Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

RFC for editing window

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Syntax differentiation in editing window was dropped on my talk page, and is one of those technical things that affects editor retention, since it concerns the ease of use. I don't expect everyone to agree on it, which is fine, as what matters is having the discussion and determining if the changes would be beneficial. This is probably one of the less obvious retention issues, but quite important because it their first impression before and during their first edit. All of us are so used to the interface here we might forget how confusing and intimidating it can be for new users. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Want to know why people get frustrated with arguing on Wikipedia

Exhibit A: Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles. Reams of discussion, arguing, and polling over whether to capitalize the word "the". Powers T 13:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

  • 1) Don't cast a pox on both houses, one side has our MoS and all other known style guides on their side. One side has little more than a list of band websites. 2) Orthography isn't inherently lame, 3) things that are lame can be easily avoided and ignored, but you took the time to !vote, comment and now deride the mediation in general here. So you are obviously somewhat invested in disregarding style guides and making a bizarre exception for the Beatles with little more reasoning than "that's the way it is, thats the bands name". One side is correct, one side is wrong. I say its those who are wrong that are causing the time wasting. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Did I mention that one side has Harvard, Duke, Cambridge and Oxford on their side? Also Lewisohn, Spitz, Harry, Davies, Norman, Gould and Miles. What's the good source for "The" again? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I think my comment was more along the lines that I thought the average Wikipedia reader who doesn't edit (and there's millions of 'em) wouldn't care whether "the" was capitalised or not and it wouldn't detract from their reading, and hence the amount of time we've spent arguing about it is disproportionate to its significance. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The fact that you'd bother to bring the insults and aspersions to an unrelated page only reinforces my point. Actions like that are what drive editors away. Powers T 22:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Powers, it was not my intention to bring "insults and aspersions to an unrelated page", but really, isn't that what you did when you started this thread? We are actively trying to reslove the dispute, a dispute that will not just go away if we ignore it. I assert that no matter how silly a dispute, efforts to resolve it are not a waste of time. I did not intend to insult Ritchie, I just find it curious that by !voting against the consensus he is actually prolonging the dispute he finds so annoying and senseless. So while I fully respect his choice, I don't see how !voting and then deriding the process is logical. If you participate then you are just as guilty as anyone of prolonging the dispute. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
For the record, I didn't feel insulted by GabeMc at all. He's entitled to his own view and (as long as he's civil) work on whatever he likes on Wikipedia, as is anyone else. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Ritchie, same to you. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 08:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

More CSD arguments

I'm banging my head against a wall at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bad B*tch Club. I passed an article out of Articles for Creation (albeit one with multiple issues tagged on it), realised I shouldn't have done, and sent it to AfD. Now people think I'm incompetent and should get off Wikipedia per WP:CIR (well, they probably don't, but still....) I just can't believe how much confusion and disagreement there seems to be over CSDs - no wonder newbies get scared by them if we can't agree on consensus to apply them. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Hmm, I just voted there myself. No one that matters thinks that was incompetent, they just think he is rude. I certainly did, which is why I said something. I make mistakes all the time, we all do. Laboring a very harmless mistake (ie: did your mistake break anything? I didn't think so) is pointless. I don't like to see that kind of stuff either, which is why I'm quick to jump in in those circumstances. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Response of New Editors to a Welcome

My guess is I've done over 1000 personal Welcomes in the past two years. I have no intention of stopping. But....I thought I would point out, FWIW, that only a handful (as in .0005 %) of those welcomes have prompted any of the new editors to approach me for help or anything. I'm sure many of them had early "situations". But they did not ask their "welcomer' for assistance. Only three have left a TY. I would have thought that the need to connect would have prompted much more contact. Believing that "Results are the GURU" there are some important paradigms to consider. If contact with a friendlier editor before contact with a less friendly editor is part of our goal, we are missing the mark. ``Buster Seven Talk 18:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Although a similar comparison to 1000 less friendly welcomes would be instructive, just based on absolute numbers, it would seem that most editors in this sample were not seeking a need to connect with the initial editors with whom they interacted. Accordingly, it may not be necessary to consider this as part of the goals of a genial welcome message. It would be interesting to try to evaluate the effect of your welcome on these editors, with respect to their future dealings with disputes (but of course it would be time consuming to compile this information, along with a control sample of data from a similar number of other new editors). isaacl (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I would be willing to the leg-work and info gathering of that type of a long-range study if someone else set it up and instructed me on "How". ```Buster Seven Talk 20:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
One approach is as follows: investigate, say, the first 500 edits of the editors you welcomed, and see (a) if they remained editors or left; (b) did they get into any discussions with others; (c) how effective were they in interacting collegially. Then do the same for another set of randomly selected editors who were not welcomed at all, and a set of editors who were welcomed by a specific template. isaacl (talk) 23:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Whoa! That sounds like more work than its worth. At my rate of pay here, I'm gonna have to take back my generous offer especiaaly since, based on what Steven Walling says, some explanatory results are already available from German WP. ```Buster Seven Talk 02:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Good A/B testing is a typical way to determine the effectiveness of one approach versus another. But as I stated, I appreciate the amount of time it would take to properly analyze the retention rate of editors and how differences in their Wikipedia experiences influence this, as well as their success in engaging productively with other editors. It would be nice if some funded studies (either through the Wikimedia Foundation or academia) could help out. isaacl (talk) 02:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, I've got to comment completely anecdotally, but in the relatively few times I've given out {{welcome only}}, I've gotten a much higher rate of thank yous and responses than using {{welcome}} or any of the larger welcome templates. Ryan Vesey 19:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Maybe we could get a few editors to disperse lets say 500 larger welcomes and another few the simple succinct one above. I would be willing to commit to the larger 500 in a 3 week late Sept period. It might provide some useful comparisions and prevent the use of welcomes that really don't serve the purpose they were intended for.```Buster Seven Talk 20:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Maybe you ought to consider the different cultures in play here. I know things such as welcome baskets are popular in the US, but many here in the UK prefer to remain under the radar, and find such things an embarrassment. Malleus Fatuorum 20:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
@ Malleus. I don't know how I can determine the location of the new editor as I'm doing a very random selection of them. I'm sure your right about the difference in how its received based on continent, but wouldn't the mere randomness equal out the potential for twisted results.```Buster Seven Talk 21:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Given the overwhelming number of editors from North America probably not. Malleus Fatuorum 21:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
What approach with UK editors is best?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Despite our reputation for diplomacy, I'd suggest toning down the charm factor. A customer service smile and welcome that Americans are inured to can come across as smarmy to Brits. It would be interesting to see some stats on Geo location by hour, If I'm editing at 10 AM in the UK there are very few Yanks online. In theory it might be worth creating a time dependant template that was slightly different according to the time of day it was transcluded, but my preference is to have lots of different templates so that people can pick one they feel reflects what they'd like to say. I sometimes include a wikiproject link when I do a welcome, I don't know if it helps the WikiProjects, but I'd hope that the newbie at least noticed that the person welcoming them had read what they'd written and told them about some likeminded people. ϢereSpielChequers 10:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
The real purpose of the welcome is about getting them off to a good start with some links. Many are independent enough that this is all they need so we shouldn't see the low feedback as a negative.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Why is that the real purpose? I feel that the purpose of the welcome should be to "welcome" the editor. Ryan Vesey 21:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Which is precisely the dichotomy I referred to above. Malleus Fatuorum 21:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
One can simply say "hi" or one can come bearing something helpful. I find the latter to be the real purpose...something about teaching a man to fish.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
More of a missed opportunity than a negative. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I think the Welcome message needs to be explicit in saying something like "don't hesitate to ask me for help". Otherwise, the newcomer may think it's an automated process, or a standard greeting. Like I did for a few years... —MistyMorn (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Misty, can I ask for an opinion on mine? (I just stole wording from you) On personal preference, I won't be giving out long multi-link messages, but any improvements/suggestions people have for the one I created would be welcome. Ryan Vesey 22:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Well that one's clearly van invitation. Though I don't know how Malleus, for example, would feel about being told by someone he's never met I'm so glad you decided to volunteer your time to the encyclopedia. Maybe (just a longshot) something along the lines of Hi! You're very welcome here, and I hope you enjoy your time spent editing. Just 2 half cents, —MistyMorn (talk) 22:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, I see your point, but there is something very "me" about the I'm so glad... That's one aspect that would be difficult for me to change. I really do get happy when I see productive new editors. Ryan Vesey 06:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

(od) Throwing a list of links at people, which many new editors I have met in real life say is intimidating or looks like a message you broke one of our many rules, is the reason why our current welcome templates suck at engendering a response. As part of my work project getting data on templates, we tested various forms of welcome template in German Wikipedia. We tested one with a clear, numbered list of links not unlike the bulleted list present in the current welcome we use here. Another was a simple paragraph of welcome text. The shorter version with fewer links helped 84% of new Wikipedians keep contributing, where only 64% of those who got a laundry list of links kept editing. If people want to get a more positive response, I would suggest we fix the default welcome so that it only includes a friendly thank you for contributing, and a link to your talk page so that the new editor can reach if you they have questions. (If you don't want your talk page used, a link to the Teahouse is good too.) Steven Walling • talk 22:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

    • So that is what you guys do all day. ;) Actually pretty useful information as well. I wonder how big the sample was, and if there is any cultural differences that might explain some of the results. I would be surprised if anything made 84% of new accounts on enwp keep contributing, considering the sheer volume of fluff/spam/coi accounts we get registered here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I know that having them respond to the welcomer is not important. It's nice and is payment, in a way, for the welcoming effort. But its not important. I'd do it anyway. Whats important is that they stay past any roadblocks... that they achieve their greatness ...and that WP stays viable. . ```Buster Seven Talk 06:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that any handy links for new editors should live permanently in the left hand menu column, maybe under a collapsible "Getting started" menu. Adding such links to a personal message is just patching up a badly-designed UI. Any personal message should be just that. It might be taken one step further, along the lines of "Check this box if you don't want me to pop back later and see how you are getting on." — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I hadn't thought about it here before (being a typical American I suppose) but Malleus does raise an interesting point about the cultural differences. During the limited traveling I've done in western and eastern Europe, with a contingent of people literally from all over western Europe, I have noticed that we yanks tend to be the the first to say "hi" to a strangers, and the reaction is often not a warm "hi" back, but instead "why are you talking to me?", particularly in eastern Europe. Purely anecdotal observation but demonstrated many times, and because of my occupation, this is the kind of detail I take notice of. I'm still inclined to welcome people, perhaps out of habit and my own cultural bias, but I think he is right that not everyone wants to be noticed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

This section in many ways illustrates just how out of touch the wiki establishment is with how the project appears to the legion who actually do the vast majority of the long tail editing. How exactly is a bureaucratic robo-template pointing to peripheral minutia supposed to encourage the participation of people whose negative experiences tend to come from being bludgeoned with "rules" and such (instead of say, reasoning)? As much as "if you can't beat them, join them" is sound advice to those who don't have a choice, the fact remains that most who don't have a heavily vested interest do: leave and tell all their acquaintances of the unfortunate experience of running into wikicrats (my own talk page provides examples of such run ins). This hardly encourages those with the requisite expertise and ostensibly valuable time to expend the effort. What's perhaps even more alarming is that this is what a well-intended if procedurally misguided retention discussion looks like, where-as most of the tips delineated on the front page of this project seems to assume that retaining the inside circle of wikicrats instead of content editors is the main underlying goal.

To be fair, nobody is spending their time here to intentionally make the experience and overall quality worse. But in order to do so some understanding must be reached as to why the people who matter (ie. millions of viewers) care about wiki in the first place: it's a good summary of the technical consensus on any given topic. This is not to be confused with maintaining the internal wiki hierarchy/politics (including the fascination with citing procedure/rules instead of making sense). The further processes move away from directly correlating with this goal, the less likely they are to achieving any desirable result except by accident. Agent00f (talk) 01:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Many editors put a "Welcome" on a new editor's talk page after reverting his first edit. So it's easy to interpret it as a chastisement, a way to tell new editors to know their place and not to do anything without approval of more experienced editors. And I recall having someone I was having a dispute with put one on my talk page, which seemed more a patronising putdown than anything else. Basically any form of communication that comes as a template is seen as spam, and not a personal message or a sincere invitation to talk to you. Barsoomian (talk) 10:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I often welcome newbies I come across. Sometimes I do so after noticing a goodfaith edit by an editor with a redlinked talkpage. Many I welcome are editors whose new article I've just categorised. One of my first positive interactions on this site was when I saw that my first article had been categorised by someone else, so I suppose I'm hoping that the people I greet that way will get the same feeling I had of being accepted by Wikipedia. That said we could do with some A/B testing of different welcome messages, I know there was some research does early last year that our existing Welcomes work as welcomed users stay longer than unwelcomed ones, but there is huge room to get them to work better. And it will be difficult to measure them as the context that matters as well as the content. A boring tldr welcome from someone who you've just collaborated with is a more real welcome than a friendly sounding template from someone who has just reverted your edits "per ENGVAR" or some such acronym. ϢereSpielChequers 10:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with Barsoomian – I often see new Wikipedians who create articles and then receive a so-called welcome message that is immediately followed by a deletion template from the same person who "welcomed" them. Ottawahitech (talk) 03:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  • An accompaning welcome softens the blow of the deletion template and other negative correspondence. Most welcomes also provide resources that the new editor can pursue to rid himself of his dilemma. Learning happens during the process of searching for assistance. Welcoming new editors before they encounter problems is preferred, but welcomes after the new editor steps in s__t should not be discouraged. ```Buster Seven Talk 17:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The issue is that these disingenuously placed notices (eg. used to escalate to warnings and then sanctions) are only comforting to those who are more about rules than encyclopedia, which is the problem that wiki has right now in this regard: editors who want to be productive need to avoid the morass of the system. Frankly I can't see *any* reason why they would be used instead of a simple english explanation of what's wrong by anyone who was interested in the material at hand. Agent00f (talk) 12:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • That I agree with. The vast majority of "warnings" I give aren't templates for this reason, they are impersonal and aren't likely to create discussion by the editor. The purpose of the templates was to standardize and simplify notifications, so the proper information would be conveyed. The problem isn't so much the use, but the misuse, as you say, by people trying to tick off 3 templates so the can report to the boards for a block. Things like simple and obvious vandalism are fine for templates, but not situations benefit from a better explanation. Of course, 80% of the claims of vandalism are also mistaken. It is the most abuse term around here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I just happened to see a new contributor who has been bombarded with deletion notices within minutes of being welcomed Ottawahitech (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a bad call - in fact, even if the article remained unreferenced, it still has enough to "meat" to not go to A7, which should be reserved for obviously unsalvageable stuff. By comparison, I've done almost the same thing on this user, the important difference here is that the article title is blacklisted in articles for creation, which suggests to me that this isn't a new user, but a sockpuppet attempting to game the system. An important difference. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
This is a new contributor who looks like he can help enhance the elections in Germany section of Wikipedia for starters, and look at the reception he gets. He started by making 9 edits to Wikipedia yesterday, but then disappeared. All that is left are canned and conflicting messages posted to his talk page by three different Wikipedians. He has not participated since.
I am not faulting these three Wikipedians, it is the system that must be improved. Just my $.02 Ottawahitech (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
One of the problems is that Twinkle and scripts make it easy to template people without even half realising you're doing it, especially if cleaning a backlog of stuff. However, I wouldn't assume he's walked off - remember that casual Wikipedians only edit every now and again, so I wouldn't worry too much at the moment. However, that car-crash of PRODs, CSDs and AFDs is unpleasant. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
The new contributor created an article about himself (one of 14 candidates for the mayor of Stuttgart) I requested speedy deletion because I didn't see how this made him notable. Another editor disagreed and sent it to afd. I don't really see what the problem is. Wikipedia doesn't encourage autobiographies.Theroadislong (talk) 16:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
No, no no. Speedy deletion is not for things that are "not notable". AfD is. Newbies don't automatically understand WP:BLP and WP:PROUD, so the problem here is that you didn't cut them any slack, and people are concerned they've now been scared away with templates. It's a common problem I see when people argue that what they did was within policy - in this case it indeed was (or at least the BLP and "don't write autobiographies" bit was), but it's how you went about it that was the issue. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I tagged the article Werner Ressdorf with A7 "as an article about a real person that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject." My apologies I have re-read the A7 speedy details and note that "if the claim is credible, the A7 tag can not be applied." A subtle difference. I live and learn. Kind regards.Theroadislong (talk) 07:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

return to topic

If the Welcome Wagon Greeter People leave a bushel basket on your doorstep, containong grapefruit (which you have detested since grade school) and a tin of nuts (which you are allergic to), you dont scream after them, ..'You dumb f__k, What are trying to do? Kill me?" NO....you smile for the thoughtful personal friendliness and throw the offending fruit and nuts into the waste bin. Same here.```Buster Seven Talk 17:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Status|Active template removed from this WikiProject

There are hundreds (maybe thousands) of WikiProjects. Many of them are inactive, so when I saw someone had come up with the Template:WikiProject status which inserts the project into the Category:Active WikiProjects I decided to add it to this wikiproject. Unfortunately, it appears that my edit has been reverted with this comment "remove . custom here".

Can someone please help me decipher the reason for this revert? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I would guess basically for reasons of "clutter". I would support re-adding it, to the very bottom of the page. (Done. The content overlap with Template:WikiProject Footer is irritating. C'est la vie.)
This banner is only really useful for its categorisation, when used in active projects. It's not useful or important enough to be right at page-top (where it's a distraction, and sadly conditions editors to skip past templates). —Quiddity (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for restoring this wikiproject to the list of Active WikiProjects, Quiddity. Yes from what I have seen the only useful function of Template:WikiProject status is the inclusion of projects in their respective category (for the few of us who check contents of categories) - but I would love to find out otherwise :-) Ottawahitech (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Request for Admin Sanctions winding down

This was a proposal I started, which ended up under the umbrella RfC by User:Worm That Turned, Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Community de-adminship proof of concept but it is about wound down. I learned a lot from the experience, from how to craft a proposal and work with the community to refine it, and the simple point that a lot of people have talked about admin sanctions, but most people are not wanting to move away from our current system of ArbCom only to deal with the more serious admin issues. Thanks to everyone that participated. I'm expecting it to be marked historical. For now, I will keep poking in on other policy discussions and try to make sure the ideas behind editor retention are represented in those discussions as well, and invite you to do the same. I have some other ideas for us here at WP:WER, but will save them for a later date. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The sock-puppet investigation process is possibly removing more good editors than bad

Not so ironically, I just blocked Mully Ponchkim for being a sock of Mully Ponchkin, who is a sock of yet someone else and was blocked earlier. That the second sock declares they have never socked is particularly telling and hypocritical. I just breezed through this, but didn't see anything work reading. Hatting via WP:DENY. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Because I tend to bring balancing points-of-view to articles that currently unduly promote establishment or orthodox points-of-view in a non-neutral fashion and as if they are incontrovertible facts, some of my contributions are unwelcome and are even resented and actively resisted by the editors who have built those articles in that image. Consequently I choose to use different accounts for different subject areas (I never let them overlap).

What this practice, combined with the tactics that the bigots use in their attempts to silence me, has given me, is an insight into how inhumane and iniquitous the current SPI system is.

Let me illustrate what I mean with some examples.

  1. After exhausting his arsenal of rhetoric and hyperbole, but failing to win his argument that it should be assumed that a law was always obeyed rather than pollute an article with details of the many circumstances in which it wasn't, an editor decided to raise an SPI against me, alleging that I was a sock-puppet of a previous, now blocked, editor who had similar "disruptive" views to myself. The SPI was closed as "confirmed sock", despite a CU returning "inconclusive"; based on a simplistic analysis and WP:DUCK verdict by an administrator with a previous history of involvement with the already blocked editor. So that account of mine was blocked, and the article still contains the unbalanced and dishonest content.
  2. After contributing to another article, in a completely different subject area, another account of mine was blocked in similar circumstances as the sock of another previously blocked editor. This time, despite an "unlikely" CU verdict, an administrator, again still apparently nursing bruises from earlier encounters, decided that the CU data was probably unreliable and that "behavioral" evidence was enough to justify an indefinite block.
  3. Elsewhere, after supporting an IP editor's attempt to bring balancing, but unwelcome to the bigots, information to an article, I was accused of being a sock, reported as such to an administrator, who then abused me and threatened me with a sock action. I withdrew from that argument, as I didn't want to lose another account.

So, with little or no evidence, no real investigations, no opportunity to defend myself (both SPIs were carried out without me being informed) and no offer of a knowledgeable "advocate" to defend me or even offer advice, and no account being taken of the possibility of a mistake or (in one case) likelihood that even though the "sock master" operated from the same continent as myself, that there was a chance we were 2 different people, I have been confirmed as the sock of 2 unrelated masters and told by an administrator that I am probably also the sock of a third. I can't of course, reveal to them the absurdity of their conclusions - if I did, they would probably conclude that all 4 of us are the same person!

I believe that we need to scrap the current SPI system as totally unfit for purpose, and probably responsible for summarily eliminating very many valuable and committed editors. Or is it really the case that we would rather block 1000 good editors than let a real sock continue to edit unhindered? Let's see how long it is now before someone raises an SPI against this account! Mully Ponchkin (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I think there may be a couple of points you are missing here. In my opinion, the SPI system is not only a very necessary process, but I feel also that it could be further tightened up and technically improved. I've blocked 100s of users, many of them socks, and investigated cases without the use of CU tools; in my experience, the number who have been blocked by admins by accident is extremely low. We have both WP:DUCK and technical WP:CU evidence on which to make our decisions to block accounts. Naturally we can't rule out some collateral damage, eg. shared IPs (and that can be rectified), but what socks don't understand is that they are the cause of that collateral damage and that the blame lies with them and not with the SPI systems and/or the admins who do the blocking.
I'm sure you are aware of the policy (this is not a simple guideline) at WP:SOCK. You have admitted above to using multiple accounts, hence whether the blocks were concluded technically or through 'Duck', they were possibly justified. The policy is one of our most important and its text is clear, and based upon it, you may wish to decide whether or not your use of several accounts complies with the spirit and regulations in which the use of several accounts may be acceptable within the terms of that policy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
An SPI system may be required, but the current one should be scrapped as unfit for purpose, its operation is iniquitous and it simply causes too much collateral damage. You say you've blocked many socks, but you have no way of knowing that, what you can bet though is that you've blocked many non-socks, as socks, and don't seem to care to admit that. You say the number blocked by accident is low, but you have no way of confirming that either. But even one is too many, or do you think that's a price worth paying and that the blunderbuss approach is not only fun for the trigger-happy, but sends a strong message too? WP:DUCK is a license to block any and every editor who crosses you, and what is the defence against "I've made up my mind about you, and I want you blocked - indefinitely - with no questions asked"? CU, as I know too well, is just another buzz-word, but with the same definition as I gave for WP:DUCK, there is no way to defend against its all too common abuse. Why aren't those blocked as socks given a fully reasoned rationale on their talk page? Why, in many cases, is nothing posted at all, even to inform the blocked user of the block? It is simply a medieval approach to "justice". You are submerged in water and if you drown you were innocent, and if you survive you are put to death as guilty. You attempt to defend collateral damage - as if it were defensible! You suggest shared IP consequences can be rectified - have you ever attempted that one - LOL - quack - LOL - quack. Then you blame the collateral damage victims of this inadequate system as the cause of it? Incredible. Multiple accounts are allowed as I use them, you should know that, I have not contraved any of the policies. Socks may be bad, in some circumstances (vote stacking, POV pushing, for example) but the current SPI process and the flimsy ground it operates on are inexcusable. Mully Ponchkim (talk) 08:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
You have repeatedly pushed against the mainstream point of view and have repeatedly been stymied. I think your experience shows a system that is protecting itself successfully, even if not in the exact right manner. Even after being blocked for sockpuppeting you have elected to create another sockpuppet to form your argument. I think this new account of yours should also be blocked. Binksternet (talk) 03:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
No, I've never "pushed against the mainstream point of view". An analogy would be correcting an article that claimed there was no drug abuse in the US because they had been made illegal many decades ago. Do you see the difference? Why should I be blocked, and under a false pretence, for improving the NPOV of an article? I was incorrectly blocked for socking, I hadn't socked. You typify the problem that I am highlighting here. Wiki would be better without your attitude, yet the current SPI process condones and encourages exactly your attitude. Mully Ponchkim (talk) 08:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I nearly fell off my chair by seeing the incredible irony of an editor saying "Wiki would be better without your attitude" on a talk page to do with a project about retaining editors. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Socks

It isn't uncommon for socks to claim "OMG, I've never socked! You are unfair!". Innocents do that as well, which is why I do a lot of reviews for socks when I'm not involved, but the vast majority of time, the block was well founded. But sock/trolling isn't that unusual as some people like to spend 2 minutes in order to waste a full hour of our time. This is exactly the kind of thing that distracts and destroys productivity around here, and just one more reason why sockpuppeting is an editor retention problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I've never used an innocent sock. I mean: I've never socked an innocent user. Huh? I'm sorry, I'll write write that again: I've never blocked an innocent sock. I've never lost an innocent user either, but my wife tells me I keep loosing my socks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I never loosen socks, when the world around me shrinks to the point where I need to go up a clothes size I just buy bigger socks. I also lose socks, but strangely never more than one from the same pair. Thankfully our sockhunting facilities on Wikipedia are much better than my own abysmal abilities, if they weren't then by now we'd be buried in the things. But I do wonder perhaps we should go on the offensive a little here? It shouldn't be too difficult to write a program that monitored RFAs and AFDs for multiple votes from editors logged into the same IP. I suspect it would do much for the retention of our good editors if they could be just a little more confident that the bad guys were being caught. ϢereSpielChequers 14:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
The best solution for the problem of losing one of a pair of socks is strategic: buy multiple pairs of the same sock. If you lose one sock you lose the use of a pair, but if you lose a second sock you have not suffered a further reduction in usability. Binksternet (talk) 16:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
That is what Checkuser is for. To see if any socks are sleeping in the dryer ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Those socks aren't lost! They've been stolen by a member of a subspecies of the common or garden Teaspoon Gnome (those are the little blighters which steal all the teaspoons). G.teaspoonus sockii use socks as sleeping bags, but they can't stand having things co-ordinated in their little homes (they hate things which match), so they will generally only ever steal one sock from each pair. Pesky (talk) 03:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

WereSpielhequers makes an excellent suggestion. I'm sure someone can come up with a script sthat monitored RFAs and AFDs for multiple votes from editors logged into the same IP. I'll ask someone who is pretty good at that sort of thing - at least until the Foundation pulls the plug on the ToolServer next year. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

  • I could see a lot of false positives, however. I've been seeing a lot more NAT action by ISPs, I assume due to the shortage of IPv4s, so it isn't uncommon to have a few people using the same IPs at the same time. And I have questions if that would be allowed under the privacy policy. If "Bob" and "Alice" are on the same NAT, and Bob wants to say that he is from Boise, and this script links Bob and Alice, it has effectively outed Alice. As tight as CUs are about running checks, and our policy is tougher now than before, then this probably would get shot down. A lot of registered users are very afraid of being geolocated and that could actually have a chilling effect on editor retention. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 09:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments by a new editor

"They never explain the main points and I get confused, and it brings my hopes down. People on Wiki. have tried to help, and sometimes they're "over explaining" it with all the policies. Sometimes when people "over explain", they don't understand that "over explaining" may lead to "no explaining". Do you get what I'm saying? It's that people need to explain more flexiblely and complex. Or just plain simple, or even use bullet points to explain instruction. It needs to be more easier to understand. I am really tired of all the policy links. Yes, I have read them, but I don't really understand or care to really read them when I know that I have helpful Wikipedians to explain "simply"." --Anonomous User:Anonomous 123...```Buster Seven Talk 03:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

  • This is interesting. Personally, I think it it difficult to explain some policies on here simply, like about image copyright and licensing issues. Maybe that is just me. But I think the user is correct in that there is a tendency to just vaguely wave to a policy or guideline page-- many of these pages are written in an accessible manner, but new users like this one would prefer to feel like an actual person is teaching them. I can appreciate the value in that. Still, statements like "Yes, I have read them but don't...care to really read them when I know that I helpful Wikipedians to explain them *simply*" rubs me the wrong way. This seems like the editor is failing to meet you halfway and learn things on their own. I mean, we are volunteers after all. I'm happy to help new users, but it is worrisome and a bad sign when they are unwilling to read anything. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 04:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Our complex policies and guidelines are so hard to find and when once found, so hard to understand, that they are possibly one of the major reasons for the decline in registrations and creations from new, good faith editors. Those who come here just to plant spam, vandalism, and other nonsense, will continue to simply barge in and do whatever they like. WP:ACTRIAL, rudely rejected by the foundation as being a project by a bunch of exclusionists, would have addressed both of these issues issue fairly and squarely. I am deeply concerned that having once promised a new landing page as an answer to their rejection, the WMF appears to have done nothing more about it for nearly 18 months. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree about the editors unwillingness to meet halfway. I don't mind holding the new editors hand to get across the first street they come to but they need to do a lot on their own. That's where the learning process begins. While I changed the User name to anonymous (to protect the innocent) I will say that they are not signing, they are not indenting, they are deleting un-necessarily from their own talk page. 3 editors have offered gentle assistance and still we see very little advancement. I started this thread because it sounded genuine and sincere. I'm not 100% sure anymore. ```Buster Seven Talk 04:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
I've helped well over 1,000 users who couldn't understand the policies and guidelines, but it's only a drop in the ocean. At the end of the day however, with over 4,000,000 articles, the complexity doesn't appear to have put too many people off. What there are no metrics for however, is the number of people who were and are being put off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kudpung (talk • contribs) 05:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
"I think it it difficult to explain some policies on here simply, like about image copyright and licensing issues." A number of people are trying to help by writing Plain and Simple versions of our policies, such as Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide and Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and of course the main Wikipedia:Plain and simple guide. Perhaps new users should first be directed to the Plain and Simple guides. If they still have questions, they could be directed to the more detailed policies. Just a thought. 64.40.54.42 (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
thanks 64.40----I have passed the links on to the editor. I am confident they will help her.```Buster Seven Talk 23:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
The problem with image policy is that it is spread out over a number of pafes and there is seriously no single location to find them all. It can be very difficult to explain when editors use one guideline only to be told it violates another. Image use and sourcing is very vague on a number of pages and no one seems really interested in fixing these issues.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
When it comes to WP:RS most editors have a habit of citing and linking to the policy. I just tell them "credible, independent sources not affiliated with the company." Or for WP:CORP, just ask, "have you been covered in the media?" Anyone asking if they meet notability, news coverage will probably answer their question. Am I butchering our policies with my gross generalizations and incorrect characterization? Probably. Do I achieve a better outcome in the form of an editor that gets what I mean? Most definitely. I spend much of my waking life just explaining Wikipedia to people, but the matter in which I do it would probably make most Wikipedians cringe. Corporate 14:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
"Can you find any news or magazine articles about it?" is a favourite line of mine. It's not a cast-iron way of meeting WP:N, but it's something most people understand. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
The tricky part is clarifying that not everything published in a newspaper is appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Evaluating notability is hard; one rule of thumb is to ask if in twenty years, will this piece of information be important to the topic? (Unfortunately, those who are focused on ensuring the article includes a specific point are often predisposed to answering this question positively.) isaacl (talk) 15:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Another retirement

User talk:Electriccatfish2. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Get editors to come back

User:Woz2 had 6,000 edits to his name, 4 featured articles and six years on Wikipedia before retiring over civility problems related to COI.

I felt disappointed that when he retired, it was like he vanished without anyone caring or even a slap on the wrist for the uncivil person that caused him to retire.

One of our goals is to "encourage departed editors to return." How do we mend something like that (or prevent it in the first place)? He feels Wikipedia is inherently hostile because of the anonymous model and I imagine civility is probably a top reason for retiring, but wounds can be healed. Corporate 15:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

  • I see Hipocrite was jumping on him about something, but not sure of the whole story to know if it was bigger, or if he had a lower threshold. I don't like to see people jump down people's gullets like that, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
There are many such. And others who hang on by the skin of their teeth. And many of those who do leave are grown-up enough to simply leave, without a "flounce", and therefore we (the community at large) don't know until we happen across their talk page, maybe several years later. Rich Farmbrough, 23:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC).
  • AFD is a conflict area. Reform of this to some degree would be required to reduce conflict. User:Woz2 mentions the conflict is sparked by editors who can't use WP:IDONTLIKEIT. IDONTLIKEIT (not a guideline or policy but often used) seems the most illogical of things, if opinion is not welcome why would your average editor ever engage in an AFD? All that you're left with would be a few editors/admin that know the policies and apply them, much like admins do in other parts of Wiki(such as blocking - we don't have a 'Blocks for discussion' etc). So either editor input is not required for AFD or editor input is required and 'IDONTLIKEIT' hits the grave yard. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 00:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The problems with the policies and guidelines are manyfold:

  1. Too many of them
  2. Too crufty
  3. Poorly written
  4. Often they fail to maintain the central reason for the policy and become a policy for the sake of it.

The deeper problem it the sclerotic nature of these pages. A few years ago I put a considerable amount of effort into re-writing a policy page, successfully. The result was a lot shorter and clearer, and could have been achieved by any competent person. Emboldened I moved on to a second page, where every attempt to make even the most minor improvement was rebuffed. I have seen this happen since on many occasions.

Supposing we could simplify, clarify and reduce policy, we would then need to look at how policy is used, and how guidelines are used. Certainly they should not be used as a rod to beat one's enemies, but this is often the case. We should perhaps discourage bald statements Per WP:FOO this should be deleted - maybe the templating system or a gadget could help by providing a tool for those who like (or indeed need) to constantly quote policy at, for example, deletion debates, to generate more clueful advice Our guideline 'Fooian articles (notability)' says "In the case of foos who aren't bars, the subject does not meet notability on this criteria."'

Also we really must get rid of template boxes. Rich Farmbrough, 23:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC).

Can you be clear what you mean by template boxes? Do you men like the AFD boxes that go into articles? Or something else? Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 00:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Some more:

5. Miscommunicated
- being conveyed via a unrepresentative WP:SHORTCUT acting as a headline, when the content is not conveyed or misconveyed.
- used outside its intended purpose.
- not a policy or guideline but conveyed in a way that implies it is.
6. Misunderstood
- its miscommunicated(see above).
- to complex to understand.
- conflicting with other policies or guidelines.
- has double meaning.
- contains caveats (caveat might be in a sub topic).
- is unstable or recently changed.
7. Not widely accepted
- If a policy or guideline is not widely accepted it can't be used or enforced effectively.
Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 14:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

RfA

I get the feeling that some work regarding RfA is going to be passing through here soon. There is no question that the current problems with RfA are an editor retention concern, and certainly not just about the admin candidates, but how it looks to any observer: enough to actually drive editors away in frustration. We've also lost a great many editors after being butchered unfairly at an RfA as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Whereas I have no doubt the Requests for Adminship (RfA) process is a factor for some editors, and I would welcome moves to make it a less confrontational process, I think the vast majority of editors remain happily ignorant of it, and so my guess is that most editors who stop editing are not influenced by how RfA works. (It is possible that changes to RfA could assist in increasing the overall collegiality of the site; just noting that for most editors, I don't think improvements to RfA would have a direct effect on retention. Of course, long term, failing to bring in new admin blood will have a detrimental effect.) isaacl (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Ironically, RfA has not lost us enough editors - the ones who should be indeffed for their behaviour there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
RfA hasn't lost us the greatest number of editors, but it has lost us some of the most experienced and dedicated editors, and it has made many quality people not want to run for admin, which means a smaller pool of which to choose from, which adds to yet more problems. RfA reform isn't the central issue at WP:WER, of course. How the place is administrated at all levels (ArbCom, DRN, ANI, etc.) can be an issue of editor retention when it is dysfunctional. The type of editors that care enough to join WP:WER are exactly the kind of editor that should be concerned about we choose the guys with the block buttons. And as Kudpung points out, it has become a haven for those who simply oppose the concept of "admin" in any form, which is certainly problematic in other areas as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Part of the reason I worked so hard on WP:RFA2011 was that I believe it really did affect editor retention. I went on to confirm this with the data at Wikipedia:RfA reform 2011/Unsuccessful RfAs, which the negative effect on candidates who did not pass RfA. I believed the reason for this is that an unsuccessful RfA left the candidate feeling that they did not have the confidence of the community and worked on trying to stop unsuitable candidates get that feeling. To that end, I discouraged SNOW and NOTNOW candidates with a page notice - probably discouraging good candidates at the same time. To counterbalance that discouragement, I created WP:REQUESTNOM, where editors can get a view of a more tactful wikipedian - who can explain their chances without denting their ego.
By the way, I've been trying to follow the backlash of the recent RfA - and well, I'm saddened by the reactions. The problems I saw were all things that could have been nipped in the bud, but because they weren't they escalated. Complaining about one side or the other is never going to help, but a friendly word in the right place would have. I sincerely regret not being around for the RfA, and won't be nominating in the future if I do not think I can be available to put that friendly word in. WormTT(talk) 16:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Addendum, I wholly disagree that anyone's behaviour at that RfA warranted an indef block - and if I saw any patterns of behaviour that warranted it I would have raised it. I do not agree with that assessment at all. WormTT(talk) 16:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think anyone here thinks that any behavior at the RfA deserves an indef block by itself. I certainly don't. I do think the problems should have been more forcefully addressed and one of the reasons they weren't is because the candidate rapidly fell out of favor. This is why I'm putting my energy into fixing the problem, starting with the very project you worked on previously, and trying to help build on those ideas and turn them into a concrete RfC. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Limit the main RfA page to !votes only, with discussion on the talk page. There may be concern about drive-by !votes (either support or oppose...I don't think it's limited to just one type), but I think I'd rather take that chance if it eliminates sniping on the main page. Forcing people to justify their votes can be seen as part of the atmosphere that causes sniping and such. IMO, anyhow. Intothatdarkness 16:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
That was my initial reaction as well, although someone is busy trying to talk me out of that. I'm open minded, and going to spend less time editing and more time reading for a while, and try to study all the various studies and research that have been done. I have discovered an amazing amount of hard data has already been compiled on it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Naturally, it affects those who go through the Requests for Adminship process, and can affect those involved in it. All I'm saying is I believe the percentage of editors, even of experienced editors with a lot of content-related editing, who follow RfA is relatively small; it's often easy to get blinkered and assume the problems one sees regularly are the ones most people encounter. I do agree with working on improving the RfA process, and the long term problem of ensuring there are new admins entering the pool is an important one. isaacl (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I won't name most names, but I could name several people who weren't candidates and who have left, or almost never come around because of the hassles at RfA. Some of them were simply voting, and other people harassed them for their vote to the point that they stopped editing. I've known nominators who had the same experience and seldom or never come around. Again, it is a bit larger than it might look at first glance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • From my point of view, RfA looks like a frathouse hazing exercise that I haven't got the time or the stamnia to stomach. I can do a lot of good work for WP without going anywhere near the bit, so it doesn't seem worth the hassle. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
    That is exactly the problem. Oh, I don't blame you in the least, but we need to make it so a regular editor isn't afraid to go in and voice an opinion if they have one. The system breaks down when normal people treat RfA like a bad neighborhood to be avoided. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Not sure what–if anything–can be done at this point, but I am very concerned about this. I can only hope it's temporary, but the last edit makes me nervous. I keep getting the nagging feeling that one of our most prolific editors just underwent character assassination in a very public venue. I haven't been around RfA for very long, but from what Worm linked above, it doesn't look like this is an isolated occurrence. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Every time I do something that another user disagrees with or has slightly raised tempers, like today when I got annoyed at an IP on ANI, or a few days ago when I had a heated argument about the copyright status of an image, I think "no point going for RfA for a year. People will pull up things like that and rip it to pieces." Perhaps I'm not "man" enough for RfA, but so what? It's supposed to be responsible tools, not a dick-waving contest. (And now, if I go for RfA in a year, people will pull me up about that). It's not like there's much I honestly want to do with the bit anyway - maybe the odd AfD closure. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Being in heated arguments won't kill your chance at RfA if you handle them calmly. I worked the MMA disputes for a month before, plus ANI daily for months before mine (I still do) and even worked it during my RfA. It exploded into my RfA when one editor got mad about what I said. I still passed because I never stooped to ad hominem or unsubstantiated claims. Literally 80% of my edits before RfA were in contentious areas, and that is likely what got me the bit, since everyone had plenty of opportunity to see how I would react under pressure. I prefer admin candidate that have experience in pressure cooker areas, and can show they will stay calm. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I feel that RFA should be an almost automatic process done with a selection panel that have a criteria list and the only discussion between none panel editors would be what goes into the criteria - a none personalized discussion. This would remove a whole level of conflict and remove the distraction to RFA for almost everyone. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 23:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

you got mail

As soon as any kind of problem arises, the specific editor gets YGM messages. Why is that? It's like everything is conducted in secret with "certain" editors. Now I don't trust the whole process. As a relatively new editor, I see this "secret" stuff carried on all the time when an "old time" editor gets out of line. Any way to level the playing field? Feels really ugly. I've given up editing most areas of wikipedia and I don't think I've done anything wrong. I feel "old time" editors are given special privileges because they all have "friends". Impossible for a newbie to crack that nut. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, a newbie can learn quite a lot when he follows advice given him. Of course, it is rather difficult to break into established groups when one attacks people, makes snide comments, and generally makes a nuisance of himself; unfortunately, it is human nature to be less willing to assume good faith of such individuals, particularly when they are unwilling to admit their own culpability in negative interactions. As to the nominal topic of this post: sometimes taking things off-wiki can help lower the temperature of a conversation – when certain information is private, obviously, but also to offer feedback or advice without the risk of a peanut gallery butting in or quoting people out of context or even attacking the editor. Speaking to the editor privately allows them to save face or skin, and can minimize drama. Hopefully that clears up your confusion. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 00:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi, MathewTownsend. Nice to see new faces here, especially those who notice things that oldtimers never talk about. What is this YGM you are talking about? I don't believe I have ever seen it? Ottawahitech (talk) 02:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Let me be honest, I do a great deal of work via email. Sometimes it is because I think someone is a sockpuppet, but don't want to create drama. Sometimes it is to tell someone "Look, you are really out of line and acting like a jerk" or "you really need to drop the stick" and I don't want to embarrass them, but want to make a point clear. Sometimes it is to correct a factual error and I would rather give them the dignity of correcting it themselves. Sometimes I just want to talk about something that isn't related to Wikipedia, maybe a common interest. In a few cases, I know some members on a personal level or want to talk about something that might "out" them, as I know personal information about them (being a friend) that they don't want public. I prefer to work on some preliminary ideas offwiki without disruption. I've had to email back and forth to ArbCom or Checkusers about stuff that I can't talk about on-wiki, for technical/legal/strategic reasons. I get and send over a dozen emails on any given day, but being an admin and SPI clerk, that is probably higher than average. I can't speak for anyone else, but my goals are not nefarious. I wouldn't read too much into people wanting to email others. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. - Anyone who has been Wikistalked long enough will have absolutely no issue with private e-mails. Remember, AGF, for all you know these e-mails are about RL, or mundane points not nearly as interesting as you may assume. At least, IME, that's how I've used them, but also as Dennis explains so well above. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - is it a help or a hindrance that wiki has no private messaging system? It seems unusual to have no direct messaging. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 04:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Sometimes things happen by email, you can be more frank when your comments are not going to be reviewed years down the line. You should know this Mathew, as your past mentor, you've sent me half a dozen emails over the past year. I'm sure the subjects of those emails would feel just as your are feeling, if they knew - it works both ways. WormTT(talk) 06:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Email is just easier for me, i notice it faster and can respond from anywhere without having to log in to Wikipedia. The majority of it is people asking questions and praise, both things which could be done on wiki or off, it's no skin off my back. I see it as a necessity though and something which makes things much easier round here. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 08:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
best discussed elsewhere
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Comment - And you wonder why wiki has trouble recruiting new editors?
Worm was my mentor and gave me permission to email him. I sent Nikkimaria an email about a legitimate concern. Nikkimaria immediately took my message of concern out of context and used it against me by misrepresenting the contents and posting at a Dispute Resolution. She never answered my email.
Nikkimaria's post on wiki in response to my email: (Her post on wiki: "Noting that this dispute is now apparently ongoing across wikis – the most recent outbreak on talk arose when I restored an interwiki to Simple that had been removed, and there is now a continuation of this dispute on Simple, complete with accusations of harassment. After my edit, participants on both sides of the debate have emailed me citing various misdeeds by the "other side". There are elements of both content and behavioural problems here, and it's going to take some careful negotiation to get things resolved. Nikkimaria"
Fortunately, Nikkimaria was way off base and her posting stirring the pot on the DR had no effect whatsoever, except make it clear to me that emailing honest concerns to Nikkimaria was not the way to go. The DR was closed in my favor with no fuss. Other editors didn't see things her way. But it does seem that email is not always used for the reasons given above but rather to hurt new editors like me.
(I sent copies of my email to Nikkimaria to other editors and they saw nothing wrong or out of place with my email to her. It was innocent.)
So what Nikkimaria says above is not true in my case: "Speaking to the editor privately allows them to save face or skin, and can minimize drama. Hopefully that clears up your confusion." (Well, no, Nikkimaria. Certainly not in your case. Perhaps others are different, but should I take the chance? ) That is the only email I have ever sent her. Certainly I never will email her again. She has certainly never helped me but rather denounced me when I made a stupid formating mistake because I was a newbie and because I used the word "diva" not knowing that was verboten. (Also, I didn't know about links to Simple Wikipedia - she considered my lack of knowledge about such links a horrible sin.) Turning the full face of viciousness on a newbie because that editor is a newbie and doesn't know all the secret rules is not the way to retain new editors, IMO. MathewTownsend (talk) 13:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Question - Mathew did you offend her by referring to her as a "Diva"? If that's the case then that's nothing that can be blamed on Wikipedia having an "email this user" feature. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 13:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Answer: No. I didn't refer to any specific person but rather used the word generally on a talk page (not in an email); I've seen it used liberally on other pages and didn't know it was a punishable offense to use the word. But I'm a newbie. On the same page I was personally attacked with profanity because I made a stupid formatting error and the attacker was defended by Nikkimaria. (I tried to copy the name of an article and screwed it up.) MathewTownsend (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
People are human. Some might take the word "Diva" as being sexist as well as being rude. I don't fret over such things, I've been called worse, but it doesn't endear me to people. But as Jenova20 points out, that is more of an issue of a disagreement between two editors than about email itself. It's the same reason I didn't blame my fork when I was 40 pounds overweight, as that isn't the underlying problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I didn't use the word "diva" in an email. I used it on a talk page. The email was straight forward. I've shown my email to others who saw nothing wrong with it. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Then i think the lesson is that email and pie are both good things if used properly and not abused. Have a nice day/evening Mathew ツ Jenova20 (email) 14:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
To clarify, the "diva" issue was from a totally different conversation and occurred entirely on-wiki. I'm not sure why it's being brought up again, though. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Mathew, I'm sorry you felt I misrepresented your concerns. Obviously it would be inappropriate to post your email on-wiki, but you did indeed cite misdeeds by someone from the other "side" of the debate, and someone from the other "side" emailed to complain about you. I don't know why you think saying so was taking things out of context or using it against you, but this probably isn't the place to get into specific cases. Nor is it appropriate for me to explain, again, why I took issue with your behaviour in the "diva" case, since that is rather tangential to the issue you raised in your initial post. To get back on topic: as has been explained, email can be a very useful tool in project-area discussion and management. Though I'm sure there are isolated cases where it does not achieve the desired effect (one example would be off-wiki canvassing or asking for a specific action contrary to policy), that would not justify disabling the ability. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, my email to you was straight forward, contained nothing offensive or untrue. You chose to try to stir the pot against me at DR by referring to my email to you, made in good faith. You didn't answer my email but chose to publically distort its contents. As it turned out, your statements made at DR were a false assessment, as shown by the outcome of the DR. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I never said it contained anything offensive or untrue. What I said was it complained about someone else participating in the discussion, which is a fact. I made and make no comment on whether your complaint itself was true. But really, this discussion should focus on generalities rather than specific cases, as it's unfair to other participants who haven't seen the email in question and were not party to the dispute it discussed. If you would like to discuss that specific case further, feel free to post to my talk. Do you have any further comments or questions on the general principle of email use? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Please see above where I've quoted your public, demeening response on wiki to my email to you.[1] If you felt there was something wrong about my email, you could have informed me by email. Instead you tried to make my role in the DR seem disruptive. As it turned out, the evidence was on my side, the "other" party didn't even post in the DR as they had no convincing side. If you had not turned up here, because of my post about email, the whole issue of you wouldn't have come up.
  • To quote your "helpful" response:

On the contrary, a newbie can learn quite a lot when he follows advice given him. Of course, it is rather difficult to break into established groups when one attacks people, makes snide comments, and generally makes a nuisance of himself; unfortunately, it is human nature to be less willing to assume good faith of such individuals, particularly when they are unwilling to admit their own culpability in negative interactions. As to the nominal topic of this post: sometimes taking things off-wiki can help lower the temperature of a conversation – when certain information is private, obviously, but also to offer feedback or advice without the risk of a peanut gallery butting in or quoting people out of context or even attacking the editor. Speaking to the editor privately allows them to save face or skin, and can minimize drama. Hopefully that clears up your confusion. Cheers, Nikkimaria

MathewTownsend (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Again, if you'd like to discuss that incident further, please use my talk page. I have this page watchlisted, but this isn't the appropriate venue. I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to reproduce my post from earlier in this section, though – I'm sure everyone can look up and see it. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • As DB points out, e-mail is a two-way conversation. No peanut gallery is waiting to take the discussion "into the cornfield". Talk can be more open and forthright outside the public eye. I rarely assume something underhanded regarding YHM. I just assume the parties want to have a private talk. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • When it comes to contacting people at times of stress, sometimes a quiet word is helpful. I've used email both to say that someone needs to tone things down and to say that though I'm still supporting and I wished that things were going differently, my advice is to withdraw. Otherwise I use Email in various contexts. While I haven't been nominating candidates recently, my preferred method for approaching potential adminship candidates is via Email. Privacy allows for frank discussion, people can and do decline for all sorts of reasons, many of which they might not want to detail on wiki. I hope for even more obvious reasons people will understand why it is better to email an admin to request revision deletion of something instead of linking it on wiki. I am also involved in various real life training events, and their coordination is in my experience more convenient by email. What we need to avoid is Email being used to canvass and for things that should be public. Mind you I do find the YGM template irritating unless there is good reason for the implied urgency. ϢereSpielChequers 22:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Sexist comments made against Wikipedians in a national publication (WSJ)

Look here for an interesting discussion that relates to editor retention. User:Tvoz says disputes have become more frequent over the years. She blames "an overabundance of testosterone running around the pages." ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Insignificant. All the ladies need to do is show more interest in contributing to the encyclopedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Per Tvoz's request, "this discussion ought to be happening all over the project", this is also being discussed at Jimbo's page. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
We do have a significant problem with the majority of editors being male. I've actually looked into it, and go way out of my way to adopt new female editors specifically for that reason. Part of the issue is the natural difference in the genders, as men tend to be competitive and women tend to be cooperative, and the environment here is often more aggressive than many women feel comfortable with. There isn't a single "fix" for this, but the single largest improvement we could have in quality at Wikipedia is to have gender parity here. We are missing out on some amazing talent. There is no easy or simple fix, however, and it all boils down to improving the culture here in general to being more cooperative. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I think it would be much more productive and healthier for Wikipedia long-term if we framed the conversation in terms of reducing abusive and hostile behaviours while developing encouragment and enthusiasm. Neither gender has a monopoly on these things. The more we divide editors into sub-groups the less succsessful we will be in this endeavour. It matters not to me if you are male or female, if you come into a thread and tell me to "shut the f----up", I will consider that an uncivil and inappropriate interaction. Blaming an increase in disputes and arguments on testosterone is plainly sexist, and "putting it out there" "to make people think" is not a pragmatic solution based approach, it's a simple complaint and basic playground namecalling. If Wikipedia is 90% male, then would it be accurate to say that men built one of the most visited websites online? Why are these men now the key factor in destroying what they had apparently helped create? Dennis, do you know if/or how these percentages have shifted over time? Was there ever a time when Wikipedia was nearly 50/50 men and woman, and have you identified any gender correlation with dispute frequency? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I just can't get on board with that point of view at all. The fundamental problem is that "abusive and hostile behaviours", to borrow GabeMc's phrase, are neither recognised nor dealt with here; all far too many focus on is naughty words and never-ending vendettas. It's more like the Mafia than it is a collaborative working environment, and I see no reason why men would be more prepared to tolerate that than women. I would hazard a guess that in the eyes of many editors I'm the poster child for "abusive and hostile behaviours", yet a good proportion of those I collaborate with are women, which leads me to doubt that the number of female editors is as low as it's claimed to be. I also find that women don't tend to swoon so much as they perhaps once did at the sight of a naughty word, but are actually quite tough when they need to be. Malleus Fatuorum 00:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Well said Malleus Fatuorum, I tend to agree. The "abusive and hostile behaviours" are a symptom of a disease of culture, that is certainly not solely caused by testosterone. I also unfortunately agree that interactions on Wikipedia can at times seem Mafia-esque, with cliques and groups coming to each other's aide in complete defiance of guidelines or morality. Also, the movie Serpico comes to mind, and once you "cross" an established user, especially an admin, be prepared for the wrath of anyone they are friendly with, as you will certainly face some ice-out if not straight-up repercusions. I noticed you received a one-week block recently for a slightly snarky comment made to an admin, while not long ago another editor also received a one-week block for three racial taunts intended to harrass an Asian user. Parity? I digress, but perhaps Miss Chadhuri may find these things interesting. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Did I? You're probably right, but after a while one block merges into another in the memory. I imagine the blocking admin in my case used the old chestnut "well, you've got X blocks already, so I'm going to come down hard on you". I'd actually argue that poor blocks like that (and many others in my block log) are a major impediment to editor retention. I've simply been lucky so far that none of the Mafia soldiers, aka civility police, have been able to make their sanctions stick, but I'm sure it's only a matter of time. And I'm equally sure that many less high-profile editors have been quietly chased away by them. As I think you're suggesting, prioritising the recruitment of female editors is putting the cart before the horse; change the Wikipedia culture, stop all the ridiculously childish blocking for using words such as "sycophantic", be tougher on racial, religious or sexual abuse, whether or not it's accompanied by naughty words, and the other problems will solve themselves. Malleus Fatuorum 01:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes! That's exactly what I am saying! Cheers! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Malleus, unfortunately I also tend to agree with you in regard to editor retention being mostly a factor of admin exposure, markedly affected by admins bossing around content editors like we work here or something, and we've stretched our coffee breaks from editing too long and need to punch back-in. IME, 9 times out of 10, Wikipedia admins "handle" issues by doing little more than simply, and unconvincingly playing the role of a crabby pre-school teacher: "knock it off brats! Stop it now you pathetic children! Get to work improving articles now or else!". Well, that's definitely no way to treat creative adults who are volunteering their precious time, and its certainly not a good tactic if Wikipedia's actual strategy is to retain editors long-term. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
But that's the hollow centre of this editor retention initiative: "We must be see to be doing something, and this something". The truth is quite simply that Wikipedia considers editors to be easily replaceable units of work who can be treated like shit, and for reasons of political correctness it would like to have a few more female units of work and a few less male units of work. Malleus Fatuorum 03:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I don't consider editors replaceable and I don't think Wikipedia as a collective consider editors replaceable although I do agree you(MF) have at times been treated in such a way. From my perspective it is a failure of policies, processes and people rather then intention. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 04:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, I've always felt expendable here, there is no question about that, I still do feel that way and I likely always will. I personally think there is no need for any great initiative beyond encouraging the basic civility promised in the pillar. If basic civility were encouraged in actuality as it is in principle, then I think the gender issue would be rendered moot, as would race, creed, sexual orientation, political persuasion etcetera. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
As a volunteer you don't want to feel to much that you have to do something, so in some ways a certain amount if being 'expendable' is fine. It's when that 'expendable' becomes more a 'makes no difference' or 'not appreciated' that is not appropriate. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 04:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree that as a volunteer I shouldn't feel essential, for my own piece of mind if for nothing else, and I guess to me, expendable people are by definition not appreciated. I know I have made, and continue to make a positive net impact on Wikipedia, no amount of negativity or popularity contest loses can take that away from me. The question is, how long before the excessive tedium overrides the positive sense of accomplishment? Cheers! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Malleus, I don't see WER as the "solution" by any stretch. For me, it has been incredibly educational, and I think this project has moderated my perspective on a lot of things, due to actually hearing what others think. The one thing I think we have done successfully here is define "retention" in a broad enough fashion that it invites a lot of discussion on what people think are the real problems. Then we can go elsewhere for the actual solutions. What I feel is the success of WER so far (and this is a new project) isn't tangibles I can point to, but is simply it is a place that people can talk about anything that is remotely related to retention without being shut down. It is a genuine forum for discussion, at leisure, with no heavy "rules" and no timetable. I'm serious that I've learned a lot listening to editors here. This is also the reason you don't see me post too often here. This isn't my project, it is all of ours, and I don't want to dominate the discussion, I want to learn from it. I will inject an opinion, then see what people think, like here. I want to keep men and women here, but I can't help but be concerned that our retention of women is worse than men. The first thing I think is "Ok, as an admin, what am I doing wrong that might be contributing to this lopsided issue?". Again, WP:WER isn't the answer, it is just a starting place where people can speak freely and learn where they can go to fix problems. This project has changed the way I deal with editor retention in the actual project, and I'm still learning. Maybe I'm not alone. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
"User:Tvoz says disputes have become more frequent over the years. She blames 'an overabundance of testosterone running around the pages.'" ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • With respect I'm going to disagree with Malleus on this, but possibly not for the reason that he expects. I don't think that civility is the big problem here because very few editors are blocked for civility issues or indeed say anything impolite. Whether you are a fan of Malleus' or one whose ambition it is to see him blocked or bowdlerised, the alleged civility police are not the main component of our adversarial culture. My personal bugbear is the shift from SoFixIt to Templating, and that shift has been very big and coincided with our community going off the boil. My experience is that people don't mind having their errors quietly corrected, many editors appreciate it (and yes one of the easily confused words I patrol is pubic - I've probably changed a hundred pubics to public this year alone). Perhaps we could start to deal with the problem by making a template removal pledge - promising to remove more templates than we ourselves add. ϢereSpielChequers 22:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Do you mean tagging in main space? If so my perception is that they are slowing going. Some of the article wide tags{{expand}} have gone to section only, some have gone to inline{{cn}} and some{{NOT}} have been deleted. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 00:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes I mainly mean tagging in mainspace, though I'd also include deletion tagging outside it (the sekrit page purge was a great example of irritating editors for no benefit to the pedia). Aside from one or two contentious areas wikiproject tagging is very rarely contentious on talkpages - the wikiProject might occasionally not agree that an article is "theirs" but the authors are rarely if ever going to give a monkeys as to who adds a wikiroject tag to a talkpage of an article they've written. If there has recently been a couple of templates deleted or changed to hidden cats that is great, but I still see lots of enthusiastic editors who add thousands or even tens of thousands of templates in mainspace without realising that the same time spent actually improving articles would be more useful and would be collaborative rather than aggressive. ϢereSpielChequers 21:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Back to the topic of sexist comments: I believe a big part of the sexist perception has to do more with the subtle issues and less with explicit sexism. Anyone who feels they are not part of the in-crowd is bound to feel ostracized to a certain degree. When terminology such as "dick-waving contest" is common at Wikipedia it gives women (please don’t call them not females/ladies) reason to believe they are in a men-dominated territory, no? Ottawahitech (talk) 23:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
  • My favorite quote on Wikipedia, "I tagged that article three and a half years ago, and in all that time nobody has bothered to take the 30 seconds required to fix that damn article". As to the testosterone comment, it cetainly could have been worded better but I'm not certain it was meant to be inflamatory. I tend to agree with Dennis in that sometimes things seem to be more competetive than cooperative. Perhaps we could work on that in the future. 64.40.54.175 (talk) 09:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012

The final details are being discussed for the upcoming Arbitration elections. As this is the primary discussion on the election, including the ground rules for holding the election, and Arbitration is the final step in dispute resolution, thus an important part of editor retention, I would recommend everyone just go and take a look, so they can have a better understanding of how the process will take place. Participation isn't required, but knowledge of the process is always a good thing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

  • I don't find discussion on that election page about anything significant or of lasting meaning, if there is please point it out. It seems the same Arbcom pattern will happen over again. Well meaning editors will apply(along with a few not well meaning) some will be elected, once they realise the commitment to do a good job they decide either to do a poor job or leave or have difficulties in some way. The Arbcom decisions will continue to be as haphazard as before, with the fallout in editor retention. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 20:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Withdrawing editors

Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 20:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting reading

"A Gallup poll of more 1 million employed U.S. workers concluded that the No. 1 reason people quit their jobs is a bad boss or immediate supervisor ... The New York Times says bully bosses enjoy making subordinates squirm and run for cover. Why do cruel bosses not only survive, but also thrive? 'What we're finding,' Dr. Calvin Morrill of the University of California at Irvine, told Times reporter Benedict Carey, 'is that some of the behaviors that we think most protect us are what in fact allow the behavior to continue. Workers become desensitized, tacitly complicit, and don't always act rationally.'

Unlike the playground, bully bosses pick on people their own size and bigger--that is, in terms of power and authority. And while women are more likely to be the target of a bully boss, women bosses are just as likely as men to be the aggressors, notes the Times." ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 09:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Personal notes at the end of a Welcome

Retaining new editors may be easier than we think. As soon as WE make them part of US they feel wanted and included. I added this to the end of a welcome I posted for a new editor. Granted, this editor reached out to me Before I welcomed him but I am confident he will be a good editor. Not because of me, but because of his own confidence:

Good luck and happy editing. From my observation, the biggest problem that new editors have is they want to drive in the fast lanes right away. They don't even have a learners permit but all they see is the road ahead and the gas pedal. They are bound to crash. So much depends on our early travels. Inevitably, you will run across an intolerant editor. The place is full of them. Just don't let their bites be fatal....or let them waste your time. Be careful of what you say. Consider it from many angles. WE (Wikipedia Editors) often mis-read and misconstrue what we say to each other. When in doubt, step back and take a break.

Just an example of a successful contact.--Buster Seven Talk 19:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, yes I agree. The first greetings at Wikipedia are VERY important - both positive and negative. However, sometimes the chemistry is just not there, even if you try vey hard. Ottawahitech (talk) 05:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
  • The only way I keep track is via "My contributions. When I first started to do welcomes as a daily chore (not really a chore) I would watch the asst pages for a week or two. But my watchlist got so cluttered it was tedious to slog thru. Now I just do my welcomes and I'm on my way. Every now and then, I will sense that a new editor is or will soon be visited by a stern template. Those I do show on my watchlist and I jump in to soften and personalize any discussion. I remember when Wiki Guides was started by the Foundation we were asked to report progress via "related changes". Maybe they have some stats that were gathered from that period. I'd be willing to do the grunt work if someone sets up something that would provide some form of statistic. I too wonder if there is a study on the success or failure of the varied Welcomes. I like the one I'm using since it provides the most info in a nice clean and clear fashion. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
You can use the ToolServer to get a list of your welcomes based on your edit summaries. I think it's one of Scottywong's tools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Kudpung. What a great tool. Turns out I have about 2400 Welcomes. Just yesterday I started to forego the edit summary step since it required individual entry on each users page. Had I continued in that manner it would be difficult, if not impossible, to keep a count. Now it took all of 10 seconds. I'm glad to find out that I should return to entering "Welcome " in the summary box. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Inexperienced guidance will lead to fatalities for new editors

Please see User talk:SarahStierch#Adoption and provide assistance. An inexperienced (fill in the blank) new user, User talk:RAIDENRULES123, is insisting on adopting other new users. Considering assorted factors it can only lead to the detriment and malnourishment of the New Users she adopts. What can be done? This issue deals directly with Editor Retention. The new users this editor adopts are, without a doubt, in harms way. ```Buster Seven Talk 05:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

If I was brand spankin' new I wouldn't want some whack job showin me the ropes. 216.80.117.134 (talk) 05:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Please see User talk:Brybry1999. I am tempted to step in and say something to User:Bry and give another viewpoint but I'm reluctant to upset User:Raiden. This needs to be handled with kid gloves to assure a positive outcome for all.```Buster Seven Talk 06:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
When I was a child, my parents purchased a set of world book encyclopedias for me. I remember clearly the salesman pushing them to also buy Childcraft, cause that was an encyclopedia for elementary school kids. I don't know why I think that is relevent, but i thought I'd just add that in to the mix. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Part of the mix is child-like behavior so I think thats where yer' coming from. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Just dropped a note on BryBry's talk giving him some suggestions for getting started at Wikipedia (he has already worked on three articles) and suggesting some minimum qualifications for an adoptor. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Well Done, Fan. You have eased my troubled mind. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
  • When I first joined Wikipedia an experienced editor (admin) tried to coach me. It was an unmitigated disaster that ended up with my adopter suggesting I was under-age (a compliment, I suppose :-). The moral of the story is, there are other considerations to take into account, other than experience alone. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Your point is taken. Each editors early experience is unique. Our early travels and hook-ups are the builing blocks of our WP careers. This specific issue is not one of experience over lack of experience. Its one of the Blind leading the Neophyte. I'm glad you hung in and developed into a Quality Editor. Most will not be so lucky. New Editors depend on current editors for proper guidance. We wouldn't send a new editor to learn from "those vandals that hang out over there" ... would we?. You cant self appoint yourself a Driving Instructor two weeks after you get your learners permit. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
  • @Buster7, thanks for saying I have (luckily) turned into a Quality Editor. Unfortunately, it seems others here think that I am Blind. If you check this page's history you may see this edit summary: "Revert to revision 516519718 dated 2012-10-07 19:52:01 by Ottawahitech using popups" - which would lead one to suspect that one of my contribution here was reverted earlier, no? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that is true. But, not to worry. Within minutes it was reverted back to your original by User 13dzf59b. My guess is that GogoDodo was doing some speed type of edits and not verifying the accuracy of his determination. There is alot of WikiPedia grunt work that needs to be done. Some times you dig a hole in the wrong spot and some other editor comes behind and fills it back in. All's well that ends well as they say. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Note the edit in question reverted the edit following the one made by Ottawahitech, going back to the page as it appeared with Ottawahitech's edit. isaacl (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

In reference to new editors adopting and mis-advising new editors, and the importance of retaining and correctly advising the improperly adopted new user, please see User talk:Impromp2Music#Thats aweful! and the following thread, User talk:Impromp2Music#Transporterman. Luckily this new editor is being given good advice and being nurtured by veteran editors. Not all newbies are so lucky. ```Buster Seven Talk 09:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Technical problems at Wikipedia - an issue for this WikiProject?

I have been running into several technical problems at Wikipedia which slow down my editing activities. This seems to be happening more and more often, at least for me. Are others also experiencing this? - If so, I believe this to be an issue for editor retention. In my case it is cause for frustration.

What do others think? Ottawahitech (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

  • My desk has a dent in the shape of my head from the same thing, and it is all too common. Not sure what the Project can do in it though, and will leave to others to tell me. Like most problems with the Foundation, money is likely the primary problem. I read that we have less than 700 servers, yet we are the 6th busiest website in the world. Our redundancy is redundant enough, it appears. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I think a pseudo-solution would be to include links to the various village pumps in the sidebar. If everyone knew that village pump (technical) existed, technical problems wouldn't be so big. Ryan Vesey 18:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • It's happening again (and again and again...ad infinitum) this morning:
Sorry! This site is experiencing technical difficulties.
Try waiting a few minutes and reloading.
(Cannot contact the database server: Unknown error (10.0.6.73)) Ottawahitech (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • My experience is that technical errors and downtime of a site tend to create more of a community as users are very happy when the site returns plus they then have something in common(the fault or the downtime) and appreciate when things are working well. That being said, Wikipedia has a WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK which may prevent the sense of community that happens elsewhere. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 00:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • ..and again:
"Sorry! This site is experiencing technical difficulties.", SIGH... Ottawahitech (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to continue my first posting under this heading: this morning I tried to add two new categories to Hurricane Sandy. The first one was added with no trouble, the second one, even though I got no error message has not been added after two tries. Who else here has had trouble that they were able to resolve? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia surveys

For the first time in my wiki-career I have been invited to participate in a wiki-survey. I made it to page 2 (out of many more judging from the % completed bar at the bottom), but had to give up at that point.

So my question is, how many people complete the surveys out of how many who attempt? Does anyone at Wikipedia keep score? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I completed the survey, but by the end I was asking myself the same question. How many people actually finish it? I found it to be a little long. –Mabeenot (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • @Mabeenot, I was given a second chance to participate - I am completely drenched now because I was afraid to leave before completing the whole thing - didn't want my work to go to waste. Not sure if would have done it if I knew upfront how mUch work it would require :-) Ottawahitech (talk)
Depends much on how important the users rate participation the survey. Other considerations are:
1. It it an official survey or one started by an independent user?
2. What identity protection guarantees were provided, and if so, did initiator signed an NDA with the WMF?
3. What security does the software offer?
4. Was the software easy to use?
5. Were the questions prepared by someone with experience in survey psychology and technique?
6. How was the data to be extrapolated and used?
7. What 3-party survey software was being used?
8. Is it locally hosted or offered by an online provider? (eg. The very name of SurveyMonkey is known to evoke skepticism).
In my experience of conducting many (non Wki) surveys, respondents generally get fed up with surveys that take longer than around 10 minutes to complete. A Wikipedia survey I once initiated had around 3,000 respondents from about 5,000 targeted users. According to the WMF, after removing trolling and other unusable responses, only around 900 responses were used in the analysis. The survey was open for responses for 2 weeks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Answers from OHT:
1. it was official
2. no idea
3. don’t know
4. Sometimes, but:
pull-down menus with tons-of choices took me awhile to figure out (gave up on my first try because choices were not alphabetized.
pages were too cluttered for my taste – several questions on the same page
I was not told which questions were optional - trial and error wasted precious time
5. I don’t think I was told…
6. I don’t think I was told…
7. I don’t think I was told…
8. I don’t think I was told… Ottawahitech (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The questions were actually rhetorical but thanks for answering. If it was official there would have been an email address to provide feedback on the survey itself. If you were asked to provide your user name or email address, there should have bee a legal disclaimer on the survey introduction. Obviously I can't ask what the survey was as that would publicly connect you with it, but it sounds a bit fishy to me. If yhou know who raised the survey, I would suggest taking all these points up with them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

That link's dead. This is the information on the survey. –Mabeenot (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • It was indeed a very poorly designed survey, from the partly non-neutral MC options to the use of the extremely expensive 3rd party software service provider, and the formatting of the questions. I'm no simpleton (because survey design was part of my post-grad studies), but it took me nearly double their estimation of the time to complete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

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

  • Tags that are more BITEY than necessary.
See Wikipedia talk:First contact#un-intentionally biting a New Editor for an example.
  • Having a generally constant but limiting "We are Adversaries" mindset rather than a habitual far-reaching "We are Collaborators" mindset.
One is a closing. The other, an opening.
  • Choosing words that degrade or attack the other editor or his edits vs. taking the time to realize the fragile nature of the novice editor.
  • Forgetting that conversation is the natural way that humans think when they are together and, at times, it can get messy.
  • Sarcasm.
Sarcasm rarely works in RL. It is certainly out of place here. It leads to confusion, hurtfulness and trouble, even when tagged as sarcasm. It is an aggressive, dishonest form of communication.
  • Alienation through use of aggressive idiolects or slang.
Highly personalized or slangy writing styles are fine for friendly chats but not when debating serious issues with other editors, for whom such productions, which are not even amenable to machine translation, may turn out to be effectively more obscure than a different language.
  • The interplay between (1) our affirmative and prompt deletion of certain types of articles (copyvio, unref BLP, attack, etc.) and (2) the complete lack of guidance to new article creators of those critical requirements before or during the article creation process.
The combination of these two factors is the moral equivalent of a 20' pit lined with punji sticks. We can cover the punji stakes, but the problems remains; the pit, the lack of warning signage, and the stakes themselves. Please read Attractive nuisance doctrine. Suggestion; Since we are unlikely to give up the punji sticks (the copyvio deletions, etc), we put up a "sign" i.e., give new editors instructions in our policies before they create an article.
  • Most times the new editor is concerned only with the article. But, the experienced editor is more concerned with the encyclopedia.
The new user holds the article and his edits and his word choices as precious and can't bear to see them changed. They have great pride in their work and saving it becomes a mission. They need to be reminded that editing is not just a matter of deciding what to include. It's more a matter of what NOT to include. Because they misunderstand this fact, they see experienced editors as having a "cruel hands".
  • Not enough praise for a new editors hard work. Sorry to say but some veteran editors think new editors are "clueless n00bs with a burr under their saddles."
Everyone likes to be appreciated. When the new editor feels attacked instead, sparks start to fly and somebody gets burned (usually the new editor)
There is a good reason why this thread was unsigned and undated: 1) so that following editors would feel free to add to a potential growing list of "things" , 2) so that they would not feel they were infringing on another editors thread (or toes). From my experience, it is common not to take credit for an idea or a compilation of someone elses idea. Pre-August, another editor commented that it might be a good idea to search out 20 things that cause the most climate damage. These were the 9 that I contributed/compiled/collected. And 3) had I signed and dated, it may have gotten archived before it reached "adulthood". It looks like no one else added to that number. But they easily could have since Aug 15. No harm done. I still don't think it will be archived. Feel free to add nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, etc. That was the idea in the first place. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

RFC

There is an RFC ongoing that may be of interest to many members of this Project. It concerns returning of admin tools to admin who have been desysoped due to inactivity. View it here Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

  • @Dennis Brown, a while ago you started a thread on this talk page bringing some problems with the wp:Requests for adminship process to the attention of partcipants in this wikiproject. I can see what you were talking about now that I have gathered the courage to participate. I suspect this particular RFA will be used in future to point to all that is wrong with process. Ottawahitech (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
The sad thing is that we often lose good editors at RfA, sometimes the candidate, sometimes their peers. I don't have a problem with adminship having a high bar, but I think we dwell on minutia too much at RfA. While adminship isn't the primary focus of WP:WER, it certainly does affect editor retention directly and indirectly. We want good admin who are calm, fair and can learn from their mistakes. Some want perfection. My own RfA wasn't exactly a walk in the park [2], although I now get along just fine with almost every one of the 31 people who opposed me. I had been here over 5.5 years and had 18k edits, including a 90% track record on 1600 AFDs, well over 90% in CSD (that was the main complaint, btw) and hundreds of ANI contribs, and an Arb co-nom'ed me. It could have easily gone farther south. I've seen better candidates than me get opposed off the page. To keep good editors here, we need good admin as well. Admin that still understand they are part of the community, not separate from it. And thank you for participating! Never be afraid to be on the minority side of an issue, as that can change in the blink of an eye. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't see any disagreement. My words are encouragement, not directives or judgements. If there wasn't some truth in what MBisanz was saying, there wouldn't be any reason I would need to say "Never be afraid to be on the minority side", would there? The words are to overcome the reality MBisanz speaks of, not contradict it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Free stuff for great editors

A Tshirt!
I thought that you deserved something a bit extra for all of the amazing work you've done for the project.
I've nominated you for a gift from the Wikimedia Foundation!
  • This is a new project by the foundation, which I think highly of. It gives away some free stuff, but it also provides a mechanism for editors to nominate editors who are exceptional. We need to get involved and vote, nominate, and of course, setting the example by keeping it positive and avoiding some of the negativity. I discovered it by being nominated, but I withdrew so I could promote it here instead, so please don't vote for me there. Check out the main page for the new program here, and click above for the nominations page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • @Dennis Brown, I hope you are not implying that criticism (negativity) is not welcome? I hope Wikipedia is not turning into an army of yesmen? Ottawahitech (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • No, I'm saying there is a time and place for everything. A program like this Giveaway isn't the place for negativity. Just as we deal with general problems here at WER and not individuals. If there is a problem with a user, their talk page is the place, then an appropriate board, but not in the middle of a positive program designed to reward quality users. It isn't designed to vote editors up or down. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

GET OUT THE VOTE!

ArbCom elections are coming up. WikiProject Editor Retention will not endorse or comment on individual candidates, and I would ask we don't discuss individual candidates here as that might look like Project endorsement. However, Arbitration is the final step in dispute resolution at Wikipedia, and everyone who cares about editor retention should educate themselves about the candidates, look at the questions, and vote for candidates that they believe will best serve us. It is important that we all participate and encourage our friends to participate to insure the results reflect the wishes of the greater community. Most or all of the Arbs are elected for two year terms. Put another way "Ya can't complain if ya don't vote".

Voting is secret and will take place Monday 00:01, 26 November until Sunday 23:59, 9 December, UTC
Please note that more candidates are joining every day and will until the cutoff on Nov. 20th 23:59 UTC

Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE

Looks like voting will be delayed one day due to issues getting the secure (private) software installed and tested. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The Shit Happens T-Shirt Theory

When you wear a T-Shirt that says,
SHIT HAPPENS, then that's what happens, shit.
If your T-shirt says,
MIRACLES HAPPEN, then Miracles will happen.
It all depends on your viewpoint.
Some editors wear a T-shirt that says,
DRAMA HAPPENS. So that's what they see. Drama.
But pointing out a problem is not Drama.
And Protecting the Encyclopedia is not Drama.
And Protecting New Users from their own Innocence is not Drama.
  • It's Love.
B7 aka Buster Seven Talk 13:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm wearing a T-shirt with a hot dog on it but I'm still hungry! ツ Jenova20 (email) 21:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm wearing a T-shirt with a dwarf on it but I'm still tall! ```Buster Seven Talk 04:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
The Community Co-ordinator of the Campaign for Equal Heights will be speaking to you, later. —Quiddity (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
He called this A.M. He said not to look down on him. I said I couldn't help it. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I most often wear a blank but brightly colored t-shirt, not sure what that says about me except I get tired of ruining nice shirts due to running out to the warehouse to solve a problem from time to time. Perhaps it says I am a cheapskate ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

SPAs - should we work on retaining them?

Should we work on retaining Single Purpose Accounts (SPA)s at wikipedia? Those are the bad guys at Wikipedia, right? Well, in my opinion we should all do more to keep at least some of them here.

Let me give an example: has any of you checked out Malala Yousafzai? This article was built with a whopping 528 contributions from an SPA, User: Fortibus in a span of 8 days in October of 2012. An impressive contributor who not only conributed the majority of content, but also did a superb job of motivating others on the talk page of this article.

Many here believe that the number of views of articles don't matter, but I still believe that 755,270 views in Octber of 2012] alone is a excellent way to draw more potential contributors and donors.

Unfortunately, User: Fortibus has now disappeared and has not contributed anything substantial for almost a month. Do you all agree that this is the type of wikipedian we should do more to encourage? If so – what can we do? Ottawahitech (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see it as a priority for this WikiProject. An SPA can choose to become more involved and if they do all well and good. Editor retention should concentrate on those who have shown their commitments to the project as a whole. Many SPA's that I have come across are spammers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Being a SPA doesn't mean someone is a bad editor. It's not perjorative, it's just a descriptor. Many SPAs only edit to push a niche POV though, while others are very productive. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
While it is true that SPA are largely responsible for the addition of promotional pages and edits and autobiographies, some produce excellent work and I would hesitate to class them all as bad editors. That said, I think it is highly unlikely that many SPA have an interest in becoming regular editors - that's why they are 'SPA'. There may be some rare exceptions, but It's probably not worth editing time and effort doing a 'sales' job on them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

J

My thoughts are pretty consistent with the above. Being an SPA isn't against policy and as long as they act within policy, I have no issue with them, even if they are paid. They aren't a priority when it comes to editor retention, however, as their goals aren't to build an encyclopedia but instead to maintain singular facts or pages. Our priority should always be to first concern ourselves with editors who contribute in multiple article areas for the betterment of Wikipedia in general. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Just wanted to respond -- not sure how this figures in to your discussion. I had been a long-time donator to Wikipedia, becuase I believed in the mission statement: to provide the sum of world's knowledge to all people, free, without ads. I'm also a writer. So when the Malala Yousafzai tragedy occured, I felt compelled to lend a hand. I feel proud of the work I did, and the people who helped me. But I have to admit, after the experience I felt a little jaded. The constant vandalism, the concensus-building on Talk pages, the reversion/rewording of newly edited content -- they all took a toll on me. I came away thinking that the "everyone can edit everything" model has its flaws. I feel that individual contributors can make a difference on this website, which is admirable, but their work can also be washed away against countless other editors. As a writer, i'm used to complete control. I guess I found that hard to give up. Fortibus (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
It IS hard to give up. There are lots of flaws to Wikipedia's model, but I think it is still a good model. It really isn't designed to replace all encyclopedia's, just to be an alternative. There is also many advantages to this model, primarily in that the content is free "as in beer" and free "as in speech". Just about the only way to have that is either through a benevolent corporation, or crowd-sourcing. I would still consider it an experiment. You might read WP:Randy in Boise, a short but interesting essay that expands on your frustrations. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I think *some* SPAs are acting in good faith. The best way to test their good faith AND retain them would be to find some way to encourage them towards other topics that they're interested in. If they take to it, great. If they don't, well that proves they were never cut out for the encyclopedia anyway. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Building one good article is still 'building an encyclopedia' --Greenmaven (talk) 03:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • @ Jack Greenmaven, I completely agree. Building one good article at Wikipedia can have tremendous value. For example this particular article that is used in this example is approaching one million views. Nothing to be sneezed at even by those purist-wikipans who claim that popularity is inconsistent with wiki-values. In my opinion one article that brings that many eyes to wikipedia helps those other less viewed articles by getting more visitors, a few of whom may stay on to edit. It also helps bring more money donations to keep our servers running. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


SPA editors who are trying to build WikiProjects

I am not sure about this one, but have run into a few editors who made hundreds of contributions trying and create and promote a wp:WikiProject. They stop after a while when they don’t seem to be able to get their project off the ground. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

retention and where to draw the line

Although I am kinda new here at Wikipedia, and am very grateful for all the help I received when I was getting started, I have developed a major concern about some editors and what we can or should do to help them.

I have come to notice that there are a "class" (for lack of a better term) of newer, and sometimes not so new, editors that seem to have a total disregard for any kind of authority. Any social interaction (which Wikipedia definitely is) also comes with some social constraints. It is the nature of society. Back when this was Jimbo and a few of his friends, anarchy worked. As the number of editors grew, so did the rules. Again, just the nature of society. That haphazard development of our structure of social constraints here is (IMHO) the main reason why Wikipedia is so damn confusing for new, and even not so new, editors. Not a day goes by that I don't learn yet another rule that I hadn't heard of before.

All the previous paragraph is somewhat an aside to my point, that being: Where do we draw the line and recognize that there are just some people who's problem isn't their misunderstanding of the way we do things, but rather, their insistence that we do things their way, not the way we do them? The most ongoing wastes of time around here are not the drive-by editors (or even the vandals), not the SPA's, not the untrained newbie's, but the possibly well-intentioned folks that just cannot accept that there are going to be some constraints on what they do here.

I have advocated in the past for some more restrictive ways of approaching editing, including requiring registration and requiring new article creation occur on a template that requires referencing. Wikipedia has gotten huge, I think much more so than Jimbo ever envisioned it, and I believe the time has come to require a step into the field of editing. That step would need to include an acknowledgment that there are rules here, just as in any social interaction, and you will be required to follow them.

As an example, let's just say, that I am a nudist (scary thought). I believe fervently that nudism is right and proper. In the USA, no-one will contest my right to practice nudism in my own house or in the houses of other people that agree with my viewpoint. But the first time I go to the grocery store nude, I AM going to jail. If I were a nudist, I can promise I would recognize that constraint. People come here to Wikipedia and edit, sometimes for years, not understanding, no matter how many times they are warned or blocked, that the truth is not what we are after; but rather verifiable, referenced factual material. It is getting to be a big enough of a frustration for me that I am considering walking away, at least for a while.

I am hoping that this will start a discussion that will lead to some steps that will improve editor retention, while recognizing that there are editors that we would all be better off if they just walked away. Gtwfan52 (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

  • At it's core, Editor Retention is about keeping as many quality editors as possible, productively working in a fun environment. This means that people who stand in the way of providing that environment need to find a different hobby. Whether the reason is POV warrioring, sockpuppeting, or just being disruptive. We don't sacrifice the whole for the one.
  • I've found that often someone "new" who knows too much and hates authority is just another sockpuppet. No one starts at Wikipedia with a hatred of admin, for example (that is often earned or learned). Anyone who is anti-social or can't conform to basic rules of civility is a liability, not an asset. We can be tolerant, flexible and forgiving, but not fools. We also have to accept that this environment isn't for everyone, so we focus on making the environment as healthy as possible, for the maximum number of people. This will never include "everyone", but instead "most people". Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • One of the main problems are the new and inexperienced editors themselves who think it's cool to jump right in and start doing Wikipedia policework and/or helping out on help desks and noticeboards rather than concentrating on adding and/or improving content. Unfortunately, nobody - for some reason - appears to be too keen to discuss these issues. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't know how to fix those issues except one at a time, and half the time that gets them bent out of shape no matter how polite and educational you try to be. I have no issue with experienced non-admin closing discussions and such, and even encourage it if they have been here a few years and have shown to have clue, but it is difficult to debate with someone who knows the words to policy but doesn't understand the meaning behind them. Fortunately, these are more rare problems, but they can lead to new editors getting bad advice from inexperienced editors who fancy themselves an admin-helper. Dealing with this type of user without being ham-fisted is very difficult, and usually fruitless. Again, our goal is working on the larger environment so that the vast majority of people can edit in peace, which (unfortunately) means weeding out disruptive influences. How to weed out well meaning but disruptive influences, that isn't an easy one to figure out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
      "Disruptive" is in the eye of the beholder. Many have claimed that I'm disruptive, but of course they're talking out of their arses. I saw a classic Jeremy Bentham attitude displayed by one of the current crop of ArbCom candidates along the lines of "it doesn't matter who's right and who's wrong [in a case taken to Arbcom]; all that matters is which outcome is likely to lead to the greatest happiness for the greatest number". A bit like a justification for lynch mobs really. The guy being hanged will likely be a bit pissed, but most of the townsfolk will think it a job well done. Malleus Fatuorum 03:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it is time to try an automated rating system for editors. Users could wear a Userbox badge with pride, and aspire to ever higher levels of recognition. Or see where they stood in a quality distribution curve. "Encourage people to improve!" As far as I know, we are limited to the haphazard awarding of barnstars and the self-awarded ranks based on the number of edits and time elapsed since registration. Surely a better and more objective assessment could be attempted? --Greenmaven (talk) 03:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Such an "automated rating system" for editors sounds very similar to the "karma" point systems employed by communities such as Stack Overflow, etc. While they have worked in some of those cases, I'm pretty skeptical of them as are many Wikipedians. It's also the kind of thing that is extremely complex to engineer, without leaving huge gaps for gaming of such a point system. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 04:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
In agreement with the above, as there are SO many different things people do at Wikipedia. I personally don't create too terribly much content. Mostly just rewrites for clarity and referencing of already created content. This is because I live in a very small town and don't drive, so my access to quality reference material is very limited. But I do revert a ton of vandalism and I do a lot of work in bringing certain types of articles into line with the established guidelines for such articles. I also help out with questions at the Teahouse and mentor some editors one on one when they ask for help. I feel I make a valuable contribution here, but how would I get graded in a point system? There are also editors that crank out dozens upon dozens of stub class articles, which I also feel is a valuable contribution, as it gives others who may have access to some unique sources a chance to have an established, well-formatted platform to expand upon. Are their contributions going to be rated lower than editors who specialize in improving articles to good or featured status? A rating system would just be a can of worms and something else to piss people off. My thought are kinda like this: Notre Dame and Harvard graduates generally get better jobs than graduates of Boise State. Is that because they are such better schools? Partially. But mainly, I think it is because you don't get in the door at Notre Dame and Harvard unless you have already demonstrated an ability to do good work. Perhaps a probation period with plenty of available mentoring would be more productive. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
A simple beginning would be the percentage of reverted edits to total edits. Actually the point of discrimination is: is this a 'good' editor or a 'bad' editor. I don't believe this simple test should be that hard. Don't try to set the bar too high at first. Once someone is 'over the threshold', there is no need for further refinement (contradicting myself already). We need to identify the 'low performers' and then find out the best ways to attend to them. --Greenmaven (talk) 05:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
What happened to AGF? I don't support any point system. I understand Gtw's frustration. A recent attempt to assist a not-so-new editor didn't go well. But not from amy lack of effort and concern on Gtw's part. Reciprocity was non-existant from the other side. Where we started this thread seemed to be that some new editors (and some not-so-new editors) may not be worthy of retaining. No matter how many warnings they get, no matter how much good advice they get, they contnue to sit in cow-pies wherever they go. Gtw's concern seems to point to those new editors that sit in the cowpies on purpose. They like, need the attention. Creating Drama is all they know. No point system is necessary. They become obvious by the amount of cow-shit they carry from article to article. What to do with them is the problem. How do we convince them to watch where they sit...that a better, happier WP experince awaits them if they would just stop. I do think new editors need a "learners permit" before they hit the Main highway. Not too long ago a new editor set up an adoption agency and led a few newer yet editors completely astray. Good intentions, but terrible results. Resulting mis-information that still requires repair. ```Buster Seven Talk 05:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm used to Karma via Slashdot, which is easy to game. The problems with metrics is that they are too subjective. Someone might have mainly reverts, for example, and you would think that is bad. In reality, they may be doing us a favor and watching thousands of articles or patroling Recent Changes and quickly reverting vandalism. Wikipedia allows for a great deal of specialization. Few of us are generalists, most specialize in one area or another. I used to specialize in AfDs many years ago, trying to source passable articles to allow them to be kept, or commenting that I looked or providing other rationales when they were inappropriate articles. Now I just mop up the place. How do you put a metric that describes the value of this, say, compared to Malleus, whose primary contributions is adding content. I personally value what he does more than what I do, but does that make him a better Wikipedian? We both serve necessary functions, cogs in the same machine. If Wikipedia was smaller and we all did the same things, more or less, it would be easier to create a formula, but I think we are stuck with "in the eyes of our peers" as a measuring stick due to the complexity and diversity of both Wikipedia and the volunteers. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree that simple metrics are too easy to read misleading conclusions from. For instance, if you look at my stats, you might query my effectiveness as an editor, because only about 25% of my edits are on articles, with a large slice being in the Wikipedia and Wikipedia Talk spaces. The reason for that is that my average article edits are contributing content, which cover a lot in the space of a few edits (example here), while the WP edits are briefer comments which contribute more, and a lot of review / fixup work I do for WP:AfC is still parked in the Wikipedia Talk space. I'd be interested to see what the net number of bytes added to each article space are, although again that can be distorted by using templates a lot. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Train wrecks

Take a look at this train wreck of user templates. (Yes, one's from me). Amazingly, the user is still contributing - perhaps they haven't come across their talk page yet. This template overload would scare any newcomer off, in my opinion, particularly as this does appear someone writing about a musician with a credible claim to notability - not that stopped anyone coming out and whacking the CSD hammers (although I see they were retracted). --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Around half of those are file permissions, part (far from most, but part) of that bulk is just duplicated boilerplate. I realize we're unlikely to get an end to templating for such problems--we don't put much in the way of brakes on new contributors before they've had a chance to hear, never mind assimilate policy, and there are so many such problems that patrollers are going to use automation to help handle the load. Which means, templates. Where I'm going with this is this: I wonder if it would be possible for that automation to notice, when we place such templates, that a page already has a similar template--and to use a shorter version automatically in that case. --j⚛e deckertalk 21:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
A depressing number of user talk pages of newbies look like this. One step in the right direction would be to simply reduce the length of these messages; there's absolutely no reason why a simple notification about file permissions or speedy deletion needs to be two large paragraphs. In fact, we showed via randomized testing that short and sweet, with a focus on conveying one action for editors to take rather than a treatise on policy, is what works best. If anyone wants to draft new versions, let me know and I'll help. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Steven, Template:Di-no_permission-notice is, without question bulky. I haven't worked much at all in that area, but I'd be happy to try and help figure out how to make it more digestible. My first thoughts is that there might be a way to collapse the "if you're the creator" and the "if you can talk to the creator" sections, there's some replication there. Some of the instructions might be movable to a second page, as well, not that they wouldn't be longer (copyright being what it is), but at least they wouldn't be replicated when the template was placed multiple times on a page. Thoughts? --j⚛e deckertalk 23:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad this has been brought up. It's sorta scary to get a big bright bold-bordered block of official-sounding corrective text. Some balance is worth pursuing. "Friendly" text is too chatty and verbose, short text is invariably too stern and scolding (I'm guilty of that). I have opted for personalized, remedy-oriented text with a minimum of linking:
== File:Serbian Orthodox Church Vinkovci.jpg ==
This image is likely to be deleted, because it's a non-free image of a building for which a free image could reasonably be taken. If you want the image kept, and kept at high resolution, I strongly suggest getting the photographer to license that image freely under Creative Commons, using CC-BY-3.0. This means the photographer retains their copyright, but licenses anyone to use the image forever with credit given ("attribution") to the photographer, with no share-alike, meaning no derivative uses or remixing permitted.
Here are the steps:
  1. Copy and fill out the form from Commons:OTRS#Licensing_images:_when_do_I_contact_OTRS.3F (scroll down) with the CC-BY license 3.0 indicated.
  2. Send the form and image to the photographer.
  3. Get them to fill out the rest of the form. Have them email reply with the attachments intact to you, that way you can doublecheck their work.
  4. While you're waiting, put {{OTRS pending}} on the image Description page. No kidding around, get the permission.
  5. After the photographer sends back the filled-out form+image to you, forward it, attachments intact, to permissions-commons(at)wikimedia.org
    (if the image has been deleted in the meantime, upload it to Commons, with the CC-BY license, and {{OTRS pending}} as above)
  6. After OTRS responds by email, they, or you, will add the OTRS ticket # to the image file.
--signature
So far, it has worked once, but I had to "email this user" to prompt a reaction. --Lexein (talk) 10:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I've had a discussion elsewhere on the internet about the merits of sending verbose template messages that explain the problem in detail, versus short and succinct messages that don't get parsed as tl;dr and ignored, and the only conclusion I can reach is - it's really hard to write an effective message for one editor, and impossible to write an effective message for everyone. Meanwhile, I'll continue the "A7 CSD != not notable" fight as and when I can. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
So - too long? --Lexein (talk) 11:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, it is long.  :) I still wonder if we need to repeat the instructions for what to do if we've already provided them on the same talk page. "Hey, and also this one, same deal: Foo.jpg", you'd think, would be no less effective. (And no, I"m not suggesting that precise wording. *grin* ) --j⚛e deckertalk 16:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
That's a very good idea: an editor could post the standard template, and they (or a bot) could use the shortened "see prior" version, with |see_prior=yes --Lexein (talk) 08:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Where is this wikiproject going?

It was started on July 1, 2012, the last update was on Oct 1, 2012, and this is the stated goal:

In order to improve the overall retention of editors at Wikipedia, we must find new ways to get the community more involved. Policies are NOT decided here, but discussed, with the goal of finding solutions that are specifically geared toward retaining editors. Some of the topics discussed are controversial and contentious. Participants should strive to remain civil at all times. We all share the same goal of keeping good editors here.

Any ideas? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It started as a good idea, but now appears to be a project similar to the People's Front of Judea (Life of Brian reference) - an organization, which spends its time discussing things and never really doing them. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 15:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
No...we're the Popular People's Front (splitter!!!). And beware the Judean Peoples' Front... Intothatdarkness 15:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Please Note: The Peacemaking Meeting scheduled for tomorrow has been cancelled due to conflict. . Buster Seven Talk 16:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, I get a fair number of requests on my talk page regarding editor retention, as well as one or two emails a week, pointing me to problems that need attention. Typically, editors that have left. I don't post them here since the Project focuses on the system rather than the individuals, but I've been pretty busy. The project itself is taking shape and changing as we define what is and isn't "editor retention". It is pretty normal for their to be a flurry of activity when something is new, but we are looking for focus now. The best things we can do for editor retention will never grace these pages, and lies with the actions we all take. In many ways, this talk page is a forum for people interested in the concept as a whole, rather than a singular project. The elections are ongoing and there is the typical holiday lull in participation. We are all a bit busy. But I certainly haven't forgotten it, as retention is still a big part of every day life for me here. Like any project, we rely on everyone coming here and pointing us to discussions and events that relate to editor retention. If any RfCs or other discussions that effect retention are found, they should be posted here. The place is simply too big for any one person to keep up with all of it, that is what we depend on the members for, to help each other. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I think you will find that WER members are, like DB points out above, active in retaining editors as they go about their business. It may be at the Teahouse or welcoming new editors or changing the drift of a conversation so that "I'm outta here" isn't considered. Just because there's not alot of drama here doesn't mean there is no energy. From what I have seen from fellow WER members, the action is out on the street...not here in the clubhouse. With over 100 members, I'd say we are involved in the community in "behind the scenes ways" that are not as obvious as some other Question/Response type of projects. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad there's so many pointing out the good difference WER makes and enlightening me =D
Have a nice weekend all ツ Jenova20 (email) 19:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
It's the people that make the difference. This is just where they hang out. ;) Think of WER as the Cheers of editor retention, which I supposed makes Buster our Norm Peterson. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to request Frasier...ツ Jenova20 (email) 12:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure who is Cliff, we do get a few drive bys that are similar ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Does that make Dennis Rebekah? Gtwfan52 (talk) 16:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Or a combination of Sam and Rebecca (in an androgynous kinda way} ```Buster Seven Talk 17:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
You never know. I could be a pigmy living in Seattle and the picture on my user page a complete fabrication. Or really be Kirstie Alley in the real world. After all...[3] Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Is it time to remodel?

I've always been impressed with the design and functionality of Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism. Are there any carpenters and design consultants among the membership? We need a bigger space...kinda like The Factory. For instance, I was going to gather assorted WER guidelines together in one place. But then where do I put them?? A manila folder behind the bar just won't do. Norm Peterson aka ```Buster Seven Talk 17:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Just curious. Whatever happened to User:Lionelt? He was such a mover and a shaker that its hard to believe he would just fall off the face of WP. He didn't move or shake to my liking but for awhile there it seemed like he was everywhere. BTW...I agree with his self-identification as an evil genius. Norm aka Buster Seven Talk 04:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
He had an avalanche of controversy fall on him regarding accusations of POV pushing by his Wikiproject Consevatism. I think he may have cut his losses and left rather than respond to it. A shame, as we'll never know his side of it now, Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 14:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


  • So many tabs!! I do appreciate the cleanliness of the "everything on a separate page" style of setup, but I'll act as the voice of strong caution, in that the more clicks it takes to find something, the less that thing will be found. If a tab-interface is wanted, I'll strongly urge the minimal number of tabs that is possible - I'd personally prefer just an aesthetic overhaul of this page, with less black-bar, and less sidebar, and perhaps a re-grouping to get everything congregated into 4 or 5 main subsections (versus the 14+ level2 headers we have currently). Scrolling is easier than click-hunting. HTH. –Quiddity (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Why is this section on this page? What is the connection between Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism and WikiProject Editor Retention??? Lova Falk talk 18:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
It's not about Conservatism, it's about one of the members who left. That's directly related to editor retention. In all honesty i think that conversation has ended anyhow. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 21:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
While the discussion isn't about the Conservatism project, we may discuss other projects from time to time anyway. We don't have much in the way of rigid rules, other than "do not point fingers" here. That project does have the nicest menu layout I've ever seen, and I had noticed that well before this conversation, and admitted even admired it as well. Lionelt knows how to design pages quite well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
@ Lova_Falk. The connection is that the Conservative project has a well-designed, easy-to-use entry page...designed by User:Lionelt, a VERY formitable and competant editor who, for some unknown reason, has disappeared. Thats what WER looks at: the answer to the question, "Why do ediotrs leave?". Its like seeing a well-constructed and designed building and wondering how to get in touch with the architect. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I would be glad to apprentice and assist any editor with the ry-m0dE!ing of our project page. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

A call for help at WP:AfC

I am hearing a lot about WP:Articles for Creation on the various boards. In particular, how backlogged and messy the place is. Many new editors get their start there and there is a drastic shortage of editors willing to assist there, give tips to the new editors on getting their articles into main space, and just getting them started strong. To me, this is an important part of editor retention: Taking new users and getting them up to speed. Likely, it is the most understaffed area on Wikipedia yet is the first place that many new editors see. Anyone looking to make a difference should consider volunteering there part time as it is a great way to make a difference. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

A regular participant over there, I can attest that we are swamped. Any help is greatly appreciated. Even if you only have time for 5 articles a week, that's better than nothing. Go Phightins! 13:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
The instructions on what is needed to be done over at WP:AfC are not bery clear. I picked one article and started to do the some normal copy editing. Is that the Idea? Do I contact the article creator now? Do I remove it from the list? JUst not sure and I want to get it right. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Keep in mind the goal is as much to keep spam and improper material out as it is to help new editors. Don't forget to read the manual. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Is there some simple tool (like we have STiki for vandalism; or maybe just an add-on, like Twinkle?) that randomly loads an AfC (along with any other necessary details) and allows the user to make the necessary changes and classify the edit then as "Approved", "under hold" or "Declined"? That sort of thing will be useful to solve many problems related to reviewing AfCs quickly.
Otherwise I suggest we find a way to make the process more streamlined and easier. Have a holding area containing all the oldest AfCs pending for review, and have simple tools to do the needful (I found it hard to understand when I went there to review and ended up leaving without doing any work). If those two simple criterion are met, we can have a faster and steadier rate of reviews. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • AfC desperately needs help, I think particularly from subject experts. I concentrate on reviewing music and occasionally software related articles, but other stuff would just take too long to pick through. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Helloo

Hello, i would like to join this project; more specifically the New editor retention, where I am more interested than the other sections. Can anyone please tell me if and what I can do to help?

Also, I have the following two suggestions for snuggle - 1) Articles and article talk are in green. i suggest changing the colour so that there is no confusion between article green and good faith green. 2) There ought to be a colour code symbolizing whats what. 3) A quick one-line description along with the prototype will do good. We need to know WHAT exactly I can do, or else I might find myself clicking on lots of buttons only to later find out it was only for classifying editors 4) the current version shows only the changes done by the editor, which may be confusing. Having a line before and after that line under question will do good to provide a quick context as to whether adding a link to Osama bin Laden is actually justified, as might be for an Al Qaeda article, or not, for one on a school in UK. 5) There must be a quick way of sending in those welcome templates etc from the interface. I would want to be able to send the template too, rather than only classify the editor as good or bad.

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Apparently I am already a part then.
I was for a more active role here. Adding a name was one thing, and taking part was another. How can I take part?
Btw I am very much in favour of having a succinct guide to everything on just one page - See my sandbox for a conversation that I saved from a user page. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure if I already have. I did post on some external website but not sure if I did. Can you please check if the comment was posted? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
No, there aren't any comments from you on that page. Just wondering: are you having any trouble visiting the page? isaacl (talk) 19:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Was it supposed to be done BELOW the move request? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Just like you did on this page, you can create a new section on the Snuggle talk page to open a discussion based on your comments. isaacl (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Tag Bombing (drive-by tagging), again

I remember some discussion on this talk page that is now archived(where is it?), talking about the habit of many editors to welcome a new editor with a template and in the same breath deposit one or more other templates warning the user that he is infringing some policy or other. I thought at the time that every agreed this comes across as insincere. However, I wonder if we should discuss this in more depth because to my surprise there are many experienced editors (including admins) who do not recognize this as a problem, some don’t even acknowledge that this exists.

What do others think? Is Tag Bombing a problem? Does drive-by tagging exist at wikipedia? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

  • If someone uses a single Level 1 warning, which is very mild and only a "reminder", I don't have a problem. Often someone will just add original research, or something else mild, or even a simple vandalism ("hi there!") that warrants just the level 1 and welcome template. If it requires more than a Level 1, then they should use a hand written note. Adding a welcome template and a level 4 warning is contradictory. This isn't about policy as much as WP:COMMONSENSE. The problem, of course, is this isn't enforceable and all we can do is suggest that others use common sense. I think that TW can be set to default to provide a welcome template if the talk page is blank, so if they don't uncheck it, the template is automatic and they might not even notice they did that with their warning. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Kinda' reminds me of grade school days. It was always nice to get a little "You can do better" note from the teacher on my returned C+ test paper. It didn't work but it was the pleasant thought that counted. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The following "tag" was borrowed from User:Vchimpanzee. It is not about tagging of new editors, but still conveys the message I am struggling to verbalize:

Ottawahitech (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I actually "borrowed" that from somewhere else, but I couldn't tell you where.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I have to jog my memory to be certain but I may have created that tag a few years back at the behest of my mentor User:Alastair Haines. The original is at the bottom of my User page. There was a previous tag that I worked from so I didn't create it from scratch...to be continued...```Buster Seven Talk 00:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Use of wiki-jargon is intimidating - exludes others

I don't know if it is only me, but I regularly find myself in discussions that I cannot interpret without a great amount of effort (following links and doing an inordinate amount of background "investigation"). I don't want to pick on any individual here, but I am sure user: Dennis Brown who started this wikiproject, has a high reputation at wikipedia & I am sure is acting in good faith, would not mind me pointing to him for the purpose of illustrating my point.

See the section above where Dennis is talking about Level 1-4 warnings – this is the type of thing I am intimidated by. I have no idea what those warning levels are so obviously cannot see the connection to my question. How can I participate in the discussion that I started? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

  • You can always ask for clarification :) As you can see, others will jump in and help you around here. I had assumed you were familiar with Twinkle, due to that being a very good question that made it sound like you were familiar with Twinkle. If you were, then the different levels would be intuitive. And while I try to not use too much jargon (note how I link WP:COMMONSENSE), I don't claim that I'm perfect either. I have to talk to people who are experts at the system, and complete novices, so how I speak to someone is based on my understanding of their experience level. If I'm talking to highly experienced admin, for example, I will use the shortest forms of the policy statement. It is just annoying to them when fellow admin over-explain things, like you are talking down to them. Same when an editor comes to my talk page, they might say "WP:OR warrior at Cookies" to me and nothing else because I will know exactly what that means and it was meant specifically for me and explaining it in full blown detail is superfluous. I might then tell the warrior "You can't introduce original research in articles, and once reverted, you need to discuss the edit on the talk page of the article, following the advice found in WP:BRD." Not perfect, but sometimes you need to just point them in the right direction as it takes many paragraphs to explain what original research is, and to understand the idea of "Be Bold, Revert and Discuss". I probably do use it a little too much even though I try to keep my comments fairly simple. It isn't easy to always tell the other person's familiarity level. Finally: yes, you can always use me as an example, my shoulders are broad, and I take no offense whatsoever. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • To add more clarity, most "warnings" have four levels, as Ritchie explained: 1. Note, 2. Caution. 3. Warning 4. Final warning. You start by giving a level 1 to an editor, then a 2, then a 3, etc. If they keep violating, they get blocked as they have had ample warning. Some acts warrant a level 4 warning on the first offense, ie: the second time they do it, they get blocked. This is usually extreme violations of our policy on Biographies of living persons or very, very malicious edits. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The only other caveat I would personally add to that is that you should use common sense and judgement about what template levels to use when. If you spot really obvious vandalism (a random assertion of homosexuality being a sure fire case), you might want to go straight to level 3. Conversely, if an editor has hit several articles at once with patent nonsense, which might simply be because their five year old son has got hold of the computer (stranger things have happened), you might want to hold fire from just doing one template per edit, until you're sure they've read the message to stop. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • This is a good point, and something I've thought about a fair amount. Wikipedia does indeed have a lot of policies and essays, and a lot of them have weird acronyms that we throw around a lot (3RR, POV, OR, V, BRD, RS, UNDUE, N, ANI, to name a few). These acronyms have deep meaning to us, but they do confuse newcomers. My opinion on messages to new users is that they should be written out and wikilinked as if they were part of a Wikipedia article. The message should be easily understandable, even if the user doesn't click on the link (which they probably won't). Instead of "Be careful not to violate WP:3RR", I recommend "Wikipedia has a strict three-revert rule that prohibits undoing another's edits three times in a single day." Instead of "I undid your edit because it was WP:POV", try, "I undid your edit because it didn't seem to follow Wikipedia's policy that articles should be written from a neutral point of view." Another thing that can confuse very new users is the concept of a "Talk" page. Many new users don't know it exists, and for those that do, it's often called the "Discussion" page, not the "Talk" page (particularly in the case of IP editors). ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree completely that we should spell out the nutshell of the acronym when we talk to new editors. That way the lesson to the new editor is given in the moment it is needed. As DB states most editors will not go read the rule or guideline. When we spell it out, they can't ignore the meaning. It's clearly stated, right there in front of them. It's not open to how they interpret the rule. We, the more experienced and knowledgeable editors, have explained it in a clear non-gibberish way. Also, the intent to instruct is a bit more obvious and may soften the "Who are you to tell me" reponse. ```Buster Seven Talk 23:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Small update: Turns out I was wrong about the "Talk" page being called "Discussion" page for IPs. It looks like that changed earlier this year, February, perhaps. As a side note, this discussion got me thinking about the links in the "Welcome" template, prompting me to make some suggestions for changes on the talk page. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The main point stands, that we all use acronyms too much out of habit from talking to each other. It becomes such a habit, and guys like me have been here for so many years, it is easy to forget how that makes new editors feel even more like "outsiders". Not sure how to fix that other than individuals making a person decision to try better, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

If the acronyms are blue links, there's really no excuse for not following them. It's positively amazing however, how few new editors bother to follow the links in the welcome messages they get. Not only amazing, but darned exasperating. In the aftermath of WP:ACTRIAL nearly two years ago a call was made for a proper landing page for new users. The WMF has repeatedly said they are working on it (or at least 'revisiting' it), but it obviously does not appear to be one of their priorities. They seem to be more interested in quantity (à la GEP) than quality. Perhaps they need a friendly poke. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention/Archive_3&oldid=1147977898"