Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26→Archive 30

I'm not thinking about it... I AM quitting

Per request, and the fact being that we have exhausted the usefulness of the thread. Dennis 2¢ 16:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

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

I'll take a day or two to wrap up some things I'd like to do before I turn off the lights and lock up, so to speak, but I AM quitting. No more thinking about, as I have dozens of times in the past. Among the things I'd like to do: add something to the "Discovered" reasons for leaving Wikipedia. I hope it'll be allowed to stay, but since it will focus on civility, I'm curious to see if it will be allowed to stay. I may drop by here over the next couple of days as I'm wrapping up elsewhere. That's all for now. Lightbreather (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

An interesting read: Simonite, Tom (22 October 2013). "The Decline of Wikipedia". MIT Technology Review.. And an interesting quote from that read. (My husband shared the article with me last year. Kind of a foreshadowing, I guess.)

The main source of those problems is not mysterious. The loose collective running the site today, estimated to be 90 percent male, operates a crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive atmosphere that deters newcomers who might increase participation in Wikipedia and broaden its coverage.

--Lightbreather (talk) 22:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather that you didn't retire. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I've had this page watchlisted for a long time, and this is the first time I ever noticed that "discovered" section. Do us a favor @Lightbreather and put it in your own file, so everyone can find it, maybe User:Lightbreather/Reasons for leaving Wikipedia, with a link to it on your user page. Put in a lot of diffs, so everyone can see who twisted the knife. —Neotarf (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
You realize you just posted the same quote I did yesterday [1]? Anyway, if you make your comments general (don't mention specific editors), it will mostly like be left alone. NE Ent 23:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
You are correct Ent, as long as it appropriate to the page and non-personal, it should stay. Personally, I don't want to see Lightbreather leave, but I don't understand their reasoning yet. Above might seem heated, but no one is calling names or getting rude, they are just expressing opinions. This is a topic we've been debating for years, you have to expect we won't solve it in a few paragraphs. The art of compromise is finding a solution that no one likes, and I get the feeling that eventually that will be the case. Until then, all we can do is discuss and seek to understand each other. That seems to be where we all are getting hung up, listening and empathizing with each other Dennis 2¢ 00:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
So "no one is calling names"? I count 8 occurrences of the c-word on this page. If someone posted the n-word that much, I would say they were getting off on it. —Neotarf (talk) 00:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Have you ever considered the possibility that editors such as yourself, who basically get off on telling lies, might be a significant problem here? You claim that the word most hated in the American vocabulary has been used here eight times, but how many times was it used as an insult against a specific individual? None? Eric Corbett 00:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
You accuse me of lying? Diffs. —Neotarf (talk) 00:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
No one has directed the word towards anyone that I can see. If we can't use the word to discuss the use OF the word in the abstract, then we have bigger problems than just the use. Dennis 2¢ 00:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah the old "not directed at anyone" excuse. Again. [2] —Neotarf (talk) 01:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
This isn't the workplace, and we are having an academic discussion ABOUT the word. I've even come out against using it against some one. Sorry, but I'm not for striking any word, concept or idea and making the mere mention of it in a policy related discussion a "violation" of anything. I am against using it against someone, but I already made that perfectly clear and explained exactly why. Dennis 2¢ 01:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
If this isn't a work place, what is it? Would you invite Mr. Corbett into your living room, your place of worship, your children's schools, to have this discussion and repeat this word over and over and over again? By the way, how do you feel about the n-word? If you want to have a meta-discussion about usage, why are you not using this as your [purely abstract] example? —Neotarf (talk) 01:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
If you mean "nigga" for instance, I did above in a direct example. It's a word I hate in popular culture, it is used all over the place, and it is inappropriate to refer to someone in this way here. But again, in a discussion about improper words, I'm not so PC that I can't say the actual word I'm referring to. And yes I would invite Eric into my living room. I don't worship or have kids, so I can't answer that, although I suspect I would as Eric understands when it is appropriate to use a word. I've also seen Eddie Murphy "RAW", but I wouldn't be afraid to have him over either. The debate isn't his ability to not say certain words, it is whether Wikipedia is that place. I actually agree that we shouldn't here. Dennis 2¢ 01:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely, Eric has an open invite to join me any evening anytime- I would love to have his input into our after dinner conversation, (email me off wiki- Eric). Similarly if Lightbreather or yourself wishes to discover more about this corner of England and the our sociolinguistic norms - then get in touch. It really would help if some of you guys got along to some of our face to face Wiki-meetups so you are not working in isolation.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 11:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The word "cunt" was no-where on this page as far as I can see until I posted here yesterday about the civility problem on WP driving away editors.[3] About 24 hours later, HiLo48 - who knows that I and hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of other people find this word offensive - decides that it's time to talk about it again,[4] though it has been discussed over and over again elsewhere. It's not an academic discussion: it's virtual chest-thumping. Lightbreather (talk) 01:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
These are the same editors who want to block a female editor for linking to "circle jerk". I am taking this page off my watch list. I would suggest everyone else do the same. —Neotarf (talk) 01:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
That's dumb, if a woman or indeed anyone needs to link to "circle jerk" it shouldn't be blockable unless it's a clear personal attack. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Retirement of any editor is undesirable :( GoodDay (talk) 02:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Lightbreather, you completely misunderstood my reason for using the word that so offends you, just as you have misunderstood much here. I am part of a smaller minority than women here. I am Australian. I am not American. Wikipedia is dominated by American cultural norms. Is that good? I tried to (again) get you and others to see that there are differences in English usage around the world. Some of us hear (and some even use) the word you find so hurtful quite often, and many Australians are OK people. (Even if you think I stink.) It doesn't damage us. I wasn't planning to use the word against anyone. In fact, I showed a way that it is used that is quite positive. Do you understand this? So please be careful insisting that one set of cultural norms should completely dominate and rule here. HiLo48 (talk) 06:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Other meanings or uses of the word "cunt" have been discussed here [5] and here [6] and here [7], among other places I'm sure. (In fact, that first discussion includes you sharing a variation on your "How are ya', ya' silly old cunt" example.[8]) However, even before those discussions, others (myself included) have been aware that in some parts of the globe it is less offensive or used playfully. That does not mean that it's OK to use in mixed company. (And by mixed, here on WP at least, I mean gender, color, age, ethnicity, religion - everyone.)
There are homes and bars in the U.S. where you can go and hear African-Americans call each other "nigger" or Native Americans call each other "Injun" (playfully and otherwise), but that doesn't make the words OK to use in discussions on Wikipedia.
Or let's try this from another angle. Eric Corbett wondered above if I and others don't get the difference between civility and being polite. Though "polite" is a synonym for "civil," and one meaning of "civil" is "courteous and polite," I'll differentiate à la Eric (who will probably follow up with a correction): If you think it's debatable that "cunt" is uncivil, it should certainly be clear that it's impolite to keep using the word once you've learned that it's offensive to the group you're currently dialoguing with (a global group, not a regional pub). Do you understand this? So please be careful insisting that (you think) I am insisting that one set of cultural norms should completely dominate and rule here. I think that words that are considered to be truly offensive in any English speaking culture should be avoided in a workplace populated by English speakers from around the world. I think people should get warnings - one, two, maybe even three times - but if someone keeps using such language after warnings, they should be prepared to face the consequences. This is simple civility, or politeness, depending on how you look at it. Lightbreather (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
If one is offended/annoyed by what another editor posts? one need only to ignore that editor. Unlike the real world, one can ignore another at Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
The trouble with that approach is that it ignores an editor, but it doesn't disconnect from an article. In some cases, the reason one might want to disengage with an editor is because of their behaviour in one or more articles. We would after all hope that the editors were trying to keep are those who care about article quality.
Biased monomaniac editors are some of the most annoying but, by their nature, also the most persistent. Who wants to walk away from an article where the inevitable result is a whitewash of the politically corrupt, a blanket removal of justified NFC or EL, or just a conversion from metres to furlongs. It's not productive to the encyclopedia (even if better for the individual) to say "just walk away" in all such cases.
A while ago, it was possible to raise editor behaviour at some of the noticeboards and say "These edits concern me, will others please keep an eye on them". Doing so today is just an invitation for a tribal conflict. Who has the more vocal friends? Who recently transgressed some unrelated policy that can be used to whip up another howling lynchmob? We have lost the open source virtue of a community with shared goals. The only "goals" left with any effectiveness are the imposition of petty bureaucracy and personal grievances amongst cliques. This is not supposed to be a badly run high school, but that's where we seem to be.
We have policies (Commons appears to be suffering particularly badly from this at present) and these are deliberately objective. All editors, including admins, are subject to them: sometimes things as simple as not blanking contentious talk page comments to silence other editors. Let alone the subjectivity of the classic "cooldown civility block". WP recognised years ago that some behaviours were unconstructively toxic and so weren't permitted to any editor, admins or content wizard. We've lost that. Enforcement is now entirely at the whim of the corrupt and their friends, with right being decided firmly by might, admin bits and friend count. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, it's very difficult to curtail any editors conduct, when that editor has a big support base. Thus, a Gandhi wiki-approach is best, to stare down perceived obnoxious behaviour & to take his/her bite away. It's less dramatic, then dragging an editor off to ANI, Rfc/U, etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
GoodDay, that's a fascinating idea you have there (If one is offended/annoyed by what another editor posts? one need only to ignore that editor.), but if you are serious about it, then let's see you propose that solution directly to Lightbreather, to get her response, so we can have some direct clash with your idea, to explore its workability on the WP, or its unworkability. (Sound reasonable?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Note that it's advice for all editors. GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
So where do you draw the line? Or don't you? If your advice is taken, what is the purpose of WP:CIV policy? (As mere suggestion/encouragement? I'm OK with that, but, seems to me it is also used as basis for handing out blocks/sanctions/bans. The two ideas don't seem logically compatible. And if you are willing to give your advice to 'all editors', then what is your objection to giving it specifically to Lightbrather in this discussion thread?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Not sure what you're looking for; GoodDay's post to which you responded was a direct reply to Lightbreather. isaacl (talk) 00:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
His advice was generalized, not direct to Lightbreather for her consideration/response. (My Qs were clear enough, and directed to GoodDay, not you.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
My advice was for Lightbrather & every other editor. The calm approach is best, always. GoodDay (talk) 05:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Then you should have no problem suggesting to her directly to ignore, rather than to object and to complain. (Aren't you interested in her response about your advice? Then ask for it, rather than philosophizing!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
As this isn't a policy page, my advise goes only as far as it's abided. GoodDay (talk) 06:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Also I'm curious for your respone to my above query you weren't responsive to: So where do you draw the line? Or don't you? If your advice is taken, what is the purpose of WP:CIV policy? (As mere suggestion/encouragement? I'm OK with that, but, seems to me it is also used as basis for handing out blocks/sanctions/bans. The two ideas don't seem logically compatible.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Bans, blocks & sanctions should (if possible) be avoided. GoodDay (talk) 06:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Are you or are you not advocating reducing WP:CIV policy to status of essay (based on the recommendation that all editors ignore offenses/annoyances)? Or do you like to keep WP:CIV around "just in case we need to block, sanction, and ban someone"?? (I asked you where you draw the line, you didn't respond, this is the third time I'm asking!). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not advocating any changes to WP:CIVIL. -- GoodDay (talk) 06:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Re your advice to ignore offenses, and avoid blocks/bans based on WP:CIV "if possible": So where do you draw the line? Or don't you? (Fourth time asking!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
For myself? I ignore anything I don't like & therefore choose not to report anyone for anything I don't like. Others will have to draw their own lines. GoodDay (talk) 07:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
No, not for yourself. (I thought this was clear.) Your advice was to 'all editors' to ignore offenses/annoyances. But you also think there are times it is unavoidable to block/sanction/ban based on WP:CIV. I asked where you draw the line. (If your answer is that each editor should draw their own line, then you're suggesting/advising that "all editors ignore offenses/annoyances, unless it exceeds your line". So you're advising all editors, on the one hand, to ignore [all] offenses/annoyances, and on the other hand, to go ahead and pursue not ignoring them based on the individual editor's standard of 'excessive'. [Sorry, but your idea seems confused because internally inconsistent/contradictory.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
If my advise is ignored for any reason (including confusion), then so be it. Afterall, this isn't a policy page. GoodDay (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
This is a discussion of ideas on this project Talk page, right? GoodDay had (what I think is) a fascinating idea. Lightbreather, GoodDay is suggesting/advising that you just ignore what you are offended/annoyed by, rather than objecting and complaining about it. (Will you responsd to him?) Thanks for your consideration. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Frankly, with all the advice and comments, I ignored him less than I forgot to reply. It's simple really: I've received the same advice and had the same discussion with others. I don't feel like discussing it again, that's all. One gets tired of arguing the same points over and over again. That's part of why I'm going. May I go now? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually, wikipedia is dominated by a very specific subset of cultural norms often ascribed to Americans but by no means unique to them. Blaming every issue here on supposed American cultural norms is one of the things that makes me question my involvement on a regular basis. And I'd rather deal with someone using one of the words that shall not be named than wall of text POV pushers and policy OWNers. But I suspect that I'm in a small minority. In terms of people staying or leaving, if you want to leave...leave. If you really don't want to leave, then don't. Intothatdarkness 15:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Lightbreather: Quitting is not an option- unless you resolve your problem- it will fester and you will be reminded of it everytime you Google. You are very bruised at being criticised but that was of your own making, so you do need to analyse why your approach was so offensive. I have posted links to sociolinguistics, and explained about register. Other editors were offended when you criticised them because their use of language was way outside you register. It is worth doing a little research to discover how language is used elsewhere in the English speaking world. You are respected for taking on all those revolting jobs that admins do- the ones that take them away from article creation. The medium of blogging forces people to simplify and abbreviate their arguments which leads to them expressing terms at the boundaries of their register- rather than the more moderate terms at the centre- please reflect on that. By quitting you are leaving something you love. By quitting you are damaging you own self-esteem. Stalk this page but concentrate on some article creation or the myriad of other things that need doing in our world. What I am saying, is make a conscious decision to walk away from this debate, walk away from the areas where your POV has conflicted with a significant number of experienced editors and then in 5 years come back strongly. That gives you a resolution- that can add to your enjoyment of the project. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 11:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC) Feeling like an agony aunt.
"Now look here Clem, / Hey Clem! / Hold on, Clem!" Here's a small linguistic point for you about local English usage you may find of interest. Did you know that your name was commonly used among kids in Ohio, to indicate that someone was taking things too far? It came as a shock on a Wikipedia tour of the US National Archives to discover that there was a historic person from Ohio named "Clem", who took things to the limit by signing up to fight as a drummer boy and refusing to quit.
So, "Wait a minute there, Clem!" No way am I taking the advice to "Just take a break, then go back to work as a prolific content contributor." Much less advice to "Be a good girl, move on, you brought it on yourself!"
As you have so insightfully noted, we have reached a point where we are the Hotel Wikipedia-- you can check in anytime you want, but you can never leave. Unless you can avoid the Internet altogether. And if we're making a Hotel Wikipedia that is traumatic for women, it's a statement about what we want the Internet to be.
It is important to start pitching in on the efforts to do something about the crummy atmosphere for women on the Internet, and especially on this site, because it is so prominent. I can't speak for men, but have been told by many that they would prefer a more hospitable atmosphere also. -- Djembayz (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
We all should've kept our gender identities secret. Best approach? -consider all Wikipedians gender-neutral. GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the anecdote- I hadn't come across it before. Incidently, I am not related to any of the Rutter families in Ohio- though may be related to Catherine Rutter one of the very early Quakers.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 21:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
ClemRutter, I read the links you gave to "Linguistic insecurity" and "Register (sociolinguistics)." Before that, I read, and shared links to a book by sociolinguist Deborah Tannen, which is a little more accessible to a nonspecialist. I've been studying the use of language here on Wikipedia for over a year now. Rather than suggest that I should research this stuff, I think it would be a better use of your time trying to get other editors to do so - especially the ones who insist that there is no language problem here. Lightbreather (talk) 16:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Time is always precious- but I think that a few minutes spent having a serious discussion is worth it, if it helps you change your mind. I was discussing similar issues elsewhere thirty years ago- and last night over the dinner table, this time in French, German and Spanish. 'Leaving' just stops you from contributing. If you want to see a successful politician- look at Angela Merckel (who policies I oppose), and a loser look at David Cameron (whos policies if he had one, I'd oppose). One twists and turns, forms and breaks alliances and gets her way- the other stands on his macho hindlegs huffs and puffs and consistently fails. It isn't just language- its about a method of working. This debate is a dead end: engaging editors who have a record of generosity with newbies and multiple kindness, using a policy that is a regarded by many as a POV is not going to establish the alliances needed to progress the project. Angela would already have another front opened. You wouldn't have got this far if you didn't care. So, too use a slogan from the eighties- Don't get mad, get even. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 21:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
From my User page: "Ever noticed how the niceness police often demand that those whose language offends their precious sensibilities must swear less, but those who are their targets never demand that the civility police swear more?" It's a diverse world. Deal with it. HiLo48 (talk) 22:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
And how, exactly, does swearing at editors when policing the site convince them to stay? I don't get it. Djembayz (talk) 11:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
It's an interesting quote, HiLo, though it makes expecting civility sound like covert ops. Here's one of my favorites:
"Every action done in company ought to be with some sign of respect to those that are present." - George Washington
--Lightbreather (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • We aren't going to agree here, but that is fine, as the entire premise of "consensus" is based on that idea, and simply finding the most central view between the many sides. I don't have a problem with someone disagreeing with me, and all of us should be able to just accept it when we are in the minority. This isn't a policy changing page, nor a decision making page, it is a discussion page. Sometimes, a little heated venting can be helpful to clear the air, but all need to lick our wounds and get back to articles afterwards, and not just leave. The entire project was born with the idea that everyone should have a voice, even if they are in the minority. That doesn't mean we beat that drum to death, or that "hearing" is the same as "agreeing". No matter how educated or "sourced" an opinion is, others may have very valid reasons for disagreeing, and we all have to accept that. At this point, it is my opinion we have worn this topic out. I don't want to see anyone leave, and I hope LB takes a few days off and reconsiders. Dennis 2¢ 15:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've received the same advice and had the same discussion with others. I don't feel like discussing it again, that's all. One gets tired of arguing the same points over and over again. That's part of why I'm going. May I go now? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC) Over forty words to deliver a non-answer, when two would have sufficed to deliver an answer: "Already answered [_diff_]." (But it wasn't just a non-answer, an additional new "reason" was added that explains Lightbreather's decision to depart WP -- i.e. being tired of repeating the same argument -- and, I don't think my effort here to get real feedback to GoodDay's "ignore" idea warrants rolling me in to part of the blame she attributes to her decision to leave. [In fact, I very much don't appreciate that at all -- disingenuous false blame. It's not only disingenuous it was uncivil.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for community input on IEG proposal: editor interaction data sets and visualizations

As you may have heard, Editor Interaction Data Extraction and Visualization is an individual engagement grant proposal. I am working on this proposal with volunteer assistance and advice from Aaron Halfaker (WMF), Haitham Shammaa (WMF), and Fabian Flöck (Karlsruhe Institute of Technology).

We would greatly appreciate your comments on whether you support or oppose the general concept of this project, and any suggestions about how to refine the proposal.

Additionally, we would like to hear from you about which sets of editor interaction data, and what visualizations of editor interaction data, would be most relevant to your interests. We intend to prioritize our outputs with your comments in mind.

Please comment on the proposal talk page. Questions and feedback, both positive and critical, are helpful to us as the proposers, and also help the Individual Engagement Grants Committee [1] to assess the proposal.

Regards, --Pine✉ 18:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

[1] I am a member of the Individual Engagement Grants Committee. I am recusing from reviewing proposals in this funding round.

  • Thanks for the heads up. I've left one comment there and may leave others. This is an interesting idea that has some merit, and would be of use to us at WER if the data can be properly extracted. Doing so reliably and getting data that has meaning is no small feat. Dennis 2¢ 19:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Topic bans

Would topic bans being lifted automatically, if a topic-banned editor didn't violate his/her topic ban for 6 months, be an acceptable proposal for keeping (top banned) editors from retiring? It's a retention idea of mine. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Many topic bans are already done that way, and generally the type I prefer, whereas someone is banned for a fixed time only and doesn't have to grovel to the community to get it lifted. I've proposed such topic bans myself, with fixed expiration dates. I don't think you can get the banning policy to automatically do that to any bans, but you can suggest that the community only do topic bans that have fixed terms for first time offenders. To be honest, most of the topic bans I've seen are put on people who ONLY edit in one area and are causing problems in that area. Many are POV warriors. The topic ban is used as an alternative to indef blocking them, that is to say, to give them a second chance by allowing them to edit only in one area. I can't speak for ALL editors, but I do know that many who would be topic banned from one area, say Palestine / Isreal, they don't edit anywhere else and they don't care about anything but injecting one POV into those articles. They might put up a "retired" banner, but it is really meaningless as their intent is ONLY to inject POV into those articles, and if they can't do that, they won't do anything. In those cases, retention isn't a goal as they aren't here to build an encyclopedia, they are here to insure one perspective is dominant in these articles. They are here to break NPOV or undermine consensus. This includes I/P, infoboxes, IPA, etc.
For editors that edit in multiple areas, topic bans are extremely rare, and if one is done, they just can edit in other areas and ride it out. These are the editors we want to retain: they are here to build an encyclopedia, they just got too emotionally invested in an area. Rare, but it happens, and they usually stick around. I haven't seen any retirements from these more rounded editors, only from editors that only edit in one narrow area. Perhaps they exist and I just haven't seen it, which is entirely possible. That said, if you have an example, I would love to take a look and personally investigate. Dennis 2¢ 18:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've been topic banned from taking part in any threaded discussions at RfA for about four years now I think. Eric Corbett 18:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Wowsers, the American Civil War didn't even last that long. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that you have to beg and grovel to have topic bans removed, something I'm genetically incapable of doing. Eric Corbett 19:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
It's not an overly pleasurable experience, for sure. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
It's one I've never had and never will have. Eric Corbett 19:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
As is true in most cases, Eric is the exception to the rule. That was also an Arb ban, not a community ban. I was limiting my response to the run of the mill topic bans dished out at ANI. I do think those should have expiration dates of 1 year or less. Dennis 2¢ 19:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps that's because I'm exceptional. NYB recently encouraged me to think about appealing the topic ban. As if, I'd rather die. Eric Corbett 20:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
It's idea I've been considering. I'm planning on presenting it to the community in May 2015. Wouldn't mind if you or anybody else could make adjustments to it. Sorta hoping at the least, it might lower any tensions on the project:) Right now, I'm just sticking my toe into the water. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"Many topic bans are already done that way" seems to be a bit mistaken. See Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, except for some exception here and there, all topic bans are of indefinite duration. As for appeals, consider User:Cirt. He had a topic ban with a case started 3 years ago. Check his contributions at User:Cirt/Contributions: 16 featured articles, 113 good articles, 152 DYK articles, and a lot of other recognized content (more than most other users can reasonably expect to achieve). His archived appeal is here: he does not get anything. In fact, the answers received are not actionable: "no because no" arguments, "it is too soon" arguments (after 3 years), "there are other articles", "who would watch him?", "his good work elsewhere is worthless in this discussion", and so on. Someone is forced to wonder, if Cirt's work is not enough, if 3 years are a very short time (in the real world, you can do almost half a major in that time), then what does it really takes to have a topic ban lifted? Can a topic ban be actually lifted at all, or does the chance just exist on paper? Cambalachero (talk) 20:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Cambalachero, for your most kind comments about my recent Quality improvement projects listed at User:Cirt/Contributions. Your words are truly most appreciated and inspirational. Thanks again, — Cirt (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes you can get them lifted, I've voted to lift a number of them. Yes, you can propose a limited time period for topic ban. Most are not because most of the time, it is someone who feels "wronged" making the proposal and they have no incentive to limit the scope. I've proposed limited time bans and had them pass. The issue is participation at ANI. If you counter propose to limit a ban to one year instead and that passes, then it will only be one year. Arb bans are never going to be limited time, that is just how they work. Don't confuse Arb bans with Community bans, they are two completely different animals. My experience has been that the community at WP:AN tends to be pretty forgiving after a year. Arb, less so. You have to be careful to differentiate what it is you are talking about when discussion these kinds of bans. Dennis 2¢ 22:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Let me correct myself: Arb can do time limited bans, and used to frequently. Most are now indef. Whether that is a good thing or not, I will leave to you to decide. Dennis 2¢ 14:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Indefs TBans tend to come across as punitive, rather then preventative measures. GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I can see why they might, particularly from Arb, which is more difficult to get removed. Sometimes (at least from the community) it is simply saying "We have no idea when it would be a good time to let you edit there again, lets see how you do for 6 months or so." Getting a tban removed at WP:AN isn't easy, but its a lot easier than with Arb. Dennis 2¢ 15:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Main page, Why do editors leave? question

I'm new to the project. I've been reading the main page. I'd like to do a few things.

  1. I'd like to add dates to the WP:WikiProject Editor Retention/Discovered reasons given for leaving Wikipedia items.
  2. If possible, I'd like to add a brief reason why those editors left. All voluntarily? Were any blocked or banned first, which led to their leaving?
  3. Question: That page is called "Discovered reasons given for leaving Wikipedia"; what does "discovered" mean in this context?
  4. The WP:WikiProject Editor Retention/Retired editors questionnaire page: It begins, It has been suggested that we contact specific individual editors who have retired as to what circumstances contributed to their leaving the project. Did the suggestion come about as a result of a project discussion? (A link maybe?)
  5. Which "specific individual editors" are or were contacted? All editors with more than "x" edits who were not identified as puppets or vandals?
  6. Is there or has there ever been any focus on retaining women editors? If not, I'd like to propose that, and I'd be happy to spearhead such an effort, though I may need help implementing my ideas.

--Lightbreather (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

  • You might want to check the archives, much of that is outdated. As for "why someone leaves", we seldom get a clean, simple answer, and we have tried contacting people. It is too subjective. That is one reason most of that is outdated. For the most part, the focus here is on general issues, not individuals. If an individual lands here, we try to help, but we don't actively seek individuals as a Project. That said, many (including myself) actively watch a number of editors who contribute a great deal and who are at risk, and mentor or offer support. That isn't exactly a Project project, just something a lot of us do on our own.
  • As to women, check the archives, as there has been some discussion. Again, that is more an individual thing than Project thing, but a number of us go out of our way to attract women for adminship in particular. Our Editor of the Week program has helped us find a few admin, half of them women. The big problem with women and Wikipedia isn't retention as much as getting women to start editing here to begin with. That is beyond the scope of WER, and the responsibility of the Foundation to attract more women. Culturally speaking, this isn't simple. This is compounded by the fact that not everyone volunteers their gender, so we really don't know everyone's gender, and to assume that women are more or less likely to volunteer their gender isn't supported by any evidence. So many of us do put more effort with retaining women editors, but as individuals. As a Project, we try to stay neutral and focus on policy changes and tools for everyone. Dennis 2¢ 17:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well, that is good. Would you mind putting a date of some sort on the reasons? I do think it's important because what's going on in the community (from Wikipedia on up to WMF) does (or can) impact the individual editor's working environment. Who? No, of course anonymity is important. However, if an editor identifies primarily as a female, that could be useful when studying the reasons editors leave. Why? That is important. Whether someone left voluntarily, or if a ban/block preceded their leaving are important! Lightbreather (talk) 18:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
If memory serves me right, we don't list blocked editors. Or shouldn't be. That isn't the same as voluntarily leaving the project. Blocked editors would be outside the scope of what we can do. Dennis 2¢ 19:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Your memory serves you well. Every effort was made to exclude editors that were blocked or banned when they left. I'm not sure if any were added since I last stopped there but I don't think so. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe any were added. GoodDay (talk) 09:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I support the inclusion of a date. In anticipation of an argument that the responses are intended to be anonymous and the date would help someone identify the editor, I suggest inclusion of the year only, not the month and day.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
That is probably the best compromise, year only, and that is plenty of information for our purposes. Dennis 2¢ 16:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeardates added.  Done ```Buster Seven Talk 16:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Research article: Emotions under Discussion

Iosub, Daniela; Laniado, David; Castillo, Carlos; Morell, Mayo Fuster; Kaltenbrunner, Andreas (August 20, 2014). "Emotions under Discussion: Gender, Status and Communication in Online Collaboration". PLOS ONE. 9 (8): e104880. Bibcode:2014PLoSO...9j4880I. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0104880. PMID 25140870.

Conclusions/Significance

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

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

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

Just a reminder

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

Yep, I know of a few editors who've disappeared aswell. GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Agreed with Dennis. Anecdotally, I can say that I might have been away much longer had it not been for a kind e-mail from Go Phightins! back in 2013. I might not have been "missing" per se, but it's nice to have fellow editors check-in. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Excellent example, and shows how the most important work we do in Editor Retention isn't what we say on this page, it is what we do when no one is looking. Dennis - 2¢ 23:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC

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

Symbolic change

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

Even if it is only symbolic - not one woman? 72.223.98.118 (talk) 03:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
A situation that is easily resolved. Do you have someone in mind? The members list is here. Maybe someone will see this and volunteer?```Buster Seven Talk 07:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I name Anne Delong, Anna Frodesiak and SlimVirgin as coordinators from the above permissions. All excellent editors.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
The only problem I see is being all admin. They aren't very active here, but I would trust the judgement of any or all. I even nominated Anna for admin, and supported Anne in hers early on. Slim has been around longer than me but I hope she knows I trust her. We can't just declare, so if most of the others agree, then its fine. That assumes these want it. Really, it has no power (he says after Mark makes a declaration....), it is more about willingness to rally the troops around an idea, or make technical decisions with the others, not solo. I really didn't think about gender when selecting, I just picked familiar names that are already involved. Slim is probably less likely to get involved, she has other projects like the Gender Gap that she founded, but Anne and Anna....I would love to see them more involved here. Not because they are female, but because I think a great deal of both of them, and they are new to being admin, with a fresh memory of how it feels to NOT have the tools. Dennis - 2¢ 20:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Mark Miller and Dennis, for your confidence. It's true that I haven't been very active in the project since signing up; I've been sidetracked into the G13 rescues, which is more about retaining content than new editors, but has to be done right away. I hope to be more active in the future. I do try to follow the discussions and have occasionally put in my opinion. I will happily help out in any way that I can, and it would be useful to know more about the inner workings of a WikiProject, but at this point it would likely be quicker for the more active members to make changes themselves than to explain to me how to do them. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Mark, Dennis and Buster, thanks for thinking of me. I'd be happy to help out with Anne and Anna. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Excellent. I'm sure the others will approve as well, you have a lot of experience in helping others, as well as the tech stuff and the bit, so that works out swimmingly. I really thought you would have had too much on your plate or I would listed you to begin with. In an unrelated email, Anna told me she is looking at devoting time in other areas and probably couldn't help out. There really isn't much to do, but it still helps to have experienced people offering guidance when it's needed. Dennis - 2¢ 02:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
If nothing else, the ladies might know of some people who they think are deserving of EotW recognition who haven't been recognized yet. And, maybe, we can try to find a way to maybe try to find some ways to build strongly "collaborative" efforts here or in other WF entities which if "publicized" (like editathons) might help bring in some more ladies. John Carter (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Many thanks, everyone. I look forward to helping. I'll keep an eye on the page at first to get a feel for what others are doing. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
As there are no objections, I have added SlimVirgin's name to the list. Others can be added to the list in the future if needed, or removed, but it is my opinion that this is best done with a majority of active coordinators agreeing. The little things can probably done with less formality. Dennis - 2¢ 23:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Where a helping hand might come in handy

Why have you linked Isaacl to the letter U? -- GoodDay (talk) 03:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Either because today's show is brought to you by the letter U ;-), or it's just a typo; I'm guessing Buster7 meant to use the {{u}} template. I've removed the link. isaacl (talk) 03:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
@Goodday. isaacl is correct. I used the wrong brackets. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for Admin

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

RFAs can be rough. Can you imagine what my RFA would be like? GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I do know that an RfA can be very ugly, and you can still pass, but instances like that are very rare. My RfA [9] was like that, and I expected it to fail half the time, so that does give me a bit of empathy. Dennis - 2¢ 22:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
But do we want to create an environment where opposes are attacked and cursed at? Intothatdarkness 22:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
That is already part of the problem. Opposers are more likely to get jumped on now, but that doesn't stop things from spiraling down, as others jump in to defend them. I don't have the answers. A few ideas, but that is more for the talk page there. My goal would be to get people discussing it there to consider the Editor Retention perspective. RFA can not only run off candidates, but opposers and supporters as well. Dennis - 2¢ 22:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
The culture already seems to be moving toward equating opposing at RfA with disruption (if not something worse), so I don't think there will be much concern about driving off those who oppose at RfA. RfA is just a symptom, not the problem. Intothatdarkness 22:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Don't think it's really moving that way, it has been that way for a while. Ask Eric. Keep in mind, it is pretty difficult be disruptive in a support vote, easy to in an oppose (if we look only at the initial votes) so it isn't shocking that this is where most the problems might be found, if we are honest. But what I see is an arguably "bad" oppose vote that should simply be ignored, and instead support people pile on the guy, giving it more credibility than it deserves. Yes, the vote is stupid, but so what. The Crats aren't. This is one of the reasons I wondered if getting rid of threaded debate in the poling section and forcing it into a bottom discussion session would be better (again, not a debate for here), but its another example of how the reaction to an event is often 10x more disruptive than the event itself. A stupid "I don't like him" vote explodes into a bar brawl with stools flying out the window, when it made no difference to begin with. I don't know how to fix that, really, but it is quite common. Dennis - 2¢ 23:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
When an admin refers to oppose voters as "fucking morons" there's clearly a problem. But again, I think you've got the wrong focus. RfA is a symptom of the overall problem, not the problem itself. In editor retention terms, RfA or any process that grants higher tool access will always be an issue. Intothatdarkness 23:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
That is very true, and all my efforts to learn from this experience may be for naught. Without judging any individual, it is still something you hate to see, so you feel compelled to say "why?" and "is there something I can do to make this better?". And you always hope someone has a great idea you haven't thought of, or at least a new perspective. Dennis - 2¢ 23:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I've asked Thomas.W to return to the 'pedia. GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
It will probably be a month or so before I email him. A scar that builds over a week won't heal in a day. Dennis - 2¢ 22:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I for one will be looking much more closely at who is doing the nominating from now on. Pushing average quality candidates forward on the back of a high profile Admin. nomination isn't going to be less convincing when we actually see an average candidate have their technical - and worse behavioural - qualities examined and found wanting as in this case. There are some Admins who should, frankly, step away from the limelight rather than pushing their latest protege forward. Leaky Caldron 22:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Leaky, we aren't here to debate quality of candidate or nominating admin, just the ideas about how the process costs us editors. This isn't an admin board, it is a project specifically focused on editor retention only. Dennis - 2¢ 23:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Don't nominate inadequate, fragile candidates as if they are they latest bright young Admin. nugget just discovered. Do better research before presenting candidates with skeletons waiting to rattle. Then they will not leave when rejected by the wider community. Leaky Caldron 23:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Again, not really the place for it nor really helpful. You are making generalized comments about a class of editors (nominators), but that audience is at WT:RFA, not here. Dennis - 2¢ 23:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
No doubt people will follow your view and ignore mine, we all know how things swing here. But if you nominate someone who turns out to be a dud candidate and then leaves, please don't deny culpability, because you nominated them without doing more background. Leaky Caldron 23:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
The point is, this isn't the place to decide who is a dud and who isn't. As for your general concept, "dud" is in the eye of the beholder. If a candidate fails miserably with 67% of the vote, that still means that a supermajority of users thought they would be a good admin, so lets put this in perspective. I don't know that any US President has gotten 67% of the vote, ever. So I refuse to call someone a "dud" when more than half of the people want them to be admin. Dennis - 2¢
Indeed, there should be a way to screen RFA candidates before they are nominated. This would avoid frustration & retirement in that area. GoodDay (talk) 04:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I have my own way, documented at User:Dennis Brown/RfA. Nominating someone isn't something I take lightly, particularly if I'm at the top. And I document it so I can learn from lessons along the way. Things like this aren't common, nor mandatory. If you look down, most candidates get a full blown review page which includes all the same templates from RFA, plus itemized points, critique and coaching. And if they aren't ready, I tell them there. If they are, I try to prepare them for what to expect, give guidance on what to do (since most aren't RFA regular voters) and such. I'm sure there are other ways to do it, but I sincerely doubt that most nominators are willing to go through as much effort. The problem is, it is easy to just stick two paragraphs of flattery on top of a page, and if they become admin, you have one in the "win" column, if they don't, you can walk away from carnage relatively unscathed. I've had 6 pass, 4 fail and 2 pending. I'm not afraid to take risk in nominations (such as Carrite) but I do at least prepare them off and on wiki, to the best of my abilities. Dennis - 2¢ 13:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
While not going with the tone of the above remarks, it does seem relevant to editor retention to suggest that nominators consider the likelihood that their candidate might react this way if the RfA goes off the rails: Noyster (talk), 12:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
It is, which is why we are steering it away from individuals and onto general concepts. Dennis - 2¢ 13:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
In agreement with Polls/Surveys being seperate from related discussions. I believe it would lower the temperature at RFAs & other places, thus maybe cutting down on resulting retirements. GoodDay (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
As we discussed previously on the Requests for adminship talk page, I suggest the process would benefit from being moderated. In an initial phase, the moderator would consolidate people's feedback and build up a summary of advantages and disadvantages, rewording as required to preserve the points being made while removing personal animus. This should trim down redundant conversation, making it easier for the entire thread to be followed and encouraging more participation, since the summary provides a convenient manner to catch up on the discussion. A final phase could allow contributors to provide their views on whether or not, based on the overall summary, Wikipedia would benefit from the candidate receiving administrative privileges. The bureaucrats can then judge the outcome of the conversation, determining if in the end, a consensus of commenters supports the candidacy. isaacl (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Didn't read Thomas' RFA. I hope he didn't get borked. GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Without respect to Thomas, I will just say that the success rate of an RFA is more attuned to someone else's ability to dig up dirt than it is your abilities, as anyone that has been here long enough to arguably have the experience to do the job, has skeletons or bad diffs. Dennis - 2¢ 23:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Isaacl, as I have explained to you several times recently, the idea of RfA 'moderating' or 'clerking' has been rejected several times. The vast majority of RfA voters are one-offs, leaving only a very small group of serious, competent, regular voters. It's that pool of thousands of one-off pile-oners who need to get the message that their trolling will not be tolerated. There is another group who occasionally use RfA for tactical voting against all things admin. They know who they are, and they claim that as prolific content providers they have a right to disrupt RfA and be uncivil anywhere else. Some have been T-banned already but we can only hope that given time they will learn to treat Wikipedia as a serious project and not as an Internet playground where they can hide behind the anonymity that has become an Internet tradition. In Rl at board meetings or union meetings, people who can't express themselves reasonably and in context are rapidly shown the door. This page is about editor retention, but to be quite honest, there are some editors who I would gladly see the back of, because their attitude towards admins and other users completely negates any 'good' work they are doing.
For anyone to suggest that the sheer act of politely and reasonably opposing an RfA is considered disruptive, is absolute nonsense. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Moderation would be quite effective in addressing these issues—managing trolls, pile-on voters, and disruptive comments—just as it is in real life, so here's hoping consensus views will change. I'm not sure who you're replying to regarding politely and reasonably opposing a candidate; I agree that considered, constructive comments are not disruptive. isaacl (talk) 11:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Someone further up the page said: The culture already seems to be moving toward equating opposing at RfA with disruption (if not something worse). I think that is either a totally short sighted observation, or just plain POV in an attempt to stir things up. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I tend to think that your denial of the culture is either short-sighted or an example of OWN of policy. You're too vested in the process to look at it any other way, which is fine, but that doesn't automatically mean that you're right about it. Intothatdarkness 17:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Having suffered the "slings and arrows" of an unsuccessful attempt at adminship, I can speak from experience that the aftermath is an emotional low. In hindsight, I'm glad I didn't make it, but that doesn't lessen the pain of rejection by your peers. ```Buster Seven Talk 16:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Continuing the efforts of others

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

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

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

I don't wish to see anyone banned, who hasn't committed vandalism, socking, evading. In the end, it's Arbcom's choice. I only hope that the parties will respect that choice, whatever it is. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
This is tough. Obviously, I have an opinion in the matter, and I've expressed it at Arb and other places. At the same time, I don't want to see the whole issue debated here, so we have to respect those that disagree with you and I, John. So I'm going to punt on all things Eric in this statement, and focus purely on the idea of adopting and mentoring. Worm That Turned used to have a really rock solid adoption program, he is a WER member and is retiring from Arb in a few weeks, to live off that fat retirement check, we can assume ;) He would be the right person to be involved or at least a consultant, as he is extremely familiar with these kinds of programs, and has done it before. Even without this case, our mentoring/adoption efforts are lagging, on the whole. Dennis - 2¢ 21:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Maybe something like a regular specifically "New Editor Collaboration of the (week, month, millenium)" effort might be best. Adoption is very useful, but is maybe a bit more time-intensive than a lot of us are ready for. But there are a lot of underdeveloped, and, in some cases, non-existent fairly important articles which might be both interesting enough for newer editors to maybe want to spend some time on them and maybe learn some of the ropes of editing and developing content in the process. Maybe, and this is just a maybe, maybe some of the tangential things that could be done in the process would be to develop wikisource content from older encyclopedias which could be imported here with attribution, give some pointers on how to use the internet and subscription databanks for finding content, helping newer editors pinpoint desired subscription databanks information that they don't have direct access to, that sort of thing. John Carter (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I think that, in principle, this is a good idea ... I remember a while ago I was considering proposing a "newbie FA collaboration", in which essentially experienced editors working on bringing an article to FA (or GA) would list the article on a coordination page and what they would like help with (e.g., finding sources, copyediting, expansion of a section, etc.), and a newer editor interested in learning about that subject could make contact and work to bring an article to GA or FA, which would have the effect of making those processes less intimidating, and getting new editors involved in content right away. Go Phightins! 21:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't mean to put too fine a point on this, but this is exactly how I got my first two GAs, an FA, and a TFA. All thanks to Eric. I wasn't new, but new to writing "real" articles instead of gnoming. Dennis - 2¢ 21:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Eric was also instrumental in introducing me to Dr. Blofeld and motivating me to get Keith Moon and The Who in the state they are now. The great thing about Eric is he won't let you sit back and do the "heavy lifting" for you, but he will guide you in the direction of writing content so you learn a lot more. That's the sort of mentor that would make a real difference around here. The problem is that learning that Eric is a good editor takes time and effort, knowing that telling another editor to fuck off is not exactly civil, er, isn't Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Eric's strength I think lies in copyediting. I'm yet to see a better general copyeditor on here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Co-op was looking for volunteer mentors to participate in a pilot program starting in January 2015. It's not quite clear to me what it entails—perhaps Go Phightins! can expand on this?—but the group has been looking at ways to improve the effectiveness of mentorship/adoption. isaacl (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I was about to say the same, and call User:I JethroBT over to give a rundown on it. I chatted to him about WP:CO-OP at Wikimania, and thought it was a great idea. We've also got WP:ADOPT, which I haven't looked at for a while... and the WP:TEAHOUSE, which is a pretty good resource for connecting old users with new. I do hope to get more involved in all 3 projects come January. WormTT(talk) 07:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Worm. I already have one foot out the door here, suitcase in hand, with no map. I can't say when I'll be back. While WER isn't solving all the problems, it is asking the right questions, and unquestionably, has some of the finest people doing the asking. For that, I am grateful. Dennis - 2¢ 17:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
@Worm That Turned, Isaacl, and Dennis Brown: Sorry, that ping didn't get to me for whatever reason. But yes, we are definitely looking for people who are interested in doing some one-on-one mentorship with newer editors at the Co-op. I'll be making a more official and substantive post about this here today or tomorrow, but if folks are interested and want to offer their time to mentor even just one person for our pilot in January, I'd encourage them to sign up here. We'll be starting to open up discussions with mentors soon about the ins-and-outs of the space. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

real-life retired people who are active or potential wikipedians

Hi. I just read this article [10] and my sense is that real-life retired people might be a strong group of active or potential wikipedians -- worth special targeting for attraction and retention? Thanks for your thoughts. Fgnievinski (talk) 15:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

They already are a rather strong group of active wikipedians, but I agree that they could be stronger, particularly perhaps for what might be called content of a somewhat local nature, like people from an area where they live, the history or significant features of the local area, etc. If anyone could figure out a way to try to directly reach such individuals, I would like to hear it. John Carter (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't quite retired when I did this and the rest of the suite of related articles including creating the parent project, but I am drawing my pension now. If any real-life retired people want to do an article about their area, I'd be happy to guide them. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
These places have information about recruiting retirees and invalids.
—Wavelength (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Wavelength Thanks for these resources. I got a little lost among too many of them though. Could you please single out one of them for us to pick up? Thanks! Fgnievinski (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
It looks like there's funded project dealing with a similar topic! Let's centralize discussions there, shall we: meta:Grants talk:IEG/Senior Citizens Write Wikipedia#Retirement-age Wikipedians. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I am singling out the fourth item listed.
—Wavelength (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Czech initiative
Several people here and elsewhere have said that our content regarding what might be called "historical" matters (both "History of" articles and articles about historical events and individuals) is among the least well developed we have. I would think that maybe at least some retirees might be among the more interested and willing to develop content of that type, and, honestly, for bios of mayors of Belfast or York from centuries ago, for instance, they might be among the easier content to develop, because in many if not most of those cases there won't be a lot of new developments in the topic in the past centuries or decades. For stuff like that, maybe finding ways to also get some old useful PD texts at commons and elsewhere might help a lot too. I know at wikisource, proofreading is generally achievable even by people without advanced degrees, and a lot of broadly historical material is easily available and in some cases ripe for being proofread and added to articles here. John Carter (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention/Archive_24&oldid=1189630393"