Misplaced Pages

Retired editors list

We now have a table of retired editors thanks to Kumioko. It is at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Editor Retention/Retired editors list. It would probably be good to fill in notes before we attempt to contact editors. Some only have 1 or 2 edits, should we just remove those editors from the list? Others might be indef blocked or banned so we'll want to note that. Other notes could be the amount of edits they had or if they had been given special userrights. Others may only be semi-retired. We can talk about how to go about inviting users later, but I feel that invitations to editors with many contribs should be longer and personal, referencing specific beneficial contributions if we can. We should also inform them of the project so if they aren't planning on coming back they can offer advice on editor retention. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

For those interested, my team did an experiment where we email active editors who had been gone for a year, three months, and one month. The full results are at Research:Necromancy, but the short answer is that one year folks were long gone, three months had a marginal success rate, and plenty of one month lapse editors returned, but it was equal to the number who returned on their own (thus making it difficult to infer causality). I would be very interested to hear the overall results from people emailing just a few other retired editors by hand with a personal note; my guess is that this would be much more effective. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 23:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Would you like us to keep any sort of stats on responses and the like? We should be updating the table and we can include email responses we get in the note. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Great work! I've added that link to the front page under other areas, a new subsection. Feel free to reformat that. I would like all the subpages to be linked there, rather than here, and not sure how to organize it best yet, so be bold and do it for us all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I think even just a table on a wiki page for tracking this works. That would be really great for comparing the various methods. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 23:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Glad to have you here Steven. Good to see that this project is attracting attention from all parts of the project, and it's only two days old. For this project, diversity of experience is very much an asset. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

A few things come to mind. One, I was actually thinking last night (hey, it happens once in a while) and it did seem to me that we would want some sort of possible standard questionnaire for editors who have retired and/or are contemplating retirement. Having one would help ensure that "all the basis get covered". Would anyone like to draw up a list of most common concerns we think retirees might have, and other significant matters, so we could try to ensure that we don't overlook anything?

Second, I am personally aware of at least one name on that list which is of a user who retired after a long career of pretty much SPA POV pushing and got caught. The editor displayed a truly remarkable devotion to the fringe theories of a completely non-notable religious group and to one academic who, rather belatedly, apparently sort of supported their ideas in a way. Another name on that list was a literally pure SPA POV pusher on the Falun Gong material who retired only after being indefinitely banned from his sole topic of interest. Because of instances like that, I had reservations about asking everyone who has retired about what caused them to leave. I am sure the first one I mentioned would say he left because some fanatical believers of other schools of religious thought, like notable ones, were fanatically obsessed with ensuring that the fringe theories which agreed with the non-notable group to which he was tied to "hide the truth of the lies of the Vatican-controlled academic world," or some such pap. Such editors might well welcome the chance to smear others, or might perhaps not be objective enough to realize that they themselves were more problematic than the others, who were often trying to ensure that policies and guidelines were being followed by those who they would malign. John Carter (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with John, editor retention shouldn't just be anyone and everyone. We have restrictions, sanctions and bans in place for the benefit of the community--Cailil 15:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, my first focus is on keeping the people that are already here, here. Next, it is to take people who had left of their own accord (ie: not under a block or sanction) but left in frustration, and bring them back. Next it is to get editors who might have left from admin frustration due to a single block or sanction, but are otherwise great editors, and get them back. On the issue of de jure banned users, that is typically ArbCom or AN concern, and is beyond the scope of what we can do here. I'm not insensitive that there may be a possibility that a few could come back, but realistically, most are banned for damn good reasons. I see lots of them at SPI, which is what I base my opinions on. Some can and have come back and I support that, but it is still a bit outside of the primary focus here. Another important part of what I personally would like to do is find ways for borderline situations to result in fewer blocks and more education and intervention. Some great editors can be a little testy, and some of us admins are more patient than others. Where I can, I want to get involved and act as a calming force to reduce drama, not point fingers and ratchet the drama up. But lists require discretion and should only include editors that meet a reasonable criteria. Mixing in de jure banned users into the regular list is not recommended and I would be against, as they aren't likely to be unbanned at ArbCom or AN anyway, and it adds a politically contentious element that too many will disagree with. We are here to unite, not divide, after all. This doesn't mean we ignore an ongoing situation if we think it is unfair, but we should focus on what can all agree with first when it comes to previously "lost" editors, and err on the conservative side when it comes to listing potential editors to bring back. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Gendergap

Few women edit wikipedia to begin with; something like 9%. Women editors stop editing when the tone on talk pages bothers them. I've bristled at some of that talkpage tone myself, and my reaction has been to walk away from the keyboard. While I always return, other women find other things to do with their time. Pity. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I do the same, Rosie, either I cook a nice dinner, or take a walk, or write a bunch of uncontroversial content. I find myself avoiding admin work for the most part now because it stirs up so much drama. I wonder if the proportion of female admins is less than the proportion of female editors? Keilana| 23:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I feel that if editors realized that there were women taking part in the conversation the talk page tone would be much more mild. I don't know if there'd be an entirely effective way to do this though. I'm inserting another plug for the teahouse here, but I feel that notifying female editors of the Teahouse can help considerably. SarahStierch is very committed to helping increase participation by women. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Sarah's doing an awesome job, and I think conversations are somewhat calmer when there's someone with a female username participating. However, it's not always obvious - I know I was told when I was younger to never pick a "female-sounding" username anywhere because I would get harassed and attacked. Keilana| 23:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Civility is a catch 22, as we don't want to block good editors just for getting rude, but we don't want them rude. I was not aware that only 9% were women, which is an appalling low number. This is yet one more issue that affects retention but I just had not thought of it. Thank goodness for you all. Ryan, that might need to be on the front page somewhere. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, a couple of us have pinged SarahStierch to let her know of this project. Also, folks here may be interested to know that there is a page on meta and an email list (linked on the meta page) for people interested in the gender gap and its reduction. Clearly, these projects have broadly overlapping and interelated interests. LadyofShalott 03:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who called Durova a guy to her face once, one small thing which might be useful in this regard might be making it easier to have optional "pink" instead of blue user name links to indicate the editor is in fact female, kinda/sorta like LadyofShallot has for the "Lady" part of her name. John Carter (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to point out a small issue here when Durova was being harassed by a long term abuser of WP he used her femininity as a weapon against her. So in my experience highlighting one's gender (whatever it is) doesn't help moderate the bitterness of ad hominem remarks. I had single purpose account claim I was a woman and launch a tirade based on that against me on and off site, even though my user page clearly stated I'm a guy.
Before we rush into making well intentioned suggestions can we actually do some research first please. There's actually alot of material we can use--Cailil 16:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I became aware of this project via User talk:ThatPeskyCommoner#New Project?. The comment I made there, I think, would go far in changing the aggressive quality of many article talk pages and lessen the drama everywhere.I apologize up front for the vulgarity, but I think it was needed to make the point.)

If we all "talked" to the fellow editor as if it were our Mother, the chances of us calling her "a f-----g cunt" may be lessened.

I'm sure that when we start to reach out to former editors, we will find that many, if not most, leave because of the tedious, endless bickering and senseless name-calling that goes on. But, when I argue with my Mother, I always remain respectful and I dont even think of calling her a name or of being rude in any way. I've promoted this idea before but it never got any wings. Maybe this group can understand where I'm coming from.```Buster Seven Talk 06:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

If you can conceive of any way of writing that out in a way which might get it into a policy or guideline, maybe. The problems that arise, of course, are that some of our moms were in fact senseless, brain-damaged drug-crazed nymphomaniac bimbos who literally couldn't pass third grade and, in rare cases, some of us might have even talked down to her as kids because of her lack of understanding of anything beyond her own .

OK, maybe that is a bit strong above, but I did know someone from grade school whose mother boasted of completing second grade, which was as far as she got. And, yeah, her kids did, deservedly, treat her like a bit of an idiot fairly often. And, for those who did, because of circumstances, talk to and sometimes treat their moms like that here, what you're saying won't make as much sense to them. John Carter (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Granted, John, some mothers don't have the sense of a bag of beans but those are few and far between. I'm confident the upper 90 percentile of editors would get the concept if, like you say, it was presented well. I'll work on that. Love of, and respect for, MOM is universal. The manner in which MOM's are treated is universal. That's what makes it an interesting platform to build a guideline or a policy on. As to Editor retention, if we can lessen the grind of daily dealing with each other in less than civil ways, maybe editors won't get sick and tired of the place. Somehow, what they once enjoyed has turned sour. I think the answer lies in the way we treat each other. Buster Seven Talk 00:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

If a basic tenet of editing at WP was to assume that every talk page is an area of mixed company (ie, women are present) would that prevent using social mores and prevailing customs as the excuse to be rude and vulgar? ```Buster Seven Talk 14:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Gendergap from the other side: the thing which irritates me far, far more is when people assume that technical incompetence, and special needs of some kind automatically go with being female. And, yet another side of the coin (funny-shaped coin, this ...), having worded something once kindly, politely, gently – FemaleSpeak, if you like – I was accused of being patronising and condescending, using "sugary language" was apparently unacceptable. Pesky (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I can believe that. I think a lot of the "non-mechanically inclined female" stuff is kind of maybe all but unavoidable in the US at least, and possibly well beyond that. Also, personally, when I myself have (at rare times, admittedly) used kind, polite, and gentle language, I have occasionally heard other guys refer to it as do-not-anger-the-psycho language. Us guys very rarely show any real manners, as you probably know, and rare events are particularly notable to those to whom they are rare. John Carter (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• There is a new research project being planned on Meta that some of the participants in this thread might want to give input to. M:Research:Women and Misplaced Pages: Contributions in a Collaborative Online Space. I for one think we need a better understanding as to why we have a gender gap before we can effectively address it. ϢereSpielChequers 08:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Heh! On "technical competence" and also on "patronising and condescending", it does occasionally inflame me when I bear in mind that I was cutting my programming teeth on COBOL when some of those who suggest that females might be a special technoneeds group were either not born, or at least not yet out of nappies! Pesky (talk) 09:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Pesky. And to echo myself for the upteenth time here before making well intentioned but flawed suggestions based on assumptions, lets do the research - there are actually a number of scholarly articles out there that treat the gender gap on wikipedia. I'll be spending today reading them and summarizing them, if anyone wants to help with that feel free--Cailil 13:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

@Cailil, I'll read them, too. I started this section not based upon an assumption, but based upon comments from other women editors. Women editors prefer to participate in a polite-speak environment vs. a poke-the-bear-speak environment. An example of a polite-speak environment is the WP:Teahouse; quote SarahStierch: "Be friendly, be warm."; that project's goal is to nurture and retain newbies. This Editor Retention wikiproject is about editor retention in general, not women (or newbies) in particular, so I understand that the issue I raised in this section, female gender retention, applies to an editor subgroup. But I think my advocacy of polite-speak is important and valid nonetheless, whether addressed in scholarly articles or not. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rosie, well my above isn't actually targeted at you (more suggestions like having pink usernames etc). I've been following Sarah's work and the overall gender gap initiative & think a lot of good things are happening. However when you read the research the biggest warning it gives is that simple solutions that lack a deep understanding of the issue wont solve the problem.
In fact one study details that the problems for women are twofold - they get reverted more often in their first 500 edits and they're under represented in the top 25% of editors (by edit quantity) and therefore lack enough of a voice in policy etc.
It also interestingly shows that female topics are more likely to be controversial (see my page on meta about the researched linked below and on my user page). I don't see teh gender gap being a sub-set issue - why we're loosing more women than men is crucial o understanding whey we're loosing naybody--Cailil 17:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

No worries, Cailil, and I apologize if I came across bristle-y. I just figured that if there are few women's voices to begin with on wikipedia, I'd better speak up rather than do my usual thing, which is avoid controversy and concentrate on writing articles. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Not at all Rosie - my other comment was ambiguous and you weren't bristle-y at all--Cailil 18:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Why don't editors just get on with writing? What does it matter what gender an editor is so long as the content produced is worthy of an encyclopedia. It is the politics of this place that deters me, pov editors, those with an agenda, too much talk and agonising instead of producing articles, people who make sweeping statements, those who quote civility (whatever that means), stereotyping and any talk of pink and feminism. To retain editors whatever their gender, decent articles (GA and FA at least) should be protected from petty vandalism and pov warriors. There is nothing more disheartening to an established editor than having to deal with vandalism and trivia only to be accused of ownership.J3Mrs (talk) 12:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with J3Mrs 100%. Of course, we live in an age of metrics and data points, so it may never that simple. Intothatdarkness 20:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• The reason that I worry a bit about the gender gap is because I want to make sure that we aren't doing something that is making women not want to join or participate in the community. Currently, more working women have college degrees than men yet women are still a rarity here. Perhaps it is due to familial obligations and the cultural biases that still saddles women with the role of primary care giver for the family, even when both spouses work, or maybe it is something we are doing wrong. I can't fix the societal issues, but if it is due in part to the culture at Misplaced Pages, then this is something we would like to know, so that perhaps it can be addressed. That would open the door to a large pool of well educated talent, something we surely would benefit from. While attracting new talent is somewhat outside of the scope of this project, the very same changes (if needed) would help us keep talent here, and that IS within our scope. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Suspicion of administrator cliques

Can I just ask for clarification on where and how we're getting the "reasons why ppl leave"? Especially this - "suspicion of administrator cliques". This project is shooting itself in the foot if it's casting aspersions or repeating bad faith accusation against any large group on WP without actual evidence or a proper rational. If this is in fact a real issue can we see the research for it - I can't find it at the Former Contributors Survey Results. I'm genuinely interested to see if this is actually a problem for a large group of former editors--Cailil 15:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure, because I actually don't look at it very often, but I get the impression that theory might be a particularly strong one at the Misplaced Pages Review site. And, honestly, even if it is just a few retirees who leave because of this, there probably is cause to at least consider the question. I have seen more than a few editors of some seniority indicate suspicions of such cliques, and whether others actually experience them or not, it does make a handy thing some came blame their own problems on. John Carter (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from John but it'd like to see data on this if there is some. Because if there's an actual issue (and I can imagine some situations where it is at least possible - I've heard those suspicions too, but IMHO they're just another instance of "protected editors" that we were talking about above re: equal enforcement).
But then if it is "a handy thing some came blame their own problems on" it wont help us retain good faith editors. Again we need hard evidence because if we persecute the whole sysop corp (or give the "appearance" of such persecution) for the grievances of appropriately sanctioned users we're shooting ourselves in the head, not the foot. My fundamental point is this we shouldn't have aims that aren't evidence based, and we shouldn't give what we assume are ppl's reasons for leaving we should discover what they actually are--Cailil 20:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a matter not of cliques, but the appearance of there being cliques, because it is in the eye of the beholder. If no-one is able to convince them that there are no cliques, then it has the same effect as if there were. Penyulap ☏ 19:55, 7 Jul 2012 (UTC)

The one way I can think of to address this in a potentially effecitve way would be for there to be maybe some sort of regular review of complaints of departing editors. Admittedly, this sort of suspicion is hard to completely quell, because conspiracy theories are such a big deal in society in general now, but if we did have something like a morbidity and mortality conference which might be able to designate individual specific editors to review any such complaints, it might be able to do or propose something useful to reduce the problem, or, maybe, say they could see no particular evidence of a clique existing. Even then, all we could probably get would be a "not guilty" verdict, not an "innocent of the charges" one, but that would still probably be better than the current situation. John Carter (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Such conferences are the norm across all industries, air traffic control and airline crashes are an obvious example. Misplaced Pages as a whole should be advanced enough to support the concept, but the admins are certainly not mature enough to handle the idea, not a lot of the ones I come across anyway. Penyulap ☏ 20:21, 7 Jul 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I see your point John, but I'd go for more of a review of editors in decline rather than the retired already. I explained why above. Also that'll get skewed by banned users and indefinitely blocked users etc - who are being excluded from the site for good reason. We need to focus on the other lost users. And I still think there's an "appearance" here of admin bashing (and a number of posts based on poisoning the well) there's a lot of rhetoric and very little data or examples of this and that'll go nowhere. I've seen a heck of a lot of good admins throw-in-the-towel because of the abuse we get. There's nothing here suggesting that that should even be considered.
The Evil Admin is a great internet meme, but it's not a great way to help us learn anything about editor retention.
Interestingly there are actually academic studies on the matter of wikipedia sysops. And on the wider issue Seth Anthony had a powerpoint presentation at wikimania in 2006 about retaining content editors do we know if his suggestions were even tried? My point remains we need to base our work on actual verifiable evidence not on opinions or assumptions - that'll just make things worse--Cailil 20:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with most of your points above myself, actually. I was myself only thinking to really start such questioning of editors who, more or less, retire from this point forward. Those who have already been inactive for some time might very easily have grudges based on outdated policies and guidelines which may have already been resolved. And, FWIW, if the academic study you point to above is one of multiple such, I would love to see an article that meets WP:NOTABILITY on wikipedia administrators here. Certainly, having prominent links to such independent sources here, if they honestly don't support the "Evil Admin" meme here, would be a great page to help deal with this issue. John Carter (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Currency. Penyulap ☏ 21:15, 7 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I can see a few reliable sources on sysops so an article should be possible - if not on wikipedia admins on "Peer governance" or "Promotion on wikipedia". The article mightn't be very long at this point but there should be enough to start--Cailil 01:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Questions for retired users

I have started, and by started I mean just barely started, a page at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Editor Retention/Retired editors questionnaire, for us to use in the future when and if we contact any retired editors regarding the circumstances which led to their leaving. I have a very strong feeling that the rest of you probably have much better ideas about this than I do, so I welcome any additional questions, points of consideration, clarification, rephrasing for a more neutral tone, or whatever. John Carter (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

isn't this just the same photocopy of the same report ? how does a second set of figures on the same questions not waste the opportunity ? shouldn't it be used as a second step rather than a repeat of the first step ? why not propose a list of changes and ask about their effect ? Penyulap ☏ 20:15, 7 Jul 2012 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure what "same report" you are referring to. If you know of another body which intends to do ultimately the same thing from now on, then I could see some redundancy and wasted effort. And, regarding your second point, about a "list of changes", certainly, anyone is free to add whatever they would like to to the page in question. I do think that a group of questions along the lines of "If (proposed idea X) were in effect at the time of your departure, do you think that being able to point toward that (policy, guideline, or whatever) in your own circumstances might have helped resolve the situation better," might be a very good idea if we could come up with some neutral, non-leading phrasing. John Carter (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I think Penyulap is confused. Well done on starting this John. There are 2 approaches we can take to this questionnaire: one (albeit less structured than yours) would be simply to ask users to post on a sub-page about their reasons for leaving? What else contributed to their leaving? What kept them here? What would they like to see improved?
Otherwise if we want to jump into asking detailed questions I suggest first reviewing the evidence about ppl leaving that we have - it tells us that we can only work with 25% of the total of contributors who are leaving (50% leave for personal reasons and the other 25 for software complexity reasons - the first lot we can't help, eth second is teh job of the interface guys). Of that 25% some will be banned/blocked/disruptive so lets say that's 5% of the total. That leaves us with 20% who's bad experiences were based on two things reverts and negative interactions.
I've been looking at other peer reviewed literature on wikipedia's social dynamics - what I've read so far highlights reverting as a serious point of conflict between users and links it both with POV warriors and negative interactions based around meeting a small number of editors in a contentious/controversial area. This is what I mean by doing the research first - a number of ppl have already identified the problems and offered possible solutions IMHO we should be testing these and assessing what can be implemented (and coming up with ways to convince the community to do so). And again John, I think this is a good step forward towards that and thanks for the work--Cailil 01:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a really dubious addendum to the above. As a party peripherally involved in a current ArbCom, I note that two of the editors who have been involved with certain content for some time have announced their retirement from that subject based on the conduct of others, whom they describe as POV pushers. The ArbCom hasn't returned a decision yet, and the individuals I mentioned were the "defendants" in the request for arbitration, so it might well be eventually judged that they were themselves in the wrong. But it might be useful to contact them, and any other editors in similar situations, i.e. who may be saying with the project but abandoning certain specific content, how they might try to improve things to prevent others doing what they have, and retiring from certain subjects. John Carter (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I actually see where you're coming from John but my first reaction was should we ask drunk drivers to set the alcohol limit? But then that's unfair - because I have areas I stay away from. We probably all do. Maybe we could ask a general question to the whole WP population with questions about reverts, huggle, POV warriors, rfa etc?--Cailil 18:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Pending the outcome of the case, it may be that the editors who brought the matter to ArbCom might be just as seriously in violation of policies and guidelines as the "defendants." I don't know, but the arbitrators are expecting to have a proposed decision soon. In any event, they might have some input regarding how to deal with "trench warfare" POV pushing, which they have basically accused the filers of. Depending on the outcome of the case, and what ArbCom decides, they might be able to provide some input on how to avoid or counter long term POV pushing by one side or another. John Carter (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, a similar chat with SirFozzie might be useful to (from an Arb's pov). He was involved with the original WP:TROUBLES which had its own trench-warfare issues--Cailil 16:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Welcome templates and links to other WF entities

I have noticed that in some content regarding say religion and other belief systems, including some political ones, there is a very strong tendency of newer editors to try to get material regarding their new, exciting, controversial, and sometimes not clearly notable ideas on major articles first. In many cases the books from which the material might be sourced are notable, or there might legitimately be a spinout article from a main topical article, but that doesn't occur to a lot of newer editors. I think the other WF entities, like WikiNews, WikiQuote, WikiBooks, and the like might allow such material, but newer editors might not be as aware of them, and/or, often, want their material to get the greatest immediate visibility possible.

Maybe, and this is just a maybe, we might want to get some of the welcome templates to more clearly indicate the existence of these other entities, with indications as to what sort of material indicating their essential characteristics. So, for example, the recent or maybe still ongoing Azawad war would be a great topic for multiple timely and regular news stories, but that same data might not necessarily get all the weight in our few articles that some newer editors might like. I might like seeing the Main Page include in its news section some links to major WikiNews articles, or the WikiNews main page, as well. I definitely do think that we might be able to keep a few more editors in general if they also more quickly and easily learned of the existence of the other entities, particularly if those other entities might be a better place for a lot of their material. John Carter (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Instead of changing generic welcome templates why not put a note just on relevant articles? ϢereSpielChequers 19:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

That would work too. Particularly for contentious topics, like maybe Jesus and Falun Gong, or the name of Cote d'Ivoire, creating a talk page notice saying something like "The existing content of this article has been arrived at after extensive content of the existing available sources. If you believe that new material should be added, please create an article detailing the general theory (or book) involved, and a link to that article here to allow others to review and discuss the material before significant changes are made." It does sound kind of bureaucratic and creeping instructions, but it might also keep some editors from banging their heads against the walls from the very beginning. John Carter (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that a talkpage notice would be enough. I was thinking more of an editnotice for the article. Something that everyone who tries to edit such articles will see, but which won't be visible to the readers. ϢereSpielChequers 23:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I like the edit notice idea WSC - we can do this for user talk pages it should be technically possible to do it for articles. We could also stick a link of the TOS in there too--Cailil 01:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Jesus has one at Template:Editnotices/Page/Jesus, Falun Gong doesn't. I don't know how much difference the Jesus one has made, how much difference semi Protection makes or indeed whether the Jesus one addresses the contentious bits of the article. But it would be worth looking at that and seeing if we can test on Falun Gong or others to see if such notes reduce conflict or just annoy newbies. Also I'm not sure why this was done by a template not an editnotice and why it displays double on my pc. ϢereSpielChequers 10:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

As far as displaying goes its fine for me - perhaps this is more of a village pump proposal that all articles (especially ones covered by ArbCom rulings or other probations) should have these. Its possible that the template gets around something that's in, or not in, the mediawiki software currently--Cailil 12:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

If we wanted to display something to all editors in Mainspace then yes we'd need to go via the village pump. I doubt if we'd get consensus but if there was then a change to the relevant Mediawiki page would probably be the easiest and most efficient way to do it. But changing something for all articles is a very different proposition than doing something for contentious ones or where restrictions apply. The complex thing is that such templates need to be very specific to the article, otherwise they will quickly lose impact and authority. That's why my preference would be to do some tests to see if they do take heat away from contentious topics. If we can demonstrate that they are an effective way to preempt edit wars then I suspect all we need do is publicise that and we will see more editors introducing them. Of course the risk is that they will be used by those who are trying to own articles to freeze out other opinions, we may need safeguards there. ϢereSpielChequers 23:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Review WP:SOCK?

Just for my information what do we want to review WP:SOCK for and why? And how does that effect editor retention--Cailil 01:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

If nobody has a reason for this - it shouldn't be an initiative--Cailil 17:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok considering that nobody's answered and there's been a lot of traffic here I'm removing this from the initiatives list--Cailil 15:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Reasons Editors Leave

I have started Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Editor Retention/Discovered reasons given for leaving Misplaced Pages. Many times when an editor leaves he gives his/her own eulogy. Contained in those eulogies are nuggets of gold, relating to this project, that can be mined for insight into the whys and wherefores of Editors leaving. I suggest they remain anonymous. It's not who said it that's important: it's what was said at the moment of departure. I realize there's a lot of whining and finger-pointing and weepy "Woe is Me" kind of stuff. But, maybe one of us will see something that lights a spark of intuition. It's worth a try. I'm sure we all remember some departing editors last words. Re-visit and lift the reasons they give.```Buster Seven Talk 01:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think this is a good idea. First, it looks as though you've picked editors who had a beef over blocks or bans, in other words this doesn't look like a random sample. Secondly, it's against our principle of verifiability - we don't know who wrote these words or even, (and I am NOT saying you made these up), if anyone did. Sure, you copied accurately from real pages, but someone could come along and make up statements. Third, and I guess you could say a minor point that we could ignore or that I might be wrong about, is the copyright issue. I guess as they are gone they won't complain.

The main problem though is that it's a bad research model. Dougweller (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Doug, and with all respect to your good faith efforts Buster, there are editors who are leaving wikipedia due to our problems with editor retention and there are editors who, for whatever reason, have been restricted, sanctioned, banned, blocked to prevent them from using wikipedia against its policies. Again castigating the ArbCom, sysop corp and/or our policies for doing the *right thing* and preventing wikipedia being abused is shooting ourselves in the head, not just the foot.
There's actual verifiable evidence by researchers on this topic and its pointless to ignore it in favour of the rants of disgruntled problematic users. As above, I have a page on Meta that is summarizing that research I'd welcome help from ppl finding research and any suggestions for editor retention they might have--Cailil 16:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

That's brilliant, a good detailed account which applies to many editors, although the reports show raw statistics, and do so with pretty much no detail, they don't show the typical reasons like that does at such a high resolution. Sure it could be labelled as a detailed example of why 5 or 15% or whatever of editors leaving over community disputes but it takes someone to look up the report to put the finishing touches on it. Another reason a lot of editors get disillusioned is when you make a reasonable, intelligent, properly thought out edit/proposal/observation, there are often other people who will stretch their small minds to breaking point to come up with negative comments, shrug, I'd say that's an issue to cover as well. Penyulap ☏ 19:13, 8 Jul 2012 (UTC)

(Tiwitter/nutshell) The sample is by definition valid because it outlines at the absolute minimum the reasons why the author would leave. The question of validity or referencing is moot, the only valid question is how many editors fall into that category, nothing else. Penyulap ☏ 19:48, 8 Jul 2012 (UTC)

• We don't want to castigating anyone, but that shouldn't stop us from supporting those that do it right and encouraging others to follow suit. This includes both admin methods and editor tagging as well. Methods is one area where we have to use the carrot, not the stick. It isn't the first priority, but we do want admins and editors to discuss tagging and blocks and how to be less aggressive and more informative in how we "correct" others. We can't scream about this from the outside, we have to engage, encourage and support, else it is useless soapboxing. Admins are just part of the picture, as more people get mad over having their good faith edit tagged as "vandalism" than anything else I see. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

So....the challenge is to find eulogies that are not just sour grapes. The few I listed are the ones that I remember. Had I included their names all of you would surely remember them and the circumstances surrounding their departure. I am collecting them only as a place for possible inspiration and maybe an answer or two. As I remember more, I'll add them (as I hope other editors will). If some editors don't see value in this little appendage of this project, I guess they won't contribute. I know I have read many fine and eloquent eulogies over the years that are not sour grapes or administrative attacks. I just don't remember where they are. Like I said, the challenge is to find the ones that will give us insight into why a quality long-term editor closes up shop and leaves. Some of us like to explore studies and articles and reports and others like to hear it from the horses mouth. All have value. ```Buster Seven Talk 02:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

My concern apart from the soapbox issue is this: we should not be trying to retain banned users. 3 of 4 quotes on the page are from BANNED users - the other was indefinitely block for disruptive editing in an area now under ArbCom sanction (and is de facto banned). That page presents the remarks of editors who have gone so far down the road of disruption as to get site-banned as if they are good faith editors who left of their own accord - that's not helpful.
There's a difference between new good faith editors who (as Dennis points out above, and as the research shows) are being lost or pushed away early in their wiki-careers (due to over zealous reverting, including vandalism tagging or unexplained reverts etc), long term good faith editors who leave, and ppl who were thrown out. I don't have a problem with the horses mouth approach as long as we know where the comments come from, and as long as we don't simply make an indiscriminate list - that means excluding the commentary of users who are no longer welcome at wikipedia--Cailil 03:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my above comment comes across as terse but the fact of the matter is that presenting users who have abused this project as ppl we should be trying to retain is quite frankly offensive. Especially to someone who spent a considerable amount of time (years) trying to help one of those banned users in that list only to see him ignore the advice and create enough problems for 2 RFARs (and continue to protest his complete innocence throughout, despite irrefutable evidence, wiki-counselling, warnings and eventually bans) and whose dramahz actually contributed to another editor leaving the site themselves--Cailil 03:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we don't want to bring back banned users, and that we don't judge someone if they have had a few short term blocks either. One thing I've learned is that if you are here long enough, it is pretty easy to earn a block or two even when you are trying to do the right thing. Misplaced Pages has changed radically since I started in 2006. It is way more bureaucratic for starters, and some got lost because they didn't change as fast as the encyclopedia, and they didn't like the changes, even the ones that were needed. Sometimes, it is just a matter of time to get used to it, to accept it. This is part of the frustration by the process problem, which can cause a block or two, and someone to leave. I've taken a very long wikibreak myself, almost two years where I didn't log in and would just do small edits on little errors I found when reading here. That is what brought me back in, the love of doing that. I hesitated to come back in 2010, almost a little embarrassed after leaving pissed off but on good terms. No one seemed to notice me coming or going. So I understand the hesitation of coming back under relatively good circumstances, and know that a great editor who left due to a single block (likely earned on a technical level, like a 4RR but in good faith and bad form) will be hesitant as well. I'm not completely sure how to approach those editors yet. Hopefully, time will heal some old wounds. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

User box suggestion

I made a user box and put it on page for suggestions. Feel free to improve it--Cailil 17:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• I like the color green, it is a peaceful, spiritual color, and like your choice of images as well, I threw up a bunch of images but that one stuck out to me as well. Ping me when it goes full template so I can update my user page, I already put this one at the top of my userboxes, as it is the most important thing there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't see Cailil's userbox suggestion out there, am I looking in the wrong spot? Dennis, I think you picked up the userbox suggestion I threw together. Glad it's getting some use, anyway! Zad68 03:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Sorry guys here's the link--Cailil 03:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
      • OK, Dennis had already started a page for userboxes here: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Editor_Retention/userbox ... I see the way you're doing it would allow for editors to transclude it directly. Nice stuff! Zad68 20:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
        • I think the green one's better - great work!--Cailil 20:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Added more info to the retired editors list

I threw together a little Python script today and scraped through the list of retired editors, and pulled out:

• Whether the user is currently blocked
• The date and time of their last edit
• The page they last edited
• Their last edit summary

The list is still a little rough, but it's very interesting! It'll definitely help us in not wasting our time trying to bring back editors who never had any intention of contributing productively, or who retired one account to move to another (some final edit summaries say as much), etc. I'm most interested in those who look like they were editors in good standing and just wandered away. I plan on adding information about edit counts when I get a chance. If you have any more ideas about what I can pull out, drop me a note. Zad68 01:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

excellent work. Penyulap ☏ 03:32, 9 Jul 2012 (UTC)

I clicked sort on the comments list two times and saw "you can't reason with demagogues or devotees". Here I was thinking I might be the only one who knew the name of this absolutely pervasive menace, it's nice to know there are others. Penyulap ☏ 03:37, 9 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Pen, Ha!! I have updated the list again, it now has the following fields:

• User
• Blocked?
• User groups
• First Edit
• Last Edit
• Last Page Edited
• Total edits
• Live edits
• Deleted edits
• Unq pg ed
• Avg edits/pg
• Last Edit Summary
• Last Contact
• Notes

I will be adding more block log info. Zad68 16:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I added block log info and also did a bit of cleanup to the list of retired editors. It's interesting to note that there are about 9 accounts that are marked as "Retired" but are also in the sysop group. If they're really retired, the groups should be removed from the accounts. Zad68 19:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Clarification of recent edits

Can the editors in question clarify the following recent edits to the "Reasons editors leave" section:

• Buster7: atrophy—can you clarify what you believe is becoming weaker or smaller? (Another possibility that occurred to me: do you mean "apathy"?)
  • Atrophy---The desire to remain an active member of the WP community withers away. A natural transition of interest. One day you're in love...the next day, not so much. I didn't mean apathy but it also fits. The editor just doesn't care anymore. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I see: do you believe there are underlying reasons for atrophy, or you just referring to the natural tendency to lose interest? (In the second case, as this section is not focusing on unaddressable issues, perhaps "atrophy" would be better discussed elsewhere?) isaacl (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
      • See Core reasons for good editor dissatisfaction related to content: (below). But if you don't think it belongs, remove it. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Thanks for clarifying; it is indeed the core reasons that I think should be given attention, since this is how the resulting effect, atrophy or a loss of interest in Misplaced Pages, will be addressed. isaacl (talk) 15:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
• Amadscientist: A seemingly anti-social atmosphere one minute and a clique the next—I'm not sure I follow: separately, an anti-social atmosphere and a community of cliques seem like plausible reasons, but did you have something else in mind with the idea of one environment quickly shifting to another?
  • Perhaps a clumsy way of saying a perception of and anti social community that has cliques. Many new editors are hounded by some that this is not a social network when in reality one can easily see chat take place everywhere on a given topic and that sometimes cliques form that lead to ownership and other issues. Could use more clarification. A work in progress.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Definitely there are groups of editors who act together to defend a line on particular articles - collective ownership as it were. There have also been tag teams who act in concert to push a particular POV, Arbcom did a number of blocks when they investigated the East European mailing list. The difficulty is in proving that canvassing, sometimes off wiki canvassing, is taking place. ϢereSpielChequers 08:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Also regarding the following addition to the "How you can help" section:

• Amadscientist: As always, edit, remembering that, as this project and its subpages progress, our contributions will be changed by others...even this one.—Written more generally, it sounds like a good thing for all editors to keep in mind; maybe it would be more appropriate as a discussion topic to look for ways to help editors remember this? I'm not sure how it fits into the "How you can help" section.

isaacl (talk) 03:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• • Now this is more direct. Edit the page, edit an article and actively continue to work on Misplaced Pages yourself is INDEED a way to help editor retention by each of us continuing to edit and while doing so have patience when dealing with the changes others make.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

One hidden factor of being a blocked user

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.

Of course we often need to block users for various reasons, and some considerable effort has gone into crafting the block templates and unblock templates (for all they could probably be improved). However what the majority of us don't see it that when you are blocked there are several screens of crud when you press "view source" - and even more hatted explanation. This is bad for a number of reasons. Firstly it is an unpleasant and unnecessary way to treat people, whether they are newbies or experienced editors. Secondly it damages the usability of the "view source" tab. Thirdly it is TLDR. Rich Farmbrough, 04:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC).

Gotta second that, I was testing some block-related things on myself a couple weeks ago and while indef-blocked (that was weird), went to go see what the notice was. It was really freaking long. There's gotta be a way to simplify it and still present the same information. Keilana| 06:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

If you can recall a particular phrase we can track down the mediawiki message and shift this discussion to its talkpage. I'm happy to help make such messages shorter but sometimes struggle to find the message. ϢereSpielChequers 08:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

100%. The current message is F off. The actual message is slow down. Experienced editors should have endorsed blocks. Penyulap ☏ 11:20, 9 Jul 2012 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Blockedtext is the text in question. I agree that it's way too long, but I can't see anything obvious to cut. Would it make sense to replace it with a row of buttons which take you to various sub-pages ("Why am I blocked?", "When will your block expire?", "How do I appeal this?"), or would that make things even more confusing? Mogism (talk) 12:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree this is very off-putting and TLDR. Perhaps we could move this page so it becomes the explanation of the block message that can be read if the user wants to see it. And replace what's there currently with a smaller simpler notice that the blocked user sees first?--Cailil 13:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I've shortened it slightly, but I suggest we now stop this thread here and resume at MediaWiki_talk:Blockedtext#TLDR. ϢereSpielChequers 14:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Administrator retention

I firmly believe we need to be working to retain good Administrators as well as good editors who are not Administrators and that this should be a clearly stated goal, perhaps even part of the project's title. I know that we are losing good Administrators, some possible because of abuse, others because of lack of community support (I don't mean deliberate lack, more inaction or lack involvement in the areas they work). Then of course there's burnout. I've recently been in contact with one good Admin who works in an area where there is a lot of pov pushing who is becoming much less active because of lack of support.(And in cases where there are areas of the world from which we draw few or no Admins we may need to be recruiting). I know of others who have left or retired from certain areas where they seem to be fighting a losing battle. Maybe there are some editors who see Admins as an unnecessary evil, but I hope the vast majority of editors understand that we play a vital role on Misplaced Pages. We certainly have an important role to play in helping to fix some of the problems that cause editors to leave - pov pushing, personal attacks, edit warring,etc, let alone simply blocking obvious vandals. Active Administrators are a pretty small number (697 seems to be the current count) and we are having problems getting more. but the number of articles continually grows. Dougweller (talk) 09:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• 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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
• And I'm still waiting for you to officially sign up on the front page ;) Of course, it isn't required, but obviously you are part of the project now and I'm glad for it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this, however the solution is not apparent to everyone. What works properly is to fight against the 'US Vs THEM' mentality from both sides. If you wanted to, I could address this with dynamics to consider and pathways to community strength, however, I do not see at the moment that there is sufficient drive for change that can carry through the radical changes that would permanently strengthen the bonds between the admins and non admins. Too many on each side don't want to work together at this point in time, and it is a shame too. Penyulap ☏ 11:37, 9 Jul 2012 (UTC)

• Retention of experienced users is important whether they are sysops or not. There is work done about how wikipedia selects sysops that might help (I mentioned it to John above) wrt sysops, and there is an interesting study on wikipedia "power users" too. There are a number of inter-related things that have effected my own experience: burnout, abuse, hounding, actual harassment/real-life stalking (yes it happens), time-wasting, and then real-life/work commitments. There are also off-site issues we can't fix that are designed by banned users to hound ppl here. IMHO we need to see what keeps ppl here as much as we need to see what pushes them away--Cailil 13:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Core reasons for good editor dissatisfaction related to content: Unmet need for recognition, Frustration with seeing good work ruined, Exasperation at having to continuously defend completed work

I think a number of suggestions here are directed at symptoms and not the underlying diseases. Dissatisfaction with the process of appealing blocks, ugly edit notices and cliques/tag teams are not the real problems, they are distant secondary and tertiary symptoms. The real problems (or at least one set of them, there are others I'll address in other threads) that the good, experienced editors whom we want to keep face are:

• An unmet need for recognition
• Frustration with seeing good work ruined
• Exhaustion/exasperation at having to continuously defend completed work

Misplaced Pages work falls squarely within a kind of work that's the subject of a recent area of research regarding self-directed motivation. Author Daniel Pink wrote an interesting book Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us. (I'm quoting from here:) "Pink identifies three key motivators:

• autonomy (self-directed work),
• mastery (getting better at stuff), and
• purpose (serving a greater vision)."

Good editors enjoy (at least initially) contributing to Misplaced Pages, because Misplaced Pages provides an environment where all three of these key intrinsic motivators are strong. What happens is over time, all three of these motivators get eroded:

• POV pushers, vandals and inexperienced editors that don't understand all the rules behind proper sourcing, Wiki-formatting to produce an attractive article, etc. damage the good work the good editors have completed, requiring the good editors to baby-sit their completed articles and defend them against a never-ending stream of bad editors. They can no longer decide for themselves what they would like to work on because they have to spend their time defending completed work, so the self-directed work motivator evaporates
• After an experienced editor has learned all the policy and technical rules required to produce good content, the mastery motivator dries up to some degree. The mastery motivator evolves into teaching less-experienced editors the ropes, or mastering new content or project areas. (I think this is the least worrying of these three problem areas.)
• Where the Misplaced Pages culture is the weakest is keeping the purpose motivator strong. When good editors see their good work deteriorate, they lose the sense of purpose. (From the same website:) "Teresa M. Amabile and Steven J. Kramer found that the # 1 motivator for the employees was progress – the feeling that they were moving forward and achieving a greater goal." After seeing good work evaporate, the question in the mind of good editors becomes, "I spent all that time getting this interesting article to FA, and now look what happened to it. What was the point of all that work?"

Things we can do to address these problems:

• Misplaced Pages needs to recognize and protect "completed" articles and good content
• Misplaced Pages needs to recognize and reward good editors in a more official way than barnstars (can eventually lead to cliques) and deciding for one's self to award one's self a GA or FA star on one's User page
• Misplaced Pages needs to be set up to direct new and inexperienced editors away from areas where they will 1) experience frustration at trying to change completed work, 2) frustrate veteran good editors who caused that good completed work, and 3) worsen the encyclopedia by changing good, completed work.

I think this is a great contribution Zad. A lot of ppl class themselves "content editors" - editors with a long litany of FAs and GAs but who feel unrecognized and badly treated by the site (lets leave a side the fact that the editors I'm referring to have appalling manners and don't 'play well with others' for the moment). Speculating on it I'd say they feel they should have power based on their content contributions - I don't see a way to do this but think we should be rewarding excellence in research and writing, and would like to see some reward for editors with a history of featured content writing.
Personally I was one of a few ppl who struggled to get Feminism to GA and I can tell you, hand on heart, that that was harder, and took longer, than writing a PhD (due to POV, pointy,disruption and vandal issues), the new editors issues you list were there but to a lesser extent. Furthermore maintain quality at a GA or FA is a struggle and we need to do something to help keep good content (the old adage that the better version "is in the article history" doesn't fly for anyone) without forgetting WP:OWN. I'd endorse a move to at least prevent disimprovment on FAs and GAs and would love to see that discussion start--Cailil 15:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

You don't award yourself a GA, FA or even a DYK, those have awarded to you by others. If you've earned them you decide whether you want to display the resulting bling on your userpage. That said, it would be a good idea to compare retention rates for FA writers, Admins and various other groups of experienced editors. I suspect those who've earned FAs will have a fairly good retention rate. I know our retention rate amongst admins is very high, hence the current situation where a wikigeration who became admins in 2004-2007 still supply most of our admins, but much of the community is from newer WikiGenerations. This WikiGeneration gap is bound to cause resentment and a feeling that the admins are a clique apart from the current editors. I'm fairly sure that the problems at RFA and the drought we've had since early 2008 are a significant cause of our retention problems amongst those who have a few thousand edits but then feel there is a glass ceiling above them. RFA problems may not be the only cause of our retention problems, but I'm pretty sure they are a significant cause amongst those who have over 3,000 edits. There is an unmet need for recognition amongst our volunteers, and in the days when RFA was appointing a new admin a day it was one of the roles that it performed. As for defending one's work, eventually I hope we will move to the flagged revisions system in use on DEE wiki and some others. Until then or we find some other way to improve our systems, we just have to accept that some vandalism will get past recent changes and has to be dealt with later. ϢereSpielChequers 19:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The List of every editor with a successful FA nomination is easy enough to find. At a glance, it doesn't seem to bear your contention out - aside from the hardcore clique in the top 10 (who are in the top 10 precisely because they've been here a long time and thus racked up a lot of work), the list includes some of Misplaced Pages's most notable retirees and vanishees, and a dip-sample of the lower ranks suggests that around half have either vanished altogether, or are only making occasional once-a-month edits. Mogism (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I personally know of at least one of those listed as an FA recipient whose article, was, basically, POV pushing crap. I, to my own discredit, even supported it for FA at the time, because I was in hindsight stupid enough to not check the material about a then-newly releasaed book out - if I had done so, I would have known it for the fringe theory it was described as in the press. It has since been demoted, as a lot of FAs have been, because of the mistakes and disproportional weight weren't found the first time, yes, by people like me, but were caught later by others. Having said that, I as an individual certainly wouldn't mind seeing editors who have a very specific, limited range of interests going into semi-retirement, if their interests are so clearly limited. Actually, it was more or less with people like that in mind that I proposed the "reunions" of older editors in the first place. I would think that they would be among the most motivated to update FAs and former FAs that they got to that level, particularly thinking of articles on subjects like countries which unfortunately require frequent updating. John Carter (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Mogism! I am using the WP:WBFAN list to create the same sort of analysis table I produced at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Editor Retention/Retired editors list, it's running right now. John, I think (hopefully) you ran into the exception there with the FA article that was crap, and that in general our process for identifying quality work as FA much more often is right than wrong. Once I have the results of the FA producers, we can see which ones are still editing, and should be able to fairly easily identify which FA contributors are no longer editing. Then we can both ask those editors why they aren't editing any more, and also possibly encourage them to return. Zad68 15:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Help Project being spruced up

Wikimedia Foundation actually hired someone to clean up this project and he seems to be doing a good job. Check out the page, give feed back, see how these projects can work together. I deleted some text that was duplicative of what they are doing and encouraged people to go there. Also see Misplaced Pages:Help Project/Community fellowship which is leading that. CarolMooreDC 20:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)