Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Wikipedia:GettingStarted

FEWIW. I just stumbled upon this. I thought I would share it right away. I noticed it as a 'tag' edit behind a talk-redlinked new editor at Recent changes. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC).

  • GettingStarted is a new feature, which provides a "getting started" page to newly registered Wikipedians. Immediately after creating an account, users see the page Special:GettingStarted, which invites them to try out editing by improving one of the pages presented.
If anyone has any questions about this, let me know. (It's something my team is working on.) Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 23:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Our third Editor of the Week is...

... Coal town guy. Please feel free to drop by at the Editor of the Week main page and take a look if you haven't already. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Commons shows how not to do it 8-(

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#To_me_this_is_promotional

A good pro photographer shows up? Light up the flaming pitchforks! Andy Dingley (talk) 03:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I see both sides of the issue, but I'd say it the wikifolk could have handled things better. I certainly would have felt attacked. --NickPenguin(contribs) 03:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I can see two sides to this at Wikipedia. Some of his image swapping certainly wasn't handled well. His actions at Commons I would see as entirely acceptable. The level of "acceptable" self-promotion is certainly a question that can reasonably be asked, but in the absence of any firm rulings on it, it's surely wrong to hound contributors over it.
Mostly though, there is a long tradition that user problems, up to and including high-profile indef site bans, aren't carried across between projects. Yet in this case they certainly are. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Another one bites the dust

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Arriva436&curid=7397173&diff=535572970&oldid=483409267

A more keenly enforced civility policy would have prevented this, since the editor responsible for the "crap" comment had been warned about this sort of thing before.

Most editors, though, are against such enforcement. So it continues. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Lets ask Jimbo what he thinks of a stronger civility enforcement. Maybe his opinions would matter enough to get us to make stronger rules.
Are we not trying to get Arriva back or what? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Note the retiring editors complaint about 'totalitarian rules regime'. Rules to enforce civility policy would make more of a rules regime not less. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 01:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
The reason most of them go is not because of totalitarian rules, but because of incessant biting by others. Its THAT which we got to stop, and with an Iron hand too. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 02:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
The degree of intolerance to others that you express is the reason this place is no longer a happy place. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 21:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Attracting/developing younger editors?

I just mentioned both this project and Wikipedia:WikiProject Popular Culture on Talk:Shinto in popular culture. It may benefit from other comment, or it may be completely ignorable. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Noetica

User:Noetica, an expert contributor to Wikipedia:Manual of Style, is leaving Wikipedia.
—Wavelength (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Our fourth Editor of the Week is...

... Diiscool. Please feel free to drop by at the Editor of the Week main page and take a look if you haven't already. The ideal candidate for "Editor of the Week" is an editor who works hard, possibly doing behind-the-scenes kind of stuff, who does not get the recognition and acknowledgement that they should. Present your nomination at: WP:EotW/N.```Buster Seven Talk 07:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

WMF grant proposal

I have submitted a proposal for one of WMF's new Individual Engagement Grants. It is a pilot project to determine whether coaching new editors on their writing for the English Wikipedia improves editor retention, focusing on women and Global Southerners. If you would like to endorse this project, you can do so here. I would also appreciate any other feedback, pro or con, which can be posted here. Thanks! Libcub (talk) 03:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Requests for comment/User conduct (RfCU) could benefit from additional editors

Hi! I'm not sure this is the right WikiProject to notify about this, but Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct seems to not have many active volunteers helping provide outside views; it would benefit from a few more eyes if anyone here is interested. I believe that helping resolve those disputes could be a form of editor retention project because conduct issues of the kind brought to RfCU (including civility issues) can heavily discourage and disillusion experienced editors. (I'm involved in one of the listed RfCUs, and I've noticed that the other listed RfCUs also haven't had much recent activity from outside editors.) Dreamyshade (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Our fifth Editor of the Week is...

... benzband. Please feel free to drop by at the Editor of the Week main page and take a look if you haven't already. The ideal candidate for "Editor of the Week" is an editor who works hard, possibly doing behind-the-scenes kind of stuff, who does not get the recognition and acknowledgement that they should. Present your nomination at: WP:EotW/N.```Buster Seven Talk 07:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Lucia Black

Lucia Black (talk · contribs) was expressing their frustration and said they were on the verge of quitting at VPM here. Biosthmors (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

A talk page post worth noting

I found the following post at Talk:Gerlach Flicke:

This article is in desperate need of some serious work. There are numerous assertions not supported by any real evidence. Footnote or Reference #1 cites a journal publication that has absolutely nothing to do with Gerlach Flicke. Can some Wiki addict please fix this article? Having been castigated every time I have tried to fix errors in an article, I am not about to take it on myself! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.244.85 (talk) 01:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems that this IP is using a changing IP address, as this is the only contribution to that particular number. But every IP editor is also a future registered editor, so we want to keep these one-timers. I suspect that 98 has been a victim of excessive reverting - many editors are way too quick to revert edits, and often for trivial reasons - I was once reverted for not formatting a citation correctly. Comments? Ego White Tray (talk) 04:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I *was* a registered contributor for some time, several years ago. And I am a qualified, published expert in a couple of narrow fields of history and art history. The German-born artist Gerlach Flicke happens to be one of those narrow fields. I am, for example, currently engaged in a project for the National Gallery of Scotland that involves the authentication of a painting attributed to Flicke. But in the past, my experiences with attempting to edit erroneous articles on Wikipedia was so intensely negative that I withdrew. And no, it was not due to reversions for trivial reasons. It was for very substantive edits that were reverted by crackpots (the only word I know to use) who based their edits on such "facts" as astrological proofs and information given out by ill-trained volunteer tour guides at local historical sites. Rather than spend my time trying to explain to "contributors" that an astrological "reading" is not proof of any historical fact, I simply stopped trying. I've always had an major issue with the open-source nature of Wikipedia for just that reason. Published experts are not allowed to cite their own published work, even where that work is published by peer-reviewed academic presses and is virtually the only research on the given subject, but any other contributor is perfectly free to cite a little-old-lady tour guide as an "expert". It baffles me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.244.85 (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

You've raised an interesting point. Many Wikipedians interpret WP:COI as meaning that you mustn't edit on any subject you actually know something about. Malleus Fatuorum 20:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Quite so. They're also not capable in some cases of discerning individual notability from a notable event. Intothatdarkness 20:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

So let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that I am the only art historian in the world to have fully researched and studied Gerlach Flicke. And let's further assume that I have an academic article forthcoming in a prestigious international academic journal on art history. Am I to understand that I am forbidden by Wiki policy from editing and improving the Wiki article on Flicke, simply because I actually know something about him? Instead, we must wait for some "know-nothing" to come along and cite my published article for me? I cannot do it myself? If that is indeed the case, then I am sure you will appreciate my incredulity, and further appreciate why legitimate scholars consider Wikipedia to be a laughing stock. it woudl be comparable to the inmates running the asylum if the "know-nothings" have sole control over editing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.244.85 (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

No, within the conflict of interest policy you can still self-cite. Provided you don't engage in naked self-promotion or include unsourced material you should be alright. The other policy to note, I guess, is the rather nebulous one detailing the relative coverage to give to different source material (totally impressionistic criteria). You'll be in a stronger position to edit the article once your own publication has appeared, obviously. That's the theory anyway. On a practical note, there's certainly a fairly widespread culture here that is antagonistic to the very notion of editor expertise and experts may not typically have a happy time on wikipedia. Either way, you won't be able to simply add what you wish on the basis of your claimed (or even verified) academic status (see User:James Cantor, an international expert in the field of sexology, to get a sense of potential problems). There also have been notable cases of expert impersonation on wikipedia and this has complicated the situation. Edits should stand or fall on the quality of the authorities which they cite rather than the status of the editor; similarly, conflict of interest is (or should be) evaluated in terms of a given edit rather than the editor's relationship to the subject. The standard advice is for an editor with a conflict of interest to register an account, declare the nature of their conflict of interest on their talk page and state how they're going to address it. Obviously, you're going to have to make clear how you intend to improve the article without promoting your own work in an undue fashion. I'm watching the page now, as are quite a few editors on this page I'd imagine, so if you want to suggest or make changes go ahead so long as they reference a decent published source.FiachraByrne (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure all of those comments and suggestions are perfectly valid, Fiachra, but the process you describe is exceedingly burdensome for any but the most devoted of contributors. There is less "process" involved even with publishing in many respected academic journals. And that is a serious issue for Wikipedia, its reputation and its credibility. As long as it is easier for a person to publish in a respected academic journal, and as long as the author is subjected by academic journals to less hoop-jumping in order to establish his or her credibility, Wiki can only enter in at the bottom of the ladder of respectability. Throughout my own teaching career at a large state university, I have consistently refused to allow students to cite Wikipedia in their research papers ... and I will continue to do so. Wikipedia is just too unreliable, largely because of its own policies governing "open source" editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.244.85 (talk) 05:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

My purpose was not to proslytise about Wikipedia and I'm not in disagreement with your assessment – although, beyond students, I'm not aware of anyone seriously advocating that Wikipedia be used as an academic source. My intent was merely to point out that if you have published material that you'd like the article to reflect there is an imperfect means to do that. FiachraByrne (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is dying" discussion at the Village Pump.

There's currently a discussion at WP:VPP#Wikipedia is dying. Does anyone care? that some of you might be interested in. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

An interesting read

Came across this today. It's a scholarly article that examines issues related to retaining newcomers. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The first five pages of that report (which are all I read thus far) are striking. To me, that says we need to create an environment in which each editor can find something constructive to do, be it help beef up sources, clean up an article, expand an article, or create a new one. This needs to be done in a bite-free atmosphere where experienced editors are eager, not just grudgingly willing, to lend a helping hand and answer questions. If we can foster an environment like that for newcomers, I would surmise that we will be able to retain far more of them. But as the article asserts, we need to do so one at a time. We can't template them and move on, we need to establish contact with them, let them know where to go with questions. That is what editor retention is all about. Go Phightins! 03:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration System

The article User:GoP is talking about. An important and educational readfor all interested Members.

  • Hypothesis 1: Rejection and retention: Increasing rates of rejection have caused a decrease in the retention of desirable newcomers.
  • Hypothesis 2: Tool use and consequences: The use of algorithmic tools to reject newcomer contributions is exacerbating the decrease in desirable newcomer retention.
  • Hypothesis 3: Norm formalization and calcification: Formalization of norms has made it more difficult for newer generations of editors to shape the official rules of Wikipedia.
```Buster Seven Talk 08:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I bite a lot of first time editors, and I'm not planning on stopping. This is a good article, well worth reading, but one aspect it doesn't really look at is the difference between a new editor that we want to keep and one that we just don't. AGF is a fine principle, but school IPs adding "poo" to articles is a joke that wears rapidly thin. Burn out for RCP patrollers is very likely to take the form that "All IPs are evil vandals" followed by "Kill them all, let Jimbo sort them out." This is something we need to guard against carefully, but at the same time, poo is poo and we don't have to be polite and encouraging when we're dealing with a 13 year old who can't even spell it. I work really hard on new editors, scrupulously evenly to IPs, and if there's a shred of hope that they might be a GF editor confused by policy or just their keyboard, then I'll go the distance. But most of them aren't, and Mr Poo is getting whacked ASAP because I've got better things I ought to be writing. Don't be tooo quick to judge snappy vandal patrollers until you've seen just how deep the mire is out in those trenches. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
The study did examine the proportion of newcomers falling into desirable categories versus undesirable, with the number staying "relatively consistent from 2006 forward". There is an increase in the percentage of desirable newcomers who encounter reverts in their first editing session, though the line bounces up and down a bit so some of the variation may be noise, and a decrease in the percentage of desirable newcomers who continue to edit 2 months after their initial edit session. isaacl (talk) 04:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Isaacl is right. It divided newcomers into four categories:
1. vandal (editing to cause harm or offend, e.g., slurs, insults, and libel),
2. bad faith (damage for fun, e.g., humorous falsehoods),
3. good faith (trying but not productive, e.g., non-neutral content), and
4. golden (valuable contributions).
Unfortunately, based on their study, golden and good-faith editors are being reverted more and more (page 14) and surviving (sticking around) less and less (page 15). About 5% of golden and good-faith editors stick around in 2011, down from almost 40% in 2003. From 2007-2010 it's hung around 10%. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
This study confirms what many of us know to be some of the issues that discourage new "golden" and "good-faith" editors from hanging around. Maybe we need to think about scrapping WP:MOSTEDITS, as it sends out the wrong message - quantity over quality. With the automated tools, it is ever easier to rack up edits with fast and loose reverts. For example, yesterday I noticed a new editor had 2/3 of their edits reverted (manually, and with a clear edit summary, by an otherwise good editor) for using material from a subscription-only website [[1]]. My guess is that that content is available elsewhere, but fixing the edit would be much more work. I would myself, but I'm too busy with real work right now.Edwardx (talk) 10:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
It distinguishes between desirable and undesirable editors, but my impression of it was that any rapid, script-based whacking of new editors was seen as bad, because it wasn't extending this editor categorization into similarly judging the response to them. As someone who quickly LARTs vandals, I felt that my efforts here were being criticised by the report, as if I were also doing it to valuable new editors. Given the levels of vandalism we still suffer, then I simply don't have the time to extend welcoming wikilove to all new editors, vandals included. I also feel that this would be an inappropriate thing to do for them, as WP:DENY works better than feeding the trolls (especially for Western teenagers). As a huge strand of vandalism though is Indian ISPs "tagging" articles (adding "This was written by Raj"), then I consider a warning template to be an appropriate response. It's not major vandalism, it may be test editing, I suspect some of it is even coming from college classes where students are told to make test edits like this. Neither way is it acceptable though, or something I think should be condoned, even though I'm quick to forgive it.
As to MOSTEDITS, then I make a point of not knowing how many I have myself, as I recognise the risk. I have been criticised in the past though both for having "too many" edits (my edits are nothing more than vandalism warnings, so I'm not a "real editor", whatever that is) and also for having too few edits, if I have the temerity to challenge an admin or an editor like TenPoundHammer or koavf. You just can't win, so I'm not interested in playing that game. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Rather than leave welcomes for new editors, maybe we should start leaving this: . Fore-warned is fore-armed. If they know whats coming maybe it won't hurt so much. ```Buster Seven Talk 17:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there any place where we can welcome the users for open friendly discussions? The teahouse is one of them. I tried to make The Rolling Ball for that very purpose, but it seems to be almost stagnating right now. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Dont give up on Wikipedia:Rolling Ball. If you would like, you can add it to the Welcome that I use (most of the time). ```Buster Seven Talk 22:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey guys, I really appreciate this discussion. Staeiou, Jtmorgan and I took this study very seriously. It was our waking life for a few months while we were working at the Foundation and the next few months as we put together this manuscript. In the wake of this work, we've been busy trying to solve some of the problems we discovered in this research.

I just want to respond generally to a couple of things. The first is that we tried our best to paint an unbiased picture of what we thought was actually happening in the encyclopedia. While this work might be construed to paint the picture that vandal fighters are somehow at fault or intentionally pushing good newcomers away, we try to make the point clear in the conclusion that the system of vandal fighting in Wikipedia is a necessity for reasons that have been noted. I've tried to make the point when I was interviewed about this work (by a small subset of those who reported on it) that the vandal fighting tools implicated by this work are actually a brilliant, robust, efficient solution to a complicated and difficult problem that threatened the viability of Wikipedia as an open encyclopedia. If we are half as effective as Wikipedians were in 2006-07 when these tools were invented, we'll solve this problem too.

The second is that Jtmorgan and I are putting our time and energy where our mouths are. We're not calling for the deconstruction of Huggle and Cluebot. Instead, we're working to build the structure, communities and software necessary to both have efficient vandal fighting and effective socialization of desirable new editors. Jtmorgan has been pivotal in constructing and maintaining the WP:Teahouse and I've been using all of my waking hours that aren't promised to my employer to get features developed for WP:Snuggle. --EpochFail(talk • work) 16:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Andy Dingley mentioned that he shares a general disdain for IP editors with members of the poorly thought out RCP. I'm fairly confident that this is a result of selection bias.

I think a lot of the problems come down to groupthink of the elite in situation where the elite hold no power. Treating wikipedia like a plutocracy, when wikipedia was thought up as, designed as, and functions as a polyarchy.

A good example of this is formatting. I'm looking at the edit screen right now, and it's utter chaos. The result is that it neither fits the needs of the much maligned plebe, or the overindulged "golden" poweruser. The poweruser is going to be creating infoboxes, adding templates, creating all the complicated things you see on the wiki. The edit box is just a trainwreck in almost every way. It's organization was planned out with something akin to a shotgun, there's no consistency or structure, and as previously mentioned, it's trying to fit the user into labyrinthine hole made by the coder rather than tailoring the interface to it's users.

This is emblematic of one of the big problems. The groupthink of the elite. I'm sorry to criticize the work put into it, but I've been aware of the teahouse for a while, but I always ignored it, while putting this together I looked at it and found a familiar structure that I've seen in other places on wikipedia. I could pick the nits of the teahouse for a while, but I'll simply point out what seems to jump out like a 20 ft neon sign. You're directing every newcomer to a list of a dozen or two editors...

So let's say the teahouse is the apex of perfection... And newcomers actually use it... The dozens volunteers would have to provide rapid feedback to tens of thousands of editors an hour.

But also, it's trying to filter the plebes through the elites. It's trying to form them into this ridiculous ideal for editors.

First, that's obviously ridiculous. But secondly, I'm not saying that there's no place for "elite" power users, and I'm not trying to deride their contribution. An elite user that can work a bot for instance can help a lot of articles with very little effort, and that's obviously very valuable... But here's the thing. You don't go out and find them. As on every tin pot community on the internet, people find their niches, usually power seekers seek power, but the elite powerusers don't need to be cultivated. They can even make sense of wikipedia's non mainspace. You can't stop them; though god you try.

Wikipedia needs to cater to the plebe, and try to enable them to act AS plebes. Wikipedia does NOT need to try to mold those plebes into elites. The big thing to avoid is this whole idea of gentrifying them. Trying to take people off the street, and give them self help books, and try to dress them up in the crazy fashion favored by the wiki elite, and keep raising the bar on them over and over.

Unfortunately there is the inescapable conflict between catering to plebes and strict adherence to policy. But the response is not to go back to the idea of gentrifying the plebes, the response is to tailor the policy to the plebes.

The standard response to someone violating policy on a page is to give them a link to the policy they violated. There are several problems with this. For one, the policy pages are a rats nest. The policy is dumped in a bag with everything else and there's distinction between what is policy in the bag and what isn't. Another problem is that policy is only ever casually observed, and the policy is not written with the plebes in mind.

Ideally there would be a very small number of guiding principles. Policy areas would be very clearly marked, so there wouldn't be confusion between policies, general instructions, essays, and whatever other random stuff is in non mainspace. The central idea is to make easy rules easily accessible to the plebes, and they should not be mixed in with quirky joke essays, outdated or apocryphal essays, quirky contradictory "don't do this, but don't do the opposite either" essays etc.

Ideally you would build from the ground up. For instance, take the "quality control mechanisms" noted in the article, and get good hard data on them. Do A/B studies on them. A good thing to remember that I read in a recent rfA is that there is no deadline for wikipedia, but there always seems to be a rush for deletions for instance. Let's say that whatever the current article creation policy is the best we have. What data do we have to make that claim? Have we tested how it effects "good" user retention compared to article creation where any logged in user can create a page that is published immediately, but also put in a review queue catergory, or even tested it against anonymous article creation.

"Wikipedia has changed from the encyclopedia that anyone can edit to the encyclopedia that anyone who understands the norms, socializes himself or herself, dodges the impersonal wall of semi-automated rejection, and still wants to voluntarily contribute his or her time and energy can edit," Halfaker said.TeeTylerToe (talk) 09:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

He just got List of counties in West Virginia promoted to FL status. Go by and check it out. It is very interesting, and it even has interactive graphics! And please stop by his talk and give him a kitten or whatever else moves you! Good job, guys, for encouraging a noob that is well on his way to being a star! !!!!  !!!! Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Editor of the Week: February 17, 2013

This week's Editor of the Week is Wetman—you are welcome to drop a quick congratulatory note on his talk page. If you know hard working editors who improve Wikipedia while going unrecognized, please nominate them today!. Also feel free to check on the current list of nominees and offer your comments on the nominations. isaacl (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Our seventh Editor of the Week is...

... Always Learning. The time is ripe to drop by his talk page and offer your congratulations as a part of WER. The ideal candidate for "Editor of the Week" is an editor who works hard, behind-the-scenes, who does not get the recognition and acknowledgement that they should. Members of WER are encouraged to nominate a worthy editor that you may have worked with. Present your nomination at: WP:EotW/N. Also, please take the time to endorse or comment on the current nominees at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Nominations.```Buster Seven Talk 07:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The eighth Editor of the Week

... Another Believer who has authored over 1200 articles. Candidates for "Editor of the Week" are editors who do not get the recognition and acknowledgement that they deserve.. Members of WER are encouraged to nominate a worthy editor that you may have worked with. Present your nomination at: WP:EotW/N. Also, please take the time to congratulate Another Believer and to endorse or comment on the current nominees at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Nominations.```Buster Seven Talk 07:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Overuse of policy pages, especially when abbreviated, is off-putting to newbies capable of contributing to the site

We have too many policy pages. Citing them by capitalized abbreviation is just officious. Just...brittley officious. And totally offputting to newbies. Many of whom have PLENTY of brains and knowledge to add to the Wiki (some more than what we have here already...I know sacrilige...but there is talent out there... a huge world).

We even actually have a blue link for WP:OPP! I made it as a joke, but...we have it.  :-(

TCO (talk) 20:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I think a lot of users lose sight of the fact that shortcut links are for convenience, not communication. You don't have to type out Wikipedia: WikiProject on open proxies every time you mention it, but to a newbie just saying WP:OPP or worse just "OPP" is not helpful at all. I think it is unfortunate that so many users can't be bothered to just use a pipe link with a shortcut. "The article violates WP:N" is obviously not as informative as "The subject of the article may not be notable enough" and only takes a few more seconds. The question is: how do we convince folks to go ahead and do this? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
The only essay I regularly cite as a shortcut is WP:CB, and that's due to humor and politeness. Perhaps on my occasional forays onto ANI, I'll use a shortcut, but that's because I know I'm speaking to people who understand policy. Frankly, it makes my blood boil when somebody tells a newbie their article doesn't have enough WP:RS to meet WP:GNG - not even with links - as if that's going to mean anything to them. Unfortunately, I don't really have a good solution, as a snarky response in the next line that says "You forgot to tell this newbie what reliable sources and the general notability guidelines mean and how they relate to this article" will just irritate people to defend themselves. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I very much favour using descriptive phrases instead of abbreviations to refer to policies and guidelines. There are, however, some advantages to readers in using abbreviations:
  • The article's title may not always be suitable for direct inclusion in a sentence (for example, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources), or it may be desirable to link to a specific section, which is cumbersome to refer to. Thus an explanatory phrase may be used as the link text instead, but since different editors may use different phrases (or the same one may use different phrases depending on context), it may not be evident when the same section or article is being referred to. A standard abbreviation makes it obvious when the same text is being referred to in multiple places.
  • As with all jargon, being able to condense a lengthy phrase into a shorter term can simplify sentences, making them easier to understand overall, if you understand the jargon.
Of course, the reduced typing is probably the real reason most editors use abbreviations, and it's hard to combat this. Maybe a template could automatically expand out something like {{guidance|WP:RS}} to WP:RS (Wikipedia's guidance on reliable sources)? Unfortunately it would be difficult to have explanatory phrases for each abbreviation that would work in all contexts, and it wouldn't be possible to keep the template up-to-date for everything, but at least the key abbreviations could be covered. isaacl (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
TCO, thanks for your post and I couldn't agree more! And it's not just newbies--I've been here since 2006 and I still feel put-off by all the WP: this and thats and I still don't know what the hell a lot of them mean. I used to post at Common Dreams and I used to try and get people to post here rather than preach to the choir. But I gave up on that after hearing so many people over there say they tried and were totally put off by the attitude of this site. And, BTW, I am talking about very knowledgeable people who can express themselves very well, certainly people who are much more knowledgeable and better at expressing themselves than I. I don't know, but I'd venture to guess that the Tearoom has helped a great deal in that respect. Gandydancer (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • While I like the template addition, this is a perfect application for a bot which specifically chases warnings issued, and automatically expands 1st occurrences of bracketed WP:XXX, unbracketed WP:XXX, and bare XXX abbreviations. It's also a perfect job for an in-edit-window Javascript widget for the same purpose, which would produce previewable expansions in realtime. --Lexein (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I thought briefly about a bot, but decided to raise the idea of a template instead, as something that provides more manual control that would not have false positives to deal with, and is implementable without special permissions. That being said, if anyone would like to try to get permission to deploy such a bot and implement it, given that it would work automatically, behind the scenes, without requiring any action on the part of editors is a big advantage.
    • Regarding a Javascript widget, I think it would only get widescale use if it were bundled with an existing popular editing assistance tool (sorry, I'm ignorant of this area, so I don't know what would be a good candidate). I think it would have to auto-complete when editors typed the abbreviation, or else editors wouldn't bother with it, which may be too intrusive for some.
    • The problem with a template is, of course, getting people to use it. So although I'd be interested in creating one, I suspect that it might just languish. isaacl (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I put together the following demo, where descriptive phrases have been defined for WP:N and WP:NOTNEWS, but not WP:NSPORTS:
isaacl (talk) 03:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
While we're on the subject, I dislike the overuse of the word "violates"; a long time ago, I switched mainly to "goes against", "doesn't meet", and "doesn't go along with". In a few cases recently, I've referred to "generally accepted practice" or "generally agreed-upon practice", rather than "policy" or "guideline." It just all gets terribly verbose, and that is hostile to newbies as well. Nobody likes to be lectured, tersely or verbosely. There is no boilerplate text we can ever use which will get the desired message across satisfactory way to every new user at risk of leaving. It's quite the conundrum. --Lexein (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately I can't recall where I saw it, but recently I came across the start of a discussion thread that proposed changing the name of the notability guideline, as it was confusing to the uninitiated: the issue at hand is Wikipedia's standards for including an article about a topic, rather than the real-world notability of a subject. Since then I've tried to use the phrase "Wikipedia's standards for inclusion" rather than the term notability, to make it clear that Wikipedia rules are being discussed. However, although the phrase is clearer in the sense that it is more accurate, the greater verbosity, as you note, can also obscure the meaning of the sentence. I still believe the additional accuracy is worthwhile, and so will seek other ways to maintain the conciseness of my statements, but it's a difficult matter to balance, and requires more time than many would like to devote to polishing their language. isaacl (talk) 00:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

A tribute

See User:Mrt3366/Tribute. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Another nice example of our welcoming committee

User talk:Street123.

It is a malicious sockpuppeteer creating patent nonsense or blatant vandalism, or is it simply an inexperienced editor who can't remember he created an account 3 years ago and isn't sure about what Wikipedia's for? --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

He may not have remembered the old account, true. But under whatever name, he's so far only added advertising for himself and his enterprises. He could become a useful editor, but this is pretty arid ground. Herostratus (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

a thought

For a time (even while retired), I have been tossing around the idea of turning Wikipedia:Hall of Fame into a blue link. Seeing as the Editor of the Week project is an offshoot of WER, it made sense to bring my proposal here. So, here it is:

I am suggesting the initialization of a project that exists to recognize editors that have made substantial contributions to Wikipedia, preferably over a lengthy period of time. My proposal would call for one editor to be inducted each week/month. Anyone would be eligible to provide nominations (but limited to one nomination per cycle) and the inductee would be the editor that received the highest number of support !votes (opposes would not permitted). The clerking could be handled by those willing to do so (I would probably be willing). So, that's my very simple proposal. Your thoughts? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Any thoughts on this? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Erm. Might be OK. Don't know how useful it would be, but not sure it wouldn't either. Could turn somewhat political... --Herostratus (talk) 06:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The ninth EotW is...

User:Bleaney, an invaluable asset to Wikipedia through his excellent work. Drop by his page to congratulate him and consider an editor you feel would deserve to be Editor of the Week. Go to the nomination page and get the ball rolling to give a deserving editor a pat on the back for a job well done! ```Buster Seven Talk 06:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Take a look @ User Bleaneys nominator page for a feel-good. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Project members only may make alterations to project pages.

Wikipedia policy is that the Wikiprojects control their pages and templates as well as assessments. We will no longer allow non-members to make any further changes to any of our pages, subpages or templates. A copyright violation is serious at Wikipedia, so for the time being until the situation is cleared up, the Editor of the Week template is no longer being displayed on our project mainpage.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

This seems out-of-left-field overstern and underlinked. To which project mainpage(s) do you refer? And which policy discusses control of project pages and templates? I'm not advocating chaos, and not questioning that copyvio is seriuzbiznez; I know where to find policy/guideline about that. --Lexein (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
It is stern. Seems more than outrageous to help coordinate a project that extends a helping hand to editors and take hours to build, design and create pages, templates and images, work with others in the project and form consensus just to have bold edits by non members attempt to take attribution and do an endrun around the project members. Do you have a specific question I can help you with? There are no links required when posting on the project talkpages, but if you wish a link to a relevant guideline or discussion let me know. You could review Wikiproject guidelines. Project members control their pages, assements etc. If editors want to collaborate on the golas of the project they do not have to join the project but they do need to join if they intened to make changes to our core pages and templates.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Can you point to what caused you to make this sweeping statement? What was the issue that instigated it, and where was the discussion that decided it? Ryan Vesey 18:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I am curious to what policy you think you are referring to that states this is the case. Because the WikiProject Guide actually says the complete opposite. That anyone can edit a WikiProject page just like anyone can edit an article. And like any page if people object to the change they revert per the BRD cycle. Also there is no restriction on who can be a member of a WikiProject so anyone that is interested is by extension a member of a project. -DJSasso (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I would also like to see where this new rule has suddenly come from, just had a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide and didn't see it there, went over to WP:OWN to see if there was some exemption for WikiProject pages, didn't see it... so, yeah, don't think so. Please either provide an actual policy that supports this position or strike it out. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

:::@ madsci...Like Ryan, I'm not quite sure where this proposal came from. I am not aware of any attacks or altering attempts, even of a minor nature...and I keep a pretty close eye on all the WER pages. Can you provide some diffs so we can at least evaluate what concerns you. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC) I found what troubles you and will comment there. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The editor in question has been an actvi and highly visible member of the EotW project from the very beginning 3 months ago. I have asked him 5 times to include his name in the members list. Not sure why he doesn't but I still consider him a MeMber. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Ryan, I believe that consensus determines how any project determines who edits the project pages, when and for what reason. But we are an editor retention project with the goal to help each other and if a good faith mistake is made we do try to work it out, but I think it is reasonable to limit the project core pages to editors who at least are a part of the active project member list to at least show their willingness to use the project in the spirit of WikiProject guides and suggestions. --Amadscientist (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Just to be clear. All I am saying is what Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide basicly says.

A WikiProject is fundamentally a social construct: its success depends on its ability to function as a cohesive group of editors working towards a common goal. Much of the work that members must do to sustain a successful WikiProject (quality assessment and peer review in particular, but almost anything beyond the actual writing of articles) is tedious, often unrewarding, and usually unappreciated. To be effective, a WikiProject must foster not only interest in the topic of the project, but also an esprit de corps among its members. When group cohesion is maintained—where, in other words, project members are willing to share in the less exciting work—a WikiProject can muster the energy and direction to produce excellent articles systematically rather than incidentally.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

My experience with WikiProjects is that if you've got even one active editor working on temps and Project-related stuff, you're blessed. Don't do anything to chase them away, including mandating they sign a membership roll. I suppose WP:NOTBURO applies. Inclusiveness, not exclusiveness. The Interior (Talk) 01:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I think this isn't about the editor but the ability of the members of the project to make the decisions when a mistake is made and that we should be sure to define what non project members edit, especialy if there are some issues. This isn't about making the editor stop...its asking why they don't want to be a part of us, yet seem willing to Wikignome for us. The only isse is making sure all editors realise that members have the right to make some decisions over anyone just coming along and saying, hey, cool, I think I'll do this. At least join us and demonstrate that you are willing to comethrough the door and not edit out of the project after project members have sent months building the content, contributing to it and formatting it. The guide even says basicly the same under "Article editors do not own WikiProjects" with: " A WikiProject's members have the exclusive right to define the scope of their project".--Amadscientist (talk) 01:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
From what I understand, this rule would not really have prevented the precipitating event. Amad, I understand why you'd be upset about your work being used without credit, but I wonder if you step back a bit, perhaps you might see how this new rule sounds unilateral and unfriendly. -Someone who has not signed the role of the project, but supports its goals, LadyofShalott 01:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
It isn't really a new rule. Its a basic project concept, really. Thats why we have a members. But this isn't about saying no editor can participate in the project, can't help, can't create and contribute. The goal of this project is editor retention, and part of that is to help editors. The sub project recognizes editors who use best practice. I have changed the wording. We should have some control if an editor is not willing to join the project, we should be able to change that work if the work is not to Wikipedia Guidelines.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Personally I find membership roles rather silly because they go out of date almost immediately. And many people who consider themselves members never sign them. I personally almost never sign membership roles for projects I consider myself a part of for that very reason. I also find signing them often causes you to get unwanted spam on your talk page from projects so I avoid signing them for that reason as well. There is no requirement that anyone sign a membership role for any project. To be a member of a project all is required is that you support their goals and work towards helping achieve them. I find it rather unbelievable that a someone who is trying to support a project about editor retention has made a statement like your original one above which does nothing but chase editors away. I can tell you seeing that I certainly would be much more hesitant to ever help out this project. -DJSasso (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
"We should have some control if an editor is not willing to join the project, we should be able to change that work if the work is not to Wikipedia Guidelines." If someone's work is against the consensus of the project, there is the ability to change it. Likewise if the work is not to WP Guidelines, it can be changed by anyone else. Your rule does not help that, and as previously pointed out, would not have prevented the precipitating instance. All this rule does is imply "we don't want your help around here", which is contrary to the very nature of this project. LadyofShalott 14:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
If it were up to me, I'd have all WikiProjects abolished, as they're basically political parties. But, that's for another discussion, I suppose. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • At the end of the day it is as simple as this: There is no such rule. Period. It is frankly a ridiculous idea to suggest that adding your name to a list gives you special privileges. I am not even a "registered" member of a WikiProject that I started and designed banners and a userbox for. So, by the logic of this rule I would not be allowed to edit the very pages I created because I didn't think it mattered if I signed my name or not. I can't be the only one who finds that this has come up here of all places to be extremely ironic. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Still see no irony. When someone who refusues to join and then makes unhelpful edits we should be able to control that so there is no edit war. That isn't helpful. I started a thread, we are discussing it and I still disagree. Should I just revert that back entirely or is just preferring editors join to edit project page to much?--Amadscientist (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
There is no consensus after this much discussion for the change at all, so it is back as it was.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

To the credit of the editors involved, the issue that precipitated this discussion has been resolved. At least I think it has. Both are quality editors that do their utmost to elevate the Body Wikipedia. As humans, we all commit forgivable "sins". ```Buster Seven Talk 17:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

And with that, would one of the participants please hat this discussion. In the spirit of keeping a decidedly positive-oriented project looking that way? Gtwfan52 (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Dont Hesitate To Nominate

The Editor of the Week "mini-project within a project" depends on editors being nominated by other editors in order to survive. Currently there are 4 editors in the Accepted Queue. We would love to have many more. Evidenced by some of the comments of past recepients, the award is seen as a solid pat-on the-back and has elicited some heart-felt responses. If you know a deserving editor, dont hesitate to Nominate. the nomination page|You will be happy that you did! ```Buster Seven Talk 13:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

"Always be thankful for the new guy"

In the March/April 2013 issue of The Cardroom, a poker news broadsheet, is a column entitled "Always be thankful for the new guy". In it the writer states that one reason for the decline in cardroom attendance is the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, which had two effects: it convinced folks that online gaming is "illegal", thus scaring them off (stemming the flow of online players who might have transitioned to real world play), and by outlawing online gaming in the U.S., killed off "more than half" of the poker shows on TV, since the advertisers were "kicked out of the country." He writes, addressing experienced card players:

"Here's my point - treasure these people who are making mistakes. Encourage them; help them to learn the rules and etiquette of this game we all enjoy so much. We need them and should welcome them with open arms to the tables (even though while attempting to "charge" them for the lessons). Sure, you're going to run into beginner's luck every now and then and have to put up with some less than top-notch play, but that's a small price to pay to keep our game healthy with new players for today and tomorrow." - Randall Rapp, The Cardroom - Northern California's Poker News, March/April 2013. Website.

--Lexein (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you make a very good point. The people taking the time to learn how to add to the talk page are possibly the next editors if they are shown the best of what the Wikipedia community has to offer. Putting that into practice takes a Wiki-wide consensus though...Maybe more could be done to attract rival wiki editors since they're popping up at a phenomenal rate? Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 17:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, it's Mr. Rapp's point, but I was glad to cite it. It was a nice surprise to see an experienced (completely different industry) author taking a long-view stand for civility, to "keep our game healthy", especially since Wikipedia can be viewed as a game. --Lexein (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Hall of Fame

For those who may be interested, I have boldly created a WikiProject to collaboratively recognize Wikipedia's finest editors, which can be found at the link above. Please feel free to add your name to the list of members. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I am going to be leaving Wikipedia for a few months due to Pl situations, but I will be there when I come back. I am going to make a nomination before I go, however. Gtwfan52 (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggested addition to WP:NPA

I've asked whether there is already a guideline to avoid "too many foreign editors" type comments on Talk pages. It occurs to me it might be condusive in some cases to editor retention so I link it here. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbs are people too

I have written the above essay in semi-support of the people at ArbCom. As it might be useful in the retention of disgruntled arbs, I am mentioning it here. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 23:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The Tenth Editor of the Week

User:Sagaciousphil stopped by the EotW talk page to thank the project for her well-deserved Award and to nominate a fellow editor. Is there an editor you have worked alongside or have watched in action that would deserve some recognition? We suggest an editor that flies "under the radar", that doesn't get the acknowlegemnet they are entitled to. Dont hesitate to Nominate. the nomination page|You will be happy that you did! ```Buster Seven Talk 00:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Taking Wikipedia:Hall of Fame under WER?

This Project was created by AutomaticStrikeout as a similar Project to our current EotW, but to award all editors, and not just new ones. But the project is currently MfD where it might get deleted.

Also, AS says he is open to having this Project continue closely alongwith EotW. At the EotW, we support the notion of having HoF continue under similar terms to EotW, but under the WER.

So what do you people think about it? Would that be a good option?

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. I agree with those at the MFD who believe this will be a source of more problems than it solves, and I think this project should not be expanding so rapidly into subprojects that exist just to give out awards. It will come off looking like the WP:ARS and losing all respect from the community, and I for one would rather see it keep a fairly limited and focussed scope so that it can have a real impact. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Like I said there, userfy it for now. Editor of the Week isn't just about new users, it is about anyone, and enough of a project under the wings of the project right now. I'm open minded about the future, but biting off more than we can chew will just cause dilution of manpower. This is one reason I've backed off creating EotW, to allow others to be invested in it, so they know it isn't my program, but the communities, one that would enjoy broad support. We are less than a year old and have decent momentum, but Beeblebrox is right, we need to be careful to not have too broad of a scope, and irons in too many fires. I would love to do 1000 things, but we are better doing just a few, and doing them very well, and letting the growth be more organic. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

New "General barnstar" under retention efforts

I have proposed and gained a consensus to implement our New Editor barnstar on the Wikipedia:Barnstars page.

The Excellent New Editor's Barnstar

A new editor on the right path
message Amadscientist (talk) 09:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The Excellent New Editor's Barnstar

The Excellent New Editor's Barnstar is awarded as part of editor retention efforts to new Wikipedians using best practices from the very beginning!

Introduced by Amadsientist on December 31, 2012 as inspired by Gtwfan52.

--Amadscientist (talk) 09:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

This week's EotW

is User talk:BlueMoonset. Drop by her page and see her response for her well-deserved Award. Is there an editor you know that would deserve some recognition? Dont hesitate to Nominate. the nomination page|You will be happy that you did! ```Buster Seven Talk 07:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Before too much time, can some one do the "Infobox" installation. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)  Done

DRN and anonymous editors

I only just realised that anonymous editors can instigate Dispute resolution noticeboard‎ incidents and this to me seems like an area which could have or possibly is open to a shocking amount of abuse. I'll chuck in a quick example here:

  • Registered User A - i don't like this part of an article, change it.
    Registered User B - No, it's in line with policy.


Registered User A starts a DRN incident at the noticeboard and it is thrown out.

  • Unregistered User A - i don't like this part of an article, change it.
    Registered User B - No, it's in line with policy.


Unregistered User A starts a DRN incident at the noticeboard and it is thrown out.

  • Unregistered User B - i don't like this part of an article, change it.


Registered User B leaves Wikipedia from frustration, stress, annoyance etc

Everyone sees that right? Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 12:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean the IP editor that is a volunteer? I asked about it but there does not appear to be much concern. I don't like it for several reasons but what can you do?--Amadscientist (talk) 08:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I mean how we entertain shady requests from people who know how to file DRN cases but do not create an account and may indeed be other editors trying to push through their changes by force, even against an established consensus. The scale for abuse of this is enormous. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 09:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Let's retain editors by opposing and reversing destructive blocks, too

Long time editor Rich Farmbrough got blocked for a year. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Rich_Farmbrough - blocked for a year for what was arguably, IMHO, manual editing with typos. I don't like that fact one bit, as I indicated there. Does Editor Retention include trying to unblock editors who do vastly more "right" than "wrong"? I hope so. --Lexein (talk) 10:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Ignoring the specific case you cite in favor of reviewing the concept as a whole, I'd say that Editor Retention includes trying to retain our editorship as a body, but does not include providing "lawyerly" representation for blocked users or arguing against community processes/consensus regarding blocks. Keeping editors by changing the editing environment for the better = good. Keeping editors who may feel discouraged by giving them a hand up = good. Keeping editors by subverting or opposing community processes = bad. Keeping editors deemed (by whom?) sufficiently vested = bad. It might be very, very valuable for members of this project to give Wikipedia:Esperanza and its associated MfDs and DRVs a good, long read. Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates and its MfD too, especially in regard to advocating for users involved in disputes. Basically, past experience has shown us that there's a line between trying to improve the editing atmosphere and thinking you're trying to improve the editing atmosphere but actually doing something entirely different that projects like this and Esperanza have a tendency to slip across without noticing. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Hm. So once the Arbcom bit is flipped, it's every editor for themselves, and any single editor with a grudge can keep a high quality, long term editor blocked, and blocked, and blocked again, forever. From what I've seen, Arbcom is not a community process, but considers itself entirely separate from the community. In many cases, this works out well for the community. However, seriously, IMHO, we're not talking about an editor going off the rails, it's Farmbrough, getting "got" by someone with an axe to grind, using a case of arguably manual editing with mistakes as if it were proof of using automated tools, and another editor (also with an axe) agreeably doing the block, based on lawyerly logic going directly against the Five Pillars. How can the community possibly deal with that, except though some organized, focused discussion of what to do in cases like this? --Lexein (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) This is not a venue that's going to be appropriate for you to appeal a specific block. There are other venues for that, many of which you've already posted about this issue on, and the discussion you want to have about Rich should be happening in those places. If you want to discuss the extent to which WER should be assisting blocked users in general, we can do that here, but using this page to vent ABF about people who did something you didn't like against someone who you do like is a bit...ironic. A huge part of the work that we should each be doing to retain editors involves keeping the atmosphere non-adversarial and non-aggressive, which includes not namecalling, not assuming bad faith of others, and not catastrophizing. Using a WER page to insult people who "got" someone you feel strongly about blocked makes this project look like it's here to stack the deck for a privileged few, not to work for the general good of our editorship. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I think this project needs to decide if it is within it's scope and purpose to keep having discussions of specific cases that essentially amount to a closed-door ANI thread regarding a specifc administrative action, without, as far as I can see, the admin in question being informed of it. Is this what this project exists to do, or should such threads be referrred elsewhere? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I've met Rich Farmborough several times in real life, and have very harmoniously worked with him on Wiki. Whether or not this block is justified or necessary it certainly saddens me that it has happened. I haven't looked into his current block and if it is dodgy I would expect to see it appealed. But I don't think that this is the right venue to deal with a specific case. This venue would be better used to consider generalities. For example, Rich is not the first person to do "not entirely semi" automated edits from an account that doesn't have the bot flag. Would the community be a better served if as well as blocks admins were able to put a slowdown throttle on editors who were doing things too fast? So instead of a block for unauthorised bot use, someone like Rich could be "throttled" so that his account could only save one edit per minute. ϢereSpielChequers 17:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Technical improvement to the above proposal (which I like, BTW): a simple rate limiting filter also hits editors who line up multiple edit windows in tabs and save them all in quick succession. I often do this when I notify several editors about a case at WP:DRN. A better method is this: allow two edits in 1/1000 of a second, then the next two in 2/1000 of a second, etc. This gives you delays (in seconds) of 0.000, 0.001, 0.002, 0.004, 0.008, 0.016, 0.032, 0.064, 0.128, 0.256, 0.512, 1.024, 2.048, 4.096, 8.192, 16.384, 32.768, 65.536, 131.072, 262.144, etc. If you stop hammering on the server for a full minute after the last delay, the delay would reset to zero. The result is that you can make 10 edits in about a second, but if you want to make 20 it takes you nearly ten minutes. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
        • Hopefully this sort of throttle would only be applied to a handful of editors, or at least a small minority where you need them to slow down. I sometimes come across speedy deletion taggers who get multiple warnings for incorrect tags, and in extreme cases a throttle would be useful for them too. I wouldn't want this applied to any editor without a very strong reason for doing so. So people lining up multiple edit windows should be OK unless their error rate gets to the point where at present they'd risk a block. But if you do need to put in a throttle it does need to be something fairly simple that would stop someone doing multiple edits in the same minute. ϢereSpielChequers 19:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Such complicated solutions rarely have the intended effect. I've met Rich as well and found him to be an affable enough guy, in fact we got along well despite having argued on-wiki a few times, but if a user, any user, no matter how nice they are in real life, does not wish to accept a sanction placed on them we block them. Otherwise sanctions have no meaning. Often it seems users subject to sanctions intended to stop them from doing something the community objects to become their own worst enemy as they feel some urge to constantly contest the sanction and/or test the limits of it instead of just accepting it. Users subject to editing sanctions are well aware of what they are and should be well aware that they are being watched to make sure they comply, so it is should not be a surprise to anybody that they get blocked when they do such things. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The key phrase here is "otherwise sanctions have no meaning" currently our only real sanction is a block. If we also had a throttle then for editors where that was more appropriate we could use that. If the most obvious sanction was to stop certain editors from editing certain pages then lets do that rather than block them. If the best sanction would be to stop someone creating new pages then yes lets have a sanction that does that. OK vandals, spammers and unrepentant copyvio merchants will still merit blocks, but if admins had a more sophisticated set of sanctions at our disposal than hopefully we would get more meaningful sanctions. "To a man with a hammer every problem is a nail". ϢereSpielChequers 20:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
What is this project here to do? One of the things is to provide a safe space to have a discussion like the one above. Lots of friendly stalkers to assure that collaboration and adult discussion take place. No accusing. no name calling, etc. ```Buster Seven Talk 01:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

We have already decided that this projects scope does indeed include individual cases. Discuss as you feel fit. To those that say we are limited by scope. No. We are limited by our own consensus. Sorry.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, more accurately you're bound at the outside by community consensus, and on the inside by local (project) consensus, which can only fill in gaps in policy, not overrule it. So if, for example, you decided that WER would henceforth be responsible to handling all AE requests, you'd be told that no, your local consensus to do that can't override community consensus that that power rests with administrators at AE and with Arbcom. More everyday issues also bind you by community consensus - issues like the responsibility to not canvass, the responsibility to allow any editor you're discussing to be part of the conversation, and the responsibility to maintain basic levels of civility and collegiality. So yes, you can discuss individual cases if you wish, but you still can't canvass for support of those cases, or attempt to subvert community processes based on the outcome of your discussion, or use these pages as areas where civility policy is suspended. And as a side note, keep in mind that "we" in your statement should include all of us here, not just you, a core group, or certain people who have signed their names to a certain page. Wikiprojects are, by design, open and transparent. If you hope to keep yours closed to "outsiders" and restrict people's ability to contribute to consensus or discussion on that basis, I'll refer you again to Esperanza and its history/fate. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
In other words...a local consensus cannot override the general consensus of the wider community. Yes, that is indeed true and I would even begin to argue against that. As far as you "We" comment...I think you are falling off a cliff with that one. We is only those that took part of that consensus so no...it doesn't mean everyone. Just those that were part of the discussion. If you're trying to say something just say it. Otherwise you are getting more than a little off topic with "If you hope to keep yours closed to "outsiders" and restrict people's ability to contribute to consensus or discussion".--Amadscientist (talk) 07:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
My point is basically twofold. First point, that consensus is a living thing, and that if current consensus is X, you can't argue that consensus of other people was once Y, so Y it will be. So for instance if six months ago you had a discussion with some people that decided that you would pursue the unblocking of all blocked users, but now there is a discussion where consensus is forming that that doesn't serve the project well, you can't discount that newer consensus on the basis of "I like the old one." So you can't look at the people here saying "I don't know if the project should be doing this thing where it attacks admins who place blocks and fights for specific, preferred blocked users" and say "You weren't here when we discussed doing this, so your opinion doesn't matter".

Second point, I am alarmed by the tendency I see increasing on this talk page and in the behavior of some of the people associated with the project to emulate behaviors that ran previous projects into the ground, such as fostering an adversarial "my job is to fight you, person who we have cast as the enemy" system or becoming too insular and concerned with project governance/rules rather than the project's original aims. The recent attempt to keep anyone other than a select few from being able to edit project pages, for example, and this current proposal that project members internally determine which blocks are "destructive" and work to oppose them on behalf of others while ignoring basic tenets of the community like civility and AGF. There is a reason I, for one, haven't put myself in the WER signup list, and it's because I'm not at all confident that I align with the unspoken goals that appear to be being served, as opposed to the ones written down on the project page. Given that lack of confidence, I'm not comfortable signing my name to a project the current behavior of which worries me - no matter how much I respect and support the nominal goal of the project. And that's why I'm speaking here, trying to persuade people to avoid the biggest pitfalls that we know exist and have always existed in projects like this: because I think editor retention is a very, very useful thing to work towards, and I wish this project would focus more on it, rather than setting itself up as a spokesperson service for editors with problematic histories. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

On a practical note, there are people like me who think that the Rich Farmbrough one year suspension was too lenient. Does WikiProject Editor Retention really want to have me and Lexein going back and forth rehashing the same arguments we presented already at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#Against the 25 March 2013 block of Rich Farmbrough? I think not. In my opinion, this WikiProject should reject discussion that revolves around taking one side in controversial individual cases. This is clearly a case of WP:CANVASSING. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I posted in essentially two places. One narrow, one wide. The post here was to link to there and to discuss if this project should address this aspect of editor retention. I see your point about duplicate discussion (not my intention), but I was not canvassing, as in, canvassing for a !vote, since there's no proposal on the table at this moment. Anyways, would you like me to clarify my intended scope, above? --Lexein (talk) 15:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Please look at the very first post in this thread and tell me whether it looks like a neutrally worded question as to whether this project should address this aspect of editor retention or whether it looks like a strongly stated opinion on the topic of whether editor Rich Farmbrough should have been blocked for a year.
Also, nowhere in WP:CANVASSING does it say that it only applies to votes. "Canvassing ... is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion towards one side of a debate". (It also says that any notice should be "neutrally worded".) Clearly you would like that discussion to apply pressure in favor of unblocking, and so far your side of the issue is getting a lot more support than mine, so you must be doing something right. (Smile) --Guy Macon (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
"I'm not required to be neutral if I'm not canvassing!", he expostulated. Seriously though, I only wanted to see if this project cares about that sort of situation, and what it can do about it. I'm getting the sense that this project could help pre-block, but not so much afterwards. I'll keep neutrality in mind in future. --Lexein (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
It is useful and in my view within scope for this project to discuss ideas as to how we could change policy to retain more goodfaith editors. Sometimes it is difficult to do that without mentioning real examples, and if you don't refer to them directly you risk appearing closed and secretive to people who don't know the case you are talking about, you also risk the conversation going at cross purposes when people think they know who you are talking about, but they are actually looking at a very different case. The difficult, but in my view the best way to do this is to discuss hypothetical cases where others may or may not guess the reality that they are based on. If you must use a real case I would suggest doing so at a time when it is not currently being appealed or otherwise debated elsewhere. I'm not sure how one can hold a discussion here about a live appeal without canvassing. ϢereSpielChequers 10:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates.
—Wavelength (talk) 15:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any individual case being mentioned here as canvasing if it has to do with a banned or blocked editor. That is a retention issue and we are a project and the canvassing policy does allow issues that may fall under the projects scope to be brought up at that project.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
This is a wide-ranging project with members that are free to respond in what ever manner they choose. There is no edict from above as to how editors should act or how they should respond. Just because there was a discussion about who could or should make decisions here, that doesnt mean that this project is not open and transparent. The conversation didnt go anywhere. There was very little, if any, support for a closed shop. We had the discussion and the proposal failed convincingly. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The First Dozen

The Editor of the Week sub-Project is proud to announce the twelfth recipient, User:Surtsicna. Would you like to nominate a fellow editor. Do you know of an editor that just works in the trenches and doesn't get the acknowlegemnet they are entitled to. Dont hesitate to Nominate. You will be happy that you did! ```Buster Seven Talk 07:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

  • The intended purpose of the EotW sub-project is to retain editors. It is not to just hand out shiny trophies for some editors trophy case. In our travels we search out editors that are doing the work of the encyclopedia. They rarely get caught up in time-consuming drama. That is why they can be invisible...hard to find. They have very little name recognition. They are busy working while the rest of us argue over whether its "The Beatles" or "the Beatles". Alot of editors proudly announce their retirement on the Cathedral door. But, some editors just slip away because no one seems to notice them. And the fun is gone. EotW is an effort to bring the fun back to them.```Buster Seven Talk 13:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
👍 Like TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Editor Retention in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Editor Retention for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 03:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Editor retention naming

I boldly removed the WikiProject part of the page name. I am also doing some adjustments to EOTW to fit on the Community portal and am going to be adding an editor retention section there to encourage editors to interact and provide links to discussions, editors willing to help-teach and mentor.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

  • I prefer WER because of it's clear-cut on the point that we are a group of editors dedicated to editor retention. But I like the new name too. Classy. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
  • "A WikiProject is a group of editors that want to work together as a team to improve Wikipedia. These groups often focus on a specific topic area (for example, women's history) or a specific kind of task (for example, checking newly created pages)." This clearly meets that definition. In addition "Wikipedia:WikiProject" (although part of the Wikipedia namespace, is considered to be de facto its own namespace. Ryan Vesey 03:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Kinda reminds me of The Signpost, which is not at Wikipedia:Signpost, that's a redirect. It's actually at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost with 2 Wikipedias. The signpost doesn't even call itself "Wikipedia Signpost", instead they're just called "The Signpost". A rose by any other name... 64.40.54.111 (talk) 08:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
The continued use of "Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost" instead of "Wikipedia:Signpost" is due to technical limitations we found in the old templates created for Signpost articles many years ago. The editors simply don't have the time to go back and correct them all, so we're sorta held back by our own legacy systems. –Mabeenot (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't have an issue with a redirect, but I have to admit, dropping the name "project" makes me nervous. We have to be careful to not give the impression that we are an administrative board, or officially sanctioned body, because we aren't. I'm still debating the idea internally, but honestly leaning against the name change. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I prefer WikiProject Editor Retention, since it's actually a fine project and not anything else at the moment, as far as guideline, policy, or procedure goes. All Projects I've seen which are serious about being Projects have "WikiProject" in the title. This one started that way, and has established its widely known identity that way. I'm in agreement with Herostratus and particularly Dennis Brown, who started the project. --Lexein (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

This is the nicest thing ever!!!

Thank you all so much. This is the nicest thing ever!!! This was Anna Frodesiak's response when she got her EotW award last evening. An editor w/ 60K plus edits and over 1400 articles. The Editor of the Week sub-Project is a success. Is there an editor you would like to nominate? Some editor that doesn't get the acknowlegemnet they are entitled to. Dont hesitate to Nominate. You will be happy that you did! ```Buster Seven Talk 05:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

That's great! Herostratus (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I've got to remark here, thank you to everyone who got the editor of the week sub-project up and running and to those who maintain it. Personally, I think it's the most successful initiative to come out of this project. Ryan Vesey 16:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

A WikiLove Day suggestion

Here's a thought I just had that might be useful and also relevant to editor retention: Why not pick a specific day, which we could name "WikiLove Day" or something similar, where we would encourage the community members to find at least fellow Wikipedian and leave them with some WikiLove? The point would not be to have each person give out 100 barnstars, but rather to have 100 people give out one, sending a personalized WikiLove message, perhaps to someone that generally flies under the radar or someone with whom they have had a dispute in the past. We could create a chart to keep track of how many people participated. Given all of the dissension and strife that is prevalent in this community, picking one day to encourage people to give out WikiLove might be a worthwhile effort. Any thoughts? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 20:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I love to do something like it, praise someone I was in edit war with, see? - But I don't know how I would react to a request to do so because it's "a day". You may have noticed that I look for someone Precious every day (like you two), and remind of it a year later, as in the example, but never used "WikiLove" and probably never will, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I should mention that I've been trying to share Template:Sharethecookies with at least one editor per day. Of course, that is not a personalized template. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 22:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved already to original title by Adjwilley (talk · contribs). Closing discussion since still listed at WP:RM. Chamal T•C 13:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Editor retention → Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor retention – Actually Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor retention is the original name. An editor moved it without asking. Some people are OK with this, some not, but as shown above (Wikipedia talk:Editor retention#Editor retention naming) there's no consensus for the name change -- I see three in support, one neutral, four against, a couple unclear (just making comments). Obviously this is not consensus to change the name. Herostratus (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Support for a couple of reasons: 1) on procedural grounds, moves that are not clearly unobjectionable should be discussed via {{Requested move}} first and this was not done (there in fact doesn't seem to be a consensus to change the name), and 2) On material grounds, I like the old name better anyway: it's a WikiProject and should be so named. The editor making the change wrote "I boldly [changed the name]..." probably not realizing that WP:BRD doesn't apply to moves since they can only be undone by an admin. I think this is an open-and-shut close (on procedural grounds anyway) and further discussion isn't necessary. Let the first admin coming across this change it back, and then let editors wishing to remove the WikiProject appelation make their case. Herostratus (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. I prefer WikiProject Editor Retention, since it's actually a fine project and not anything else at the moment, as far as guideline, policy, or procedure goes. All Projects I've seen which are serious about being Projects have "WikiProject" in the title. This one started that way, and has established its widely known identity that way. I'm in agreement with Herostratus and particularly Dennis Brown, who started the project. --Lexein (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:BRD. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - I've thought about this a while, and I don't have a problem with the direct from main wikispace, but losing the "Project" moniker in the name will cause problems down the road, and this is something we need to think about. Of course, I appreciate and respect bold moves (and encourage boldness in general) and have no issue with Amadscientist (who is one of the leading participators here) being so bold, but I think reverting back to the old name better protects us. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - until it's actually sanctioned as a policy/mechanism of Wikipedia the site rather than as an idea/collective action by a group within its community it needs to be in the Wikipeida:WikiProject space. Ryan explained this well above--Cailil talk 15:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Should have just been undone by BRD. Never should have been moved in the first place. -DJSasso (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Moved - Based on the unanimous support here, and after having read the sections above, I have boldly moved the page back to the old location. (I see it as being an uncontroversial move, in the spirit of SNOW and BRD, or in this case, BDR.) I too appreciate boldness and conciseness, but as others have pointed out, this is a WikiProject. Also, regarding the comments above about needing an admin to move the page, you only need an admin if you're moving it over a redirect with more than one edit in the edit history. (Thus, moving it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor retention would require an admin.) I am perfectly fine if some admin wants to take things a step further and move it there, but as far as I can tell there isn't a MOS governing the capitalization of WikiProject names, judging by a long list of WikiProjects with names like WP:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, WP:WikiProject Academic Journals, etc. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Adjwilley. Hey, while you're here...anyone you want to nominate for EotW? If not now, keep it in mind? ```Buster Seven Talk 17:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Oh well, fine then, Adjwilley; be sensible about it. ;) --Lexein (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

soliloquies

While trying to clean up the Main Page I came upon the R & R Team. I tried to revive it by contacting the only two members that had responded back in mid-July when the team concept was first promoted. I then contacted a recently retired editor to see if I could return her to "active duty". See the page if your interested. Yesterdays efforts reminded me that, as they are walking out the door, retiring editors are usually very vocal in their reasons for leaving. In the midst of their soliloquies are statements of fact that can be harvested for research into the "retiring phenomenon". I'm not a researcher. I'm a collector. I am going to start a sub-page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Retention and return team_Soliloquies just for the sake of collecting them for potential future research. If, in your travels, you come across a dramatic "i'm out of here" monologue, please let me know. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Update: User:Petrarchan47 has returned to active duty/editing. She has returned to editing the "hotbed" BP article which was her nemisis when she retired. The climate at BP is a bit better lately with new editors on the scene. Previously she felt isolated against the "BP Corporate Editing Team". Petra may be my next nomination for EotW so I hope she has the stamina to stay. Any efforts to help maintain the peace at "talk BP" are appreciated. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

This weeks EotW

is User:Anne Delong. Take a second and drop by her page. A pat on the back from a stranger is awesome. Not that members of WER are strange.....```Buster Seven Talk 20:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Merchandise giveaways/Nominations

This is just a friendly reminder that this promotion is still ongoing. If you haven't been there, please take a look, as it is a wonderful way to recognize contributors around here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

  • I might mention that many who receive Editor of the Week probably should be nominated there if they haven't already been. We don't have any Tshirts to give away (and I don't think they are going to give us a budget any time soon), and I think the goals of the two programs are very similar. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Great idea. WE will be on it like stink on.....nevermind! :~) ```Buster Seven Talk 20:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The T-shirt says "I edit Wikipedia", which is fine. I hereby propose two additional designs:
1. I '''''must''''' edit Wikipedia (wikicode ital bold code visible)
2. (front) I must edit Wikipedia better
2. (back) I must edit Wikipedia faster
--Lexein (talk) 02:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Quick question: Are we notifying the nominees that they have been nominated for the free Tshirt? There is a template for that, and I personally think doing so is a good idea. It may also get them involved in that program, and allows them to enjoy the journey a bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Nominations

Any and all members of WER can make the free T-Shirt nominations of the recent Editors of the Week. It may be frowned upon if ONLY editor GoPhightins and I make 13 nominations in a row.

  • Kelvinsong.................... Done
  • Eric Enfermero.................Already nominated
  • Coal town guy.................. Done
  • Diiscool........................... Done
  • Benzband........................... Done
  • Wetman........................... Done
  • Always Learning............... Done
  • Another Believer.............. Done
  • Bleaney................................ Done
  • Sagaciousphil................... Done
  • BlueMoonset...................... Done
  • Surtsicina......................... Done
  • Anna Frodesiak.............. Done Previously nominated.
  • Anne Delong...................still to do
  • Tomobe03.......................still to do
  • FeydHuxtable....................still to do
I would note that some of these might have already received shirts. Be sure to check the nomination page AND Wikipedia:Merchandise giveaways/Who has shirts before nominating anyone. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

#15 EotW

User:Tomobe03. Congratulations can be offered at her (?) talk page. New Nominations are the life blood of the EotW project. Is there any one you edit alongside that deserves some special praise and acknowledgement? Dont hesitate to Nominate. You will be happy that you did! ```Buster Seven Talk 16:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

And another valuable administrator has bit the dust

Dreadstar (talk · contribs · former admin: blocks · protections · deletions · rights · meta · local rights), a valuable and considerate administrator, has decided to leave Wikipedia during this BASC discussion on Will Beback. He blocked himself indefinitely and asked MBisanz to remove his administrative tools. Very sad news... Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Dreadstar has returned. No parade was held. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
no parade, but a happy move on our sad list (how much I prefer to mve them back!), and a triumphant picture on top of my user ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Also on a irrelevant note, AutomaticStrikeout has left the project. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Not good news. I've contact them and just offered an ear and a thanks. When someone is upset, I don't think the answer is trying to talk them into coming back. That isn't always the best option anyway and it presumes you know what is best for them. I think the best we can do is simply give them a genuine "thank you" for all the good things they have done, if you are willing and actually know them, offer to listen and let them know you don't take their efforts for granted. You can't undo the hurt they feel, you can't take away the frustration. If you knew them and appreciate the hard work they did, you can say thank you. Then hope they come back. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:AAPT

Since I don't believe I have advertised these here in the past, I will do so now. "Arbs are people too" and "Admins are people too" are two essay/petitions that I wrote a while back in support of our oft–maligned Arbs and Admins. I believe that these essays would fall under the scope of editor retention, so I thought I would call them to your attention here. Regards, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 15:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear friends,

You have no idea of how happy and proud I am with what you and many others have done with the Editor of the Week program. The feedback I've seen from the people who have received it is inspiring. I'm hoping to see more of us get involved with the program. Honestly, I think it is the best thing we have done as a group. Buster, Gerda, Isaacl, AutomaticStrikeout, Gtwfan52, TheOriginalSoni, Epipelagic, Khazar2, Go Phightins!, and I know I'm missing several names so forgive me, but all of you should be very proud of what you have helped create here. I simply can't overstate how amazed and happy I am. The entire Project should be proud of the good work turning a simple idea into a solid, functioning reward system that surpases my original dreams. Too bad we don't live near each other, I would be honored to buy each and every one of you a pint, or just pick up the tab for the whole night. We aren't done yet, but it is certainly a solid foundation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

  • BTW, if you don't want to get overly involved, you can still make a difference by simply going to the editor who was rewarded each weeks and simply leaving a kind note of thanks and gratitude. That alone makes a huge difference and lets them know that many of us really do notice and care. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh, and Amadscientist should definitely be on the list of those to thank, for both his graphics ability in creating our official logo, and obviously his hard work and determination in promoting the cause of editor retention overall. I can't believe I've left him out. I will be accepting trouts now for the oversight. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notifications

New meta feature that we should all become familiar with. I haven't read up on it yet, it was just announced at WP:AN. Designed to replace watchlist. Looks like of Facebook-esque, but at first glance, sounds like a good idea. I would expect a lot of questions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Ok, I officially love the new notifications system. Not everyone does, however. Writ Keeper made a script, User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/orangeBar.js which will work as a orange bar replacement for those that just have to have the orange bar. I expect a few will complain, we all hate change and such, so this is the solution until they get used to the new system. There is a bug that IPs can't see the orange bar or any notifications, but they are working on the bug. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The 16th EotW

User:FeydHuxtable Congratulations can be offered at his talk page. New Nominations are the life blood of the EotW project. Is there an editor that stands out in a way deserving of positive attention? Any one you edit alongside that deserves some special acknowledgement? Dont hesitate to Nominate. You will be happy that you did! ```Buster Seven Talk 22:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Community portal

We now have a section at the community portal. If there are suggestions on how to improve this, please let me know.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Fantastic! One edit possibility. In the hearder for editor retention it states Editor of the week (lower case w). Cna someone change it to Upper case W? ```Buster Seven Talk
 Done AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 18:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
👍 Like. For the life of me...I couldn't find it.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Snuggle could use an notice of its own. Aaron has been making progress and intends to release an updated version today. More people to try out the feature and give their feedback would be very good. See snuggle's current notice on its pages for how the notice could be.
Also a few minor suggested tweaks-
  • Change font of "PROJECT EDITOR RETENTION COLLABORATION", and colour to Blue.
  • EotW needs to be inside that notice, and with the EotW logo.
TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Sign Post

I didn't see this mentioned so I thought I would say how great the Sign post article was...aside from my typos and spelling. LOL! --Amadscientist (talk) 04:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Another case study

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block of Blackcountrygirl. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

  • On the other hand it actually looks, ironically, like they may have already left before being blocked anyway, so I'm not sure what the point of blocking was even if there was a strong case that they were spamming. I would note as well that this name was reported at WP:UAA yesterday and that report was declined. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Editing the project or projct page

"Document ways in which all editors can achieve these goals and organize them within the projct subpages."

Can someone correct the spelling error on the Project Page, since that is apparently protected from being corrected? -68.107.137.178 (talk) 08:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Delaywaves

...is one of the thousands of hard-working but un-acknowledged Wikipedia editors. WER has just awarded him this week EotW Award. Drop by his talk page to offer your congratulations and consider who you might nominate. Dont hesitate to Nominate. You will be happy that you did! ```Buster Seven Talk 21:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Another reason editors leave

I don't even know how to begin to argue that Hawaii is not on the North American Plate. It's not. It never was. Yet the editors who have created the articles on Geology of North America and Geology of the United States, disorganized and factually inaccurate messes, have started these articles from this strange basis, with statements that regional geology is arbitrarily defined (an unsupported statement based on a translation of the German or Dutch article on regional geology, and it may have a slightly different meaning in those countries), to support including information that is just thrown into the articles, contradicts other information and has no supporting reason for inclusion. It's far from citable. It's wrong.

Why should an article with misinformation be kept on Wikipedia? Why should it be nominated for the main page?

Editors leave because of Wikipedia's disdain for expertise or even basic knowledge. Wikipedia needs expertise in tectonics and structural geology articles, because many of the articles are wrong, and the misinformation is being widely communicated in cyberspace. But, experts don't stand a chance, because Wikipedia appears to be more about social networking than about creating an encyclopedia, and experts often maintain expertise by working at full time jobs. I don't have the patience to edit these articles, to fight their owners to get the articles to a point where they are not wrong. But, someone needs to remove these articles from Wikipedia and stop spreading this misinformation.

Please discuss articles on their talk pages, please don't discuss me, as I have given up, and, you know, Randy in Boise is out to get me, but I think that Wikipedia seriously needs to find a way to get expertise in tough technical subjects or a way of removing bad articles quickly rather than letting them be mirrored. -64.134.230.142 (talk) 00:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

  • This is why we encourage experienced editors to get involved with dispute resolution and content disputes, to help mediate them. As for Randy, I understand your frustration and I can't say you are wrong about a few (but not most) editors. I try to not let it come across in how I communicate, but seldom a day passes that I don't want to reach through the monitor and choke the stuffing out of someone who desperately needs it. Why I don't do this is the same reason I keep coming back day after day: The Reader. So I come back, I use the proper dispute resolution channels, and try to keep a cool head. Years from now when I'm dead and gone, my original prose will likely have been changed over and over, but at least I gave the reader something worthwhile while I was here. Or at least I tried. I understand being frustrated, and needing to vent sometimes, but don't let it get you down too low. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
    • To me, dispute resolution is part of the problem. It takes so much time and effort to correct one piece of nonsense. Why are these articles being written by editors who can't identify something as big as the Pacific Plate and distinguish it from the North American Plate? Because Wikipedia is not primarily about writing the articles, or so it seems to me. Most editors on Wikipedia are fine. But the culture favors young First World males who are here for social networking first. Once they get it into their heads that they are competent to write and then own a highly technical article, there is nothing that will allow someone with the least bit of knowledge to be able to get in there and correct the mess. I'm already frustrated because I am an obvious outsider to the entire process; I don't stand a chance at dispute resolution processes, designed by and designed to favor the same editors who are creating the problem to begin with. I work 60 hours a week; how am I supposed to correct a single sentence of factually incorrect information if it requires me to spend weeks resolving the dispute that Hawaii is in the Pacific Ocean, not attached to San Francisco? Doesn't anyone ever say, look, let's get the information right, and if it's wrong, just remove it from the encyclopedia rather than requiring editors to spend weeks correcting nonsense? Wikipedia has a large anti-pseudoscience brigade, but none of the pseudoscience being removed can match the bad science being sent out on the web. -64.134.230.142 (talk) 02:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, let's face it, dispute resolution will not just favor the standard First World young male social networking editor, it will also lock in his version of the article, and that is what will be on the web, turning up in Google searches, while dispute resolution works slowly to the conclusion that what the article says does not matter, even if it is unsourced (because no reliable sources make Hawaii part of the Sierra Nevada). -64.134.230.142 (talk) 02:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

      • If I had all the answers, we wouldn't need WP:WER. Again, I can't argue against your basic premise here, resolution is a long process. I have been known to drop notes at the talk page at the Project that covers the article, ie: WP:WikiProject Geology, or I will look at the article history and find a recent editor that seems to have a good head on their shoulders and leave a note on their talk page. And you probably don't want to hear this, but I have to mention it because it is true: Fair or not, you do get more respect with a registered account. It isn't my doing, it is just human nature. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
        • The projects are often good sources for article help, but the most active members (currently at WP:Geology, not of all projects, not of WP:Geology at all times) are the current owners of the problem articles, and they don't seem to have the necessary background to discuss the problems with, in addition to being more interested in discussing me than correcting the problems (easy to fall into that with the dominance of the social over encyclopedia aspect of Wikipedia). I don't want "respect," I want my edits to contribute accurately to what Wikipedia puts out there, you know, it's about the encyclopedia, not me, and I see the extensive social networking that interferes with editing, and I can't get excited about gaining that type of respect. -03:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.137.178 (talk)

18 Editors of the Week

User:Dismas has over a decade worth of block-free work primarily on content (over 70% of 65000 total contributions). Editor of the Week was founded to recognize under-appreciated content contributors, and Dismas meets the requirements. With over 120 members, WER should be able to create more than a handfull of congratulations@ Dismas' talk page. Dont hesitate to Nominate. You will be happy that you did! ```Buster Seven Talk 06:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

  • There a currently 6 editors in the Q for EotW. More nominations are always welcome.
  • Visiting the Awardee's page a day or two after and offering your congratulations is extremely rewarding and empowering. Just ask some of the editors that have been doing it since the first Sunday. If you already visit the recepients page, thank you. If you don't, this is just a gentle reminder to participate.```Buster Seven Talk 12:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Merchandise Nominations

  • Kelvinsong....................... Done
  • Eric Enfermero................. Done
  • Coal town guy.................. Done
  • Diiscool........................... Done
  • Benzband........................... Done
  • Wetman........................... Done
  • Always Learning............... Done
  • Another Believer.............. Done
  • Bleaney................................ Done
  • Sagaciousphil................... Done
  • BlueMoonset...................... Done
  • Surtsicina......................... Done
  • Anna Frodesiak.............. Done
  • Anne Delong...................still to do
  • Tomobe03....................... Done
  • FeydHuxtable....................still to nominate
  • Delaywaves....................still to nominate
  • Dismas...........................Recent EotW
  • Coreapple........................Most recent EotW
  • 👍 Like Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 16:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor is coming

The WP:VisualEditor is designed to let people edit without needing to learn wikitext syntax. The articles will look (nearly) the same in the new edit "window" as when you read them (aka WYSIWYG), and changes will show up as you type them, very much like writing a document in a modern word processor. The devs currently expect to deploy the VisualEditor as the new site-wide default editing system in early July 2013.

About 2,000 editors have tried out this early test version so far, and feedback overall has been positive. Right now, the VisualEditor is available only to registered users who opt-in, and it's a bit slow and limited in features. You can do all the basic things like writing or changing sentences, creating or changing section headings, and editing simple bulleted lists. It currently can't either add or remove templates (like fact tags), ref tags, images, categories, or tables (and it will not be turned on for new users until common reference styles and citation templates are supported). These more complex features are being worked on, and the code will be updated as things are worked out. Also, right now you can only use it for articles and user pages. When it's deployed in July, the old editor will still be available and, in fact, the old edit window will be the only option for talk pages (I believe that WP:Flow is ultimately supposed to deal with talk pages).

The developers are asking editors like you to join the alpha testing for the VisualEditor. Please go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and tick the box at the end of the page, where it says "Enable VisualEditor (only in the main namespace and the User namespace)". Save the preferences, and then try fixing a few typos or copyediting a few articles by using the new "Edit" tab instead of the section [Edit] buttons or the old editing window (which will still be present and still work for you, but which will be renamed "Edit source"). Fix a typo or make some changes, and then click the 'save and review' button (at the top of the page). See what works and what doesn't. We really need people who will try this out on 10 or 15 pages and then leave a note Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback about their experiences, especially if something mission-critical isn't working and doesn't seem to be on anyone's radar.

Also, if any of you are involved in template maintenance or documentation about how to edit pages, the VisualEditor will require some extra attention. The devs want to incorporate things like citation templates directly into the editor, which means that they need to know what information goes in which fields. Obviously, the screenshots and instructions for basic editing will need to be completely updated. The old edit window is not going away, so help pages will likely need to cover both the old and the new.

As you know, minor changes are used as excuses for leaving Wikipedia (or at least for threatening to leave), and major changes really do cost us people and productivity, because there no matter how great the ultimate product, there will be people who are already on the point of leaving and who decide therefore that the learning curve is just not worth it. The WMF is committed to this long-requested improvement, and it's my impression that nothing short of a complete collapse of the servers will cause it to be reversed, no matter how outsized our sense of entitlement is. Changing how the website functions and appears is a listed exception to things controlled by editor consensus. So with all of that in mind, one of the main purposes for this message is to make sure that you know that this will be happening, so that you at least aren't surprised by it, and that you know that you don't need to use the new editor if you don't want to. The new editing system will become the default, not the only option. If you have any other questions and can't find a better place to ask them, then please feel free to leave a message on my user talk page, and perhaps together we'll be able to figure it out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Unintended consequences It is possible that the VisualEditor when it's fully rolled out may bring in a flood of inexperienced users and we all know what the community thinks of newbies. We may have to upgrade WP:BITE to WP:FEEDING FRENZY. Something that the folks here at WER might want to think about as the devs make progress on the VE. Cheers. 64.40.54.171 (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd query that overall positive thing. There are a lot of limitations in the visual editor. Hopefully more of the bugs will be fixed by rollout, and if we are losing section editing then I wouldn't be so sure it will get a nett increase in newbies. But it will get a change in the community if we have a whole subcommunity of editors who can't get involved in categorisation and who ignore infoboxes. I suspect we will have to educate oldsters not to try and get editors who use the visual editor to keep cats and infoboxes in line with text. ϢereSpielChequers 09:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
It needs, as far as I can see, a heck of a lot more development. All I can think of is that it will make things a lot easier for the vandals and hence a lot more work for us. I'm an old fogey and I didn't exactly grow up with computers, but having used them for around 25 years I never had the slightest problems with the normal editing interface. I suspect that most new editors are a generation or two (or even three) younger than me, and should be even more computer savvy. I can envisage us losing a lot of editors if the current editing system were ever to be discontinued at any time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
You old fogey, you probably leave hand written messages instead of templates, too ;) I cut my teeth in DOS and still manage Linux servers in a bash shell, so the current system is fine for me. I even disable all buttons. However, a great many people just want to add information and find it intimidating. They aren't interested in mastering the finer arts of bracketing and instead want the interface to be Microsoft-like with buttons and cute clicky-things. I can hardly blame them. As for vandals, I doubt that the current learning curve has been holding back the floodgates. Vandals aren't particularly bothered by poor formatting nor compelled to follow WP:MOS when adding "U r teh sUx!" to an article. I haven't looked at the new visual editor yet, since I'm not likely to use it, but hopefully they will get enough of it right that it doesn't pose a burden to clean up on every article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 16:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I bet you still use vi Dennis; at least I've upgraded to vim. I could give you a list right now of at least some of the things the new visual editor won't handle, all of which will cause additional work for those trying to add proper referencing, for instance. Malleus Fatuorum 16:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I lost a lot of good friends during the Editor war; really good friends. Being a conscientious objector during the war, I used pico and now nano for all my conf files. Forgot to add that I'm never at the servers when I work on them, it is always via ssh, often miles away. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 17:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I believe that the goal is that the VisualEditor will eventually be able to handle everything. It's made substantial progress in available features just in the few weeks that I've tried it.
64.40, I don't believe that a "flood of inexperienced users" is exactly an unintended consequence. People here have been squawking for years now that we aren't getting enough new users to replace the ones who get fed up, or who move on due to life circumstances. The WMF has decided that our many-years-long begging for a more WYSWIG-like editor could fit into their strategic plan to bring in more new editors, as well as to increase diversity away from people who personally remember the editor war or who learned about it as part of their computer science courses. (Speaking of which, obviously, all right-thinking people used DEC's EDT back in the day, because all right-thinking people wanted a system with actual security, which automatically ruled out every available version of U*ix). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
It may have done back in the day of ancient stuff like DECs, but there have been secure versions of Unix around since at least the 1980s. As for the visual editor, I'll wait and see before I say "I told you so", as I inevitably will given the track record of the developers to date. Malleus Fatuorum 21:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I suppose it depends on your definition of "secure". Last I heard, there were still exactly zero stock exchanges that were willing to run Unix, but most of them are happy running VMS (DEC was the company). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree (having tried it out myself) that it needs work...getting it to do citations and templates is going to be interesting. If they get it to work, I do think it will be a positive thing, not being in the "oldschool" category myself :-) I think it will open up Wikipedia editing to a wide range of editors who would edit, but don't because they think it's too complicated. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Speaking of categories, it appears that they're working on categorization. Perhaps that will appear in a few weeks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • As long as we're all reminiscing How about actually knowing the net topology because you had to write out bang paths to send email. I miss the days when everything was text and there was no point-and-click interface. Everybody you worked with then was bright and we were building the future decades before it caught on. We would embrace any newbie that was willing to learn and take them under our wing. Great days.
@WAID, I was thinking the possible flood of newbies was hoped for by some, but the pouncing on them part would be the unintended consequence. I can see I didn't convey that very well. My mistake. The net is a very different place today. Not many people are willing to take a newbie under their wing like we did in the good old days. Sad. 64.40.57.162 (talk) 03:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't miss bang paths at all, but I didn't need to use them very often.
I suspect that the WMF is aware of how hostile the English Wikipedia is to newcomers, or to anyone, really. Software can't fix culture problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I suspect the WMF doesn't realise just how hostile they are to the main core of regular volunteers... (ever been to Wikimania, WhatamIdoing?) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I've had a couple of encounters whereby their insensitivity took my breath away. I certainly don't blame the bulk of the Foundation employees who are often ordinary editors and admin here like you and I, but there is a systemic problem in how the Foundation as a whole relates to the larger community. It often feels like I'm being told "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain", by a singular illusion called "The Foundation". Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 15:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
About a decade ago, I spent about five years on the board of a non-profit, and over those years, I came to see a pattern--the organization was largely broken into two groups--not by conscious choice, but by what work they were doing--into two groups that didin't ordinarily need to communicate much, but each made decisions that had a lot of effect on the others. Most of the people on both sides of that particular fence were unpaid and passionate volunteers, but there were a few paid people as well, mostly on my side of that fence. It was difficult to get volunteers to spend much time at "maintenance communication", in fact, it was arguably asking too much of people who were already having too much asked of them. So inevitably, someone, often the staff, would make a decision, there would be drama, after much angst, there'd be communication and reconciliation, real attempts and putting better long-term communication in place, that would slack off, and the cycle would begin again. I was never able to find a structural way of fixing the problem, only mitigating it. But it came in large part from the fact that most of the people involved on both sides of the fence were passionate about the work they were doing.
This isn't precisely what's happening here, but the WMF (the editing community, and arguably the devs form three such clusters for Wikimedia) but there are days where all this Wikifuss sure seems to rhyme. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I see that the next big Foundation project that is going to be impoed on us is the way we communicate on our talk pages. Again, I belive this is a solution looking for a problem, and I'm surprised yet again that the Foundation refuses the need to address the issue of a proper landing page for new users/new page creators. Jorm made a half-hearted attempt at something to quieten us down, but in spite of many reminders, AFAICS, no further development was undertaken and the project seems to have been brushed quietly under the carpet. Several WMF projects have been proven to be a waste of resources and money, and a test of volunteers' patience, endurement, and dedication. The net result is that they will lose editors for us, which seems to be a rather cack-handed way of addressing their aggressive expansion goals. I hope WhatamIdoing, who vociferously supports and campaigns for everything the WMF does, will take note. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I seem to recall... ahh, here it is. You, WhatamIdoing, and I discussed the "new page creator" problem in September 2011: [2]. --j⚛e deckertalk 01:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • My experience with the WMF has been consistently positive. As a dynamic IP, the community treats me just like any other new user (i.e. not very well at times). But over the last decade, the WMF has been consistently courteous and helpful everytime. For example, when I helped write the 4 million article blog post, they asked if I wanted attribution. I said no, then changed my mind at the last minute and they were happy to help. I have even had the WMF come to my defense when people forgot to follow our WP:AGF guideline. Just to clarify, I don't mean one or two events. I mean the folks at the WMF have been consistely cordial and helpful for the last 10 years. I know they have helped multiple people conduct surveys of our editors. They have also actively sought out input from the community when designing the new WP:NPT interface. I am very thankful that the WMF maintains the servers and helps fix bugs in the software. And if you think I'm a WMF cheerleader you'd be correct. The folks at the WMF have always treated me with respect and courtesy. I can't say the same for the general enwp community, though I'd say most of the folks here at WER are also respectful. But I think the folks here at WER are the exception rather than the rule. 64.40.57.33 (talk) 02:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, we can cite plenty of sources and instances where the Foundation staff have been very much other than courteous and helpful. Sometimes even downright rude. Sounds accusing, but those are sadly the facts. The core team at the WMF usually functions well but when the volunteers intervene to upset their office room comfort, they tend to polarise, hence no one takes either responsibility or initiative. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
It is strange to hear you say that they never take initiative, in the context of you complaining that they are taking the initiative, and that they have taken the initiative in the past, including on projects that publicly failed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
@Kudpung, I heard about the Wikimania incident and I agree the WMF was in the wrong. I hope you were offered an apology, if not you are definately owed one. But It is my belief that those types of incidents are few and far between. I may be wrong (and i often am wrong), but I think the WMF (as a whole) is far more encouraging and helpful then the general enwp community (as a whole). But like I said, I am often worng and I'll be the first to admit that. 64.40.57.33 (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Open mounth. insert foot I'm still a WMF cheerleader, but the Foundation wiki de-admining was a serious mistake by the WMF. 64.40.54.136 (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
It does seem very strange, but I imagine they felt they had a good reason. After all, the Foundation had to know it was going to cause a stir. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  02:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
The question isn't whether they knew, but if they cared. While I would like to think so, the way they do things every now and then (ham-fisted), it makes you wonder. I wish I didn't have to wonder. This is exactly the kind of thing that causes members of the community to feel like they are just tools, and hurts editor retention. I know they have to make tough calls, I work in the business world so I understand, but how you do something is often as important as what it is you are doing. Particularly since we are talking about volunteers. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 02:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree that "how" matters as much as "what" in some cases. That cuts both ways, of course: volunteers who earn a reputation for being disagreeable shouldn't be surprised if no one wants to do them any favors, just like devs who develop such a reputation can expect every action to be received with suspicion.
I think the devs are also suffering from the usual IT disease: nobody notices unless you screw up. I understand that the software normally gets updated every two weeks. I doubt that anybody notices, unless something goes wrong. Then we complain about how horrible they are, without noticing that the previous dozen updates caused no significant problems. There's no practical solution for this; being ignored unless something goes wrong, and then being blamed even when it's not your fault, is just part of the job.
(I find that I can't get myself worked up over who's permitted to be an admin on the WMF's "corporate" website and who's not. It is perhaps the least important of the websites, existing only for official communication. If the WMF wants to deal with it entirely, then let them. Our volunteers could do something more important, since that's why we're WP:HERE.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • My take on the de-admining The Foundation has known that there's been a rift between the community and the WMF since 2009, which peaked during the ACTRIAL ferfuffle. They brought in Maggie and Oliver specifically for community relations because they wanted to improve things. They've also been engaging the community at every turn, asking for input on software changes, etc.. They have been doing a fantastic job in my opinion. But the de-admining was a mistake—a BIG mistake. It's like WAID said, Nobody notices until you make a mistake. The thing is, they have been conscientiously making their best effort to improve WMF/community relations. So the wholesale de-admining of everybody set them back considerably. They should have at least asked Maggie or Oliver, how do you think the community will react if we de-admin all non-employee admins before they did anything. The "how" was far more important than the "what" because—regarless of what people say—many admins do view adminship as a badge of honor that they have earned through countless hours of selfless dedication to the project. Taking that away—even if it is justified—is still a slap in the face. They should have told people what the problem was and asked if people would voluntarily turn in their bits to help the situation. I'm still a going to be a cheerleader for the WMF, but this was a very bad move on the WMF's part and it makes me wonder how much they care about the individuals that make up the community. 64.40.54.96 (talk) 01:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion notification

There is a a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Kindness Campaign regarding the organization of a Kindness Day or something similar. I am mentioning it here as it may be of interest to some of you. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  14:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Adios

Just so everyone knows, I will be taking a temporary Wikibreak for at least 5-7 days to let off some steam and get myself reenergized. Some of the stress has got to me, so I think it's best if I should take a couple of days off. I also have final exams coming up as well. I will only be back to work on certain articles. Till then, adios. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Final exams are much more important than anything that might happen here, so concentrate on them. They can change your life, but nothing here will. Malleus Fatuorum 20:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
See ya when you get back. I was off for about two weeks myself for family issues.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. Also, just to clarify, some of the stress stems from the recent disputes that I have been involved in as well as my frustration over Wikipedia's inability to deal with a couple of persistently disruptive users (i.e. those with a bullying or battleground mentality in general or those who seem to be oblivious to their own uncivil behaviors), combined with the realization of my unintended immaturity in some of my approaches to dealing with these users (including my unintentional feeding of the Streisand effect), a couple of users' comments towards me were in a negative light and/or condescending (I have exceptionally low tolerance for these comments which were uncalled for, and one of these users has already apologized to me after I apologized to him). I have been recently subjected to very serious personal abuse and constant uncivil behavior by these users, but I have mostly moved on from that. Such things like these are considered a disgrace to the community and to some editors with an excellent contribution record, including myself. Also, I fear that if I engage a disruptive user while trying to avoid them, I may push the wrong buttons accidentally. These reasons are a couple of the factors in my Wikibreak, and are also why I refuse to get involved in dealing with other difficult users until the time is right because it causes me undue stress. In the past, while I have almost always been civil, I may have caused issues with other users (disruptive or not) in anyway or might have been uncivil in any way towards anyone and I do not appreciate it when people are incivil or condescending towards me, so if I have done that or anything wrong, I am terribly sorry and I really didn't mean for some things to happen... Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

  • We all cross the line from time to time. I did with History2007s failed RfA and likely other times. Another time, Ent once told me I was stressed and needed to take a break, so I did. We are all human, we care, so we get caught up in events sometimes. Having the ability to see and understand our limits is what prevents us from repeating the same mistake too many times, and keeps us out of trouble. Taking a break is a good idea, we all need to from time to time, none of us are exempt. Don't beat yourself up over mistakes, just learn from them, get a break, come back and continue to do good things. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Dennis. I have been feeling a little isolated and betrayed by some of the Wikipedia community after that resentful heckling and negativity by some long-term abusive users over the past couple of months, which I find to be off-putting from the beginning (fortunately, part of that has already been dealt with and Ched has apologized to me after realizing he said some things in a negative light, which I am grateful for since I apologized to him in the first place if I caused any issues with other users and was uncivil in any way, as I am a level-headed person by nature). I think it's best to avoid contentious confrontations like these on Wikipedia, but life in general. That same thing happened to DarthBotto, a user who has kept himself busy with other things due to his dealings with a long-term abusive user. Also, before I go, I would like to make it clear to everyone that I have a very strict policy advising against all personal attacks and have an exceptionally low tolerance for uncalled for comments which I find to be harassing, haranguing, accusatory, inflammatory, incivil, heckling, insulting, condescending, disrespectful, abusive, venomous, yelling, annoying, embarassing, temperamental, rude or threatening, or those that are full of vulgarity. All of these can create a power imbalance in communication and are considered detrimental to the discussion. If these happen, I will remove and disregard them on sight if they are posted on my talk page. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Honestly, I've felt a weight on me as well, which is why I've chosen to bury myself deep into article content, finishing up a rather large project and taking it to GA, only my second and the only one where I was mainly alone on the content. It helps that it isn't a controversial topic. Sometimes, the best thing to do is ignore everyone and just find something fun to research and create. That is what we are here for anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Yeah. I feel mostly the same way as you, lad. I don't know why Fladrif and other users have gone so far just to demoralize me and be punished for my shortcomings, but I can't trust users like these no longer, as well as those who attempt to bludgeon me with rhetorics or venomous falsehoods. Dealing with a couple of abusive users has partially caused me undue stress on my part (and I admit that I have done that unintentionally) and have emphasized the fact that, in the immortal words of DarthBotto, "some things are just not worth the risk". I get a little upset whenever someone posts questionable aspects on my behavior (i.e. attempting to discredit me). If a user involved in a dispute for example, the best bet is to come back to it at a later time (whether it's a long time or a short time) and focus on content. Also, if a user has made negative observations about me in the past, it's always best to apologize if they realize those mistakes (as is the case here, where Ched apologized if he offended me personally (I felt that I was offended by some of his comments pertaining to some issues that need to be dealt with) and praised me for my efforts in improving Wikipedia and will not "hold grudges" and he said "it's all good.") I never intend to personally attack anyone nor do I want to risk feeding the Streisand effect or get blocked for unintended personal attacks. However, I have occasionally lost my temper and stepped on some toes from time to time. In any case, though, I am not at all humiliated. Nor am I a liar. The best strategy whenever you are involved in a dispute: Keep Calm and Carry On. Unfortunately, in other related news, Gwickwire has retired over a major incident at ANI. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Lord Jones, if I may be so bold as to make a suggestion. When you return from your R&R would you consider starting a page, somewhere, maybe in a sandbox or something, where we could collect the stated reasons that editors give for retiring. I suggest this to you because you seem to have an interest and awareness of retiring editors. We are Editor Retention and we are searching for ways that we can be a part of the solution to the problem. I think some of our answers as to our future direction lie in the soliloquies that frustrated editors "purge to anyone listening" as to what is wrong and why they can't take it anymore. As they are walking out the WP Door, they want us to know whats wrong and that we need to fix it. I would be more than happy to assist and should this sub-project get legs, I'm sure other editors will get involved. Thank You. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Attn Stalkers: Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Soliloquies Any and all epitaphs are welcome. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

All right. Now that the dust has been temporarily settled, I am thinking about planning to take a look at a couple of events here that can lead to a retirement. Does anyone remember the recent Fladrif fiasco at ANI? I think that stemmed from Fladrif's personal attacks towards other users, including Dreadstar (which he was driven off of), Ched and myself, as well as his bludgeoning of other users as well including Penbat, a respected user who has created numerous articles pertaining to abuse and bullying. Penbat was wikihounded by Fladrif on some of his articles and according to him, he seemed to align himself with Star767, a possible sockpuppet of a banned user. Penbat was intrigued by the talk page information, so he had to compile that as evidence with other evidence provided by Bbb23, Keithbob and other users. So, in short, incivility and personal attacks often drives other good users away, but in the end, users will eventually end up being blocked, as is the case here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Sunday is EotW Day

For the past 19 weeks, WER clerks have been dispensing the highly successful Editor of the Week Award. 19 low-key, out-of-the-limelight editors have been acknowledged for their efforts on behalf of the Encyclopedia. Fellow WER members have been visiting their respective talk pages and offering further thanks and support. The recipients have responded with some truly special comments. Every editor that is reading this wastes so much time with the "crap" @ WP. Invest a couple of minutes in congratulating a worker bee. You will be happy that you did. This week's recipient is User Closeapple. Go tell him how important he is to this effort of Encyclopedia building. ```Buster Seven Talk 04:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Editor Retention

Copied from User talk:Dennis Brown

A while ago we had a conversation about editor retention. One thing I don't think we discussed was the role Cyber Bullying and Cyber Stalking plays in editors quitting wikipedia. Because if you're a victim of such abuse, its been my experience over the last year there is an unwillingness for admins to look at such problems, they make a presumption that both sides are equally to blame and sanction both victim and culprit. Anyway, whilst I have come close several times (and meant it at the time) I have finally had it. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Its hard to voice an opinion on the general topic of cyber bullying, and you didn't provide links for me to review any particular case. It isn't a term I use around here very often, and I see it thrown around here pretty often, including in some circumstances where it might apply, and others where it really doesn't. Sometimes people have heated discussions, or someone is just flat rude, which I don't consider cyber bullying as much as it being, well, rude. If someone is WP:HOUNDING you, ANI is the place to go. Without more information, I'm not sure what else to say. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 19:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) WCM, this kind of thing happens in school. Generally, who ever is to blame, the solution is to separate both parties - and that's what's being suggested. it doesn't mean you have to give up your studies. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Not so simple. Expert bullies and stalkers are subtle, underhand and two-faced and attempt to demean, humilate and harass in ways that are difficult to document. Cordial communication with others masks the nastiness. There's a lot of it about. J3Mrs (talk) 21:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Yep...and it all too often flies under the radar. Intothatdarkness 21:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Honestly, it is sometimes difficult to make the call being on this side of the admin bit. What we admin love is situations where it is cut and dry, one sided, but when both parties are a bit rude to each other, filing through hundreds and hundreds of diffs (I mean this literally, btw) is confusing and sometimes it is just impossible to get all the context. In those cases, if we have any doubt, we can't take action, or we are the abusive admin. Not making excuses by any means, I'm just saying when you are the one with the buttons and you have to explain in excruciating detail every single action you make, you have no choice but to err on the side of "do nothing" unless you are very sure. Even when you are right, there is the risk that the blocked editor's 100 friends will pound you at ANI, scream bloody murder, and apologists will line up to lynch you as the blocking admin, wasting a lot of time and causing a great deal of stress. Wikipedia can just quite be brutal to admin trying to do the right thing at times, just as it is to editors. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 22:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
No need to text wall...my comment refers more to an overall lacking in wiki-type policy on the whole. A lack that takes a toll. It's always easier (both to do and to explain) to block someone for calling someone a "fuckface" than it is to deal with OWN of policy, passive-aggressive POV pushing, and the hundreds of other little things that can make time here unpleasant. Intothatdarkness 22:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Pithiness isn't my strong suit, but yes, clearly demonstrating POV is very difficult if you aren't very familiar with the topic, and if you are very familiar, you might have edited it and would be WP:INVOLVED... Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 22:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
And to an extent that's one of the things that is exploited by the passive POV pusher. Those who know the subject will be painted as OWNing the article somehow, and the one who appears so nice and polite is often taken at face value. Nasty business we're at here... Intothatdarkness 22:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Walking into these situations, I sometimes feel like a blind dog in a meat packing plant: I just don't know which way to turn. We admin aren't any brighter than the non-admin, you know. We just muddle along and do the best we can. That often comes up short but not for a lack of effort. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 22:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I was replying to Kudpung as I thought his reply was way too simplistic. I can see that you make strenuous efforts to be fair, but even in the real world bullying is hard to prove and the victim is really the only one who knows precisely what is going on. Details may seem trivial in themselves but they can add up to something far more sinister. J3Mrs (talk) 08:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
WCM has retired and added a wikibreak enforcer as his last edit. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
That's hardly conclusive. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • It's difficult to come in uninformed at the 11th hour and change the outcome of an unfortunate situation. It is difficult enough if you are along for the ride. I still don't have all the facts (I'm currently pulled in a dozen different directions on different projects) but I hope he takes a break, reassesses the situation, and reconsiders the retirement. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 21:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I also agree that there are a lot of bullies in Wikipedia and a lot of stalking and baiting that goes on. I have seen it first hand and I have, in several cases, tried to stop it. Unfortunately as Dennis said above its easier to block someone for telling a user off than to deal with the problem which may have culminated over months or years. There has also been a lot of occasions where admins were bullying editors in one way or another and nothing was done about it. I have been known (and blocked for it) to tell a user off from time to time when they were bullying other users and largely because of my rather aggressive stance dealing with these cyber bullies I will never be allowed to have access to the admin tools. An Ironic twist really but that's like on Wiki. It does cause a lot of users to leave and is a significant contributor IMO to the decreasing civility of the Wikipedia and a steady decline in our online culture and presence. Kumioko (talk) 09:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Bullies/Thoughts on the subject

In all my travels around WikiLand, I'm not sure I've seen a discussion entirely focussed on Bullying. Maybe WER provides a perfect empty canvas for editors to weigh in with their thoughts. Who wants to continue what ws started above? ```Buster Seven Talk 03:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Penbat has some useful views on bullying and is active in topics surrounding it. They and I have worked together on some of them. There is also WP:CYBER which may interest you. Fiddle Faddle 21:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Collaboration request, please

I have started an embryo essay in my userspace and I am inviting folk here who wish to collaborate and make ot an essay worth releasing into the wild. Yes, this really is an invitation to edit something in another user's space!

I'm trying to address the sometimes extremely poor treatment of well qualified academics who find the environment here to be inhospitable. I'm hoping to address from from the perspective of the academic and from those who sometimes berate them. So please join in at User:Timtrent/Relationships with academic editors, ideally contributing text, but, if you prefer, using its talk page.

The end game is to move this and the associated talk page into Wikipedia: space when it is judged to be ready Patently that is not today. Fiddle Faddle 21:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You may want to review the existing essays WP:RANDY and WP:SCUM and consider expanding one of them instead fo starting an entirely new essay as they seem to be covering the same ground. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I have looked at the former. It covers similar ground form the other end. The latter I will read now. Honestly I'm happy for any approach that improves matters, but I also could do with collaborative help (wherever that may happen) Fiddle Faddle 22:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Having looked at the latter, it describes the symptom well. It does not advance any solution, though. I want to attempt to work towards a solution. The latter almost reveres the 'experts are scum' approach. I think each acts well as source 'data', but neither works well as a solution. Fiddle Faddle 22:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
In my experience, many of the people who go on about their expertise not being respected, are usually feeling disrespected when editing on topics in which they do not hold any advanced qualifications (and thus are not, by the academic world's standards, "experts"). There are exceptions, of course. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I have no difficulty with your statement. I just hope to improve their experience of "us" and turn them into "We Wikipedians" Fiddle Faddle 21:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
The best way to do that would be to make sure to give in to whatever viewpoint they are advancing. This may be an unpalatable option for some. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
The best way? No. That would be a poor way. If we have to reject something then we have to reject it. But we must reject it well. Currently we seem to reject things in a snarky manner. We need to welcome expertise and academe, and help it to understand both that it is welcome, and also that Wikipedia is a strange place for experts and academics precisely because they are experts and academics. If you can think of a way to incorporate that type of sentiment in to the essay that would be excellent. Fiddle Faddle 23:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm speaking from experience I'm afraid. Many different approaches have been tried, and I only realised that giving in to the self-appointed "expert"'s viewpoint on the article content was the only thing that would've made them happy, after several weeks (or was it months) of "dispute resolution". YMMV.
Having said that, getting across the "you will find Wikipedia a strange place" idea (for those with real academic expertise) is indeed important. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Let's do that thing :) Want to join in? Fiddle Faddle 20:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I managed some quiet time to extend the essay. I'd very much appreciate input from readers and members here. Fiddle Faddle 12:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll try and take a look this weekend. Meanwhile, it seems Mr Adams may be following the discussion :) http://www.dilbert.com/2013-05-24/ --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

ClueBot NG

If an editor made these two edits to Middle Ages and to Hengistbury Head, then received these two warnings (Warning Eric Corbett - #1) and (Warning Eric Corbett - #4) within the space of two days, how do you think they would feel about continuing to contribute to Wikipedia? Should this project be worried about a bot that performs like that in case the editor really was a newcomer? --RexxS (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think we ought to report them as false positives so that the bot has a chance to learn. From a machine's perspective, one edit might have appeared to be "changing" lots of dates/numbers, and the other might have appeared to be inserting characters into a word. Cluebot probably needs to learn that such edits aren't so likely to be vandalism when accompanied by an edit summary. (I presume it checks for the existence of edit summaries.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and the nature of the second warning (red triangles and such) was because the editor making the edits had already received a level 3 warning for vandalism from a human editor in between. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Let's be very clear about that; I did not receive a level 3 warning from a human editor. Eric Corbett 21:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely not. It was User:Drmies. darwinbish BITE ☠ 22:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC).
In that case, the challenge will be to teach the bot to understand that (Warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor. (TW)) is humour and not a level 3 warning. I leave that as an exercise for the reader. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
The message I'm getting from this debacle is that it doesn't really matter, it was only Eric. Eric Corbett 23:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Inasmuch as anyone is saying something along those lines, it's probably more accurate to say they're saying, "It doesn't really matter, it was an isolated false-positive caused by an unusual confluence of circumstances involving a 'new' user who wasn't new, editing an article he'd worked on with a previous account, in a manner that was ambiguous to a bot's parsing, after having been joke-warned with a high-level template recently by a friend." Which is to say, these cases aren't exactly pouring out of our ears; while it's unfortunate that you got caught in this weird set of circumstances, you're likely the only one who's going to be, so now that your status has been cleared up and the erroneous warnings resolved, there's not really much more to do. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
What about my hurt feelings? Don't they matter? Eric Corbett 23:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
The message I am getting is that bots are only human. If the bot had been intelligent enough to realize that the level-3 warning was undeserved, it would probably have zapped Drmies, of course. And if it had recognized that, far from being human, Drmies is actually an administrator, it would probably have made matters worse. --Boson (talk) 23:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Let's get this sorted out. It wasn't "undeserved", it was a fucking joke, not meant to be taken seriously. Eric Corbett 23:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Bots are notorious for lacking a sense of humour. Bosons, on the other hand, are believed to be lacking in gravity. --Boson (talk) 01:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
" far from being human, Drmies is actually an administrator". Now my feelings are hurt. Malleus, I'm sorry! It's not Kafkaesque yet, but it could be. I'll think twice. No, I won't even think once. As a former human being, I'd say the problem is in Cluebot's trigger, but that's just the former me speaking. The new me, I suppose, shouldn't do things like sign up for a women's group, use the word "boss" in an off-hand manner, or leave templated jokes. I'll trout myself with the appropriate template on my own talk page in a moment. Boson, as I said to Steven Walling on meta, I think we're underestimating humans in this place sometimes. Drmies (talk) 00:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant to say "far from being a mere human", of course! --Boson (talk) 01:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I was about to give you a templated warning for that, but next thing you know I'll cause in increase in tornadoes or something like that. Drmies (talk) 04:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Silly Drmies, Admin are not human. This was an unfortunate confluence of events, and I'm guessing it is unusual but I think a lot of people want to know for sure. Some who have looked said it isn't common, but is someone looking deep and long into the history to confirm the accuracy of the bot? This can only be verified one diff at a time, and will take some time. The first time was amusing, but the bot lost its charm along the way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 01:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • After seeing the possible reasons the bot might have gotten wrong at WP:AN, due to moving the talk page, that makes me feel a little better knowing it was likely an isolated incident. Still sucks for Eric, no one likes getting dissed by a bot, but at least it isn't likely to be common. I'll make it up to you Eric, make that 3 pints I own you at the 2014 Wikimania. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 02:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    If you ever meet anyone at Wikimania claiming to be me, you can be be quite certain they're an impostor. It does seem though that despite the clearly inadequate explanations from ClueBot's owners this issue may just have affected me, because I've done too much here. It really does piss me me off though when techies try to pull the wool over our eyes rather than admit the truth. Eric Corbett 03:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • We will have to meet secretly at a pub in Manchester then. I've had the good fortune of working with several interesting, helpful and kind Brits here, it is hard to pass up the chance to meet them in person. You are quite high on that list, even if it requires a detour. As for the bot, I'm reminded of a quote often attributed to Napoleon, paraphrasing a bit: Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence. Even the most clever bot is a very dumb thing, so to me it is quite plausible. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 10:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, best to make it secret, Eric wouldn't want to meet all those WMUK people again, now would he? :) But it's not much of a detour... Manchester Piccadilly to London Euston by train is only around two hours these days, and Euston is walking distance (if you're a person who believes in a certain amount of walking) from the Barbican. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    It's a bit of a trek from Euston to the Barbican. But what's happening at the Barbican anyway? Eric Corbett 23:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Editor Yzx

This weeks Editor of the Week. You are invited to drop a quick congratulatory note on his talk page. If you know hard working editors who improve Wikipedia while going unrecognized, please nominate them today!. Also feel free to check on the current list of nominees and offer your comments on the nominations. ```Buster Seven Talk 10:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes looking in the wrong place can be interesting. I've made some important life discoveries looking in the wrong place. BTW, thanks for WP:ER. ```Buster Seven Talk 05:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Randy in Boise issue

You know, one can either edit articles or discuss them. The latter is by far more popular with most registered users, it seems to me (probably an interaction bias), the former is what experts have time for and interest in. It is impossible to get the existing status quo at Wikipedia (English) to see this.

I often correct DYKs on the main page. A couple of admins freak out about templating articles on the main page, thinking, incorrectly, that a piece of misinformation should sit there until it is off the main page. I have been rudely told to edit before the articles are on the maik page, but the listing system is impossible to understand. I checked out a geology article that is a disaster, reaches some agreement on the talk page as it seemed editors were committed to improving it. Improvements needed are huge, but two editors are now pushing for it to be rapidly promoted to the main page.

Geology of North America is a bad article. The geology is wrong, internally inconsistent (a blessing in parts), confusing, contradictory, disorganized and plagiarized out of context. The section on the Stable Platform, for example, is incomprehensible. However, the primary editor and the DYK nominator and possibly the admin arguing for main page in its current state have such limited understandings of structural geology and are so devoted to out-of-date references and creative naming (the Interior Plains are called the Great Plaons and, conversely size-grading, the North American Cordillera is renamed as the American Cordillera), that there is no way to discuss the issues with them. Meanwhile, one of the actual geologists, Vsmith, seems solely dedicated to reverting any substantive changes I make based on minor issues.

Structural geology articles on Wikipedia are badly written, mislead readers, and often omit primary information. A few of us decided to start correcting the articles last year, but I am the only one remaining.

At some point en.Wikipedia has to awake to the fact that an editor must understand the topic, not merely be able to copy google books into Wikipedia.

So, off to dispute resolution. Meanwhile, I work full time, how one acquires knowledge in their topic area, so that means I cannot edit the article but must spend time arguing basic geology with editors who do not understand the subject at a high enough level to catch their own really bad errors that a college student in an introductory course would see.

I cannot teach geology to the willfully ignorant and edit. If you want experts, and you do need them, Wikipedia must admit not all esitors are competent to edit all areas of knowledge, the apparent current assumption. -198.228.217.154 (talk) 12:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

  • This is one of the great dilemmas of the encyclopedia. As an admin, if I see edit warring, I have to treat both parties equally, which usually means full protecting the article. If I know the subject matter, I can instead come in as an editor and try to build consensus but more often than not I simply have to act an admin since I'm not an expert in all things. We have no way to "certify" someone as an expert as well. In some fields, particularly science fields, this would be an nightmare to do since there are often very intelligent and educated people who may consider similarly educated people as cranks. The rest of us aren't qualified to pick sides, most of the time. The medical community has done a fairly good job of enforcing standards, and maybe they can serve as an example, but there are no quick fixes to the Randy problem that I'm aware of. Admin can't administer IQ tests in a dispute.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 12:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
There is no edit war going on. Certifying experts is not even the problem. The problem is how to stop the non-experts who are here to socialize and are experts at working the system. No sources back up any of what I changed in the articles. Hawaii has never been part of the North American continent, and no one but Wikipedia editors have said it did. No matter how many, no matter how often, they make huge mistakes, create original research out of a lack of understanding, theses editors without knowledge will gain the community support of friendship, because there is not and never will be the knowledge base to understand structural geology and write correctly about it when social networking trumps everything else at Wikipedia. -198.228.216.157 (talk) 14:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
This happens in the history stuff, too. Some sections are totally cluttered with articles and terms that seem to have been created and used only on Wikipedia, but you can't get them removed because they're superficially sourced and thus appear reliable. Too many who look at them will simply count footnotes and conclude that the article's legitimate. I don't expect it to change, but it's still there. Intothatdarkness 14:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
History on Wikipedia is like geology, some really excellent articles. Difference is you get some excellent history articles in really hard areas. But, yeah, the sourcing can sometimes be funny, a line blown out of context and tied to eleven marginal citations. Geology, though, does not have good editors in structural geology, so some editors without knowledge are filling the void. The admin who came by to try to jump the promotion caught a major error immediately, but that is not stopping his support. -198.228.216.159 (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • DYK is a car crash all of its own. Trivial, irrelevant taglines attached to articles where the ink (by definition and strict policy) isn't dry yet. Can anyone explain why the articles we choose to mainpage are those least likely to have any sort of polish? The taglines chosen are just an embarrassment. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
    To rephrase your question; why would we choose to surface to potential editors content likely to have small grammar, spelling or content issues that could act as a vector for those potential contributors to become active contributors, without having to immediately learn how to use template syntax? Ironholds (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention/Archive_6&oldid=1151037413"