Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

Editor interaction reference page

Based on the discussion thread Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 115#Telling people their edits are promotional, I was wondering if Wikipedia editors looking to help out newcomers could benefit from a reference page that would provide sample replies to various situations. It would list out a scenario (such as the sample question in that thread, "Why did you block me for adding factual information to an article?") and a response. It's easy to forget after writing a few dozen replies to temper the message with some empathy for the difficulties faced by a new editor who doesn't understand how Wikipedia works or its basic principles. Being able to refer to a sample reply that you could then tailor for a specific situation might be useful. What does everyone think? isaacl (talk)

I went and posted the following, not noticing that it was an archived discussion. The sample responses essay page is fine—go for it. The suggested responses could also be made into templates and those collected on an essay page. However, there is a deeper problem in that discussion that needs to be addressed. What I would like to have contributed there: The day has long passed when savvy SPA promotional editors, new or seasoned, can be easily be flagged based upon a quick look at edit histories. With tools available, it is possible to pad one's edits with hundreds of minor article and talk edits in a very short time (easy enough for paid promoters). Marketing and lobbying types are expert, by definition, at spinning compelling scenarios for the view they are promoting (even if that includes funding a "study" or "expert" that departs from the mainstream, planting articles through press releases and sympathetic authors, smearing competing views, etc.). We know that there are editors here who promote (or in some cases delete unfavorable) certain information, and surely many/most of those who get paid to do so are aware of how to stay just under the radar—there are even "how to promote your company through Wikipedia" articles out there. Is it productive to retain editors whose reason for being here, paid or not, is promotional? In many cases, the articles affected get little notice apart from advocates and a few drive-by editors who quickly give up or are reverted in the face of editors with a vested interest. Given that our dispute resolution processes primarily dwell on behavior and take little notice of content, Wikipedia needs a more robust and more readily accessible method to address these situations. Reliance on already stretched admins, many of whom also tend to focus on actionable behavior issues, to sift through content issues is not always reliable. Having policies against advocacy, COI, fringe content, reporting all significant viewpoints in reliable sources and similar content-related issues is nearly useless when enforcement is unavailable. I like the proposed items in terms of keeping things civil, but I also think that they need to be fitted into something that does something concrete to address the problem of advocacy. That might take the form a task force, which has been suggested before, that specifically examines content and sourcing when advocacy issues arise (which would also provide a firmer basis or assist to admins during dispute resolution processes). It is beating against the wind to rail against content-related advocacy and COI when it is so difficult to flag and enforce. • Astynax ^talk 19:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

My proposal deliberately does not involve the creation of templates; the idea is to provide sample responses, which editors would adapt to meet the specific situation. Regarding the rest of your comment, could you please open a separate thread to discuss your concerns, to avoid diverting the focus of this section? Thanks. isaacl (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

As I said, go for it. Your essay page can take any form you wish. • Astynax ^talk 20:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

(e-c) In response to Astynax's longer comment above, this is I believe a very valid and reasonable request from someone who I know has been dealing with at least one very problematic "civil POV pusher" of the possible COI type. While I want to admit that there are a few editors who are acknowledgedly paid editors who are still useful and valuable away from their paid editing, like User:CorporateM, and I wouldn't want to see them sanctioned, it might be very useful to get together a group of people willing to do some "mining" of history of problematic editors who seem to possibly be among the biggest reasons individuals leave certain topics or the project entirely. And ArbCom probably isn't the best way to deal with them, because their behavior often isn't that clearly disruptive in some cases. But, at the same time, ANI will often not get enough attention or input to generate a consensus. Maybe we could get together something like a committee or task force, prefereably of people in some way elected to do so, to review complaints of long term disruptive editors, including their history, and maybe, upon reaching a local decision among themselves, if that decision is to proceed to ANI to seek sanctions, to do so and be able to present their reasoning to do so? Also, I suppose, some of these individuals might be able to serve as advisors or even advocates in ArbCom cases, obviously at their own discretion and at the request of the party, if one or more of the parties seek such. John Carter (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Just trying to get feedback from others: would they use such a page if it existed? And would they contribute to its creation or maintenance, if only to provide common scenarios? isaacl (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Return post(s) to original display (the bot's edit summary is incorrect)Isaacl}}. Yes, I would contribute and help maintain. It fits an idea I had a few months after I started way back when. Buster Seven Talk 08:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I know I've used some of the wikipedia space pages to find the most appropriate template for specific problematic content issues a few times lately, when I knew of them. I don't actually do template user talk page messages that often myself, and but together most of my similar comments freeform, but I think having them available, particularly in a format which might be available for a "cut and paste" type edit allowing for specific variations, might make it a lot easier for some editors. The best way to get input about what common scenarios are most frequently found would probably be through filing an RfC requesting some indications of what scenarios still unadressed in such ways are still out there. John Carter (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think a formal RfC is required, since anyone can just pipe in with their suggestions and no closure is required. I am planning to solicit input from the new page patrol and articles for creation projects, whose participation I think is key: if they're interested, I think a lot of good examples of behaviours and responses can be garnered from them, and they probably would make use of such reference more than anyone else. isaacl (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it would necessarily be required, but RfC's tend to get at least a bit more attention to a discussion than they otherwise tend to get, and I would think that the greater publicity that an RfC can get a discussion might well get more input and awareness to such a page. John Carter (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I don't feel this proposal is significant enough to warrant the attention of an RfC, thereby taking away focus from other RfCs. I appreciate, though, that others may feel differently about it. isaacl (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It is difficult to discuss subjects like this in broad strokes, because every circumstance is different. Some civil POV pushers can be reasoned with, others can't. I've seen bad-faith paid editing that improved Wikipedia and good faith paid editing that did not, including some of my own early work. I've seen editors AGF, when I had real-world knowledge that it was an ABF situation and vica versa. Some paid editors are bullies and others aren't pushy enough when they are in-fact encountering an abusive editor. Statistically most COI editors are disruptive, but do not intend to be. I think it is only of minor use to create standardized templates, rules or messages. Rather I would focus on creating better decision-making processes for content decisions. Right now the most persistent editor wins in most cases, creating this testosterone fueled fighting environment that escalates to the behavioral-focused ArbCom, who often blocks/bans editors that got into a heated content dispute. There should be an easier way to get a "final" content decision that will immediately end disputes without escalating to blocks/bans at ArbCom. CorporateM (Talk) 21:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The scenarios can be a branching script, where if the editor of concern displays obstinate behaviour, an appropriate course of action can be suggested.

Resolving content disputes is a hard problem; my suggestion is to have a binding mediation process, but at present there isn't enough support for this approach. isaacl (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

(e-c) Agreed with CorporateM. I recently proposed a sort of "comment" committee as a way to maybe get uninvolved editors in contentious areas to get together summarized forms of disputes, hopefully with references and consideration of existing policies and guidelines regarding content. One of those involved said that maybe some people were declining taking part because there were no in place sanctions against problematic editors, although, personally, I think that might not be the only reason. The school year and lack of a highly regarded "front man" strike me as being other possible reasons. NYB is expecting to return next week, and DS are almost certainly going to imposed before then in that topic area, so that might help a little. Also, making it easier for more people to find more sources would help a lot.

I would particularly think that contract paid editors might be among the best possible editors we have. They not only want to get the current article they are paid for developed as per the fee, but also make sure that the current article is not so poor on completion that it serves as a disincentive for others to contact them in the future. In that regard, such editors might be among the most motivated we have to produce quality content. John Carter (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

and also the most motivated to assure that the articles content is "flavored" toward their client. That is, after all, who is paying them. Not Wikipedia or its readers. Buster Seven Talk 22:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

That depends on the motivation of the company offering the contract. I've seen the standard reference work on histories of world companies, which is I think over a hundred volumes long with histories of only a few pages apiece and covers a huge number of businesses we haven't touched yet. If the purpose of the contract is to just get an article here because no one's made it yet, that's one thing. If the purpose is to literally "improve" the article in a way more sympathetic to the employer, like you suggest, that's another matter. John Carter (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

A bit of a radical idea, but what if individual WikiProjects had the authority to nominate participants to a content committee with the authority to make quick content decisions, subject to being overturned by consensus (of course). This could help revitalize WikiProjects, place the burden of obtaining consensus on the POV pusher, and prevent disputes from escalating to behavioral boards (ANI/ArbCom) focused on administrative action. The most frustrating part about POV pushers is the overwhelming burden involved in achieving undeniable consensus against an editor that does not want to accept it. A content committee could make intermediary decisions that places the burden of obtaining consensus on the POV pusher and provide a sort of court to go through to get a concrete decisions, hopefully preventing endless escalation that eventually ends up on behavioral boards (ANI, ArbCom). CorporateM (Talk) 23:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

If it's subject to agreement by a larger consensus, then I'm not sure I see a significant difference with what currently happens when there is a dispute with an edit. Typically the related WikiProjects are notified, and if the problematic editor is unhappy with the results, the editor can seek a broader range of opinion. isaacl (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I actually myself like the idea. As I've said elsewhere on this page, I have proposed a "comment" committee to help resolve the really long-term content problems. One of the difficulties we have with a lot of our "standing" problems is that the content tends to reflect one side more than another. This might be particularly true of Scientology, for instance, whose independent coverage has tended, unfortunately, to often be sensationalist and negative. If the individuals nominated were basically chosen based on their grasp of the topic involved, and, hopefully, access to relevant sources, then having one or more predetermined individuals who could serve as topical representatives on a committee might help facilitate it. So, for instance, Scientology issues would probably involve religion, sociology, psychology, business and marketing, law, and American history topics, for instance. Having some way to make it easier to find and get input from such a broader field of knowledgeable editors in a way which might also be one they can reasonably see might be in the comparatively short term, rather than continuing, might help resolve a lot of these issues. Having said that, finding individuals who actually are knowledgeable on at least some of the areas in which we have projects might be problematic. John Carter (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not clear, though, how this is an improvement over soliciting input from the WikiProjects. Most of them aren't overflowing with members to the extent that divvying up tasks is an issue. isaacl (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

From personal experience, I know that there are at least a few WikiProjects which are rather inherently biased, and many or most of their members would probably not be particularly helpful in such regards. And some of the editors can have rather inflated, sometimes counterproductive, opinions of their own level of knowledge. This can be particularly true regarding Wikiprojects which deal with issues of personal beliefs of one sort or another. Also, honestly, there exists the question of project activity, and there are a huge number of at least comparatively inactive wikiprojects. Leaving messages there can tend to be less than useful, particularly if knowledgeable editors like are being sought haven't watchlisted the project talk page. One might in at least some cases end up notifying more POV pushers than useful editors by a simple WikiProject notice. Not saying that notifying projects is itself a bad idea, but the two options aren't mutually exclusive either. John Carter (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

But since the proposal is for the WikiProjects to select the commenters, I don't see how it avoids the issue you raise. isaacl (talk) 22:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

back to the threads original idea---"a reference page that would provide sample replies to various situations"

I think sample replies are a great idea. I use what I call "scripts" in a project I am working on with another editor. We created the article List of United States post office murals and as an off shoot realized that there was a hundred or so potential Bio article on women muralists. I created half a dozen "scripts" which all say the same thing but with different emphasis for different situations. While creating the articles (which all have a similar skeleton) I refer to the 6 scripts and choose one. The hardest part is deciding which of the 6 works best for the artist I'm writing about. After that it's an easy cut-n-paste. Buster Seven Talk 07:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense, actually. I guess the question would be which scenarios to script here. Would we be talking about including those which already have premade template messages, or only the less frequent type of messages and/or more specific messages for variants on the existing messages? John Carter (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

As I had ceded this discussion thread to the other topic that came up, perhaps discussion of the original idea could continue at § Editor interaction reference page, take 2? Thanks. isaacl (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

How many women have been involved in these discussions?

The following question was posted[1] in the discussion "A lot has been said today" and was later made into a separate discussion[2] by Buster7.

I see some encouraging observations above, but I have an observation myself. Or a question, how many women have been involved in these discussions? Lightbreather (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

So far as I know, none, but I don't see an way to fault those who have been involved on that basis. Honestly, getting broader input, from all sorts of editors, was the reason I proposed including an article in the Signpost about it. John Carter (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedians are gender-neutral. It's virtually impossible to verify one's RL gender. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@GoodDay: For me, Wikipedians are whoever they identify as. Unless there is evidence to the contrary relevant to building the encyclopedia, I don't think it's helpful to disbelieve claims about how an editor identifies or to presume like these differences are irrelevant when it comes to the experience of editing. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line}

As yet we have not notified the general populace (WP's or WER's) of this discussion. Whomever shows up, shows up. Now that you are here....Welcome...have a seat...participate in the "Consultation....invite others to join....Slim Virgin and the two Ann's (Anne and Anna) are Co-ordinators here. No one is excluded.Buster Seven Talk 16:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we could just assume that those ladies either haven't commented because they didn't see that they had anything specific to add, which is possible, or were busy doing something else, which is also very possible, as it was a rather quick discussion. I'm not sure it would be appropriate to ping them, considering they are probably watching the page anyway, but someone would be free to do so, or leave them messages, if they so desired. John Carter (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The WER membership list has the username's of a number of well-respected women editors whose contributions to discussions like this would be worth considering. Sometimes watchlist items roll away before one notices them. Sometimes you take your name off a watchlist when discussions are no longer enjoyable. Some editors like to be invited to join discussions.

I am pinging @Anne Delong, Anna Frodesiak, and SlimVirgin: who expressed interest in helping as project coordinators back in November,[3] and perhaps might be willing to chime in here. Then, there are three women on the membership page who have said they'd like to help bring in/retain more women editors. Hello, @Missvain and FeralOink: might you be able to help? And finally, I would ask Rosiestep, one of the most productive and respected women editors in the project. There are probably others who would be willing, but let's start by asking them and see if any will accept the invitation. Lightbreather (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I still recommend all editors view Wikipedia through grey-coloured glasses, instead of pink or blue. But, you'll each have to decide that for yourselves :) GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

As a relative outsider in this particular debate, I couldn't agree more. One good way to derail something like this is to add the hot-button gender element to it (which is what the heading of this section does). We are Wikipedians, not male or female Wikipedians. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Mandruss, you can view others however you choose, but it's not fair of you to decide how other editors identify themselves. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 21:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Well I'd be happy to debate this with you, but I don't want to go any further down that road in this thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• This project seems to be heading down the same rabbit hole that the GGTF project now finds itself in. For instance, can anyone explain the meaning of this to me? "Find a way of encouraging more friendly behavior from some editors whose only comments are almost always unprovoked and in bad taste." Why only some of such editors rather than all of them? Do such editors really exist? What's so wrong about making unprovoked comments anyway? Eric Corbett 16:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• It's a preliminary proposal. You may have noticed that. One of many such recent proposals. They are proposed ideas of how to more actively retain editors. Whether they will or will not work is another matter. And I thought that the construction of the sentence you quoted made it clear that the "some" was referring to the "editors whose only comments are almost unprovoked and in bad taste," who constitute a minority or "some" of the broader community. While it is also a good idea to encourage friendly behavior from those who already regularly engage in it, they aren't as big a part of the problem in that regard. John Carter (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

  Well it wasn't, it was poorly written. Eric Corbett 18:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• ANd jumping to conclusions based on ambiguous statements is just cause for making such statements as you made. And I assume you were referring to only the first bullet point, considering you have said nothing about any of the others. John Carter (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• There is one point Eric makes here that I agree with. I think that first point should read:

Find a way of encouraging more friendly friendlier behavior from some all editors whose only comments are almost always regularly unprovoked and in bad taste hostile. Lightbreather (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• 't Was poorly written, 'tis much improved. Moving on, Drmies (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
• Yes. Moving on, Buster Seven Talk 20:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• On #3, in light of the fact that male editors outnumber female editors by 9-to-1, I would say:

Recruit new editors within your personal circle of real life acquaintances, giving special thought to inviting women. Lightbreather (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I would somewhat oppose that chang as writtene. I think a more reasonable phrasing might be changing the second clause to something like "particularly those who you think have characteristics which you think would make them successful in wikipedia." It would probably be counterproductive for a group called "Editor Retention" to try to encourage new editors whom might not be easily retained. But friends who you think have characteristics which would make them desirable editors to have would be most useful, although, admittedly, if they are female, that would be another plus. I don't know if there are any pages which identify characteristics which editors think are most valuable here, or most likely to indicate success here, but if there are it might be useful to review them and/or offer changes if anyone thinks they need be made. John Carter (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I included the change Light suggested as an -OR- option but I don't favor it. Eric is right about the rabbit hole. We are NOT going down it. We may peek in now and then but we are not going down it. Let's stick to retaining editors or retraining editors or recruiting editors or restocking editors rather than worry about whether they are women or men. Long time members of this project have always had our antennae up for any censorship or exclusion or special treatment. Invite who you will but don't expect a specific favored "phrasing" that makes a "special case" for one group of editors over another. Buster Seven Talk 20:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC).

Let's please not use negative figures of speech to talk about problems. Case in point: rabbit hole. I believe when Eric used this term, he was not referring to gender, but rather to his concerns that others single him out for criticism. However, now you've grabbed onto it and made it into gender.

My purpose in asking the question that I asked earlier today was to remind the project members involved in this discussion that they ought to consider inviting some women project members to join in. That's all. There is a gender gap on Wikipedia, and we do want to narrow it, and one way to do that is to get more women involved in these kinds of discussions. I don't mean for that to be a critical comment - just a factual one. Lightbreather (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

That wasn't at all my meaning. I used the term "rabbit hole" as in Alice in Wonderland. First we create a fantasy world of institutionalised sexism or whatever and then we populate it with imaginary villains and heroes. Eric Corbett 22:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Rabbit hole is a negative figure of speech? I'm not sure since I'm not Eric but I believe he was just warning us (all of us) not to fall prey to all the trails and tribulations that Alice in Wonderland experienced when she looked (and fell) down the rabbit hole. You've made your suggestion about inviting women editors. And you have invited many. I hope they all show up. Buster Seven Talk 22:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster: rabbit hole: a bizarre or difficult state or situation - usually used in the phrase down the rabbit hole. Let's just say it's not a positive term. Lightbreather (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Both Merriam and Webster are wrong. Its no more positive or negative than "up the down staircase". Buster Seven Talk 22:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Further thought: You say "Let's" meaning "Let us....". Doesn't that presume you speak for "us". Some might construe that as negative. Buster Seven Talk 22:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It's a plaintive request. Is there any way that I can participate on this talk page now that I've committed the offense of simply asking if women project members have been invited to the discussion? If not, please say so, and I'll leave. Lightbreather (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

earlier, in this thread I said Now that you are here....Welcome...have a seat...participate in the "Consultation....invite others to join....Slim Virgin and the two Ann's (Anne and Anna) are Co-ordinators here. No one is excluded. My invitation still stands. You committed no offense. Buster Seven Talk 23:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I think there is nothing to keep us from looking for suitable candidates, but to especially consider suitable women candidates. The fact is, we're swimming in male editors, and some are good editors - that is they have the whole package: smarts and social skills - and some are lacking. I don't care how gifted someone is intellectually, if they don't know how to work with other people without alienating them, they are not good editors. And no matter how high someone's emotional IQ is, if they can't write a basic sentence, they are not good editors. (I don't care so much about spelling and impressive vocabularies. Spelling is easily corrected, and a lot of our articles are way too verbose.) Lightbreather (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing to stop us looking for suitable candidates of whatever gender. But what does that have to do with editor retention? Eric Corbett 22:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

This seems like a dangerous road to follow. I realise that if they don't know how to work with other people without alienating them does indeed use the highly subjective (and obviously wrong, in Eric's case) word "alienating" but I am more concerned about how the general "social skills" and "can't write a basic sentence" sentiment might impact on the many contributors who suffer, for example, from various degrees of Asperger's. - Sitush (talk) 02:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Sitush, I have been a primary caregiver to a young-adult loved-one with Asperger's. They can learn basic social skills - especially online, where there is a delay between what they think and the pressing of the enter/send button. What's more, learning basic social skills improves their lives, and the lives of those they interact with, immensely. However, if you want to talk about recruiting and improving the retention of differently abled editors, I suggest you start a separate discussion, as this one was meant to be about inviting some women WER members to join the discussion of the A lot has been said today list created a couple days ago. Lightbreather (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Question for administrator

Could an uninvolved admin please remove Eric Corbett's comments from this discussion. They may be breaking his gender gap topic ban. --Lightbreather (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you serious? That is a ridiculous and inflammatory request. This project has never excluded any editor from commenting. Buster Seven Talk 22:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

No. This administrator sees no violation at the present juncture. Go Phightins! 22:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Revised comment from Go Phightins! - I must confess that I misread Eric's topic ban, thinking that its language stipulated topics related to GGTF, not the gender gap at large. Consequently, my decision not to pursue sanctions was ill-advised. However, I will leave it to another administrator to determine the necessity thereof. Thanks to Kudpung for alerting me to my error. Go Phightins! 02:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Should this be taken to AE, as I assume it might, I might consider the request to have the comment removed more problematic than the comments themselves. And, although Dennis's statements in the past appointing "coordinators" of this project in his absence at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 24#Symbolic change does not necessarily carry any weight, I think the above two individuals and I were all appointed to be project "coordinators" and disagree strongly with the proposal to remove the comments and, in a sense, stifle conversation. It is my sincere hope that if such unfortunate action does take place, the admins at AE read this entire thread. John Carter (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm serious! Eric is indefinitely topic banned from: (i) editing the pages of the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) discussing the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) participating in any process broadly construed to do with these topics. An uninvolved admin may remove any comments that breach this remedy, and impose blocks as necessary.

I asked a simple question. Eric Corbett jumped in within an hour comparing this project to the GGTF. I tried to do him a favor by saying that he wasn't talking about gender. Then he says, First we create a fantasy world of institutionalised sexism or whatever and then we populate it with imaginary villains and heroes. Lightbreather (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you might like to explain what that has to do with the gender-gap issue? Eric Corbett 23:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

And I believe all three of us were just as serious when we indicated it should not be removed. You are of course free to pursue this matter at AE, but I regret to say that if you do so there is a chance of boomeranging as (1) I have very serious questions regarding whether "asking women" about many matters not directly relating to the gender gap is directly related to the Gender gap, because I don't think it reasonably can be seen as such, and (2) his specific comments dealt with a wider topic, not necessarily a more restricted one, and it would make no more sense to say that this broader topic "specifically relates to the gender gap" than saying that anything related to the planet Earth specifically relates to the gender gap because all genders come from that planet. You are, however, free to file a request at AE, but I very sincerely hope it is turned down, for basically the reasons I and others have already indicated. John Carter (talk) 23:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Kindness ...

(ec) I am not an administrator but simply a woman and heard the talk about kindness, generosity, forgiveness and compassion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerta. Always the Diplomat! You are a great example to us all. Currently we have 174 members. What is the easiest way of determining their gender? The last thing I want is for this to turn into tussle. Your advice is appreciated. Buster Seven Talk 23:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't thank me, it was quoted with sarcasm, and it was not my idea. Follow the link, please, instead of thanking me, I reminded someone of their own idea, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I've followed that link several times now. Who were you reminding of their own idea? Is any reader of this talk page meant to know who you're referring to, or are there a select few who will know, or what? Lightbreather (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Which page do you get to? I am not going to ping him here, to so much "kindness" under the label of Kindness, kindness such as arbcom enforcement. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't even try to determine gender. It is completely irrelevant. Don't get sucked into the politics of the men's rights vs feminists stuff: it has little to do with building an encyclopaedia and a lot to do with all sorts of other issues that have no place here. - Sitush (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

It's a not AGF leap to say that asking women WER members to join a discussion about editor recruitment and retention is the "politics of the men's rights vs feminists stuff." Lightbreather (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not a great leap to describe inviting women as canvassing either. J3Mrs (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Seven women who are members of this WER project?[4] Three of whom are co-cordinators? Lightbreather (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, in the light of your loaded question. Would you expect male editors to ping half a dozen other men? It is not the gender of the participants that matters but what they have to say. J3Mrs (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS states:

In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.

However, canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior.

Presumably then, the implication is that Lightbreather has pinged these other editors with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way and thereby compromising the normal consensus decision-making process. What prospective outcome of the discussion or prospective decision that may be reached is giving cause for concern? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

And to clarify, I am not suggesting that Eric is a sympathiser of the men's right movement. Far from it: the problem here comes entirely from the other aspect and, yes, I can see a boomerang sometime in the near future unless it is reined in. - Sitush (talk) 02:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I know absolutely nothing about the men's right movement, which corresponds exactly to how much I care about it. Eric Corbett 02:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Me, neither. It seems to be mostly a US-centric thing, from what comments I have seen over the months. - Sitush (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

My question to Gerta was intended to make the point that there is NO real way to determine our members gender. I looked at the list. There are many names that seem like women. LB invited by ping half a dozen editors she thinks are women. But she can't be sure. Neither can I and I won't worry a second about it. Buster Seven Talk 05:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

About men and women and editor retention: it was Eric, twice at least, who helped me to stay. The second time I remember, staying was easier than the first when he led a minority group with known women, while I still don't know if there was a single woman among the majority. Thank you, Eric, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

A man who led an effort to keep a very valuable female editor in the project is a man who should not be belittled on issues related to gender. If anything, such efforts are among the most important and valuable in terms of keeping qualified women editors. John Carter (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Clarify: He didn't do it to retain me, but his firm stance against a majority - repeating: supported by women! - made me stay. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Buster left a note for me per Lightbreather's suggestion that women should be notified of this discussion. My answer to Buster is here Gandydancer (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

To answer your question, Buster7 there is no one easy way to tell if an editor is a woman, and as many will remind you, absolutely no way to know for sure that someone who identifies as a woman on Wikipedia is a women. However, there are many established and respected editors who edit openly and convincingly as women. If you're not sure, one thing to consider, is whether or not an editor has added their username to Category:Female Wikipedians. However, I know at least one man, Drmies, whose username is in that category, I think because he keeps an eye out for vandalism. (One time, someone replaced the female symbol in one of the user boxes with a photo of female genitalia.) Another way is to go to an editor's page and see if they have a "This user is a female" box on their page. Another way is to use the {{they}} template, which displays a user's "Internationalisation" preference as "they," "she," or "he." And of course, as I mentioned above, just working with editors sometimes reveals, in due course, that they are men or women because they say so openly. Lightbreather (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Well...why don't you do some of that and invite some women. Buster Seven Talk 19:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)BTW---After 40000 edits I don't think I need to be told how to identify the gender of my fellow editors. Actually, I really don't care about their gender. Buster Seven Talk 20:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I did, yesterday, but considering the response I received to asking a question about women participants, I don't know how welcome women might feel here right now. I know that I don't, so I am, once again, going to steer clear of this project for a bit. Lightbreather (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

If you do not feel welcome, may I submit it is because you do not seem to understand that your sole interest is not necessarily everybody else's sole interest. There is a difference between "women who wish to contribute to wikipedia" and "women who are primarily if not solely interested in the issue of 'women in wikipedia.'" One does not necessarily equal the other. John Carter (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Characteristics of successful editors?

(moving this earlier comment into a separate section, as it is reasonably a separate matter)

Having said that, are there any essays or similar out there indicating what are the best, well, "survival characteristics" around here? If there are, it would probably be useful to know them. I made a rough check and couldn't find any, so, maybe, if we could identify characteristics that are likely to make an editor stay, or, alternately, characteristics which tend to appear in people who retire, knowing that might be useful, particularly for anyone who might be trying to engage in recruitment from other acquaintances or maybe the various education class projects or GLAM events or whatever. John Carter (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm certaintly an example of a survivor. I've been through a 2-year Tban, a 1-year siteban & am currently under an (going on 3 yrs) arb restriction & yet I haven't retired. GoodDay (talk) 14:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

You can search in Category:Wikipedia essays and Wikipedia:About essay searching.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I did. I saw quite a few essays about editors who leave, and the reasons they leave, but not many about what might seem to be the "survival characteristics" which I think it would be possible and useful to identify. John Carter (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Earlier, on this page, I linked to User:Beyond My Ken/thoughts#A personal prescription for surviving Wikipedia, which is not included in Category:Wikipedia essays.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• There is much gentle wisdom in User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior, written by an editor whom I greatly admire. Voceditenore (talk) 12:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

John there is research on why people leave, which is not exactly the same as survival characteristics. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC).

A lot has been said today

We opened a lot of doors and windows with the conversations above. I wanted to summarize them here so they don't get lost. These are just basic reminder notes. Feel free to "add to the soup".....If I got your proposal wrong, feel free to change or elaborate....

1. Find a way of encouraging more friendly behavior from some editors whose only comments are almost always unprovoked and in bad taste.....
   
   OR
   
   Find a way of encouraging more friendly friendlier behavior from some all editors whose only comments are almost always regularly unprovoked and in bad taste hostile.
2. Give editors something useful to do, to get away instead of retire, read, have a noticeboard of potential things to get involved in rather than quitting.
3. Recruit new editors within your personal circle of real life acquaintances...expand the pool of new editors.
   
   OR
   
   Recruit new editors within your personal circle of real life acquaintances, giving special thought to inviting women.
4. We have contacted Project X and are on their mailing list. Stay in touch with them and keep the group informed.
5. Create sample replies or scripts for various uses by editors in need of the "right" words to say. Sample replies tailored to the situation.
6. Help people learn by example, through seeing the best practices of others.
7. Time spent on Wikipedia results in a negative Real Life situation. That's why some editors leave, not because they were chased away. Some sort of reminder with a customized message is needed.
8. Fact: not all "Retirees" are worth saving
9. A task force of sorts to review repeated complaints about long-term disruptive editors.

Buster Seven Talk 08:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• All these look good. We need to approach in a systematic and planned way. In last October I attended India Community Consultation — a national level conference, currently I am working on their records and follow-ups WP:RMI. I have noticed that many such initiatives fail for not having clear roadmap and vision. I can show more examples where people knew what do, but either they did know about the process or did not give it similar importance. The question "what" is important, but a more important question is "how" (or "exactly "how"). Hope for the best. User:Buster7, you told that my suggestions were WAAAY WAAAY ahead of what you are thinking, so I am a bit afraid here to talk on new things here. I'll start talking on a couple of points soon. --Tito Dutta (talk) 14:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• No need to fret, Tito. I guess we missed each other in our first conversation. What I was proposing was what we have above...a lot of good focused brainstorming talk on a lot of important issues by a lot of interested motivated parties. What you were proposing when we chatted (at least it seemed that way to me) was all kinds of merchandising and product incentives and gifts and the like. I didn't mean to shoot it down (if that is what you heard). It just seemed a bit early in the process...cart before the horse. Your sad experience of wiki-friends retiring is shared by all us. At least by those that have been around awhile. Please take a seat in the conversation. Help us define our role in improving the status quo. Buster Seven Talk 20:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• That's a good exptrapolation Buster7. I have taken the bold initiative of numbering them for easy reference. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• The above extrapolation is merely intended to simplify all that was said the other day into some abbreviated sentences. They are not presented in order to be voted on in any way... no consensus or approval is needed to implement any or all of them ....if you think it's a good idea....Go For It! At some point the list will be moved to prevent archiving so that its always available as a reminder. If changes are suggested or different phrasing is preferred I will add it as an ---OR--- as I did yesterday. But that does not mean one is chosen over the other. The List of 10 is organic. A mushroom can exist next to a head of lettuce. Buster Seven Talk 21:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Question about recent developments

Considering the recent developments: Did they come about because I joined a conversation and asked a simple question? Or did they come about because of how others reacted to that question? Or maybe there was some other reason? Should I never have asked the question and kept it to myself? Was the question asked in a provocative or threatening manner? Should a man have asked the question - or some other woman? How the heck did such a simple question turn into another fricking fight about Eric Corbett? Lightbreather (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, it's best to avoid the gender issue entirely. GoodDay (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

In my view, your question was a non sequitur, as I don't believe any other editor has a greater insight to the answer than you do. I'm not sure why you chose to pose it rather than answer it. isaacl (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

As a result of recent developments, or at least one in particular, I am removing this project page from my watchlist and will no longer be contributing here, as it's apparently now under the purview of the GGTF. I suppose that could be considered a win for somebody. Eric Corbett 17:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

A wise decision. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not a win for me. This project (or, specifically, some of Dennis' writings on it) is how I turned from being very critical of Wikipedia (in a manner that would make Wikipediocracy proud), deciding to forget about it and just work on articles. I then discovered Eric's work, some of which such as Moors Murderers is some of the best writing on Wikipedia I have ever seen, and although I would rather he didn't use the F word (though I use it too), he has calmed down a lot and even in the worst of times still carries on working on articles. Why can't we all do that? Why is it that people get so enraged over things that don't really matter in the grand scheme of things? My other half's a woman (I checked!), she isn't really keen on Wikipedia ({{sfn}} is a secret code meaning "I'm a regular here, so revert this and bad things will happen to you"), yet I don't see her climbing the BT Tower and shouting about discrimination. If you want to help the gender gap, write more articles about things women appreciate more - whatever they are. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not a win for me either. The day that they finally get rid of Eric will be a very depressing day for me indeed. I used to be so bright-eyed and bushy-tailed about my place as as a Wikipedia editor. That lasted until Arbcom almost barred me from writing on all abortion connected articles because they felt I was being sarcastic three times. My next offence resulted in a 24 hour ban for edit warring which made no sense what so ever. It jaded me but I really do love Wikipedia, and it would be pretty hard to leave. But I have long felt heavy of heart when I imagine that one day Eric may be banned. I struggle along with my writing here and Eric has helped me several times. He helped me with my only DYK article. I've been thinking of venturing forward with my first article and I had hoped to ask the editor that I consider the best of the best to help me, but it will be about a woman and I know that he is refusing to help with articles about women. Until now I thought that he was over reacting, but it seems that I was wrong. Gandydancer (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

(e-c) To my eyes, it developed because a person raised a question which is itself deliberately and willfully "discriminatory" and is apparently incapable of recognizing that, and seems to persist in that inability to recognize that. There is already a group which is specifically dealing with issues of gender, we do not need to basically have every other group which deals with issues regarding editors subject to hijacking to promote the same purpose. I am in no way unsympathetic to women who have encountered difficulties here, any more than I am people with disabilities of some sort or people who come from minority ethnic groups or even people whose first language isn't English. But at the same time we don't have other editors asking the "simple question" "how many African-Americans have been involved?" or "how many bipolar people have been involved?" or "how many [whatever] have been involved?" The fact of singling out one minority for apparently special consideration, which that "simple question" so obviously did, is itself rather clearly discriminatory, and I sincerely wish that individuals realize that while we all want as many qualified editors of as many "types" as possible, it is not in the interests of the project to seem to have people declare that one minority is of greater importance to the project than others. Also, frankly, focusing on issues which are already being considered elsewhere frankly reduces the effectiveness of both groups, because of duplication of efforts. We have multiple forums around wikipedia for a reason, and I hope in time some editors might be able to understand and appreciate that. John Carter (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, in the light of the GGTF fiasco, that question was provocative and pinging other women was canvassing. Lightbreather and her ilk have taken all the pleasure out of contributing for me and I've stepped back considerably as a result. In case I'm accused of being in some sort of gang this page put on my watchlist after the project gave me an award. J3Mrs (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Very well said, John.Buster Seven Talk 20:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

For the sake of retaining editors, I'm requesting that LB withdraw her Enforcement report on EC. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Support, see above, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's too late now. Eric's been blocked for 2 days, which, frankly, is a much more serious penalty than he deserved. John Carter (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't normally go anywhere near Arbcom (what's it got to do with writing an encyclopedia?) but this was a poor block. Previous civility blocks on Eric have been justifiable, but this just seems nothing but punitive. Can we block Lightbreather for 48 hours for stirring up trouble? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

It is almost more than I can resist to go to her talk page and trout her. Especially since she promptly took her argument to Eric's talk page after his block to continue to rub salt in his wounds. Fylbecatulous talk 19:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I despair too. I debate with myself about leaving or staying. LB wants to explain the series of events from her eyes, but in my estimation she is blind to what really happened. I don't think I will have too much to say about this in the future. In the past week or two I've written 5 articles about women. How many has Lighbreather written? I am not in Eric's supposed clique but his ban has caused me too lose faith in the system. Except for editing articles and working on an American Mural Project, I think I wiill join Dennis on the sidelines. Buster Seven Talk

And I might make that three. There are still a swarm of books regarding reference sources which I haven't even looked at, which list sources which anyone could use to develop content. And many of them are PD, so they could be used freely. I might take my own advice and go over the wikisource for a while and just get away from the dramahmongers here. John Carter (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@Fylbecatulous: I expect people are going to talk about me, but please don't misrepresent my appearance at Eric Corbett's talk page. I saw that you compared me to a witch - I live for the day LB would fly away on her broom[5] - to which EC replied, The only females who've complained about me are those I've never come across...[6] Eric knows that he "came across" me, before I complained, at WT:AN, where I had started a discussion:

Lightbreather: Where and how can I go about making a formal request to make [civility] a unique noticeboard area?[7]

Eric Corbett: ... the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one.[8]

Whenever Eric spreads that misinformation, I correct it. Lightbreather (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The question on its own is provocative. There is no way to tell if the people who are watching the discussion and not replying because they agree with it are male or female. There's not even a great way of determining if everyone participating is male or female. That said, there's nothing to stop you from inviting anyone else to join the discussion. By stopping to ask the question, which really boils down to "have the people who share my perspective on the gender gap been invited", you're implying that the discussion is invalid and/or that those participating in the discussion so far are biased. The response - from Eric and others - was predictable, and THAT is why you were accused of baiting at WP:AE. Karanacs (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, here's an opinion from someone who didn't join the discussion until now. I originally didn't join because I didn't notice the discussion. Although I have this page on my watchlist it is one of many and I was doing other stuff and didn't stop to look. Then when I did look because I was pinged, I was sad to see that the stuff from the Gender Gap project which I have been avoiding had spilled over, so I left without commenting and got back to fixing up articles. I don't care what gender editors are, and I intend to encourage users or recruit new ones in the real world without checking to see on which side their shirts are buttoned. This project is a great benefit to Wikipedia when its members focus on ways to help and encourage editors, instead of on questioning each other's motives and getting upset. I appreciate the encouragement given to me when I was new! I hope instead of leaving the project, everyone will WP:AGF as far as they are able, and if something provocative rather than helpful is posted, don't rise to the bait; just ignore it and continue the discussion on-topic. Okay, leaving my soap-box now....—Anne Delong (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Very well said, Anne. Thank you. Buster Seven Talk 22:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

One place to find editors in need of encouragement

Here's an idea that's not new, but bears mentioning in case there are new participants here: As you know, there's a constant backlog of new editors submitting pages for review at AfC. Whether you like AfC or not isn't the point; what's important from an "editor retention" point of view is that we'd like to see as may as possible of these newcomers go on to become regular contributors.

Take a look at today's submissions; run your mouse pointer or whatever over the list to see the first few lines of text, and pick out one that is of interest and start a conversation about it on the user's talk page. Waiting in the queue for a review isn't very rewarding; in fact, I know from my own experience that the wait can seem interminable! If you don't want or don't know how to review the draft page, you can keep the editor involved in improving it or ask his or her help in improving a page on a related topic while waiting. Introduce him or her to a Wikiproject, or post about the waiting draft on a project talk page. If a few of us spent fifteen minutes on this each day, we could eventually give hundreds of editors a more friendly start. The reason I suggest checking the brand new submissions is because the editors of these are likely to be eagerly monitoring their drafts, and because there are lots of pages there whose weaknesses are readily apparent and are easily explained by any experienced user.—Anne Delong (talk) 12:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Good news!

The winner of one of the very first Editor of the Week Awards aka "Eddy" is being recognized on a much wider stage. I became aware of this on Facebook of all places. Check it out!. John from Idegon (talk) 07:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Congrats to @Coal town guy:. Buster7 (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Editors who are active and abruptly stop

While considering the section above, Editors who are very active and then suddenly stop, the realization struck me that sometimes its for no other reason then "the Jig is up"...they have been caught! A well-intentioned editor comes here to report an editor is leaving, seemingly begging this project to do something...anything. We go and investigate and find the leaving editor is a well-concealed sock puppet or a bothersome "whatever" that can't or won't stay out of trouble. What I'm acknowledging is that it's not always a bad thing that an editor leaves. Sometimes the Encyclopedia (and us) are better off without them. Buster Seven Talk 21:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

True. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

And some dramah mongers or individuals who cannot acknowledge that their own behavior is problematic are among the louder "announcers" of their retirement, because they cannot or refuse to acknowledge that their own conduct played a big role in their situation. John Carter (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Per DIVA, some editors retire multiple times for attention & support. But, those editors are generally easy spotted. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I'm one of them who retired at least once. Then I saw actually looked at how many freaking encyclopedias there are, and was actually astonished by the number, and decided to come back more or less just to make it easier for others to find them. I am however not a completely self-absorbed, over-dramahtizing, problematic geek, and I will roundly berate anyone in the strongest possible terms in as many areas as I can think of who would ever think to say one negative word against me. ;) John Carter (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

There are some valuable contributors also who have been pulled back from retirement more than once by efforts of people here. Not all are divas, and even in the case of those who are, the thing about divas is that they are often awesomely talented and valuable. Society usually deems it smarter to manage divas, rather than drive them away (unless they are actually doing something very destructive). I see putting up a "retired" banner in the heat of a situation, then relenting, as not always an indication of a diva mentality (though it certainly can be). Retiring, even repeated retiring can also be an expression of high frustration with the sometimes toxic editing environment here. Some who have done a Herculean amount of positive work, producing reliably sourced, NPoV material, doing impartial/constructive admin work and/or keeping a semblance of order amid the chaos, have the human flaw of being easily goaded into either leaving or defensively reacting in a way that gets them sanctioned. Some seem to also be adept at spotting and exploiting those weaknesses, and good editors, diva or not, can decide to leave or else be sanctioned for reacting. There may seem no alternative when it becomes obvious that the encyclopedia is being defaced with bad (often remarkably bad) content, and there is no recourse to those who insistently introduce/reintroduce such material. The bullies, often having contributed little or nothing constructive to the encyclopedia beyond PoV additions/deletions and often undetected/unsanctioned, stay. Effective advocates (and as I said, there are articles in marketing lit with instructions) take care in introducing and maintaining their material. We have some good policies on content that would narrow the toolkit that PoV/CoI advocates exploit, but the almost exclusive focus of our dispute resolution processes is on behavior. There is almost nothing that addresses content (unless and individual admin decides to get involved in examining the content, in which case s/he often does so at some risk). Unless we have enforcement of content policies as robust as we do for behavior, the field remains open to advocacy, CoI, etc. • Astynax ^talk 20:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much by definition, yeah, content is supposed to be determined based on the sources, and we haven't to date done a hell of a lot to make it easier for outsiders to come in. BTW, on a related note, both Astynax and I are somewhat involved in a rather long-going dispute about Erhard Seminars Training and related topics. It even recently went to ArbCom. At that time, I proposed to try to get some more parties involved, and that proposal was supported by ArbCom. I made a bit of a detailed general proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 16#Rehashing an old idea - Maybe a "Comment committee" to deal with content? about maybe trying to get together some editors with competency in the field involved. To date, possibly because of a just recently closed appeal to ArbCom, nothing has happened.

ArbCom actually did something similar some years ago, with the Macedonia naming dispute, setting up a independent three-member tribunal to hear the cases for the various naming proposals from all sides and making a judgment for the short term. Something like that was what I was envisioning here, except I was thinking here the tribunal would be more actively trying to make preliminary judgments on arguments for the purpose of proposing them through RfC to the community as a whole. Like I said, to date there hasn't been much response, possibly for many reasons, but if anyone were to be interested in taking part please feel free to do so. John Carter (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

That is an interesting idea. Creating a group of editors with easy access to a wide variety of reference sources would indeed be valuable both to participate in Rfcs and to offer help in dispute resolution cases brought to other venues. Recruiting university librarians might be a source for participants, although there are certainly some equally well-equipped editors dedicated to NPoV and other principles that could participate (and perhaps be given access to some research tools, such as database subscriptions). Such input might help in dispute resolution processes, at least to encourage them to look at content. Until then, Wikipedia remains a hostile environment in many areas where well-intentioned editors come up against persistent advocacy with recourse only to a dispute resolution process that lacks the tools to address content. • Astynax ^talk 19:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps such a committee could either examine (and close) content-based Rfcs, or create a structure to examine Rfcs similar to other dispute resolution processes (i.e., the sides could present succinct explanations of the content in question, along with citing specific references in support). This would need to be as unintimidating as possible and preempt the endless PoV walls of text counterarguments and sidetracks that characterize other dispute resolution processes. • Astynax ^talk 19:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Retirements of long-term contributors

Has there ever been a survey that looks at why long-term contributors retire? Let's say, 100k non-automated edits (a pretty high bar, I suspect - WP:NOE will give some context but not all). I know that some end up getting blocked having gone that far without a blemish but I'm more interested in the general picture. My suspicion is much is due to weariness of having to deal with the pov-pushers, the politics etc and that they then hit the brick wall of AGF versus experience, and give up. Sure, AGF is not a suicide pact but far too many people appear to be too slow to realise this because our framework puts one at a higher level than the other - one is proactive and the other reactive, although when the proactive turns out to be the wrong course there is usually no remedy for those who were doing the right thing and got caught in the maelstrom. The block logs etc remain, the enmities even more so.

We are seeing a lot of the excess AGF stuff right now, in my opinion, but it has always been there. Then again, my opinion counts for sod all against a multitude of others and, yes, that grates. I'm not always right, certainly, but I wonder whether WP:CONSENSUS is in fact geared towards those with decent but not huge experience: they can argue the policy etc but do not see the bigger picture and, if they have an agenda, have not been picked up on it as a newbie might be. Of course, experience isn't everything. If it were then the ideas of Gallileo (do I really need to link him?) and many, many others would never have gained acceptance, however belatedly. I could name some names from recent months but I guess most of the regulars already know the type of person to whom I am referring, on both sides of this rather arbitrary 100k-edit fence. It happens across a vast array of subject areas and, almost always, it depresses me to see another one gone.

We are now in a particularly depressing phase where some of those who are most involved in this very project are backing off for a few days. Ok, they are only backing away for a short time but when the stalwarts of WER are going away, either WER is pointless or the wider system is flawed. - Sitush (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It's virtually impossible to overcome any PoV-pushing editor, if he/she has many supporters. It's not fun being in the minority on any topic. One must accept how things are & adjust to it. GoodDay (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. Generally speaking, the Indic caste + politics area suffers a lot from attempts at POV but the policies usually prevail because those pushing it are, in the most charitable view, misguided in terms of how this place is supposed to work. That is, mob rule is not in fact the be-all, end-all. The same can be seen at AfD, frequently: those arguing with a policy basis should and usually do get whatever their way may be, precisely because consensus is intended to be based on policy, not gut etc. - Sitush (talk) 02:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Editors will always be leaving for reasons that are beyond our control - students grow up and get married, people get new jobs or hobbies, move to a place with poor internet connectivity, develop health problems, just get bored with editing, or whatever. The main thing is to make the editing experience more pleasant and more successful for those who are still here. There are some POV corners of Wikipedia that need cleanup. Two that I've come across are K-pop, in which fan-page-itis is rampant, and Marathi films, which are very sparsely referenced and whose contributors seem to feel that's appropriate because there are few references to be found. From a WER point of view, there appear to be two approaches: (1) reduce the POV problem by taking more part in AFD and Third Opinion, etc., and model calm, policy based behaviour (ie, not "that's a stupid subject, dump it", but "after an extensive search, I am unable to find reliable sources"). (2) Hang out in the POV areas, make small improvements, and look out for editors who are becoming frustrated. Commiserate, engage in friendly discussion, and maybe suggest another article that could use some improvement with less stress. Of course, the few people in this project can't get rid of the POV, but maybe we can lessen its effect on editors' frustration levels.—Anne Delong (talk) 05:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone in management is leaving WER...just stepping back and letting the dust settle. Refereeing from the sidelines, so to speak, instead of on the playing field. The whole turmoil of yesterday started with the Question of "What can WER do in regard to retaining editors". The answer may be----Nothing!. Anne hints at the answer. There maybe nothing WE can do, but there is a lot I can do. It gets down to the actions of individual editors. We can be the peacemakers that calm things down, the voices of reason not about subject matter but about subject behavior, not the police to report an infraction but just to be a fellow traveler that offers a better solution then war. After the battle of yesterday and the casualties it caused, this page was silent. But it won't stay that way because that is its main objective...that's what Dennis wanted it to be. A place where editors can come and discuss the issue of Editor Retention. Wether something gets done is a personal issue. Buster Seven Talk 07:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

TBH, Sitush, once any long-term contributor chooses to retire, there's very little that can be done. For the most part, I can only encourage retention, via my actions. Despite the many 'bruises' I've picked up on Wikipedia over the years, I'm still around. GoodDay (talk) 12:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention that editors will eventually contract a serious illness, assigned to a project 150 miles northeast of Ulan Bator, or die. I'm glad for the sturdy ones, but not all valuable contributors find fighting in a hostile environment the best use of their time. Some great contributors, even those with very long fuses, have eventually let their frustration show through and been banned—and it is appalling that those who seem to have little contribution to offer (apart from goading, advocacy and removing well-written material) seem to get a pass. Gotta be thankful for good editors that tough it out, though. • Astynax ^talk 20:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I was banned for a whole year, but I returned :) GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I suspect that you are very much the exception, GoodDay. Me? I'm not banned but I don't really see the point of doing stuff while all of the crap about behaviour is flying around on talk pages. And anyone who thinks that a fair amount of it is not being organised off-wiki needs their head seeing to. I realise that Dennis has hit some really hard times but please don't forget that he was backing away even before that distressing revelation, and was unsure whether or not he would return. Thanks to all for your thoughtful responses: I think they are largely a desire for hope to triumph over experience but, yep, I guess that the world needs optimists. I'm just not one of them right now and it would seem that a whole bunch of others feel the same after recent events: lunatics and asylums comes to mind. - Sitush (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm confident DB will return. PS- Would you believe that I was called a fascist once, just because I pushed for England, Scotland, Northern Ireland & Wales to be called constituent countries? Yep, it can get rough sometimes. GoodDay (talk) 01:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, GoodDay, I agree. Your responses always seem to off-set some negative direction and, at the least, keep things somewhat on track. . Buster Seven Talk 02:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Piotrus has done some work on this I believe. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC).

Editor interaction reference page, take 2

Restarting the discussion on having a reference page for sample editor interactions: I am trying to gauge if anyone would use such a page, and contribute towards its creation and maintenance. Please let me know what you think. isaacl (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like just an elaboration on dont-bite-the-newbies. That's a principle that gets a lot of attention, and yet there's still a ton of newbie-biting. That tells me it won't make a lot of difference to give it more attention. If people didn't hear you the first hundred times, they probably won't hear you the 101st time either. Bottom line, newbie-biting is a symptom of a conflict-based culture. With a few exceptions, I think we're better off putting all available energy into curing the illness rather than treating its symptoms. FWIW. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The idea is to help people learn by example, through seeing the best practices of others. There are some well-intentioned editors who aren't adept in finding the right words to use, and there are times when an editor may just forget some key points and it would be helpful to have some reminders. isaacl (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Could you link me to a few real life examples of such? ―Mandruss ☎ 02:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

If you mean examples of less-than ideal interactions, sorry, I'd prefer not to single out any editors in that manner. isaacl (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I thought you might say that, and you're probably right. Actually I hate shoot-down artists and I think any halfway reasonable idea deserves a chance to work. As to your opening questions: No, I wouldn't use it, because I don't need it. I've bitten a newbie perhaps twice, on really bad wikidays before I learned how to deal with wikistress. Sure, I would probably contriibute what I can, although I probably wouldn't be considered a "major contributor". It might be an interesting exercise. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll use myself as an example of forgetting to consider certain key points. Here is a comment I made; in retrospect, as I was uncertain about the degree of levity in the original post, I probably should have either not replied at all, or had a qualifying clause regarding my uncertainty. Generally speaking, "not respond at all" is an option that should be more frequently chosen when considering a response. isaacl (talk) 05:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Well that's interesting, since I didn't see any hint of what I would call newbie biting in your comments. We may be talking about entirely different things. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for any over-emphasis on dealing with newcomers; the concept of sharing best practices in interacting with editors can be used with all types of interactions. isaacl (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The world is teeming with dysfunctional people, and they don't check their dysfunction at the door when they login to Wikipedia. You're not going to change them significantly with a web page; that's why we have psychotherapists. We can't even get many of them to observe simple civility guidelines, and you're talking about things far more subtle and complex. Sure, you could have a page with one example each of snark, sarcasm, overexpectation, pompousness, imperiousness, and so on, with a suggested alternative for each. That might have some small benefit, but anything more than that would, I think, be a waste of time. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Have you ever had a skill that you felt pretty comfortable with—maybe a sport like tennis, or public speaking in your school—and then you saw some others who just blew you away with their talent, and used it to push yourself to do even better? I believe it can be helpful to develop an institutional memory of best practices, and place them on display for editors to learn from. It could be editor interactions, or perhaps copy-editing, or putting together an effective argument, or any number of things. After seeing numerous conversations where editors were clumsy in their wording, exacerbating situations rather than improving them, I thought examples of effective editor interactions might be a one way to raise the level of discourse. I understand, though, if you think other areas would be more important in which to build up a bank of examples; I'm happy to hear your ideas. isaacl (talk) 06:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's a specific example. I could add more here as they come to mind, or you could create another place for them.

• What part of x did you not understand?

―Mandruss ☎ 09:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm a little confused; from your comments below, it sounded like you preferred to pursue a different initiative than having sample interaction scenarios for reference. (Note the intent is not to resolve anyone's dysfunctions, which of course isn't going to happen; it's just helpful to be able to provide guidance by showing instead of telling, in accordance with best writing practices.) If this proposal doesn't have enough support to make it effective, then I'm happy to look for other proposals that match my skills and interest. isaacl (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand the confusion. My thoughts on the subject aren't well formed at this point, and I guess I didn't realize that at the time or I would have remained silent. At the risk of repeating the same mistake now (how can you be sure when you're ready to speak on something this complex?) I still think (1) simple one-line examples like the above might be useful, but anything more probably not, and (2) most of the people who really need this are likely to dismiss it as "behavior police" or something, and never put any effort into really reflecting on what is being said. Some people recognize that they could improve in these areas, but they want to work on it on their own and don't want outside help (I think I've always been one of them). Many others are unable to admit that they have any room for personal improvement at all, and feel that it's weak to even think like that. Anyway, I'm constantly having to battle my own cynicism regarding human nature, and that may mean I'm not the best kind of person to even participate in this kind of thing. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

One problem is that "best practices" is very subjective, and subjective + personal = battleground. Like we need yet another battleground. I could maybe see a talk space where such questions could be discussed, but a web page is another matter. Unless it's an essay, it would represent community consensus, and that would make it a battleground. Therefore I'd suggest an essay for anything like that. As for the copyedit example, I think there's some kind of self-training thing in the works that would (or could) cover things like that. I can't remember what it's called, but it looked pretty impressive at first glance. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

As for pushing myself to do better: There are editors who have earned my esteem, I have learned from them and tried to emulate them, and I think I'm better for it. I didn't need a web page to do that. Others choose different people to emulate, based on who they already are. The ones who live by a street-mentality "I don't take shit from anybody" emulate those who "don't take shit from anybody" better than they do. The people who would benefit most from advice on how to interact with others are those who are least likely to be receptive to such advice. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I still think, as I have always done, that many editors who complain about biting newbs or who make suggestions for being less bitey, have never seriously spent sufficient time at AfC (I mean actually reviewing rather than the perennial social bickering that goes on there), and NPP (where there is no social interaction between patrollers whatsoever). HJ Mitchell sums up this discussion perfectly.

Over the years since around 2009 I have patrolled thousands of articles, possibly, just possibly, even more than any other patroller, but mainly because I have also been the main protagonist for the system's improvement and spend a lot of time patolling the patrollers. I can say without any question of a doubt that there are two kinds of users for whom it is not worth a second of our time to coax into being active Wikipedians: the corporate spammers, and the 300-edit wonder whose RfA was nipped in the bud before it could be transcluded, and who after several attempts by various editors to coax them into doing something useful, storms of the project leaving a black 'retired' banner, claiming he doesn't want to be part of a Wikipedia that won't let him be an admin. Good riddance, I say, but there seems to be a meme that every vandal and troll can be turned around.

There are some, of whom up to 90% or more of their 1,000s of edits are from systematically searching every noticeboard and forum (such as this one) for an occasion to place a throwaway sarcastic comment about Wikipedia or its admins. They often craft their low form of wit deliberately to antaginise others in the hope of receiving a retort they can complain of as being uncivil or PA. They are the ones that make regular editors sick and tired of continuing to participte. They are the ones who should do the decent thing (if they can't grow up) and retire.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for being unclear; I have no empathy for editors whose sole objectives are counter to Wikipedia's key principles, and I think there should be examples of how to effectively deal with them as well. Learning by example covers all these cases. isaacl (talk) 04:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)