Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 31

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33→Archive 35

Structural problem with administrators

Time to change the channel. Buster Seven Talk 20:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Has anyone looked into the role that administrators play in editor discouragement/retirement please? I think in general administrators perform important tasks, but posting warning messages on talkpages over minor issues, sometimes with the threat of arbitrary bans and blocks, and without assuming good faith, has a chilling effect. Wikipedia is supposed to be a relaxing hobby and some administrators make editing stressful. However, I think this may be a structural problem--I don't think they are sadistic on purpose--I think one way we could help with "editor retention" is by reassessing the power dynamics. Zigzig20s (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that is a rather exaggerated perception, Zigzig20s, especially without a significant number (as in 'several hundred') of diffs to prove that it is as common as you suggest. IMO, When done, the chilling effect is generally necessary. Remember that the majority of editors posting warning messages on talkpages over minor issues, sometimes with the threat of arbitrary bans and blocks, and without assuming good faith are non-admins reveling in the power to police Wikipedia in a manner that would never allow them to be promoted to moderators on a common or garden forum or blog. I often also remind the anti-admin faction that I was myself abused by teenage admins early in my Wikicareer neither of whom, (fortunately) are still around, but I have never tarred all admins with the same brush. It's time that users with long tenure and high edit counts stood up and be vetted for adminship themselves before making sweeping statements of this nature. Perhaps this WPER project should from time to time examine the reason for the voluntary exodus of so many admins. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
So sorry if I wasn't clear. As I said, in general, I think administrators tend to perform important tasks. I asked a question; I am not "tarring" anyone at all and there is nothing personal about this. But editors are human beings with feelings too. I am asking if others feel the same way about this structural problem, and if we should reassess the power dynamics to enhance editor retention.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't really see how what you've stated your perception is amounts to a problem with administrators. Most warnings are applied by everyday users like you and me. Generally, an administrator will only leave you a warning message either as an everyday editor (which they all are) or as a result of some community discussion. Administrative communication with editors is rare. And if you are receiving administrative admonishments, it's a fair bet your behavior isn't conforming to community standards. Would you care to restate your problem or give a specific example? John from Idegon (talk) 03:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
No, because I don't want to commit Wikipedia:Suicide by admin. Again, this is not about Zigzig20s; this is a question about the possible need for structural reform in power dynamics to enhance Editor Retention!Zigzig20s (talk) 03:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
You have not made any case for that. At all. Again, the vast majority of warnings are given by everyday editors. That seemed to be the crux of your concern; so if you have nothing further to say, I'd say your concerns are baseless. Specifically, if you have a problem that can be addressed, say so. In a manner that can be addtessed. Whining about administrative power while saying nothing whatsoever about any administrative power that needs to be changed is a waste of others' time. IMO, editors that cannot communicate effectively and waste others time are as much a reason people leave here as administrative abuses, which I see very little of. John from Idegon (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Please assume good faith--I am not making a case or "whining" at all. I am asking a question about power dynamics as a potential problem for editor retention, which is relevant to this WikiProject. There was a question mark at the beginning of my very first post. If you think power dynamics are not a problem, fine. There is no need for you to keep telling us. The question is addressed to all members of this WikiProject, in the hope that we can find constructive solutions to fix the problem if others agree this is a problem.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
The problem is you posits a problem that may or may not exist and then you muddy the waters with a bunch of crap. Your position in your question was that administrative power is somehow a problem and the evidence you offered hasn't a damn thing to do with administrative powers. Perhaps the problem is your rotten communication skills. Cause that's the only thing you've demonstrated. It's easy as hell to point fingers at others. When you can make a sensible point, come back and discuss it. If you think editor generated warnings are some sort of indication of administrative abuse, the problem is yours. If you do not have the cahones to actually say what you are thinking, that too is your problem. Are we supposed to read your mind? If you want to make vague accusations, you're part of the problem not the solution and Wikiocrocy is thataway. John from Idegon (talk) 05:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I am making zero accusations, as this is not a personal matter, but a structural one. I am asking a question to improve editor retention, which is the whole point of this WikiProject. I take it that you don't like the question. That's fine, and you don't need to tell us again. Please let other editors answer the question.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, I dunno. It is certain that the incidence of administrators (and other editors) warning editors in an unnecessarily harsh manner, or with inadequate cause, inclining that editor to leave the project, is not zero, obviously; that would be impossible. Is the incidence of this higher than we would expect given the normal functioning of a project like this? I guess not, not in my experience, no.
It's a very large, busy, and fast-moving project. There isn't time to fully assess each incident as much as we would like, so sometimes mistakes are made. Sometimes an editor is warned more quickly and harshly that really ought to have been.
I don't know if there's an answer to this. More admins maybe. My personal experience is that there isn't a structural problem or a problem with the personnel, generally, that I've seen. Herostratus (talk) 06:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
One of the varied points of this project is to provide a platform for ideas and, perhaps, provide an arena for the possible implementation of them. But we need something to work with, some facts, some discoveries you have made or have witnessed...some proof that this power dynamic exists in a profusion that is measurable. Can you provide some examples, some diffs, or something to examine. How can we provide answers without something beyond your own hypothetical claim? If I consider "power dynamic" I have a notion that its more editors that know whats going on over editors that don't. Or the power of editors that accept criticism and move on over those that dig in and fight over the smallest perceived slight. Have you had some recent dealings with admins that displayed this power dynamic you speak of? Buster Seven Talk 08:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
No, because I refuse to be baited into Wikipedia:Suicide by admin. Again, I don't believe this is a personal matter, but a structural one. That's why I think it makes sense to get together in this WikiProject and reassess the power dynamics in order to improve editor retention! One thing I will say, since I have been editing Wikipedia for over ten years, is that administrators seem to be less willing to assume good faith than they used to, and this has made editing more stressful. Perhaps Newmark's donation to stop online bullying could look into the way admins treat regular editors--and sometimes overreact, or perhaps use warnings/bans/blocks punitively. This is not personal because I'm sure some/most admins are not sadists, but I do believe there may be a need for structural reform.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, there is a certain degree of clique behaviour that can cause tension between experienced editors and new editors. Combating this needs co-operation from both sides: experienced editors need to be persistent in their efforts to be inclusive, and new editors need to be understanding when others fail to craft the perfect response to them. Unfortunately, I don't have any ideas at present on how to encourage these behaviours in a way that reaches those who could use the reminder. It's a very difficult problem. isaacl (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't really see how the expression power dynamics really applies a all. There are only about 20 or 30 admins who are truly active in patrolling or monitoring those areas where conflict arises or is discussed, and they are mostly pretty professional in the way they go about resolving and defusing hairy issues. There are 33,000 regular 'wannabe admin' editors who have made ANI, AIV, XfD, and RfA and other drama boards their home. So, I dunno about fancy terms like 'power dynamics', but it's easy to see where the real power lies - and it ain't with the admins. WE're just the jailers janitors with the keys; the police, the prosecutors, the lawyers and the judges are the ones you can hear above the noise they make munching groundnuts in their gallery.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
This is getting to be a bit of a conversation- so may I just add a few POVs. Saying that this is a structural matter means this is a problem with the organisation not the individuals- it implies that the action becomes inevitable- and the individuals are mere pawns in the game. It is a point of view that merits examination. Don't shoot the messenger- just yet. We have some good real-life examples of utopia disintegrating -hopefully we can learn from their mistake. One structural problem we have is how every disagreement dissolves into precedent and case-law which appears to fascinate the folks gifted enough to become admins and bores most editors rigid. It takes years of study to learn where it is permissible to put a hyphen and the ´force' of the structure ensures that the jobbing editor will always lose- even when in real life they are perfectly correct. The 'force' has codified behaviour- and after years of study one can apply the Civility policy to do anything- it is an excellent example of passive aggression. Individuals may run amok in their various roles but is it something about our structure that allows it to happen or maybe encourages it to happen?
I keep on my talk page a classic example of an alpha-male response to a non-incident. At User_talk:ClemRutter#Just FYI Both members of the tag-team chose to misrepresent a comment about an erroneous good-faith edit as an assault on their DNA- both guys I had looked up to in the past but the system has done something to them and they use their knowledge to cause mayhem. It is 3.00 in the morning here an I am still editing-- why? The system? Others did but have just walked away. We are here to consider why- an overview, not specifics --ClemRutter (talk) 02:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Clem, Whether or not those were Alpha-male responses or even male ones, none of the people in the thread you link to are actually administrators. That isn't an isolated incident, I've seen several reports over the years where people have complained of administrator behaviour and then given examples of editing by people who aren't administrators. Unless you want to start a new thread on Structural problems with non administrators, this is not an ideal example. ϢereSpielChequers 11:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Interesting- a new offence perhaps 'Impersonating an admin'?--ClemRutter (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Arguably neither claimed to be an Admin, I think those who do so falsely are rare. But they clearly behaved as if they could tell others what to do. The way we run this site is to encourage anyone to get involved in self policing it; At RFA candidates are expected to have already started acting in admin like ways. Indeed you can't pass an RFA unless you have demonstrated a "need for the tools"; normally by either tagging articles for deletion or reporting vandals for blocking. RFA has often seen candidates fail for errors in such tagging, especially in deletion tagging. Even more common are candidates whose early tagging was sloppy but who now are ready to run. Candidates rarely get their identification of vandalism so wrong as to report goodfaith editors for blocking as vandals. But there are several other pitfalls that RFA candidates do fall into, and that's just the candidates. There may even be some longstanding non admins who don't run at RFA precisely because they know their behaviour is too bitey to pass an RFA. It would be interesting to know whether the editors that Zigzig20s and Ottawahitech complain about are actually admins. I can't see the community agreeing to restrict some of these admin like actions to admins, but perhaps we can do something to speed up their learning process so they get less bitey more quickly. ϢereSpielChequers 00:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I mean admins, because they are the ones with power and thus likely to instil fear and lead to lower editor retention. There seems to be some agreement with my concern below.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Another structural problem: Arbcom members are administrators, who are also (not necessarily uninvolved) editors. Is there a way to make Arbcom independent? Because right now the power dynamics are completely stacked against regular editors, even veteran editors... The worst configuration may be when involved editors are administrators and also on Arbcom. Is there a way to separate these levers of power structurally please? The main problem may be the unwillingness to assume good faith, but those with more power are equally human and the structures should not give them free rein.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
@:WereSpielChequers: Absolutely my issue is with ADMINs who set the tone that others emulate (see below). I provided a concrete example earlier on this page of a very popular ADMIN with whom I personally had an altercation years ago. Since that time I have seen many examples of editors who feel it is OK to silence others on talk pages. Ottawahitech (talk) 10:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC) )please ping me
  • I agree with user:Zigzig20s. Admins are not always careful to act as role models on Wikipedia, not realizing they set the tone for many other editors. Edit summaries accusing editors of vandalism / Speedy deletion of articles as spam /silencing others by removing comments from talk-pages are some areas many admins commonly abuse. Just my$.02. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)please ping me
  • While I agree with Zigzag to an extent as well, I have reservations about attempting to place admins on too high of a pedestal here. Some, honestly, are worse than others. Those admins might merit having the bit taken from them a bit faster than often happens, and if anyone had a good idea of how to do that, I would welcome seeing it. Other admins can be better, and I don't see any need to necessarily seem to lump them in with the others. Having said that, I have no clue really how to limit the impact of the dubious admins, other than, maybe, going to ANI or wherever and suggesting in the relevant threads that maybe some sort of adoption might work. John Carter (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • This "power dynamics" question seems to be about a person-to-person problem. An admin-to-editor problem. In 8 years of editing, I have had very little negative interaction with administrators. To my knowledge, I've never been threatened with a ban or a block. I rarely get warning messages over minor issues...and when I do get them, I don't get mad or stressed. I don't view admins as my enemy, out to get me, out to force me to retire, out to force me to commit suicide by administrator. Not to say I haven't seen some atrocious behavior by random Admins. But I don't think that's a problem WE can solve here. It's a person-to-person problem so WE can talk about it till the cows come home and WE won't get anywhere. I think you handle it in the moment, fix the problem indicated by the warning message, don't worry or focus on any subordinate clutter, and move on. John Carter offers some different solutions above. Any others? Buster Seven Talk 04:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry to disagree, @Buster7. In my experience sweeping issues under the carpet results in fostering festering resentment. You seem to be implying that your personal experience alone is what counts:
You were right there when my own post was removed from this page with the edit summary removing unrelated crap. Were you not aware of it at the time? And why do you continue to adorn an ADMIN who defended this action?
This was NOT a "person-to-person problem", it was a blatant abuse of power by a popular ADMIN who was insincere enough to say he "did not want to lead this project" and who is now the subject of a mutual admiration society campaign carried on right here on this talk-page. Closing your eyes and pretending that other opinions do not count, does not make the pain go away for those who have been subjected to this treatment right here. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)please ping me
I understood your anger then and I understand it now. But its been 3 4 years. Why let the anger and pain of a 3 4 year old insult still poison your present experience? Let it go. Buster Seven Talk 16:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Constructive suggestions for structural reforms

In this subsection, I think we should try to come up with constructive suggestions for structural reforms. Here are a few:

  • Make it a priority for administrators to always assume good faith. This could involve a special remote video-based workshop designed for them, and monthly reminders on their talkpages.
  • Separate Arbcom from regular administrators/editors. Make the Arbcom process more transparent from the get-go.
  • Find ways to make veteran editors feel welcome. This could involve automatic barnstars based on a specific number of article creations or other metrics.
  • Provide training to veteran editors when the policies evolve. This could be done via remote video-based workshops. Many veteran editors started editing and only learned about our policies as they went along. Wales famously said no one knows every single policy, but that could be a problem as it can backfire.
  • Make sure administrators receive sensitivity training when it comes to interacting with LGBT and other minority editors.

Happy to hear more suggestions. Also, please let me know if you object to any of this, and if so why. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

On a side note, your suggestions aren't really structural reforms for Wikipedia's administrative setup. To be honest, it's pretty hard to avoid the need for hierarchy; see Clay Shirky's "A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy" for a discussion of how communities invariably develop an administrative structure. (The suggestion about the Arbitration Committee is a structural reform, but not one related to administrators.)
Regarding mandatory training, it's tricky in a volunteer environment. For instance, would you be responsive to monthly reminders on your talk page about being more sensitive towards other editors who might not always act perfectly? With thousands of editors, how would they all be compelled to take workshops, and who would lead them? Making them effective would also be hard: how many of those who could use the training would actually be receptive to receiving it?
There is a new initiative for a monthly newsletter with updates on administrative news. For editors who are interested, it may help them remain up-to-date on the latest changes to guidelines and policies. Reaching those who aren't interested, though, is a key problem that I've been struggling with.
Regarding recognition, the real value is when an actual person expresses his/her appreciation of you. Buster7 used to drop a friendly note of recognition to editors upon attaining a certain number of edits. Perhaps there is someone else out there who would like to run a milestone recognition program? isaacl (talk) 01:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I think it's structural because all Arbcom members are admins, although as was suggested above, the problem may be evil/sadistic/biased admins, not necessarily the hierarchical structure--I am not sure--ANI is not really an option because it could backfire into Wikipedia:Suicide by admin (which was ominously written by an admin, by the way). More research would need to be undertaken to counteract this and perhaps this could be a good use of some of Craig Newmark's donation. Regarding training videos, I don't think this has to be mandatory for regular editors, but probably for admins. I do believe however that everyone could learn from them and for example I could probably learn a few things, despite having edited for ten years (for example, I'd like to learn strategies to take stubs to GA status, which I have never done). Lack of recognition is a real problem; I try to 'thank' editors whenever I can because I know I feel great if I receive a thank-you after creating or expanding an article, and I think others do too. Finally, there are worrying accounts of anti-LGBT bullying by admins which led to editor retirements over at WikiProject LGBT Studies and they should be looked into (perhaps by the Newmark researchers).Zigzig20s (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Leaving the question of the administrative structure aside, it's still a daunting task to get experienced volunteer editors to take mandatory training (including refresher training), without significant changes to the editing environment. (Some kind of training record would have to be associated with each account, which would exclude IP editors from establishing this track record. An incentive would then be needed to get editors to actually do the training; blocking users after a period of time will likely just result in editors leaving Wikipedia altogether, or creating new accounts, which is counterproductive to building a community—see the Shirky article.) Additionally, the gap has to be bridged from both sides: invariably, not all experienced editors will be able to respond to every situation as would be desired in a perfect world. Accordingly, the expectations from the lesser-experienced have to be calibrated accordingly. For example, a number of new editors don't understand the volunteer nature of Wikipedia, and make insensitive demands on the time and investment of others.
Perhaps you would be interested in forming a thank-you team? isaacl (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
As I said, "I don't think this has to be mandatory for regular editors, but probably for admins.". So if they want to become or remain admins, they'd have to go through the training, and take a test. But the videos should be made available to regular editors (or anyone) on youtube. What I have in mind is a series of three/five-minute youtube videos about policies, which would be far more compelling than the long pages about policies that we have to read. They could also be used during edit-a-thons and other GLAM events. And yes, I may be interested in leading a thank-you initiative! But how?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, rest assured, I have read your earlier comments. I deliberately focused on experienced editors vs less-experienced, as I indicated by saying I was leaving the question of the administrative structure aside. However, the same comments I made (mostly) apply for admins: you'd have to have a training record associated with each account, and there's a good chance many of them will leave. Plus taking training is not the same as taking it to heart, so the benefit gained for the cost incurred is an large, open question mark.
For a thank-you initiative: my suggestions would be to set up a project page, draft an initial set of goals, and seek out other volunteers who are interested. The goals can then be refined by the resulting group, and you can work out tasks to perform that will help meet the goals, and an operating procedure. The beauty of a small group initiative is that you don't need to worry too much about getting it perfect. Get something up and running, try it out, and adjust as needed. isaacl (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I regret to say that it is more or less contrary to a lot of existing procedures and even some policies and guidelines would maybe to a degree run contrary to requiring administrators to always, in all circumstances, assume good faith. Administrators who are dealing with really obvious sockpuppets of editors with a long history of promoting unencyclopedic content would, for instance, not necessarily think it necessarily required of them to be forced to assume good faith of someone whose history is such as to rather clearly make such an assumption unwarranted. Granted, there may be questions in this instance whether an "obvious", or apparent, sock should necessarily in all cases be instantly assumed to in fact be a real sock, or simply someone with the same beliefs. But, yeah, sometimes, the sock makes a point of advertising his being a sock, and assuming good faith in edits in those circumstances isn't really called for. John Carter (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
You may be correct. Sockpuppets promoting unencyclopedic content could be an exception. This seems like an extreme case though. I still think admins should be reminded that veteran editors always try to do good (why else would we have spent so much time of our lives editing?), and thus strive to assume good faith. This may partly be a matter of good manners though (which is really hard to define in such an international setting).Zigzig20s (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I also have some reservations about what might be seen as your assumption above. I know of one editor who has been banned for some time now who is so far as I can remember a bureaucrat in one of the foreign language wikipedias whose history of editing here was so far as I can recall more or less exclusively in terms of promoting historical, religious or ethnic opinions of some of the people using that language, even though many or most of those opinions have little if any support either in the broader academic communities or the religious community in general. And there are quite a few others still editing in the broad field of pseudoscience and pseudohistory who have been found to be problematic in that regard as well. Such people may have an interest in giving undue WEIGHT to certain opinions they hold, sometimes well beyond what those opinions have in the broader world. And such self-appointed prophets (plugging my essay here) can sometimes be more clearly seen as not acting in good faith so much as acting to promote their own views. John Carter (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Are they citing their content with reliable third-party sources? If so, I don't think it should be censored. However, pseudoscience or pseudohistory would not be considered reliable, so they wouldn't be able to cite it properly. So the focus should be on assuming good faith towards the editor but zero good faith towards the unreliable sources. And if they don't understand why the sources are unreliable, we should take the time to explain it to them. I may be naive, but I really do believe most people want to do good.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Personally, I have advocated for some years now that virtually anything in any broadly academic encyclopedia should be included here somewhere, even if not in the main article on the topic. But the question of WP:WEIGHT also has to be dealt with, and at least in the first specific case I mentioned that individual had been told repeatedly at FTN and RSN that the material he was seeking to include in the main articles on several topics did not belong there. Several people also tried to tell him why personally, but it didn't seem to help. Spinout articles would be another matter, but so far as I remember he had little interest in them. And an individual who seeks to promote primarily if not exclusively sources which promote an overt ethnic or religion view and have been found to not meet RS or FT standards before can, and I think in this case did, find that they "exhaust the patience of the community." In his particular case, he was trying to do good as he saw it — promoting the "truth," or precepts, of his faith beyond the weight such beliefs should have in broadly scientific content. Unfortunately, he continued to want to do his version of a good thing even beyond the point when most people would have gotten the WP:CLUE, and there wasn't much that could be done then. Personally, I think some of our content is worse without him, but a lot of our content also has much viewer fights and questions of reliability and weight then it probably would have were he still here. John Carter (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Hard to say because this sounds like a very specific example, and not very "structural"! Regarding weight, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress and issues of weight disparities could always be evened out as articles get expanded...Zigzig20s (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
There have been quite a few other fringe promoters as well, unfortunately, many of whom have been banned for doing so. And, in many cases, the main articles in question are often so long that further expansion would be problematic. Spinout would be another matter. I've started the few pages in Category:WikiProject prospectuses, and one of the reasons for doing so was to make it easier to figure out what topics can and should be spun out, and to an extent in which order. I've also tried to encourage some editors with POV promoting problems to try to start articles on books or media which promote fringe theories as opposed to adding them to the main articles. I think it would probably help if we had more people doing that. Unfortunately, in at least a lot of cases, I have reason to think a lot of editors wouldn't be satisfied with their pet theories getting that "lesser" degree of attention. John Carter (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that assuming good faith in itself doesn't help for many situations. Even just looking at the good-faith members of a community, as their numbers increase, their interests will diverge. A few years ago, there was a long discussion on whether or not the genus and species of a bird should be written with an initial uppercase letter. Everyone was acting in good faith, but some vehemently disagreed based on different assumptions regarding what was best for Wikipedia, in terms of both its readership and its editing community. We need editors to be actively willing to look for compromises and accept, in situations where there is no middle ground, that sometimes we lose an argument. isaacl (talk) 01:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Anyone with a clear and very set opinion will almost certainly regarded themselves as acting in good faith, even if multiple other editors have already informed him that his actions seem to them more like inflexible POV-pushing. There may well be a bit of a competence factor as per WP:CIR of at least some of those who seem unwilling or unable to put aside differences of the sort described above, either past or present, in favor of working to develop the content beyond that point. John Carter (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Do you accept that some admins may be incompetent? Thus CIR is not an argument; it is a taser. As a reminder, this topic is about editor retention. For this reason, I maintain that assuming good faith and thanking each other is essential. That does not mean letting everyone go rogue all the time; it means letting each other know we value the other, especially when the power dynamics may already distort this sentiment. Civil dialogues, not tasers, are essential.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Your proposals did not mention civility; so far no one has suggested that civil discussion is not essential. Note that one of the reasons editors leave is the failure to manage the negative behaviour of editors. For example, Wikipedia's current tradition of unmoderated discussion allows editors to swamp a conversation with repetitive comments, hindering the ability for anyone else to participate. Although there may be some who do this deliberately, there are others who are acting in good faith, but are not sensitive to the outcome of their actions. Thus taking steps to curb the tendencies of one editor to behave non-collaboratively, whether or not it is in good faith, can serve to retain other editors involved in the matter. Without incentives for collaborative behaviour, the editing environment selects for those willing to use more divisive means that are effective by driving co-operative editors away. isaacl (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm on topic. WP:CIR mentions Civil. If an editor is making repetitive remarks on an article talkpage, they are either trying to reach consensus collaboratively based on reliable third-party sources, or they can be ignored. (They can also start an RfC if they feel the other editors on the talkpage are uncollaborative, as this is a two-way street!) No need to taser them (unless they post completely unrelated spam of course, in which case they are a vandal, not a good faith editor).Zigzig20s (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I apologize for the confusion; I was not implying your entire comment was off topic. However you seemed to have implied that the previous discussion felt that civil dialogue was not essential, which I do not believe is the case.
The problem in an unmoderated environment is that redundant, repetitive replies to everyone disrupts the ability of everyone else to have a conversation. (In a face-to-face conversation, real-time cues and interruptions from others can curb this monopolization.) The key question is how to allow the other participants in the discussion to engage with each other as well? Their contributions should also be valued. isaacl (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, if it's just one editor, he or she is outnumbered. Their only recourse is the RfC, but the other editors have the upper hand. But again, the wonderful part about editing Wikipedia is that we don't talk about ourselves; we lose ourselves in reliable third-party sources to create content. I think if we make sure to de-personify editing, editors will be more likely to stay.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that editors who dominate the conversation do so whether or not they are outnumbered. Evaluating the sources is done through discussion; if one or two people swamp all other contributions and drive away potential new contributors, then the opportunity to build a consensus is lost. Assuming good faith means you have to at least skim all comments to show you value their efforts and have given some consideration to their points; the more redundancy there is to a conversation, the less likely anyone will want to join in or continue in engagement. Part of de-personifying editing is trying to ensure all points of argument are brought forth and given air time. It's very easy for a small number of disruptive persons to prevent this from happening. (If you haven't already seen this in dozens of conversations, count yourself lucky.) Then all who are left to determine consensus are those who are doing a poor job of listening to each other. isaacl (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Not too sure that the pusillanimity of new editors is on topic as we are trying to find ways to retain existing editors here...Zigzig20s (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
By "new contributors", I mean people coming to join the conversation. Also I'm not sure why you are using that term: it seems to lack good faith in how editors generally want to engage in constructive conversation. isaacl (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I am afraid I don't quite follow you, but it still sounds off topic. Thank you for your contributions to this thread and have a nice day.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Existing editors who wish to join a discussion can be discouraged by seeing that it is dominated by editors who are responding to every comment with multiple paragraphs, drowning out anyone else trying to contribute. isaacl (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks; I don't see it as a big problem if they are making constructive points backed up by references; the others are still free to respond or start another topic, etc. But sometimes RfCs are the only way to reach consensus conclusively, and that's fine. None of this impedes editor retention in my experience.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
The problem is editors leave when they feel they have been treated horribly and unfairly, and in bad faith. I am trying to put forward constructive ideas towards editor retention here. This discussion is not about vandals. It also says, "assume" good faith, not implement it. Trust and verify. When admins distrust and verify, I think we have a problem.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I think it is time to hat this 2 week discussion and move forward with some idea or concept in order to move it toward a plan of action...gather whatever constructive ideas can be harvested from the above and get to work. Buster Seven Talk 20:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree. The main breakthrough was the "thank you" initiative, but we already have WP:Thank you. There seems to be no willingness to rethink the power dynamics, which is a bit sad.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
WP:Thank you is just an essay and not an initiative. I think there may be value in having a group of interested persons actively seek out editors to thank. This would align with your expressed desire to find a way to demonstrate appreciation of veteran editors. isaacl (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Getting feedback on user experiences from Reddit threads

Hi guys! I go on Reddit from time to time and I notice people make complaints about Wikipedia whenever something related to editor retention hits the news.

I don't know the user's history, but /u/urboro posted this comment:

"That might actually be an extremely popular AMA. You might be underestimating the numbers of people who've casually edited Wikipedia over the years (I used to edit in like 2005,) and bailed because it was so horrid. We are pretty annoyed with what Wikipedia turned into, rightly or wrongly.

Granted, the transition to being 'more respectable' and draconian and sourced was most likely net positive as years went on, but they also bailed on the promising concept of crowdsourced enthusiasts adding and refining interesting information over time, in favor of terrible rule-based editors who often knew nothing about the pages they edited/extreme territorial editors.

At this point I wouldn't even dream of correcting someone's spelling, due to the feeling of futility.

e: I notice the /r/wikiinaction sub people keep linking to has a correlation with "inaction" conservative politics, that's not my angle. I just remember early Wikipedia as a welcoming space where 50 people who loved and knew a lot about something were all working on refining a page together. Any wrong fact was expunged organically through crowdsourcing (Wikipedia's theoretical strength,) not a bureaucracy of rule-pedants who often don't even know about the topic they're policing."

What do you think about it? Should this be on the village pump? WhisperToMe (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The key issue is that relying on an organic consensus is that consensus doesn't scale upwards. Even just among good-faith editors, their goals diverge and the resulting disagreements don't have a right or wrong, just different approaches based on differing ideals. Now add in the many problematic editors, and friction inevitably arises. See Clay Shirky's talk, "A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy", for more discussion on the inevitable problems with group dynamics. isaacl (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I confess to only reading the first few comments in the thread, so the following is only applicable to what I read there: people seem upset that their changes get thoughtlessly reverted, but that's what happens when you rely on an organic consensus when anyone can edit. To try to prevent this requires disincentives for editing in non-collaborative manners, and this will mean some kind of regulating mechanisms, as Kudpung states. I appreciate, though, it's very tricky for a community to evolve from its beginnings, when most people are aligned in their objectives and so only minimal administration is needed, to a point where it sorely needs an administrative structure so it can get out of its own way. isaacl (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I am less annoyed at what Wikipedia has turned into than at the people who have refused to allow essentially needed checks and controls that would have prevented it becoming so and which is now driving some nice editors and admins away. I don't give a damn what Reddit (what's that?) or other sites say about Wikipedia - as far as I can make out they are mostly populated bu people with a grudge to bear after having been quite rightly remonstrated by some of our more active admins who do care about the State of the Wiki. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Reddit is a high-traffic forum website (the United States is where it is most popular). One thing that can be done on websites like that is to ask people the "diffs"/edits in question that they are referring to. That way you can tell if it's a genuine complaint or if it's something that is not. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with Isaacl's comments above. Speaking to the original comment on reddit, this whole notion of "what Wikipedia has turned into" is usually so personal and subjective that it usually doesn't apply to lots of routine, productive kinds of collaboration that happens here everyday. These claims require more explanation ("rule-based editing", for instance, is not inherently horrible, but bad interpretations of policy or poor editor communication are). More generally, /r/wikiinaction generates more heat than light, and I routinely see folks start threads just to throw shade, openly speculate about people's motives, and mock people. They're not actually interested in doing the hard work of negotiating and solving community problems. I JethroBT drop me a line 19:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
The guy above did say that "Wikiinaction" was not his argument and was merely a reflection of conservative politics. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Elections for New Page Patrol/Review coordinators

The elections are now open to voters. Voting has now begun for two NPP/NPR coordinators and will remain open until 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. All registered, confirmed editors are welcome to vote. Please vote HERE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 10

This month, we discuss the new CollaborationKit extension. Here's an image as a teaser:

23:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Editor driven into retirement

Dear editors: I spent four hours yesterday preparing an incident report and posted it at WP:ANI, but in less than a day it is gone. I guess I'm lumped in with the trolls now. Since it was related to editor retention, I am posting a link to it here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive946#Train wreck. The link to the ANI discussion I mention doesn't work now that the thread has been archived, but it's just above in the same archive.—Anne Delong (talk) 11:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: Thanks. I read through your entire essay--I didn't think it too heavy on text. Good writing in fact. The result doesn't surprise me--I have seen it before. Often it is the case of "guilty until proven innocent". Once someone brings you to AN/I, you are in trouble, even if the editor who brought the action is equally or more responsible. The accuser often gets the upper hand, especially if they have been here a while and have a good reputation, with supporting editors and admins, and if they know how to tell a story and provide good diffs. The novice editor who is the accused, who doesn't know the justice system or have friendly admins is at a huge disadvantage, especially if the accused got frustrated and lashed out at the accuser.
Our policy of "there are no rules" and "be bold" can be incredibly misleading to new editors who might think they can change anything, edit war, say anything or make any argument (without RS to back it up), swear, etc. and there won't be consequences. The general public mistakenly thinks wikipedia is unreliable because "anyone" can change anything, and with this thinking that anyone can enter and change anything however they want, they are in for a rude awakening when they encounter experienced editors who sharply disagree with their changes.
To me the need to reform the long-standing problem of biting new users seemed obvious, until I became more aware of how new IP editors and sock puppets can show up and cause trouble and break various rules unapologetically. I realize these kinds of editors need to be blocked promptly.
So my thought is that if someone really feels they are falsely accused, there should be a way for them to ask for a proper trial with a jury of uninterested peers (randomly selected from a jury pool). Like in the American justice system, if there is good cause to show the accused might be a danger, the editor's rights would be suspended or severely curtailed until the trial is over. I don't think vandals would ask for such a trial. But I think someone like you described above would. This would be much, much better than an indef. block. Thoughts?

--David Tornheim (talk) 07:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: I have read through your essay and it's a familiar story that I have documented at User:Ritchie333/SPI considered harmful. In a nutshell, using two accounts or editing logged out every now and then is a non issue on its own and those that think is are involved in Cargo Cult Administration. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

David Tornheim and Ritchie333, thanks for taking time to read my report. I don't think a "trial" would have helped in this case; the editor seemed to just panic and lash out in frustration. However, most editors aren't that touchy, and the idea may have merit in general. I think you are right that vandals wouldn't ask for a trial, but there are always trolls, who enjoy being the centre of a good show. The block was reduced after a while and I believe it's no longer in force.—Anne Delong (talk) 12:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I am no expert on this, and it probably sounds like the pot calling the kettle black,(example) but if somebody lashes out with a valid point, take the valid point and reply politely. People never expect a calm and civilised answer to a rant, it throws them off guard a bit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Let me try here...

Seconds Anyone?

Three candidates for Editor of the Week are awaiting vetting and seconding. Please see the Nomination page and respond at the talk of that page. Also, consider nominating that special editor that you have discovered. It only takes a moment and is very rewarding .... for you and for them. According to the long established rules of EotW they can only receive an award if they are seconded. These recent candidates may not be well known or visible because they have their noses to the grindstone of article editing. They are busy working, not complaining. The Award is about giving back to them for their time. You may not know or have experienced them... but they deserve at least a moments notice, more so than the many mis-fits we waste our time with. Buster Seven Talk 23:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thank you Yash!. Buster Seven Talk 23:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Editor of the Week : nominations needed!

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

Thank you on behalf of the Editor of the Week clerks. Buster Seven Talk 00:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Editor is planning to retire

I don't know if this is the right page to bring this up, but I just saw that User:Pavanjandhyala has decided to retire after completing a few tasks. This editor has written articles that I have copy-edited at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. See, in the Date requested column, 2017-01-01 at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests/Archives/2017 and 2015-12-28, 2016-01-15, 2016-01-30, 2016-02-23, 2016-02-07, 2016-02-29, 2016-04-07, 2016-04-21, 2016-05-02, 2016-06-11, 2016-06-21, 2016-07-26, 2016-08-06, 2016-09-25, 2016-10-28, and 2016-12-31 for all the articles written by this editor that were copy-edited by GOCE copy-editors in 2016; see Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests/Archives/2016. See this edit and edit summary and what was removed in this edit. I don't know what happened during this past year. Perhaps it is worth looking into in order to retain this editor.  – Corinne (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I have left words of encouragement. Others should too. Buster Seven Talk 23:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment:...For The Record... The editor has stated that leaving WP has more to do with personal private reasons than with any mis-understanding. Buster Seven Talk 00:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Content Adjudication? afterthought

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention/Archive_30#Content_Adjudication.3F

Perhaps a way to test the idea of the viability of content adjudication is to try it on some very controversial articles that have been stuck for a long time going around and around the same issues, being vandalized a lot etc? That might be appropriate for such articles and not for others that work more smoothly. Something like MedCom, but going beyond just mediation. That would be a different role, which some Wikipedians would probably enjoy. Jed Stuart (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

As I alluded to in the previous thread, the key issue is how to get agreement on who will resolve the dispute. Oftentimes agreement can't even be reached on delegating the creation of an RFC to an uninvolved party, much less on delegating the resolution of a content issue. One problem is that the involved parties don't have any incentive to agree to cede the decision to one person or a small group of persons. Although personally I would be pleased to see someone float the idea, I highly suspect there will continue to be high resistance to relinquishing editorial control. isaacl (talk) 04:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Seems that if there were to be a higher level decision on content it would have to be people with higher level skills such as traditional world journalists and editors. Would such people volunteer to do that? Government employees might though. It is tricky. Jed Stuart (talk) 23:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
There are plenty of editors who would be happy to take on the role of making content decisions. But there's no agreement on how to select who would do this. You may want traditional journalists; some may want traditional historians; others may want social activists. isaacl (talk) 05:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
We need a Siverback or two to keep everyone in line. Buster Seven Talk 14:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
@Isaacl: A German Court has ruled that Wikipedia is liable for contents. WMF had to take responsibility in that case, so I guess the answer to your question is that WMF would have to be the body to decide who are to be content adjudicators. Wouldn't they have to do that occasionally at present anyway? Jed Stuart (talk) 03:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation relies on protection by section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and similar legislation such as Article 14 of European Union directive 2000/31/EC and so is unlikely to take a role in deciding content. isaacl (talk) 06:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Yet in the UK Outcomes_in_favor_of_the_plaintiffsa court order was obtained. Having different legal situations all over could cause problems, but I agree that is probably not going to be enough nuisance for WMF to re-think its policies. But, as Wikipedia grows in importance governments are going to increase their covert interference. This was partly exposed in investigation-into-offensive-wikipedia-edits-made-by-public-servants-staffers Government, and other, shills seem to be obviously present too. Perhaps that will all get horrible enough for WMF to think about other options? It would be a shame to lose the great innovation of open editing due to being sloppy about content control.Jed Stuart (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Long term planning

If we're to become a better encyclopedia long term and improve in quality this project will need to become something central to Wikipedia and have people constantly working on protecting content contributors. We're currently not doing enough. Every day newbies are essentially shown the door because of inadequate patrolling and a careless attitude. I've been one of Wikipedia's most prolific editors who has produced a great deal of good content and even I currently feel like I would be foolish to want to contribute content to wikipedia. It seems at times the more effort one makes, the more they get it thrown back in their face. The general attitude and resentment of good editors on here and Wikipediocracy is awful. We've already lost over half a dozen great editors in the last year, and it's getting worse. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Can you be more specific to the concerns you have? I have long thought there need to be a few major changes in how discipline is meted out and "consensus" decisions are made at noticeboards:
(1) Decisions should be from independent decision-makers who are not involved. (For example, if all the editors arguing at the talk page move to the noticeboard, the noticeboard has no real benefit. It's just the same editors with the same biases. Many noticeboards are dominated by the same group of powerful editors with a particular bias.)
(2) The decision-maker(s) should be *randomly* selected rather than self-selected. (This solves the problem of (1))
(3) Admin duties would need to be covered less on the do whatever you want and more based on random assignment to problems based on who is on-line and available -- the way courts assign judges to cases.
For disciplinary actions such as WP:AN/I and WP:AE, for cases other than sock puppets, vandalism and widespread disruption:
(4) Provide a right to a jury trial of randomly selected jurors, especially for anyone who has been here a while and has a registered account (to avoid abuse by IP sock puppets). To obtain jurors, anyone who wants the right to a jury must serve regularly on juries. I have many ideas of how to create jury pools and assign them to cases. This could be for either Plaintiff(s) or Defendant(s).
(5) If a judgment is to be made by a single admin, or a set of admins, give the editor the right to pre-emptively dismiss one (possibly) more assigned judge(s) without cause, and possibly also with cause. This would really help with bullying and bias.
(6) Editors providing evidence should be identified differently and comment in a separate section from editors who are making decisions and judging the evidence presented. Those providing evidence should be self-selected, and invited to speak. Right now it is all clumped together at AN/I in one big mess and inviting interested parties to speak can be treated as canvassing. Big cases become TL;DR and incomprehensible.
Just a handful of ways of bringing some of the elements that work in the judicial system to avoid the kinds of problems we have here that make harassment, bullying and incivility so rampant.
Also, I think real experts are not treated well. That's a different problem... --David Tornheim (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Dr. Blofield. Your decade-long dedication to WP proceeds you. I hope this thread will be the catalysis for some dynamic ideas to bring about long term planning. Anyone who doesn't know the good doctor should examine User:Dr. Blofeld/Encyclopedia problems for an insight into his desire to improve our workplace. Please take note of the bullet..."Treatment of newbies". Also, I hope you can take your own good advice and turn the frustration into laughter and be reassured that what they said really doesn't matter and allows you to move on.... Buster Seven Talk 17:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not a particularly great writer (I have about 85 GAs, no FAs, and do try and work on articles when I remember but keep getting distracted - don't say "oh but you are great really Ritchie", if I was that good I'd be doing it professionally!) but I think there is a general lack of empathy on the project. This manifests itself in a number of ways : for instance, just now I've yelled at a bunch of people edit-warring over something I believe a typical layman reader would not care about, and I occasionally get complaints when I decline speedy deletions. In the former, there's a lack of empathy towards somebody who's not interested in editing and just wants to fact check, in the latter it's a lack of empathy about what it's actually like to be a brand new editor these days. Put yourself in the other person's shoes. (This is easy to do if you have a job, life or friends outside Wikipedia and socialise with people who would never dream of editing it and are a bit suspicious about it in general. Still....)

I'm also amazed at how some admins seem to be incapable of actually talking about a topic. Sure, there are things like Indian religious artifacts that I would have difficulty distinguishing from a hole in the ground, but I do try and make an effort to talk about the content and subject matter; chances are the new editor is more of an expert than you, and you really should recognise that. But then you get admins who seem to go "eeny, meeny, miny, mo, ippy, dippy, 3RR, block" and when you get them to try and talk about the content, they just come out with some waffle like "use the talk page" or "read the policy". Yes, we should discuss things at the talk page and refer back to policy when making decisions, but unless you say how they apply to this specific situation to a newcomer or inexperienced editor, you might as well be a vogon brandishing a clipboard. The most important skill an admin can have is being able to communicate effectively and explain themselves; any old idiot can hit the "delete - A7" button, but the real skill is dealing with the complaint that lands on your talk page a few hours later, and only a true grand master can get the other party going away satisfied that deletion was the right thing.

Sorry, this is a bit of a brain dump and a rant - I will try and think of concrete solutions later. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: If I can't reply on your talk page, please don't ping me there as I'm not sure what you're expecting. Now, as for "I've just now I've yelled at a bunch of people edit-warring" - that sounds pretty condescending when editors are reverting a person changing IPs to get around blocks. I'm pretty sure the great editors Dr. Blofeld refers to would not appreciate that behavior happening on "their" articles so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up as an example here. If you think an edit made by a block evader is worthwhile then you make that edit as a content contributor and you take responsibility for it. That should stop the edit warring unless other editors don't see it as an improvement. And for gosh sakes, don't block an FA/GA-writing editor with no warning for edit warring with a sock. That's how we lose editors. --NeilN talk to me 20:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
@David Tornheim: The concern I have about decision makers being assigned at random is that ultimately the decision maker needs to have some sort of clue as to what's going on, so they don't get the wool pulled over their eyes by whoever can shout the loudest. Consider a program manager and software developer having an argument about some feature. It gets so heated, they both storm into their manager's office, demanding a decision. Now, out of the three people in the room, who knows the least about the issue? The manager of course! In a way, admins need to do the same - help people to help themselves and work out issues on their own and not issue decrees like executive fiat. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
@NeilN: I don't know why you can't edit my talk page, it's not protected and lots of people post there :-/ Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: At the risk of opening an old can of worms, you requested that I never post there again last August. I've respected that request. --NeilN talk to me 20:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Did I? Ah, well I can't remember what I had for tea yesterday, let alone last August. I might have just been having a bit of a grumpy day, maybe the local shop had run out of cream buns or something, or the library didn't have a good source for verifying the engineering plans for Liverpool Street station. Or Trump had been tweeting. Or something like that. I'd ignore it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: Excellent commentary. Yes, I know exactly what you mean. Many good points. I went to a presentation on police brutality yesterday and one of the main themes was that the "old school" method of "law and order" does not really work, something discovered by the British in 1829: Metropolitan Police Act 1829. The U.S. has taken about 140 years to catch on and still hasn't really has shifted. One of the problems asserted was that the government policies promote community relationships, but the police culture, especially of the supervisors is they don't buy in, thinking it is too "touchy feely", so unless the supervisors and veterans buy-in, the community relationship problem continues, and you have riots over police brutality. The presenter has a PhD in criminology, so the talk was WP:RS, but sorry that what I heard it is not WP:VER. If I find something about it, I'll try to post it. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

My general feeling is that there is a worrying number of editors on here (and retired/banned) who seem to loathe certain productive people who are dedicated to this project, without really knowing them. When there is an ANI thread or some sort of scandal, a group of editors seem to relish the drama and a chance to take down editors. Whether it's out of jealousy or their own personal confrontations I don't know, but I've been here 11 years now, I've always genuinely tried to better it as a resource and reduce systematic bias, I've put in hundreds of hours of my own time to improve core articles too, ones like Frank Sinatra and Cary Grant which otherwise would likely still be poorly written. I've also put in a lot of time to run contests which have had a great impact on the site. You know, I didn't have to bother, I'm a volunteer. We all are. Developing Kubrick, Sinatra and Grant for instance, I've had very little positive input, it's been almost entirely negative over time, a large amount of trolling and hardship. If even somebody as obviously constructive as myself has had to deal with all this, what hope is there for newbies or people wanting to develop important articles on here? What hope is there for retaining the average contributor when they face this sort of hostility and protecting them? Several articles recently I've come across which I might have expanded I haven't felt bothered to do it, and the main reason is that it seems a lot more likely that somebody will take a pot shot at the work than thank you for it. To not only put in the time to research and improve it and then have the energy to deal with the complaints and nitpicking, just isn't worth the hassle.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There are two classes of editors Dr. Blofeld identifies in his initial posts - newbies and good content editors. One of the major reasons for them both leaving is probably what Ritchie333 mentions above - edit warring. It's easy to make a change to an article and that's what attracts new editors. It's a lot harder the defend that change on a talk page, using Wikipedia's ever-increasing amount of policies, guidelines, consensus decisions, and MOS guides. That takes politeness, patience and intellectual effort. Too much effort for many new editors who just want to contribute "what they know" and so they leave. For veteran editors, you have the somewhat opposite situation. They work hard on creating content meeting Wikipedia's highest standards but then sometimes they have to defend the content against less experienced or clueless editors or editors with a particular bee in their bonnet (no, I don't give a damn that that en-dash should really be a hyphen). It might be worthwhile to approach editors who have recently left offwiki and ask them what could have been done to halt them from souring on the place. I say offwiki because there they won't get unwanted responses and perhaps they would be more open to suggesting out-of-the-box policy/guideline changes. --NeilN talk to me 21:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the main issue is retaining newbies and nurturing them to become regular editors of course. We're losing at least 90% of potential editors because of the way they are approached initially I'm sure with warring, deletionism and general hostility. We also need editors developing good researching/writing skills to develop important articles on here to GA status and beyond. While the number of core GAs has improved in recent years, a high percentage of articles are still not up to scratch. We're at risk of losing valuable editors who contribute to them too, as I've found the more important the article, the more likely you'll encounter trolls and difficulties.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

A lot of time I find the edit wars are about something that probably isn't worth fighting over, or maybe I'm just more laissez-faire about stuff. I know people have almost declared nuclear war over the dreaded "I" word, and while I'll stick my 2c into the debate, if somebody really cannot bear seeing an article without an infobox, well if that's the price we have to pay to keep the peace and happy editors, it's one I'll consider paying. I will say though, Blofeld, that what you had to endure at Cary Grant was just staggering; I've seen some content disputes but that was just horrible. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, the war was over everything. Take a look at the fight over a photo. We hope (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Calling out certain editors isn't helpful in this discussion. --NeilN talk to me 14:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Tim, Brian and SchroCat eventually got tired of the same "I" argument on every article they produced. For a while they were among the most focused, most precious editors we had on here, working hard to get important articles up to FA status. Tim and Brian in particular rarely said a bad word about anyone and were as professional and decent as you can be on here in general conduct., and you saw what Mr. Singora and co had to say about them. I think we need to do something to build up the esteem of editors and counteract the negativity that they face. I hope more contests will help to maintain focus and positivity long term. We need something where the harder an editor works, the more they get back in return because at present it seems like the harder an editor works the more BS they get back in return. Now a lot of editors don't expect "rewards" or to be paid, but if they're productive they deserve to be left in peace and not have to deal with the odious sorts of people who turn up or comment on 'ocracy. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld. Great comment. Completely agree. One of the worst things we could do would be to drive a female editor off the project and then write "Never come back you stinking nasty little bitch". Even worse would be to greet a Cambridge-educated academic (and published author) with comments such as you are "some snotty lecturer in a Hooray Henry university" and "You're quite a repellant creature aren't you?". Singora (talk) 08:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the trolling Singora. Coming from the editor who thinks women editors like Fram have a small penis. Yes, I made a big effort to appease Huldra and she went, like most cowards do, blabbing about me on Wikipediocracy or whatever it was back then behind my back. Some of the things she said there like you've said were disgusting. Like yourself, Huldra was displaying contempt for my efforts on a troll forum. That's what prompted the comment from 2009 was it? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
One of the other problems is with people coming along and bearing grudges from 8 years ago. As you can see above, apparently I had a bit of a go at NeilN some time back but forgot about it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I'm glad Singora mentioned it for several reasons. The Huldra business from 2009 demonstrates exactly what I mean. I thought I was helping her by starting the articles on missing Palestinian villages. She not only objected but went berserk and displayed an OWN attitude towards developing the villages at her own pace. That was fair enough, but to then start bitching about it on the sad troll site was disgusting. Lack of good faith. Another thing which Singora demonstrates well is the tendency for editors to cherry pick things and bring out long standing grudges on pages here to paint a fellow editor in a bad light. Obviously Singora isn't here to build an encyclopedia but is here to enact his vendettas against people. There's many like him here and they should be shown the door.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Yet another thoughtful comment. A few days ago, on March 19, an article of mine took pride of place on the TFA slot. It was promoted to Featured Article status last November. As you say, I'm "obviously not here to build an encyclopedia". Singora (talk) 13:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Then why not drop the stinking attitude and trolling and focus purely on building content? I see you want to build content on Macau. Great, I fully support that, so do it and drop your silly vendetta based on little but you feeling you had a hard time at a past FAC.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I've not had a hard time in the past. Stinking attitude? I'm not the one who told a new editor (a Cambridge-educated academic, in fact) he's a "repellant creature". I'm writing a letter right now to Graham McCann, by the way. Admittedly I went to Oxford rather than Cambridge, but I most certainly don't consider Graham "repellant". And just for the record, I don't regard female editors as "stinking bitches". Singora (talk) 14:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
In a recent discussion about Curating Spaces of Dialogue by Pádraig Ó Tuama with Krista Tippett of NPR's On Being he said, I am bored, often, by ways in which conversation can turn into something where I have received insult where I then give insult back. I have never had a situation where it (trading insults) is fruitful. Before Dennis left he reminded us to be farmers...to treat each other like farmers, talking about our fields and crops over the back fence or at the coffee shop. Lets not poison our own crop even before we plant it. Buster Seven Talk 13:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Then kindly ask Farmer Singora to stop digging up old manure from 8 years ago, get his tractor fixed and sow some new seeds and we can move on :-).♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
@Dr. Blofeld: If you're going to bring up specific incidents and name names of the perceived aggressors and the aggrieved then all you're probably going to do is derail this thread. --NeilN talk to me 14:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: I agree, feel free to remove all of the Singora related posts and responses. He's trolling.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Hello Neil. I'm not trolling. I'm simply replying to Dr Blofeld's comments about me. I'm serious, too, when I say I'm currently penning a reply to Graham McCann. I consider his treatment here on Wikipedia a sickening disgrace. Would you like to add comments of your own to the message I intend to send Graham, or would you like his contact details in order that you can offer your own apology? Whether you like it not, editor retention does NOT begin by addressing newcomers as "repellant creatures". Singora (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Long term planning needs to happen, but it needs to be focused on the consumers of our information, not the creators. And we need to recognize that much of what needs to be done we cannot do. Things that would address many of the issues discussed above and the (to me) particularly distressing issue of paid editing will need to come from the foundation, in particular:
  1. Shitcan the stupid motto. Very simply, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone may edit, not the encyclopedia anyone can edit. We all know not everyone is capable of working in a collaborative project, and the fact that implied in the motto is that you can add what you want, creates an expectation in new editors that simply cannot be met.
  2. End anon editing. Require registration. On many websites, the "register now" button cannot be pressed until the "read the terms of use" button has been pressed. Do that. Registered editing only will end half the socking problems. It will decrease stupid vandalism.
I have more to say about consumer oriented management of the project, but my volunteer time is about up for now. I'll add more later. Thanks for listening. John from Idegon (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
You are not the first to suggest ending IP editing or otherwise raising the barrier against new editors. The problem is that the gain - some vandals may be deterred by having to click that they've read the terms of use and having to create an account, is speculative, and it is declining as the vast majority of vandalfighting these days is automated. If we work on the theory that vandals and sockpuppets will do the minimum necessary to commit their vandalism or sockpuppetry, then all you do with the vandalism is make some of it harder to find. But the loss of new editors is a more serious issue. The people we want to start editing in many cases aren't going to just blithely click that they've read the terms of use the way a vandal would, many will actually read the terms of use, or decide that it isn't worth their time to do so in order to fix one typo. Wikipedia's secret sauce is the ease of making that first edit. That gave us our advantage over Citizendium and the like, the community is unlikely to agree to give that up lightly and the WMF is quite capable of vetoing proposals that look like impinging on it. Of course it is possible to create a level of registration that would make things more difficult for sockpuppets and vandals than good faith newbies, we could require a credit card transaction of say $5. But that would be incompatible with our remit as a global organisation aiming to expand most in those areas of the world where a small credit card transaction would be a very steep hurdle. ϢereSpielChequers 11:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I would argue, however, that in 2017 Wikipedia is established enough to "make its own gravity" to some extent, and people will put up with registration just to get on the site. Maybe somebody will form "Anarchopedia" as a content fork in protest, but that's a minor distraction. Twitter is arguably the most popular website in the entire world, yet it has had mandatory registration from day one (there are third party "tweet anonymously" sites, but they're the exception rather than the rule). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I'll concede that Spammers, Vandals and most of the regulars would register if they had to. Requiring account creation to create new articles doesn't seem to have stopped the tide of spam. The only group who I suspect we'd lose some of are goodfaith newbies. As for Twitter, it may be the most popular website by participants, but I'd be chary about comparing us to it. We are big, possibly bigger as measured by readership, but a minnow as measured by editorship. Also when people talk about troll free, "nice" sites, I'm not sure Twitter is the first to come to mind. ϢereSpielChequers 17:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld is checking out

This is very sad news. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Something to do

New Editors who cite to BOLD + IGNORE all the rules -> entrapment?

This is not the place for personal squabbles. Please take your discussion elsewhere. Buster Seven Talk 06:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I will speak of a problem that practically entices and entraps new users into getting bitten. We advertise that Wikipedia is the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and I think most of the general public thinks that means anyone can put anything they want into the encyclopedia. A new editor who comes here with this impression is given all the tools and told they can change pretty much any page, including the rules themselves. Rules like WP:BOLD and WP:IGNORE add to this belief. It's like giving a new recruit an F-15 telling them they can be bold and push any button they want, fly wherever they want and do whatever they want as long as they believe it is for the greater good. When they are bold and hit the drop bomb button, suddenly they are at WP:AN/I facing a block.

Any experienced editor knows you can't ignore the numerous arcane and obtuse rules that can take years to fully master. We know that one must be cautious with tone, adhere to WP:AGF, focus on content rather than editor, discuss disputes on talk page, not edit-war, work towards consensus, etc. But the new editor can easily think a discussion here is like the incivility of U.S. presidential debates (or talk radio) where candidates routinely call each other nasty names, make highly charged and questionable accusations and use similar bullying tactic, and this is all okay.

Too often experienced editors speak to new editors in a condescending, accusatory or threatening tone that exacerbates the problem. The new user may falsely believe their position has equal merit in the "encyclopedia where anyone can edit", and becomes increasingly frustrated and hot-headed, feeling pushed to the point of crossing the line that creates an actionable diff that can never be erased. (e.g. the example given above by Anne Delong) A new user likely will not know they crossed the line, mistakenly believing their accuser was equally guilty. When only the new user alone gets punished, it will seem unjust and they may leave for good.

We lose experienced editors for similar reasons as in the preceding paragraph.

I believe we need to do more to guide and warn new editors of the dangers of ignoring the rules, being too bold and thinking they can say whatever they want in an argument. I am working on an essay to refer to new editors. I might add some examples of conversations where I tried to warn new editors here: TBA.

I haven't decided whether to add a recent example(s) similar to the above Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention#Editor_driven_into_retirement. (struck possibility of giving examples 09:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC) per Buster7)

--David Tornheim (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


When I worte the above, I was thinking about the discussion at WP:RS/N here. As anticipated, the new editor in question got taken to AN/I here. Pinging those involved in the WP:RS/N discussion for notice: Calton, Endercase, Only in death, MjolnirPants. I already gave notice at AN/I here. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I notice you didn't ping all the other users who were involved in all the other RSN discussions said user was disrupting. I for instance first came across the account in another thread immediately below that one, where he attempted to shut down a discussion of whether the right-wing hate group FRC should be cited as a reliable source for a factual claim about teenage pregnancy.
Wikipedia has seen a massive upswing in NOTHERE, far-right individuals creating accounts (or logging into half-decade-old dormant accounts, as happened here) for the specific purpose of POV-pushing and promoting fringe theories. This started during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, and has continued even after the inauguration. On ANI in October, I saw no less than four separate threads on four separate fascist SPAs (one literally had Nazi propaganda on his user page) that resulted in indefinite blocks. Citing right-wing fake-news sites, arguing for the appropriateness of citing right-wing fake-news sites, and especially doing almost nothing but arguing this and actively refusing to do anything but this, are usually pretty good indicators of not being HERE. I advised[1] the user to do something else for a while (Perhaps it would be a good idea for you to stay away from articles on social media and right-wing politics for a while.) without speculating on his citizenship or voting record, and was met[2] with Ahhhhhahhahahaaaa [...] I have definitely upset you. [...] Would you please leave me alone until you calm down? [...] Also, I didn't vote for Trump.
The account you are referring to only posted in the discussion you are referring to in response to RSN telling him he wasn't allowed post Breitbart-sourced conspiriology on Wikipedia. He posted essentially the same non-comment in about half a dozen other threads on RSN, and did something similar on NPOVN, and despite multiple editors attempting to explain the policies to him, he either doesn't appear to understand or is deliberately pretending not to understand. If this were an editor retention issue, you wouldn't be the only long-term contributor who thinks so.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I only pinged editors of the WP:RS/N section I encountered the editor -and- the AN/I, where I gave notice. If you want to ping editors in other RS/N sections where you contend that editor was disruptive, be my guest.
I prefer not to argue or re-argue the merits of your AN/I here. I did so at the AN/I instead.
As for the other cases of "no less than four separate threads on four separate fascist SPAs (one literally had Nazi propaganda on his user page) that resulted in indefinite blocks", I have no familiarity with any of those cases and am not suggesting any of those editors were bitten or treated unfairly. I am only using the treatment of this one new editor as an example. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
If you want to ping editors in other RS/N sections where you contend that editor was disruptive, be my guest. My point was that you seem to have roundly ignored, both here and on ANI, the vast majority of the user's edit history. You happened to agree with them on the content of that one RSN thread, which seems to be all that matters to you. I have no familiarity with any of those cases and am not suggesting any of those editors were bitten or treated unfairly. Yes, but my point is that if you had happened to agree with their edits to some other page that had nothing whatsoever to do with that stuff, you would then, apparently, have shown up on those ANI discussions and insisted that they had done nothing wrong, ignoring the problems everyone else had with them, and claiming that those other users were BITing them. That is what you are doing here. I am only using the treatment of this one new editor as an example. If this example is typical ... yeah, I don't think there's a problem. Wikipedia's editor retention problems will not be helped by telling users who cite rightist fake news sites and, over the course of weeks, continue to insist that they are doing nothing wrong. White, heterosexual American men are overrepresented on English Wikipedia, and telling adherents of fascism and the "alt right" that its cool to post their propaganda here is going to make that problem worse, not better. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Above, Hijiri 88 said "Citing right-wing fake-news sites, arguing for the appropriateness of citing right-wing fake-news sites, and especially doing almost nothing but arguing this and actively refusing to do anything but this, are usually pretty good indicators of not being HERE". Actually, WP:NOTHERE says nothing at all about the politics of editorial activity. Not one single thing.
So, when an editor tries to get sanctions imposed on other editors because they advocate for what may well be unreliable sources based on the polarity of their politics, the editor trying to limit other editors' activities in wikipedia on that basis may actually be "Treating editing as a battleground - Excessive soapboxing, escalation of disputes, repeated hostile aggressiveness, and the like, may suggest a user is here to fight rather than here to build an encyclopedia. If a user has a dispute, then they are expected to place the benefit of the project at a high priority and seek dispute resolution. A user whose anger causes them to obsess may find the fight has become their focus, not encyclopedia writing" in WP:NOTHERE.
Certainly, saying "White, heterosexual American men are overrepresented on English Wikipedia" to support sanctions against an editor for advocating sources of a particular political slant is soapboxing - and ignoring the fact that there are politically conservative women, people of all gender and and ethnic groups, and nationalities in the population at large, and editing in wikipedia. Anyone who finds the over-representation of some people in the pool of English wikipedia editors objectionable ought to remedy it by recruiting more women, non-US resident, non-Caucasians and gender minorities to edit English wikipedia - not by trying to punish people for asking why sources of a given political viewpoint are not WP:RS. While it's annoying to some to read those requests, punishing editors for making them sends an Orwellian message to everyone else - "make waves, expect to appear in AN/I for your trouble".
Singling out editors for sanctions related to errors they may have made while advocating for particular sources of one presumed political viewpoint to be re-classified within WP:RS isn't HERE, either, it's aggressively pushing another poltical agenda and doing so disruptively. loupgarous (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
@David Tornheim: Are we done here? Could you retract your OP comment and tell Vfrickey to knock it off?
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Hijiri 88, you're failing to WP:Assume Good Faith and falsely accusing me of breaking the project's rules. David Tornheim and I do not coordinate our actions. He and I have not communicated directly in any fashion whatever, apart from his thanking me through the edit history link for that in WP:AN/I for my comment on the AN/I topic ban vote in question. The admins are welcome to check my activity in the project to verify that statement. You really ought to de-escalate this disagreement (an apology and retraction of your comments would be welcome) or make the charge formally before WP:AN/I. It might be a welcome opportunity to address the issue of politically-motivated calls for sanctions against editors here in the project. I don't notice you going after people for asking why Media Matters (for example) is or isn't WP:RS. You, by your own admission, are focused exclusively on right-wing news sites (using emotionally-loaded POV terms to describe them). loupgarous (talk) 06:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

R.I.P. -- Lost Editors / MIA / Retired / Banned, etc.

If one of us sees an editor leave or get banned, and we feel it is a loss to the project, can we have a consolidated little place to give our last respects and thoughts about the loss? Or should we continue in the way that was done with these two posts:

I do like the idea above about consolidated discussion about newbies who have been chased off.

Perhaps we could have a separate page for this? And we could make a post here saying we added a new RIP entry.

Caveat: When I pointed out a newbie in trouble, the drama came here--which is not what I wanted. I simply gave notice of my post out of fairness to everyone involved in the drama, and to avoid accusations of misrepresenting things or outside discussion of the AN/I dispute. Perhaps, I should have waited until the AN/I was closed?

Suggestions? However, isn't the drama itself what drives new and good editors away? Who wants to go to Wikipedia to edit and get treated with incivility? Who wants to be repeatedly chastised and dragged to AN/I or another disciplinary forum, when they believe they are not breaking the rules and they feel their accuser is the one breaking the rules? I strongly believe this is why we lose some of our best editors.

--David Tornheim (talk) 10:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

If you want to leave a brief respectful message, without any recriminations, the editor's talk page is probably the best place. Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians is a location where departed editors are listed. Personally, I'd prefer to just watchlist the missing Wikipedian page than see this talk page filled up with notices. isaacl (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I find the idea of memorializing users who get banned highly disrespectful of community consensus or (occasionally) ArbCom decision. It happens far too often that "friends" of users who get banned for disruptive behaviour try to revise history by claiming they were "chased off" (whether or not they were newbies). Yes, if those friends have not themselves already been banned, it is nice when they are open in their disruption (rather than posting off-site and then claiming that those point this out on-wiki are "outing" them -- something that again I have seen before), but I still find the idea of using this page (or maintaining any other on-wiki forum) as a venue for complaining that someone who got blocked or site-banned for disruptive behaviour really wasn't all that bad, and the targets of their harassment were the ones who really to blame. Just ask Kauffner and LittleBenW what happens when a user you like gets site-banned for clearly disruptive behaviour, and you try to spin it as them getting "driven off" because "some users" "didn't like" their article edits. (Note that the former user's historical revisionism took place largely off-site, after he was already blocked from editing English Wikipedia. But the principle is the same.)
While I don't necessarily doubt David's good faith in the above remarks, I would request that he strike the words "or get banned".
By the way, David: Have you been in off-wiki contact with someone about this? they feel their accuser is the one breaking the rules doesn't appear to be borne out by anything I've seen on a certain user's user talk page, and if I am (or Softlavender or MP or anyone else is) still being called an "accuser" ... well, it would be nice to be notified.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: Let's be honest, anyone who takes another editor to WP:AN/I, WP:AE, the 3RR and 1RR violation boards, etc. is an "accuser", just like a Plaintiff in a criminal or civil trial. They are accusing one or more editors of wrong behavior, the "accused", just like a Defendant. I am in no way suggesting there is anything inherently wrong with bringing someone to AN/I and accusing another editor of doing something wrong if they are, in fact, doing something wrong. In other words, there is nothing inherently wrong about being an "accuser" if the accusations made are appropriate and meet a certain threshold of disruption, etc. Accuser is just a word I use to describe a particular editor's role in an action at AN/I or other Noticeboard.
Regarding your last question: You seem to think I was talking above about just one editor--a new editor. I was not. I have watched and heard of many long-term editors (and experts) chased and intimidated off the project, just as many people have pointed out here and on Jimbo's page--the incivility is talked about all the time. And often it is the case that the accuser say directly or imply through their defense (and I have looked at the evidence and saw it myself), that the accuser was causing more problems, but a friendly admin(s) ruled in favor of the accuser. And it can be vice-versa where the accuser has a legitimate claim, and they are laughed at, and the accused pulls a boomerang, and then the accuser get punished for bringing a legitimate complaint. I have seen that too.
I find the idea of memorializing users who get banned highly disrespectful of community consensus or (occasionally) ArbCom decision So no one was ever banned from the project wrongly? I seem to recall a few instances of cases where users were banned, and came back, and those who got the person banned were the ones who ultimately got banned. I believe that was the case with Peter Damian, was it not? So if someone had made a respectfully sad departing message of the loss of the good editor Mr. Damian, that would have been "disrespectful of the community consensus"? --David Tornheim (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
anyone who takes another editor to [drahma boards] is an "accuser" You directly referred, in the previous sentence, to my ANI thread on Endercase. But if you say you are not talking specifically about that incident, I guess I'll take your word for it. a friendly admin(s) ruled in favor of the accuser If you see a particular case where an involved admin (one with prior interactions with one or more party that you believe has compromised their judgement) has blocked inappropriately, you should point that out. It is against the general principle of AGF to request a venue to complain about how often this supposedly happens and goes unnoticed. And it can be vice-versa where the accuser has a legitimate claim, and they are laughed at, and the accused pulls a boomerang, and then the accuser get punished for bringing a legitimate complaint. Again, implying that it is an endemic problem where the "good guys" are taken advantage of by the "bad guys", regardless of which side opened the ANI thread, runs contrary to AGF. You are perfectly free to believe this yourself, but using WP:ER (or any other on-wiki forum for that matter) to discuss possible changes to the system is inappropriate. So no one was ever banned from the project wrongly? Again, I personally find this offensive. Of course people get banned unfairly. I was once banned from interacting with another user because they were NOTHERE, I pointed it out, no one bothered to read the evidence I presented, they started hounding me, and eventually I got so sick of it that I requested a mutual IBAN, which they quickly started to game to their advantage. But the correct way of dealing with those cases is to work to get the bans repealed, not complain on WP:ER (or any other on-wiki forum for that matter) about how unfair it is. If someone was banned wrongly, you should request that their ban be repealed. Don't come to Editor Retention to complain about how their ban was wrong. The only reason anyone would want to do so is if they don't really think the bans are unfair, and think that no one will agree to repeal them. I seem to recall a few instances of cases where users were banned, and came back, and those who got the person banned were the ones who ultimately got banned. So ... what's the problem then? So if someone had made a respectfully sad departing message of the loss of the good editor Mr. Damian, that would have been "disrespectful of the community consensus"? I am not familiar with the case you describe, but if it worked similarly to how you describe it, then the answer is yes, it would have been. The correct course of action was to appeal the ban. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
By the way: your OP comment talked about "newbies who have been chased off", but explicitly mentioned bans, and when called out on it you only gave one concrete example of a user who was banned, but certainly wasn't a newbie. If you want to conflate two different problems, you should ... well, I was gonna tell you to take it elsewhere, but actually you should just not do it. If you want to complain about new users who have been frightened away, or older users who have become disillusioned, that's fine, but if you are unable to get a ban overturned, that means that for whatever reason either the community or the Arbitration Committee decided that a ban was warranted, and that is not the same thing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The intended purpose of the Editor of the Week sub-project is to retain editors. It is not to just hand out shiny trophies for some editors trophy case. In our travels around Wikipedia we all encounter editors that are doing the work of building the encyclopedia. These editors rarely get caught up in time-consuming drama that befalls many. That is why they can be invisible...hard to find...they have very little name recognition. They are busy working while the rest of us argue over whether its "The Beatles" or "the Beatles". Some editors slip away because no one seems to notice them. No one seems to appreciate what they do. And the fun is gone. Editor of the Week is an effort to bring the fun back to them. These responses are proof that, at least for a moment, EotW works.Take 5 minutes and nominate someone. Buster Seven Talk 16:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I was recently wondering exactly how many editors were awarded EOTW for (metaphorically) arguing over whether its "The Beatles" or "the Beatles". I got bored trying to figure it out, but I do wonder if we should change the system so that EOTW is only awarded in weeks where there are at least two or three nominees so that there is at least a debate and an editor (who is neither new nor in any way at risk of leaving the project) isn't awarded EOTW for the wrong reasons. At present, it seems like anyone who wants can nominate an editor by saying "This person is great and has made a bunch of edits", with the unspoken reason being "This user helped me win an edit war" or "This user is a POV-pusher and I agree with them". A 2014 recipient of EOTW recently (2017/2/10, Fri 08:58) told me in an off-wiki conversation I don't think anyone gives a shit about EotW, anyways. But wouldn't it be great if that wasn't the case? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Maybe you won't wonder if you re-read what I said above. As to the former recipient, I'm not going to concern myself with the idle chatter of someone that does't care. I personally have nominated over 40 candidates... most I had never worked with. I found them as I wandered around looking for workaholics that were being ignored. I've also nominated editors I have worked with because I found them professional in their demeanor and collaborative in their efforts and discussion. I think your reflections on why editors are chosen is not based on fact. Its your assumption... and you know what they say about assumption. Also, there is a two week vetting period while waiting for at least one second, for every candidate, where you, yourself, can comment to your hearts content. Some debate has occurred over the years but it rarely, if ever, results in a rejection of the nomination. I challenge you to name a single Editor of the Week that was awarded EOTW for the wrong reasons. I also challenge you to nominate someone so you can at least speak from experience. Buster Seven Talk 17:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
I challenge you to name a single Editor of the Week that was awarded EOTW for the wrong reasons. Well, the editor I want to name was recently site-banned, so mentioning his name might be grave-dancing. I'll settle for DrGregMN: an admitted SPA, who had barely contributed anything of note to the project at the time EOTW was awarded, and has not since. The SPA nature of the account was even explicitly given as part of the reason (this editor has dedicated extraordinary time and effort to articles about remote towns). See the work I speak of at Elcor, Minnesota and, of course, further work at Iron Range Historical Society. looks hilariously disingenuous -- those are literally the only two articles the editor ever touched. I also challenge you to nominate someone so you can at least speak from experience. I might get around to nominating someone myself at some point, but honestly Softlavender would have been my first pick if someone else hadn't recently beaten me to the punch, so that even if I did so it would just look like an unoriginal "safe" pick to convince you I can make such a nomination -- is it cool to say I would have done so instead? Failing that: SwisterTwister (a good editor who does more than most to keep the encyclopedia free of promotional garbage, and puts up with a lot more bull than they should) or Nishidani (an extremely diligent content creator with an excellent ability to read sources carefully and convince others to do the same, but who has also had to put up with a lot of politics). Vet my picks yourself if you want: one of the above would probably be disqualified based on having helped me out in a content dispute without me having disclosed that fact, but you wouldn't know which one without me telling you. And there is no technical obligation for me as the nominator to disclose it. Granted, the user (Nishidani, for what it's worth) didn't help me win an edit war or push a fringe POV I happen to agree with, so it's not quite as bad as the above scenario, but still. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 18:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Nishidani is a past EotW. See this.
This is not the Nobel Peace prize or a nomination for a judgeship. Any vetting that is done is cursory at best. Many of The Alumni have been banned at some time or have had run-ins with other editors. They are not saints and no one expects them to be. For a moment in time an editor thought they deserved some recognition and they got it. If you want to make changes...feel free to offer suggestions. There are two editors that have yet to be seconded or commented on. Give it a go. Buster Seven Talk 19:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC).
To echo what Buster7 said, as can be seen from its criteria, the Editor of the Week recognition was deliberately designed not to be a big deal. It's basically a note of appreciation from the recipient's fellow editors. If you are interested in crafting a big deal award, I encourage you to put it in action! isaacl (talk) 02:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

When am I going to be nominated ;) GoodDay (talk) 02:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

If memory serves, I think you were mentioned as a possible candidate but you felt some restriction at the time...it was a few years back. Maybe Hijiri88 will take up your cause. Buster Seven Talk 05:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention/Archive_31&oldid=778958594"