co-op. I'll be making a more official and substantive post about this here today or tomorrow, but if folks are interested and want to offer their time to mentor even just one person for our pilot in January, I'd encourage them to sign up here. We'll be starting to open up discussions with mentors soon about the ins-and-outs of the space. I, JethroBT 20:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

real-life retired people who are active or potential wikipedians

Hi. I just read this article and my sense is that real-life retired people might be a strong group of active or potential wikipedians -- worth special targeting for attraction and retention? Thanks for your thoughts. Fgnievinski (talk) 15:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

They already are a rather strong group of active wikipedians, but I agree that they could be stronger, particularly perhaps for what might be called content of a somewhat local nature, like people from an area where they live, the history or significant features of the local area, etc. If anyone could figure out a way to try to directly reach such individuals, I would like to hear it. John Carter (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't quite retired when I did this and the rest of the suite of related articles including creating the parent project, but I am drawing my pension now. If any real-life retired people want to do an article about their area, I'd be happy to guide them. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

These places have information about recruiting retirees and invalids.

• User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 99#Recruiting retirees and invalids (March 2012)
• User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 100#Recruiting Retirees and Invalids (March 2012)
• User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 126#Misplaced Pages short on volunteer editors (February 2013)
• User talk:Buster7/Sandbox-A Recruiting Project (March 2012)
• User talk:Buster7/Archives/2012/March#Recruiting retirees and invalids
• User talk:Buster7/Archives/2012/May#Recruiting retirees and invalids

—Wavelength (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Wavelength Thanks for these resources. I got a little lost among too many of them though. Could you please single out one of them for us to pick up? Thanks! Fgnievinski (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

It looks like there's funded project dealing with a similar topic! Let's centralize discussions there, shall we: meta:Grants talk:IEG/Senior Citizens Write Misplaced Pages#Retirement-age Wikipedians. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I am singling out the fourth item listed.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Several people here and elsewhere have said that our content regarding what might be called "historical" matters (both "History of" articles and articles about historical events and individuals) is among the least well developed we have. I would think that maybe at least some retirees might be among the more interested and willing to develop content of that type, and, honestly, for bios of mayors of Belfast or York from centuries ago, for instance, they might be among the easier content to develop, because in many if not most of those cases there won't be a lot of new developments in the topic in the past centuries or decades. For stuff like that, maybe finding ways to also get some old useful PD texts at commons and elsewhere might help a lot too. I know at wikisource, proofreading is generally achievable even by people without advanced degrees, and a lot of broadly historical material is easily available and in some cases ripe for being proofread and added to articles here. John Carter (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Our 2014 project (see report) has already had quite a success with senior citizens. Half of the work is the PR of course - make the senior citizens know about you - but we think we are pretty good in that. We now have >40 senior citizens on our courses in Prague, Czech Republic. Some of them, if not most, continue editing after they finished with the course. --Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 13:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the next time we do an editor survey we will confirm the theory of the "greying of the pedia" with silver surfers being our fastest growing part of the community and the community collectively ageing by more than a year a year. We are certainly seeing this at UK meetups with more older editors getting involved and the same youngest editor for the last four years. We are also talking to a potential partner who would help us work with that demographic in the UK. My experience of other organisations is that retired people are hugely important in most voluntary organisations and so in one sense we are becoming more "normal". One area that they may be more likely to work on is the popular culture and major events of the second half of the twentieth century, but otherwise their editing interests are likely to be as broad and varied as the younger editors. ϢereSpielChequers 09:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

About a year ago I attended a workshop for people interested in giving courses at the University of the Third Age in Canberra. My proposal to give a course on editing WP was enthusiastically welcomed. Unfortunately I could not follow through for health reasons. I have thought for a while that well educated retirees would make ideal editors. I am in that category myself. --Greenmaven (talk) 11:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

An encyclopaedia is a repository of knowledge. In traditional societies the elders were the repositories of knowledge and wisdom. I hope we see more done to encourage the recruitment of older editors. Women live longer; it could help with the gender imbalance too. Not to mention civility... Greenmaven (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Become a mentor for the pilot of the Co-op!

Hey folks. I've posted about this a few times here in relevant discussions, but it's about time I make a more official announcement.

A small team of editors and I have been developing a space called the Co-op with the aim of 1) semi-automatically matching editors who want to learn how to contribute (learners) with mentoring editors with the experience to help them (mentors), and 2) to ensure that mentorships are focused on a specific task (e.g working on a single article) or skill (e.g. uploading an image) so that they are well-defined and do not result in indefinite learning and burnout (of course, if both parties are interested in broader learning/teaching, that's great). Mentors will also have flexibility about what kind topics they will be matched on. For instance, you would not be expected to teach about copyright and image policy if it's not something you're familiar with or are otherwise not interested in teaching it.

Our team has been posting updates on our progress here. There is no interface yet, but we are getting there; our design/development team has just started drafting some initial designs. Until then, I'd invite editors interested in mentoring to come help test our pilot, to participate in discussions on how the space will work technically, and consider how we should maintain and run the space together. I ask that you be willing to mentor one or two editors (more is also OK) during a roughly one-month period from mid- to late-January 2015 to late-February 2015. If you are interested in mentoring please sign up here. We have 13 mentors so far, but it would be fantastic to see more of you who I know are enthusiastic about showing folks why contributing to Misplaced Pages and working with other editors is both important and rewarding. Questions about the project are also welcome here or on our talk page, and I will answer them to the best of my ability. With gratitude, I, JethroBT 01:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Admin back-up regarding some issues of sexual harassment or sexism for the currently away Dennis

Just making sure everyone sees this clearly, in Dennis' temporary absence Dougweller has agreed to having his name added as admin to contact in any issues of sexual harassment or sexism here. John Carter (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

WER/Editors of the Week for 2015

Editor of the Week is a weekly recognition award for unsung heroes: editors who do excellent work in improving Misplaced Pages while typically going unnoticed. Currently, we have enough nominees to finish out the year but none for next year. Is there someone in your circle of editors that has one or more of the following characteristics?

• Writes or significantly expands articles on a regular basis,
• cleans up articles by adding sources, expanding citations with the necessary information, aligning prose with the manual of style, or improving the quality of the prose through copy-editing,
• serves as notable voice of reason in discussions with other editors,
• performs behind-the-scenes work, not normally seen by the general community.

While there are many well-known editors who meet these criteria, the basic intent has been to recognize someone less celebrated yet deserving of greater renown. WER has awarded over 100 editors. As admins typically have already been recognized for their work, please limit your nominations to non-admins. To nominate an editor for Editor of the Week, add your nomination to the nominations page. Thank you, ```Buster Seven Talk 21:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

How well do we handle usernames?

Sometimes I think our conflict of interest policy is the second most misunderstood thing about Misplaced Pages from the outside world (the first being copyright). Take a look at User talk:British Bandsman. This account has one mainspace edit adding a link to a website, and a sandbox about a magazine with the same name as them. Sounds like "spam" doesn't it .... except the magazine has been going for over 120 years, appears all over the place in a Google Books search, and is in the Guinness World Records as the world's longest running weekly print publication. So why is our standard procedure to block the user and give them instructions that I'm not sure a newbie would understand? If I had the big orange blocked template as a new user, I'd probably be scared away. As for the sandbox, I think it meets WP:GNG and have moved it to mainspace as British Bandsman ... but if I hadn't got involved, a newbie would have got frustrated and we'd be missing an article. What can we do? Ritchie333 18:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I sent him an e-mail indicating that to my eyes the block was not for anything he had done so much as his user name. I also indicated that he can still edit his user talk page and ask that the block be lifted, and that I am willing to offer any help that I might be able to. There is the possibility that this editor might have a COI regarding the topic, maybe being an employee, so there is a chance that maybe the block was a good one. Maybe. I dunno, and don't have enough information to make a decision.

Having said all that, it might not be a bad idea to maybe propose the creation of a specific template for bad user names which doesn't have the big red x on it which really would come across as a very harsh and maybe judgmental to a newbie. John Carter (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd go right back to basics. Why do we block people? Because we believe all or most edits they're about to make will harm the project. A simple "oy, your username is not acceptable, change it here" message (as you describe) would do - then if they actually spam and require reverting or salting, then we can block them per WP:HEAR or WP:COMPETENCE. Isn't our mantra on blocking supposed to be "when in doubt, don't" anyway? Ritchie333 19:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Define "doubt." It is very possible for someone who might not know some details about, for instance, how long National Geographic has been run and how clearly obvious its notability is to think that someone who starts a user name and article by that name to think that there is some form of promotion involved. Honestly, for a lot of smaller companies, having a user name which is the name of a company is grounds for the name being changed. If the edit history is, surprise surprise, related to the content on the topic after which the user is named, that could, not unreasonably, be seen as sufficient to identify an SPA.

Yeah, I know that there could be productive editors who take names related to a specific topic for whatever reason. If User:Smithsonian were to put lots of images of items in the Smithsonian Institution on commons and work more or less exclusively on articles relating to the museums and their contents, that would raise questions too. Particularly if the edits seem to promote the Smithsonian in some way. For all I know, this person maybe was an employee or COI person. I'm not sure, but if a magazine were decades old and still didn't have an article after 10 years here, it wouldn't be unreasonable to think that, maybe, an employee wanted to change that.

I do think that maybe the block is open to discussion based on what you said, and I regret that it was done in the way it was, but in a lot of similar cases it does seem that such action is more warranted perhaps than it might have been in this one. John Carter (talk) 20:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Just letting everyone know he's been unblocked. John Carter (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48

HiLo48 is quitting and requested someone to post here. I am not involved and have no particular opinion, but I'm honoring his request out of common respect for a fellow editor. His user talk page message is here. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 20:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I had seen it myself, actually, and was more or less planning to post this here myself before you beat me to it. My compliments on your speed in responding, by the way. Unfortunately, the nature of the situation is such that I'm myself, at least as an individual, not sure that there is anything that we here could do which might make similar retirements not recur in the future. John Carter (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I fully understand HiLo48's frustrations & have requested to him, that he not retire. GoodDay (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

He said, "Don't try to talk me out of it." I generally take such requests at face value and respect them, but that's just me. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 20:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Editor of the year?

Just wondering if anyone thought that maybe we might do something like WP:MILHIST with their "editor of the year" and "newcomer of the year" awards, and, if we were, what criteria we would want to use for determination. John Carter (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I would prefer not singling out a single editor, as there is a lot of potential for inadvertently upsetting worthy contributors in the process. A roll call of honour which recognized everyone who met a set of standards (they could be objective, such as X articles of a specified quality or higher, or subjective, such as three supporting nominations) could be a way to give some thanks to some of the highly appreciated contributors to Misplaced Pages. isaacl (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

If there are individuals with the greatest edit count overall this past year, greatest mainspace edit count this year, most GAs or FAs or both this past year, and similar individuals new this past year with either the greatest number of such edits, or most edits per day since first activity, and if there is a way to figure those, I would imagine they would be included. Maybe, beyond that, something like the current editor of the week system, with one person nominating and another seconding, might be sufficient to be included in what might be called the annual "roll of honor". John Carter (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Visit Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Hall of Fame. Free Admission. Open 24 Hours, 7 days a week. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

So I've had better ideas. At least, I'm going to tell myself that. ;) Consider the proposal withdrawn. John Carter (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

A roll of honour can be different than the Editor of Week Hall of Fame by setting up specific criteria, and it would serve to recognize many worthwhile editors, so if it's something you'd like to pursue, that's great. Time is a bit on the short side, though, as I assume many people will become busy with other tasks at this time. isaacl (talk) 02:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I would love to see a parralel program to etow that recognized any editor, not just new and underrecognized ones, that spent their time doing wonky stuff that doesn't attract much attention, such as infobox work, copyediting, vandalism patrol, AfC, AfD, etc. Except for my recent poor behavior, an editor that wonks around and neatens and cleans like myself. (expressly not me tho, for the reason stated above). People who do that kind of stuff are very needed, and generally underappreciated. Just a thought. John from Idegon (talk) 06:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• WikiProject Editor Retention articles