Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/missed users

Discussions

we can discuss things here as well. — Ched : ? 15:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consider minimally active editors such as User:KimvdLinde, run off by someone attacking her and calling her a diva. A valued member for her contributions to taxonomy, an area where she is, in fact, an expert. Also sweet but long-vanished users such as User:ArielGold and User:Ling.Nut. Montanabw^(talk) 17:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please, please, PLEASE feel free to add ANY editor to the page - there are a great many folks who have been valuable contributors to the project that I am woefully unaware of. This page is not "mine" .. it's for the entire community. Doesn't matter whether I agree or not on a specific editor - it's meant to be a positive step in bringing us together as a family. Please DO add folks to the list. While WP:EFD is humorous, THIS page is a serious counter to that. — Ched : ? 17:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I was in a good mood till I read this page. - Dank (push to talk) 03:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

(moved from the bottom of the list, "above" refers to list)

Are there no inclusion criteria for this page? Who is the "we" referred to above? At least one person listed above was, IMO, extremely destructive to the project on balance. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The list started as a private collection. Only now was it moved to be part of WP:QAI. "We" means the project members, - the project is open, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I have made an important modification so that there is no implicit statement that everyone agrees that all of these people should return. I would suggest that people only be added to the list if there is some kind of consensus among project members that they belong on it. Everyone, no matter how incivil or POV-pushing, had at least one friend who could put them on this list. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That won't work, as often, people leave because there was a dogpile running them out in the first place. This is more a place to focus on the positive aspects of people's contributions. For the negative, there are other drama boards. Montanabw^(talk) 21:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that instead of listing this group, most of whom are well known to the project, you look for longstanding accounts that just stop editing. How do you think it looks to someone who's made a few thousand edits but stopped, to come here and see that this apparently official wikiproject misses disruptive and banned users, but not him with his solid edits? Risker (talk) 11:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to add, as long as you stay positive, don't judge and don't compare. - As said above and on top of the list, it started personal and in a way still is. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) re to Risker (and others) I'll not object if someone puts it up for deletion. All I can say is that it was started with the best of intentions. Sadly, some folks just didn't take it that way. I've failed at things before, but never for a lack of effort. — Ched : ? 12:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Risker, why do you care? Go arb or something. We all know how you felt about Br'er, coming here and objecting to "disruptive and banned" editors smacks of digging up a body just to stab it a few more times.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I care because the first time this page was pointed out to me, it was by someone who had edited solidly for a couple of years, had about 30,000 edits, had stopped editing for six months, and nobody had even so much as left a message on his talk page. I spent two hours talking to him, person to person, which might have brought him back; I hope so. They're your target audience, I'd hope. Banned users aren't coming back without having to fight the community over it; however, we have hundreds of editors who just fade away, largely unnoticed, who have produced or enhanced a large amount of very good quality content (including audited content). I can think of a dozen right now, before I've even finished my morning tea, and I'm hardly the most knowledgeable person on this subject. I just think this page is not representative of the purpose of the wikiproject, which is good overall. And there are a lot more banned/disruptive users on that page than just Br'er, Wehwalt. That was a little gratuitous. Risker (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page is capable of improvement and if there was an omission, you could easily have remedied it without your comment, which was itself gratuitous. How did you think people were going to react to your comment, given your role regarding Br'er? Really? Comments like "disruptive and banned", in this setting, are like sloshing around gasoline and matches and then complaining when there's a fire.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page - said before - is not even trying to be representative or fair. Perhaps the intro should just say "missed" - not mention return. I can only mention whom I miss, - knowing that some will not return. Feel free to do the same, but don't object to others. Sadness and pain are not measurable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt, there are at least half a dozen indeffed/banned users on this list, about one in every six. Several of the people on the list are active editors (either under the listed account or another one), or are otherwise active behind the scenes. Several others have openly stated that their absence is due to non-Wikipedia reasons like family, work, or studies. I get that it's not intended to be representative, but it comes across as raising up the chosen few instead of actively reaching out to the broader editorial base of folks who are no longer active, which I thought was the objective of this wikiproject. I have too much good faith in those who are involved in this wikiproject to think that it is intended as a memorial to friends of its members, and I'm concerned that is how this page is coming across, even though unintentionally. Risker (talk) 15:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(watching and sad) The page is not trying to reach out, - there's project editor retention. The objective of this project is to improve the quality of articles. The objective of this list is to stay positive, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker: I stand by what I said before. Better faith would have been exhibited with a less provocative initial edit summary. I will not go so far as to call it baiting, but I feel it is definitely in that ballpark. At this point, I do not plan to continue this discussion. There will be a time and place for discussing such things, perhaps.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To the memory of the scuttled,
the banned, and those
who have just given up.

I know what I said but I am minded to add this. Br'er Rabbit and others on the page are greatly missed. In the case of Br'er Rabbit, I not only miss him as a person who greatly increased my productivity by decreasing the number of tasks necessary to an article that did not involve writing, all the thousand and one things that are needed for an article to appear at its best to the reader, but I miss him as a person and a friend and I worry about him. Don't dictate what other people feel. Yes, he is banned. That does not devalue the many worthy things he did for this project before his wikicide. His departure leaves a gap that cannot readily be filled, in addition to my concerns for him as a person. There are not many I can say that of. He is missed, not only by me, as I did not add him to the page. If there are others who should be added, add them. Enough said.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page title

I've just moved the page to a title that makes sense to people who don't know what WP:QAI means (which I didn't before I found it. The previous title of this page just smacked of insularity, frankly. Graham87 03:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]