Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

By advising editors to "be bold" and that there are "no rules", aren't we encouraging disruptive behavior, which might needlessly cause them to be banned?

I will speak of a problem that practically entices and entraps new users into getting bitten. We advertise that Wikipedia is the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and I think most of the general public thinks that means anyone can put anything they want into the encyclopedia. A new editor who comes here with this impression is given all the tools and told they can change pretty much any page, including the rules themselves. Rules like WP:BOLD and WP:IGNORE add to this belief. It's like giving a new recruit an F-15 telling them they can be bold and push any button they want, fly wherever they want and do whatever they want as long as they believe it is for the greater good. When they are bold and hit the drop bomb button, suddenly they are at WP:AN/I facing a block.

Any experienced editor knows you can't ignore the numerous arcane and obtuse rules that can take years to fully master. We know that one must be cautious with tone, adhere to WP:AGF, focus on content rather than editor, discuss disputes on talk page, not edit-war, work towards consensus, etc. But the new editor can easily think a discussion here is like the incivility of U.S. presidential debates (or talk radio) where candidates routinely call each other nasty names, make highly charged and questionable accusations and use bullying rhetorical tactics, and this is all okay.

Too often experienced editors speak to new editors in a condescending, accusatory or threatening tone that exacerbates the problem. The new user may falsely believe their position has equal merit in the egalitarian "encyclopedia where anyone can edit", may become increasingly frustrated and hot-headed, feeling pushed to the point of crossing the line that creates an actionable diff that can never be erased. (e.g. the example given above by Anne Delong--not a new user, but same problem). A new user likely will not know they crossed the line, mistakenly believing their accuser was equally guilty. When only the new user alone gets punished, it will seem unjust and they may leave for good.

We lose experienced editors for similar reasons as in the preceding paragraph.

I believe we need to do more to guide and warn new editors of the dangers of ignoring the rules, being too bold and thinking they can say whatever they want in an argument. I am contemplating an essay to refer to new editors when I see them pushing buttons on the F-15 that will get them grounded in a hurry.

This essay is *not* about any particular user.

--David Tornheim (talk) 08:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Put simply, the vast majority of articles on English Wikipedia are garbage, and are not being closely monitored by any active and experienced editors. Most new editors (assuming they are here to build an encyclopedia) are not going to encounter serious problems early in their careers if all they are doing is BOLDly editing articles. WP:IAR is a rarely-cited policy (only 751 article talk pages link to it, compared to well over 20,000 for each of V and NOR -- I stopped counting) and very few new users are likely to read the title of the "ignore all rules" without actually reading the preceding "if" clause. Again, all of this assumes good faith: if a new Wikipedian is hot-headed and thin-skinned enough that they burn out or blow up after one or two instances of their edits getting reverted, then they are probably not the kind of person who should be editing Wikipedia. As in the previous two discussions you opened on this page, your comment appears to show a misunderstanding of AGF policy: we cannot assume that editors are reading the titles of our policy pages and ignoring the substance, or that they will be focusing exclusively on firepit articles where all their edits get reverted. All of our policies and guidelines are meant to assume good faith. It's the guiding principle on which the Wikipedia community is based. Otherwise, ArbCom wouldn't be able to implement an across-the-board ban on new editors editing in the Israel-Palestine topic area -- the ban assumes that all new editors are here to build an encyclopedia, not to get in fire fights. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

When rejecting a trial of limiting the creation of articles to editors that have been autoconfirmed, the WMF said they would work on improving the article creation workflow. The last project page I can find is MediaWikiWiki:Wikipedia article creation workflow improvements, but nothing tangible was produced. Continuing this work finished 14th in the 2016 community wishlist survey; however the task has no owner and thus it does not seem to have any associated project page. Unfortunately, I can't see how to get new users to follow any newly-created guidance without user interface changes to lead them through it. isaacl (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I can think of something: I think a brief instructional video, such as commons:File:New medical editor.ogv, prominently linked somewhere during the account creation process would be helpful. Would anyone like to create one? isaacl (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Isaacl. What about this instructional video. I didn't take the whole trip 'cause space travel makes me queeezy but it looks pretty good. Buster Seven Talk 04:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Unless I've missed something, there isn't a video associated with that tour. It seems fine for one type of audience; I think a video could be useful for others. isaacl (talk) 05:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

It is true that anyone can edit is very misleading. It means anyone with a clue can perform a useful edit. It does not mean that anyone can add an article about their favorite band, or add an arbitrary factoid to an article. IAR is not a problem because anyone who did not understand before arriving at Wikipedia that edit warring is a bad idea is very unlikely to make useful contributions. If a newbie adds nonsense to try ignoring the rules, we hope the nonsense will be reverted. The newbie will have no problems so long as they don't imagine that Wikipedia is a free-for-all. Editing Wikipedia is now hard because most significant topics are covered well. There is plenty of unreferenced confusion (see Kalayar Kovil which I just edited to fix a template error), but fixing it would take significant effort and would need someone with suitable background knowledge. Working hard to keep newbies who have yet to make a useful contribution can also waste a lot of time for productive editors who have to repeat the basics over and over, only to see the recipient has not made any effort to understand or engage with the points raised. Johnuniq (talk) 03:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

When I was a new user I created an article through AfC, and after carefully reading the relevant help page, picked a date format from the list of of acceptable ones, and used it in all of my references. I was unaware, though, that it was a less commonly used one. Another editor came along and started changing the dates, stopping partway through (probably for dinner). Having read that an article should continue to use whichever date format was already in use, and having also read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, I reverted the edit. Then the fur flew! I was told that BRD was just an essay and I shouldn't take it too seriously. I was indignant because I thought I had done everything correctly. I got over that fairly quickly, but I think sometimes essays, especially ones that don't represent a strong consensus, sometimes do more harm than good, especially if their importance or lack thereof isn't made clear to new users.—Anne Delong (talk) 03:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure, but part of anyone can edit is that socially undeveloped automatons can edit as well (I'm thinking of the person who fiddled with the date formats). It may be desirable if there were some teeth in WP:BITE, namely that someone warned for biting in the manner you describe would be sanctioned if they keep it up. However, there are a lot of unintended consequences of forcing people to be nice. The case you describe may be simple biting, but what about someone who adds an external link to a few articles, or adds broken English (not just typos or grammatical blunders)? Insisting that every such contributor be welcomed by the person reverting them would be unhelpful. Johnuniq (talk) 04:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

especially ones that don't represent a strong consensus - My subjective opinion is that no essay is more widely accepted than BRD. Those who oppose its application because it's only an essay would oppose its application because it was only a guideline. They simply don't want any "rule" standing between them and what they "know" is best for the encyclopedia (and they believe that WP:IAR gives them permission to think that way). From your brief description, Anne, I think the problem there was not the existence of WP:BRD but rather the battleground mentality and Dunning–Kruger effect in the other editor. What the community can do about that is enforce the policy WP:BATTLEGROUND, not to say that that change will be easy to achieve. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• I wanted to thank everyone who has responded here. I have reflected some on what I posted and realize that the problem appears to be that we are not following the core policies of WP:5P3, WP:5P4 and WP:5P5 and that we need to reflect on this and address the problem. I come here after seeing students and instructor badly treated in one of the WikiEd courses with a laundry list of accusations against the good faith edits and nasty comments made about them and their work at WP:AfD. These are students at one of the top Universities in the U.S. What does that say about us? --David Tornheim (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Found in the archives

We have two choices when confronted by a neophyte: be kind or be cruel. Will you carry them on your back for the start of their journey or will you bare your teeth and send them scurrying back to where they came from, never to be seen again? Buster Seven Talk 06:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The latter, every single time. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Little help please

I wrote WP:HURTS a while back, and recently moved it into Wikispace (in response to some incident). An editor didn't like it and wrote a section refuting it into the essay, and when I rolled that back has nominated it for re-userfication on the grounds that I'm trying to own the page (WP:OWN).

Well, fine. We don't want that, understood. I personally think the essay makes a reasonable point. Others don't -- they think its nonsense, or pandering to snowflakes, and they're entitled to their opinion. But I would not see the point expressed by that essay reduced to the status of an idiosyncratic point that only a few wierdos could agree with.

So if anybody wants to help by taking partial ownership (by maybe participating in the discussions -- see the talk page, where I have solicited edits improving the page (and the other discussion is occurring as well), or actually improving the page, this would de-fang the WP:OWN argument, and so I'd appreciate it. Herostratus (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm reminded of WP:CANVASS. (There's an RfC underway.) While there are editors that wish to retain other editors, Wikipedia as an institution does not. Wikipedians, enmeshed in that institution, are going to tell you that they don't want to retain editors, either. I'm not saying this is good for the encyclopedia, it's just a fact. Any effort to retain editors has to be seen in that context. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Right, well, I addressed the "canvassing" objection on my talkpage, you can look there if you want. As the merits... "Wikipedia as an institution does not" wish to retain editors is of course objectively false, and also kind of crazy. But thanks for clarifying where you people are coming from. Herostratus (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

OK nevermind. All that seems too contentious be helpful at this time, so I removed the essay for the time being. Herostratus (talk) 23:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Herostratus The article was userfied not only due to your clear ownership issues, but due to the content of the essay it's self. It's already been explained by multiple editors that your essay has no place on Wikipedia, rationale included. Your continued attempts to game the system by using "editor retention" as a fear tactic to pad disruptive behavior that leads to such blocks, as well as undermine valid blocks placed by administrators will not be tolerated. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 23:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Kingdom

I can't believe it. One of the most active editors has posted the "Retired" banner. I don't know what led up to it. See the note just under the banner at User:Isambard Kingdom. Is there anything that can be done to persuade this editor to stay in the project?  – Corinne (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Personally I recommend thanking them for their contributions and saying they're welcome to come back any time. Knowing you're appreciated is a strong force. isaacl (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

A new project needs you

Please read Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Poll candidate search needs your participation.

Please join and participate.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Editor of the Week, July 16, 2017

• If you know Editor Robert McClenon or have worked with him, take a minute and stop by his talk page to offer Congrats! 'Editor retention happens one editor at a time!. ―Buster7 ☎ 22:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Reviving WER

This page from WikiProject Council provides guidance on how to identify inactive WikiProjects. According to that page, a project may be considered inactive if (1) its "main page hasn't been substantively changed for several months," or (2) if there has been no real discussion on the talk page for several months.

Based on these guidelines, I think WikiProject Editor Retention could be considered inactive (or at least semi-inactive). The main page was last edited about seven months ago (to revert vandalism), and it has been some months longer since anything was actually added. Meanwhile, the last exchange of any sort on this talk page occurred about three months ago. Editor of the Week is basically the only organ of WER that is still functional. All the other WER pages have been pretty much abandoned.

Furthermore, the founder of WER has made several statement indicating that he has relinquished all authority over the project, and is no longer interested in it. Here are some of his statements:

• "The Project still has hope, but not with me at the head."
• "I've backed off the Project because I feel that matters beyond my control made it lose focus, and I never wanted to be 'in charge' there."
• When discussing a user who could possibly take over WER (that user later declined to do so), the founder said "perhaps he can make something where I failed." An editor thought he was just referencing Editor of the Week, but he clarified: "I was referring to WER in general when speaking of ... failure."
• Finally, the founder said that WER needs "new management. I don't have the time or the heart for it, and it appears neither does Buster."

If a project is determined to be inactive or semi-active, WikiProject Council's guide says the following: "Any editor may revive ... an inactive or semi-active project."

I believe that WER has much potential. For example, it already has over 200 members. But no serious attempt has been made to utilize this potential.

Therefore, I have decided that I shall revive this (semi-)inactive project and assume the role of WER coordinator. I realize that the founder of this project appointed a group of coordinators, but as I showed above, most of the original leaders have effectively abandoned the project. The semi-break noted at the top of my talk page remains in effect, and I will not always be active or available; however, I do have many ideas for overhauling and restoring WER, and I will work to that end whenever possible. We already have a good base to start with.

Note that I will leave Editor of the Week untouched, for as I mentioned earlier, it is still operational and is functioning quite well. At the moment, it will not be affected in any way by this change in general leadership, and the current coordinators of EotW will remain in their current positions.

I invite any interested parties to help out, as we begin what is hopefully a new chapter for this project. Biblio (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I welcome a revival of this project and look forward to hearing your proposals, ideas, and contributions. I suggest, though, it is premature to proclaim yourself to be taking a co-ordinator role. It's unclear this role is required; I would not want to move to a mode of operation that prevented anyone from stepping forward and making proposals or driving initiatives. It also feels a bit dismissive of those (like me) who have been trying for years to promote proposals on this talk page. I do hope that all interested parties will be able to work together on any new ideas! isaacl (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Isaac. To be clear, all interested editors are welcome to help out, make proposals, and drive initiatives. I recognize the efforts you and many others have made, and no one should feel dismissed or marginalized in any way. But since the originally proclaimed coordinators are no longer involved with the project as a whole, I do think it is important to fill that role with a fresh and interested person, who is willing to serve as a general maintainer and contact point. If no one clearly and boldly steps up, this project will just continue in its current, barely functional state.

Thank you for your interest in helping with the project's revival. Biblio (talk) 19:35, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Regarding this edit: Buster7 and I have been around since the beginning and are still here (just to name a couple; there are some others). I'm not clear why you should now be the contact point for the WikiProject. isaacl (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe maintenance or a contact point are key issues with the project. As I have previously discussed, I feel the main issues are that many discussions are stalemated due to structural problems with Wikipedia's consensus tradition, and for initiatives that require ongoing effort, there is a lack of volunteers with sufficient time to invest. It's understandably difficult to get volunteers to help out in low payoff areas that don't directly involve article content. And the stalemating problem has dramatically reduced the number of participants on this talk page, which just makes it that much harder to gain any consensus agreements. Personally I think we need some low-cost initiatives that are easy to try out and adapt as needed, so the project can gain some momentum. Does anyone have any thoughts? isaacl (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Isaacl: I fully agree that Wikipedia's consensus model has failed. In practice, "consensus" means something like a two-thirds super-majority. This de facto requirement prevents virtually any wide-scale innovation or experimentation. However, the alternatives are few. One option is to establish a Policy Council, which would have the power to vote on, and implement, proposals and/or policy changes. It is easier to obtain consensus among a smaller group, as you mentioned. Alternatively, we could still keep decisions in the hands of the broader community, but abandon the demanding idea of "consensus" and move toward a majority-vote model. These are likely the only two systems in which things would actually be accomplished, but of course, these are radical proposals that (barring a miracle) could not get past the current system. Biblio (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, Biblio, no. You do not get to waltz in here and say you are taking over and start dictating what is going to happen. You are NOT the coordinator of this project and as such, I've changed the title of this section. If you've got ideas, start discussions. You do not need a title for that. --John from Idegon (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

John, it just seems to me that the original leaders no longer have interest in actively managing the project as a whole. For the few that remained active in the project, EotW was apparently the only part they were really interested in. As I mentioned before, WikiProject Council's guide says that any editor may revive a project — if the founder has expressly abandoned the project and declared it a failure in its current form (which I established above), it is only fair that fresh editors should be able to step up and take the overall project in a new direction. Dennis Brown himself said that new management is needed.

Furthermore, this policy clearly states that no "kind of right or status exists" just because someone is the writer of an article or the founder of something. (And as I said, I have no intention to interfere with the still-active EotW. I will only be overhauling the other parts.) There are indeed wider problems than a lack of clear leadership, but having effective management is a necessary starting point. If a group of editors establishes a project and then abandons it, they cannot come rushing in to take it back after someone exercises their right to be bold and restructure the project. Biblio (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

(EC) I also feel dismissed by this "coup". From the beginning the active and participatory portions of this project have been the talk page and EotW. From the start Dennis' leadership and guidance was displayed at the discussion pages. He was a hard act to follow but at least we have kept the doors and windows open since he left. You won't find two more willing partners than Isaacl and myself ...(and John from Idegon)...but I feel more than a little disrespected by your high-handedness. Those are my thoughts. ―Buster7 ☎ 20:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why, though, you'd want to get into an argument about having a co-ordinator title. As John from Idegon stated, you can go ahead with anything you want without it. It's just not helpful to gaining support for your forthcoming proposals. isaacl (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Buster7: Boldness and fresh blood, rather than high-handedness, were what I intended. As I stated in the above comments, Editor of the Week will remain completely untouched and autonomous, and will continue with its current leaders and functions. However, it was admitted by the founder himself that the other parts of the project have failed and need new leadership.

@Isaacl: I took note of your point regarding the "coordinator" title. Instead, I just stated that in light of the project's general inactivity, I have volunteered to revive and maintain the project, and that any others are more than welcome to participate. Biblio (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I think Dennis left his Crown somewhere in the Office. Many have tried it on but none have found it a "good fit". ―Buster7 ☎ 20:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it will fit, or maybe it won't. But you'll never know until you try. :) Biblio (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

You have no consensus to declare yourself the leader of this project. Until you do, you are not. Change the title of this section again and I'll take you to ANI. Pro tip #13: The way you are going about this is not the way to build consensus. Try flying a few ideas here and waiting a period of time and earn your self-annoited title. Then start an RfC or even better yet, wait until someone else is impressed enough with your performance to start one for you. This is one of the most un-Wikiways things I've seen in the 5.5 years I've been here. --John from Idegon (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I will once, and briefly, explain myself: since "coordinator" was the exact term used by the now-departed founder (Dennis Brown), I believed in good faith that I should just continue using that term. But as Isaac very correctly noted, there is no point in wasting time by discussing empty titles — it is better to speak of voluntarily maintaining the project. Having clarified my intentions, I will not discuss that point further.

So now, let's move forward with my original objective: reviving and improving WikiProject Editor Retention. Surely, we can all agree that this is needed. As for my actual proposals and ideas, they include, but are not limited to:

1. Making the membership list more accurate by sending a mass message to all members, and asking them to clarify whether they are still interested;
2. Making communication within the project more efficient, such as by creating a template to ping all members (like MilHist's template) and by making greater use of the mass message utility;
3. Outlining in a statement of purpose which areas of Wikipedia are hostile to editors and in need of editor-friendly reforms;
4. Create a new structure of work groups, in which interested parties can collaborate on drafting editor-friendly reform proposals for specific areas of Wikipedia;
5. Start RfCs based on the outcomes of work group drafting discussions;
6. Create sub-projects aimed at helping editors who are facing hostility, such as in the form of a substantially overhauled AMA;
7. Increase WER's involvement and visibility in activities helpful to editor retention, such as the resolving of disputes and the guiding of new editors.

I will start working on this plan of action as soon as possible, although I might not have the opportunity this weekend due to off-wiki things. Any interested editors are welcome and encouraged to post their own ideas for reviving and improving WER. Thanks, Biblio (talk) 22:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

A word of caution regarding work groups: it was tried at the very inception of the project, and failed almost immediately. Perhaps rather than trying to spin up many in parallel, there can be just one work group in progress at a time, so attention can be focused on a specific area.

The biggest challenge will be finding people to proceed forward with any of these initiatives; let's see if there is any new people willing to join in. isaacl (talk) 22:22, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Regardless of what else is done in the process of reviving WER, I really think WER needs to shake its tendency (or at least its commonly-held community perception of having a tendency) to become a place for disruptive users and friends of disruptive users to gather and complain that they have been unfairly treated. There are enough off-wiki fora for banned users to post on about how everyone else was at fault, not them, without an on-wiki forum that serves the same purpose. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Biblio, you come here today acting like a corporate raider doing a hostile takeover and when it becomes obvious that that tactic is not going to fly, you hide it? You have zero qualifications to lead. You don't appear to have any desire to revive this project; indeed your behavior after Dennis's departure is one of the biggest reasons this project withered. One of the ideals of this project from the beginning was we would discuss ideas not incidents. After Dennis left (and know that Dennis is a very unique individual in wikiland and quite possibly the only person who could run this), you and a few others (despite Buster's, mine and a few others best efforts) rapidly turned this into ANI2, but without the potential consequences. It died shortly after that. Go revive the other project you mentioned. We need a strong charismatic leader here that will help revive the notion that this is a forum to discuss ideas. Your track record shows you're not that person. Your behavior today is reprehensible. Posit some editor retention ideas. Not ideas to revamp the project. Earn some confidence. At this time you have no backing to revive the project that in part you broke. If you want to do something similar, go start another project. --John from Idegon (talk) 23:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: Hey, I'm a bit out of the loop here, but your comment interested me and I looked around a bit. Could you elaborate a bit on how [Biblioworm] and a few others ... rapidly turned this into ANI2? It doesn't seem Biblioworm has ever been active on this or other WER pages, so I'm assuming you are referring to some actions they took on another page in which they referred back to WER. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Hijiri 88. Apparently had him confused with someone else and for that I apologize. However, I still feel his actions today disqualified him from any leadership roll. I attempted to turn him to a discussion of the possibility of his leadership by retitling the section "Announcing" his takeover to "Discussing" his takeover. He reverted me. Others expressed their displeasure. So he simply buries it under a hat. We get enough of that crap in American politics. He's indicating right up front that his intent is not leadership but dictatorship. Again I'll say, posit an idea for discussion. When you're done with that posit another. Help collaboratively keep discussion focused on ideas, not personalities. Invite people to discuss. The original ideas here do not need to be changed. We just need to work together to keep Dennis's focus in his original notions about how this should work. Discuss ideas, not incidents. Other than cranking up and working collaboratively on keeping on track, no change is needed. Perhaps after some solid discussion that stays on track (thru group collaboration), we can talk about what else we might be able to do. But for now, try to kick-start what we had. --John from Idegon (talk) 01:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't wish to dwell too much on the past, but the problems with trying to keep discussion focused on what can be done to improve the environment overall vs how can a specific perceived injustice be remedied has been here since the very beginning. In my analysis of the problems of consensus to which I linked above, I used this WikiProject as an example of one of the issues with English Wikipedia's version of consensus. If the number of people who want to talk about specific cases out number the others, or object vociferously enough, then there's no way to stop this from being discussed. Unfortunately, it means attempts to focus on other approaches have been dissipated. I've suggested ways to mitigate the effect, including having smaller working group work out proposals. But unfortunately in the vast majority of the cases I have seen, partisanship gets in the way: no one's willing to yield to a working group. isaacl (talk) 02:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the hat. If this is what the new regime has in mind as a way to wake up WER, I'm not interested. In RL, I retire in two weeks. Might as well do the same as far WER is concerned. It has been an important part of my WikiLife for the past 5 years but its time for me to move on. ―Buster7 ☎ 04:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

"Coordinator"? I wasn't aware that such a position existed on this WikiProject (or any other WikiProject for that matter). As the creator of this WikiProject, Dennis may have had a nominal leadership role, but personally, I never recognized that. I certainly won't be recognizing anyone having a formal leadership role, either. Like any other WikiProject, we're membership based & consensus among us is what drives it. GoodDay (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• Leadership is not something someone breezes in and claims. Leadership comes from showing initiative that people follow and support, and then comes the revelation: 'Hey, it looks as if I'm doing something right - people are agreeing with me'. One RfC that received consensus is not a qualification of leadership, but it is a demonstration of initiative. WER needs initiative, but being an informal project without a set memorandum of physical objectives, it shouldn't be burdened with a structure of organisation, hierarchy, and bureaucracy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Kudpung for putting the true nature of Project:WER (and its past) into a clear desciption...being an informal project without a set memorandum of physical objectives, it shouldn't be burdened with a structure of organisation, hierarchy, and bureaucracy. ―Buster7 ☎ 02:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Anniversary of an interesting discussion

Three years old but still timely. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 20#Why should I contribute here and be a part of this community ? ―Buster7 ☎ 21:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• More than just interesting, because one of the longest posts turns out to be total hypocrisy from a sock with hundreds of accounts.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• True. But 1 out of 13 leaves a dozen that respond in good faith to the question proposed. Thats a pretty good ratio. ―Buster7 ☎ 17:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• I don't see why it's necessarily hypocrisy. I'll take someone like Jack Merridew and his army of socks over a whole lot of others here. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Editor of the Week, July 23, 2017

• If you know Editor Rtkat3 or have worked with him, take a minute and stop by his talk page to offer Congrats! 'Editor retention happens one editor at a time!. ―Buster7 ☎ 13:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Fairness idea.

Starting to look at ANI, I get the impression that in most incidents there is a sincere attempt to resolve the issue, and that all parties get an equal opportunity to have a say. Fairness seems to be valued as something to be achieved. However, sometimes that is not what happens. Perhaps there are not the right people available for that issue, or maybe the wrong people turn up and for whatever reason do not give the accused a fair hearing. The result is a block or ban etc and an angry editor exiting, even sometimes without being given a say at all. A better outcome most likely would result if the accused were automatically given the right of reply, not to drag it all out, but to make a statement refuting the charges and have his or her view on the record. At least to be allowed a number of lines as a closing statement, should the consensus be clear and disciplinary action decided. That editor is surely going to be less angry, accept the decision and move on more easily. It seems to me that such a right of reply would counter the ploy well described in the essay POV railroad Wikipedia:POV_railroad and other gaming the system having a destructive impact on good faith editing. Jed Stuart (talk) 03:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what procedure you are suggesting be put in place; can you expand further? The subject of a complaint is typically able to respond to describe their point of view, and usually a raised issue won't be closed if the subject hasn't offered any statement, or a reasonable amount of time has passed. Are you thinking of having some specific checkpoints where the discussion would wait for the subject to respond? isaacl (talk) 03:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I was attempting to discuss the problem in general terms rather than mention my experience at ANI over a year ago now. (That is doubly difficult to discuss as the record has been truncated making it appear that the topic was closed and there was no ban decided. Yet the ban is on the record and I have a paper copy of what used to be in there. I will discuss the truncation at ANI soon.) What happened initially though is what is annoying me most. A ban was proposed and accusations made. I asked for 2 days to prepare my defense and came back to it to find the topic closed and an indefinite topic ban in place for an article I had put a lot of thought into and a ban for many other similar articles. I attempted to get it re-opened at AN and got the same refusal to discuss. (That is also truncated with only what I said there. There were quite a few comments from others before it was closed. I have paper copy of that too.) I am not attempting to discuss the ban itself here, perhaps it was justified, but I think not. It is the right to state my case there at ANI and then AN that I am attempting to establish through discussing the more general question of right of reply for all in such situations. Perhaps give equal space or a set number of lines as a minimum right, not sure. I am not at this point going to appeal the ban as I am expecting the same refusal to discuss. If I could get the right of reply to the original accusations I would then feel like appealing and then I would also conclude that ANI does work the way you say it does. Jed Stuart (talk) 02:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Without looking into the specifics for your situation, my experience from reading the incidents noticeboard is that the subject of a complaint is given the opportunity to respond. It's already recognized that having a discussion is the preferred approach. (As usual, there can always be extenuating circumstances whereby a different approach is deemed more effective for the community overall.) isaacl (talk) 03:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Extenuating circumstances, or maybe corruption of process for purposes other than for the effectiveness of the Wikipedia community? Jed Stuart (talk) 03:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

If that is the base assumption, then a change in procedure won't help. isaacl (talk) 04:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jed Stuart: Other commentators here may not be aware of the background, namely an extraordinary amount of POV pushing at Talk:Electronic harassment. The NPOVN report is archived here, and two key ANI reports are archived here and here. Wikipedia is not available to promote the idea thet electronic harassment occurs in the ways described in the article's talk page. Further disruption will lead to further sanctions. Johnuniq (talk) 06:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I can't discuss that without violating the ban. Speaking generally though, I fully respect the need for reliable sources, and would never attempt to put things in an article that have been merely asserted on a talk page. I have never attempted to 'bludgeon the truth' or many of the other things I have been hysterically accused of in the ban at ANI. (strangely the version I get of that is still truncated. Using my contributions page to find it I go to a different archive). I would like the ban proposal re-opened and at least have the right to a closing statement. Jed Stuart (talk) 03:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@me: Silly me! I wasn't the last one to contribute, thus didn't get the last version of the topic. I am still getting used to getting around in Wikipedia. Jed Stuart (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

IP retention

I believe that retention will never become a reality as long as powerful editors such as Yamla are allowed to make untrue accusations with impunity. 79.67.91.250 (talk) 14:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red November contest open to all

		Announcing Women in Red's November 2017 prize-winning world contest Contest details: create biographical articles for women of any country or occupation in the world: November 2017 WiR Contest Read more about how Women in Red is overcoming the gender gap: WikiProject Women in Red
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 15:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

OUTCOMES as a means to prevent editor frustration at AfD/MfD

Hi. I've been burned at AfD plenty of times and I think unintended results hurt editor retention. (No one wants "their article" deleted. Some people favor specific types of articles.) I think that OUTCOMES can help prevent needless head-on collisions between editors. I want to craft a nutshell for that essay so we can share a common understanding and stop the headaches and editor alienation. Please chime in at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Second effort for a nutshell. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not so much 'their' articles, as the needless sprees of serial listing at AfD of absolutely non toxic articles for which a clear precedent has been established. Some articles are listed at AfD by relatively clueless newbies who think it's cool to join Wikipedia and start patrolling new articles without any experience. Some are listed by established editors with a vengeance for some kinds of articles they just don't like. Either way, the people who get hurt are new users who have created non toxic articles in good faith. That's what has to stop. Many people still fail to realise (or pretend not to) that Outcomes is neither a policy, a guideline, nor an essay. It's just a factual report on how some types of harmless articles have traditionally been handled - sometimes in their 1,000s. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 11

Newsletter • February 2018

Check out this month's issue of the WikiProject X newsletter, with plans to renew work with a followup grant proposal to support finalising the deployment of CollaborationKit!

-— Isarra ༆ 21:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to overhaul the default tutorial

I've put up a proposal at the Village Pump to replace the old WP:I and WP:T with the superior Help:Intro. Any opinions welcomed there. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 02:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Discrimination on Commons

Hello.
It isn’t directly within your mission, but I do not know where else in en.Wikipedia to request help. Wikimedia Commons has a long-term pattern of discrimination: “famous” Wikimedians are permitted to host dozens large-size photos which constitute little more than a personal album, whereas modest portraits of “obscure” Wikipedians are systematically hunted down by deletionist trolls and deleted over the commons:COM:INUSE technicality. Unfortunately, this trolling is condoned by many legitimate Commons members due to internal political twists. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

WikiProjects study

It just occurred to me that this project might be interested in the work of Bobo.03 (see User talk:Bobo.03), who made a tool to surface active users in a subject area to expand WikiProject membership (as part of an academic study). I've shared my own reservations with WikiProjects as an organizing unit, but I find it mostly worthwhile to provide feedback for the tool, which is useful apart from WikiProjects in surfacing relevant users who might otherwise be isolated from an editing community. Some of his recent edits are simple "hey we noticed your edits in X, nice job" thank yous. Perhaps his tool/study would be of interest to y'all. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 12:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Seems intriguing. GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Signpost

This is not so much about missing editors, but more about a missing newspaper and its editorial staff. Please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Death_knell_sounding_for_Signpost?_Proposals_required. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

WP giving free pass to clear vandals for continued vandalism

Has it ever been brought up before, how WP policy/protocol/practice that permits ongoing vandalism are a source of editor frustration that c/ cause editors to become frustrated & leave? (For one example, IP 175.143.127.73. The IP's first edit was this. Followed consistently by more vandalism. Never stopped, never blocked.) Can someone explain why WP tolerates such nonsense? It ends up as a cancer, dumping unnecessarily more work on editors improving articles to un-do damage. (Why is policy postured to do that to reg editors? There is no thought it might be tiring? And that eventually editors might give up/quit?) --IHTS (talk) 16:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Ya just gotta report such IP vandals to the administrative board that deals with vandals. GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

That begs Q, why wasn't this vandal reported for over 10 months? (Clearly there is room for WP s/w improvement, to auto-report a user Talk containing multiple warning templates, to be reviewed by a proud "janitor".)

Ok I have reported this vandal, we'll see what happens. Unlike you I have little faith in bureaucracies. (Case in point, after requesting permanent protection to stop continued vandalism at Ludo (board game), all I got was a series of incremental protections, which in the end of course had zero impact except wasting my time, wasting the admin's time, and frustating me. [I expect the admin wasn't frustrated at all, probably even enjoying the zero-impact-do-nothing measures, for whatever reason. The article continues to be vandalized, all I gained was frustration w/ WP impotency or unwillingness to do anything substantive about it.]) --IHTS (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Well that worked well (due to Kudpung; thank u Kudpung!). --IHTS (talk) 21:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Thx again to Kudpung, for meaningful protection on Ludo article. Much appreciation! --IHTS (talk) 00:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Less viewed articles, tend to be overlooked concerning vandalism. If an IP vandalized an article with high viewership? that IP is immediately blocked. GoodDay (talk) 21:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I blame our "anyone can edit" mantra. I agree, continued vandalism is a hassle to deal with. I have found, however, that if you doggedly pursue vandals you can get them blocked. If you stay on them long enough you can convince admins to block for years at a time and protect pages indefinitely. It takes work that perhaps someone who focuses on writing content does not want to do. If this WikiProject wants to hold on to good countervandalism editors, it ought to do more to recognize their work and perhaps motivate them after testy exchanges. I see very little activity at WP:CVUA and editors here could do more to promote countervandalism as a means to protect content writers from burnout. Concerted support at RfAs for countervandalism admins would help, too. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

"I blame our "anyone can edit" mantra." Really? How is that is the spirit of Wikipedia? Perhaps you don't understand what the free flow of information entails and the work needed. You complain of human flaws but blame humanity in general.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm a misanthrope. It says so on my user page. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Obvious his idea was requiring registration w/ lower vandalism. (Change suggestion to a WP premise.) You seem to miss the point that "the work needed" under current protocol potentially discourages/loses editors. This point needn't go philosophical, but yeah, wherever humans are there'll always be a dark side. If that's "human nature" then "blaming" humanity makes no sense. --IHTS (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

We have lost another one

Looks like user:Coffee has retired. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not certain, if this is the first time he's retired. Note, that he indef blocked himself, though. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Daicaregos & Cassianto (two long term editors) have retired :( GoodDay (talk) 00:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Suggested reading

This diff is one of the early pages explaining what Dennis had in mind. Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Pact. Except for Dennis, there never was a Primus. Dennis warns, "...it is necessary that we do not form a project that itself is top heavy. As such, no "leader" will ever be chosen. Leadership comes from within, not thrust from outside, and all members are welcomed to participate fully without restriction from a ruling force." ―Buster7 ☎ 22:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Seeking Consensus: Coordinators

There seems to be an issue with inactivity amongst the currently listed coordinators. Dennis Brown has declared their status as inactive. John Carter has been blocked indefinitely months ago. Awilley has declined to continue coordinating. SlimVirgin‎ has declined to continue coordinating. I am still waiting to hear back from Mark Miller, Go Phightins!, Doctree. Buster7 is active. Isaacl and I continue to help out with WP:EOTW (as well as Buster). Propositions on how to move forward? I strongly think we do need active coordinators, as the project will most probably not become active again on its own. --JustBerry (talk) 05:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The project needs active participation; it's unclear if co-ordinators are needed. If someone were to assume a co-ordinator role, it would be helpful if they first established a track record of ongoing engagement with the project. isaacl (talk) 05:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I do agree with the active participation bit, but I do hesitate to agree on the assessment for the need for additional co-ordinator(s). I do agree with the fact that it would be helpful for the co-ordinator to have an established "track record of ongoing engagement with the project." I think it would be helpful to have at least a few editors, preferably the co-ordinators tasked with revitalizing the project, actively looking out for potential contributors to the project (extensive knowledge of Wikipedia, cordial, consistent efforts to reach out to discouraged or frustrated editors, etc.). The awareness of the project's ongoing efforts is not as broad as we may think (yes, amongst experienced Wikipedians who have been editing for some years now), which I have come to understand in my interactions with fellow editors; perhaps you may disagree with my assessment. Part of this revitalization will probably need to entail refocusing the project's efforts to a few specific sub-projects, Editor of the Week included. --JustBerry (talk) 05:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The key question is there any obstacles for looking for potential contributors or starting other initiatives that requires a title of "co-ordinator" to resolve? As I've said numerous times before, let's find interested contributors, and discuss what to work on, before trying to revamp anything. isaacl (talk) 05:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Who will be tasked with leading initial efforts to find potentially interested contributors? Who will consistently create discussions on the project talk page, gently invite members to participate in those discussions, assess what tasks will allow the project to more effectively address editor retention today based on the different thoughts voiced in that discussion, and make updates accordingly to the home page? This seems to have less to do with revamping and more to do with revitalizing an (ironically because this is editor retention after all) increasingly inactive project (let us put Editor of the Week aside for a second and put the whole project into perspective). --JustBerry (talk) 06:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

An addendum to my previous note: Isaacl, I do appreciate your emphasis on accomplishing these tasks together; co-ordinator(s) should not and would not (I would hope) take away from this emphasis. I think we do need a bit more focus than we have had in the recent past to provide a sense of direction for members of the project (through the assessment and encouragement of discussion on talk pages, of course). --JustBerry (talk) 06:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Anyone interested in pursuing these things can do so, without the need of a "co-ordinators" title. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the past discussions on this project page; they suffer from the same problems with establishing consensus as in many other venues. But there are lots of initiatives that can be pursued as long as there is an interested group of people willing to commit time and effort to it, and so I think we should encourage people to raise them and follow up. It's not easy, because everyone's time is limited, and so asking them to devote resources to a very difficult problem outside of mainspace article editing is a tough sell. Nonetheless, nothing ventured, nothing gained, so let's start. On the main project page, there is a collapsed section, "Reasons editors leave". (*) What ideas does anyone have for an initiative that can be managed with say 1-3 persons to help mitigate any of these issues?

(*) On a side note, all these transcluded sections make it harder to link to them, and I'm not sure what is gained by having them.isaacl (talk) 06:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll let others voice their opinion on the main discussion prior to adding on more thoughts. (Adding another note, but others can still chime in as always. --JustBerry (talk) 09:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)) re to (*): Some sections were transcluded, whereas others were not. Lack of consistency makes it harder to follow the main page. Transcluded sections can be linked to individually and more easily managed in segments (rather than editing a header or main page each time). --JustBerry (talk) 06:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The main difference with using transcluded pages for sections is that the content for a specific section has its own separate history and so can be watchlisted on its own. But this is typically only advantageous when the page and its separate sections has many edits. In this case, since the total number of edits is small, it is easier to have just one page watchlisted where you can pick up all of the changes. isaacl (talk) 07:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Your point is valid, although the design of the page (with the "edit this section" linking to individual pages) has been sectioned for some time now. To open this up to everyone else as well, feel free to open up a new section to discuss this if you feel this is important. --JustBerry (talk) 07:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that anyone can do so. I am familiar with past discussions on this project page; consensus is certainly not easy to achieve. However, with multiple concurrent discussions of many thoughts, concerns, and proposals, a sense of prioritization is often lost. Any co-ordinators will presumably take more organizational and initiative responsibility as compared to other members of the project. This has less to do with a formal election process and more to do with pushing the project forward. Also, the co-ordinator role itself introduces an active, project-familiar point of contact for members to reach out to. --JustBerry (talk) 09:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Addendum: Starting an initiative takes more than a proposal. More often than not, well-thought-out proposals come from active discussion from its members. It is understandable, though, that these discussions do not reach a consensus. Encouraging discussion, assessing consensus, prioritizing, and ensuring that pages reflect the current work of the project are all encompassed in the role of this initiative-taking individual, i.e. the co-ordinator. --JustBerry (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Addendum II: Excuse me for the additional addendum, but as I think about our conversation, I do want to address some of the concerns that have been raised more directly. I wanted to revisit when you mentioned "everyone's time is limited, and so asking them to devote resources to a very difficult problem outside of mainspace article editing is a tough sell." I agree; this is a primary explanation for how fewer members have become involved with particular initiatives over time. My goal is to address this issue more broadly than coming up with initiatives and lead them in the short run. Having a few people tasked with inviting members or editors that would be a good fit for maintaining the upkeep of certain initiatives would help keep the project alive. --JustBerry (talk) 09:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I guess I didn't say those literal words, but yes, that's what I meant when I said we should start discussing proposals that do not need consensus: like-minded persons can then refine them and run with them. As for prioritizing, since the proposals don't need consensus, they don't need someone to judge their priority, either; the interested persons can just proceed. And the reality is the number of proposals raised on this discussion page at the same time is vanishingly small. Prioritizing them has not been an issue. isaacl (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

JustBerry, would you kindly explain why you think you are qualified to "reboot" this project? Explain what factors caused it to go dormant, and what skills you posses that makes you the person to fix it. Please discuss relevant history of this project and what you would have done differently. Please cite specific instances where you have applied your skills to help direct a wondering discussion towards a productive conclusion. You want to invite people here. How would you select those people? Do you have mass message rights to facilitate that? And most importantly, explain to everyone here why it is necessary you have a title to do any of it. I don't see anything vaguely resembling a consensus that you are a project coordinator here, yet you've self awarded yourself a userbox declaring yourself the coordinator of this project. Please explain how that particular action helps with editor retention. John from Idegon (talk) 10:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: There is no pre-requisite to becoming a coordinator. Because Buster7, Issacl, and I have been coordinating Editor of the Week for some time, I decided to step up to the plate to help coordinate Retention alongside Buster7, the only seemingly active coordinator. I understand that you have expressed some deep concern with this, and I respect your opinion. I did not mention the word 'reboot' in this section. I understand that you are concerned about the userbox. The userbox was borrowed from the WP:Retention templates page from back when I started coordinating WP:EOTW; this is solely so people could know that they could reach out to me if they needed anything. My apologies; I have modified the existing userbox template to reflect the scope as WP:EOTW. I would kindly ask that personal comments be presented on another talk page, however, as the focus of this section is on co-ordination efforts moving forward. If anyone has an alternative for how coordination efforts can be regularly fulfilled, please present them. --JustBerry (talk) 10:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I absolutely will not take this to another talk page. You asked for this by usurping the coordinator title. You are entirely mistaken that there is no qualification to be a coordinator. The qualification is the same as for any change on Wikipedia. Support, as expressed by consensus. Your change has been opposed. There is nothing here indicating ANYONE supports your move. As with any other opposed change it is up to you to build that consensus as the one wanting the change. I gave you a perfect opportunity to do so above. Instead, you chose to take the autocratic road and dismiss it. I'm a project coordinator. I was asked to do it. Other projects have elections. Most have no coordinator. New projects frequently have a driving force who steps aside after things get rolling. I'm sorry, but if you expect support, you've got to demonstrate you deserve it. And as objection has been expressed, until you garner said support, you are not the coordinator of anything and you need to quit purporting yourself as such. It's quite contrary to the Wiki way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John from Idegon (talk • contribs)

Just to clarify regarding your involvement with Editor of the Week, you implemented a bunch of to-do lists last year (which as far as I recall were only updated by you), and then didn't participate for over a year (I appreciate there are always ebbs and flows in one's involvement). You resumed participation recently, creating the most recent recipient text, and doing a lot of page reformatting. The enthusiasm is great; it would be good if we can get to work on some brain-storming. I'll try to open up a new section later today soliciting ideas. isaacl (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• I don't really like the idea of having coordinators for editor retention project. If anyone is enthusiastic about this project, I would follow the model of Women in Red as they seem to be successful with what they are doing. Alex Shih (talk) 11:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree wholeheartedly. Alex Shih, are you aware of the near duplication of this to events last year? John from Idegon (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
    • John from Idegon, no I don't. I've briefly skimmed the page history here and saw what you mentioned, but did not read the actual discussions. In my opinion, EOTW, unlike WiR, probably doesn't need much "facilitating"; if folks want to get some kind of project back on track, it's probably better to start a project-wide discussion through RfC; I would also talk with the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement. Just no coordinators, please. Let's have spontaneous efforts. Although I wouldn't be opposed to anything – this is not something I would get too fussed about. Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
      • It is encouraging to know that we do have a model of sorts to follow. Hopefully, the WP:RfC will effectively serve as a broader invitation to the community. I do hope that these spontaneous efforts or the goals that are highlighted in discussions are sustained over a longer period of time. --JustBerry (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
      • There are differences, but there isn't really a need to go into details. Can we just channel this desire to get things moving into some brainstorming of ideas? I'll try to open a section later today. Regarding an RfC: personally I think this is overthinking things. Let's just start some tasks, and feel free to ping other interested parties to join in! isaacl (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
        • "If you build it, they will come." from Field of Dreams. PS...and they will not be coordinators. ―Buster7 ☎ 21:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
          • I object to removing named coordinators simply due to not being active here for a while. That doesn't mean they don't have an active interest in coordinating or keeping an eye on things. If we wish to add additional coordinators that is fine but we already have had the discussion about changes requiring consensus, attribution required for copying work and all norms of Wikipedia are followed. The problem has been the direction to go. I have always felt this should be a noticeboard. It would certainly draw far more interest.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

            Note: Per your mentioning "That doesn't mean they don't have an active interest in coordinating," Awilley has declined to continue coordinating, and SlimVirgin‎ has declined to continue coordinating. I do agree that this may not mean that other named coordinators do not have an active interest in coordinating; they have been asked on their respective talk pages. Regarding adding additional coordinators, the discussion of having explicit coordinators versus low-key editors that keep discussions organized and efforts ongoing was to hopefully have some form of increased responsibility in addition to a point of contact for additional members. However, because the notion of having coordinators appointed has received strong opposition thus far, for a variety of concerns, my feeling is that this will probably not be pursued for now. I am glad that you're still interested in the project like others here. Cheers, JustBerry (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Initiatives to revitalize

I pulled the following from the "Seeking Consensus: Coordinators" section above:

On the main project page, there is a collapsed section, "Reasons editors leave". (*) What ideas does anyone have for an initiative that can be managed with say 1-3 persons to help mitigate any of these issues? --Isaacl (diff)

"Reasons editors leave" page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Reasons editors leave Not all reasons that editors leave can be "fixed", as many simply move onto other interests or have lifestyle changes that limit their participation. This list focuses on the reasons that can be addressed at Wikipedia. These problems, in no particular order, are within the scope of this project. Feel free to modify. Negative behavior of other editors Interaction with biased, reckless editors with POV issues Ownership of articles by one or more editors Uninformed but relentless 'Randy in Boise'-type editing, with WP:OWN regularly cited to justify it, leaving editors to watch their work deteriorate Civil point of view promotion Tendentious editing. For articles that lack a significant following, it is difficult to find enough editors (particularly in a way that avoids accusations of canvassing) to establish a consensus. If a problematic editor does not respond to reasoned argument, time can be wasted trying to build a greater understanding but with no net result. Tendentious editors can ignore Wikipedia's bold, revert, discuss cycle and re-introduce their problematic edits; in cases where they are not amenable to dispute resolution mechanisms, there is no clear way to resolve the content dispute, and their edits become fixed in place. Sockpuppeting causing insurmountable obstacles to editing enjoyment Edit warring from other editors Personal attacks, accusations, incivility, and wikihounding, with the targets often discouraged from speaking out in case they are blamed Outing of personal, off-site information Perceptions of an anti-social atmosphere within a clique Regular templating of user talk pages Negative pressures from the wider community Deletion, threatened deletion, and the ubiquitous tagging of articles ("nag tags") Frustration caused by the plethora of policies and guidelines Poor dispute-resolution processes Too many editors who focus on dispute-resolution discussions (AN/I, RfC, RfAr), as opposed to content creation; their involvement can cause requests for dispute resolution to become bogged-down and protracted Experience of peer review processes as confrontational and hierarchical rather than collaborative Claims that long-term editors are "vested contributors" in a negative sense, which suggests that the project has no respect for experienced volunteers Lack of a supportive community Creating an account only results in negative feedback, easier to edit without an account Pressures related to admins or admin actions Frustration caused by bad blocks, threats of blocks, or other administrative actions, particularly against long-term editors Regular attacks on administrators both as individuals and as a group, leaving them unwilling to deal with anything contentious, which in turn leaves editors to cope with disruption without support Permanence and indelibility of the block record. Admins make bad blocks. Once an editor has a block record s/he is obliged to sport it in perpetuity. Blocks do not expire from the record, and they cannot be removed from it. Entropy Failure to defend high-quality work, leaving it to deteriorate over time Difficulty attracting or retaining expertise Experienced editors leave because others do, leading to a deterioration in the quality of discourse, which in turn dissuades potentially serious editors from joining. Personal feelings Boredom Exhaustion of patience Lack of recognition of contributions, or negative feedback for time spent editing in good faith Attempts to fight an addiction to editing Wider perceptions Perception that Wikipedia has been used for political or monetary gain (e.g. the SOPA initiative, Russian trolls, and the paid editing/advocacy/COI debates) Perception that the Wikimedia Foundation focuses more on bringing in new editors, than on finding ways to encourage experienced editors Perception that involvement in Wikipedia is pointless: a bottomless pit Frustration that poor BLP editing continues to cause problems for living people More data on this issue is available from the Former Contributors Survey Results. Some information can be gleaned by looking in the retired editors list at the final edit summaries retired users left

--JustBerry (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Under "Personal Feelings," the following caught my eye: Lack of recognition of contributions, or negative feedback for time spent editing in good faith. This can surely lead to long term editing fatigue. --JustBerry (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Reasons people leave? Burnout, death, lack of time. Frustration with various factors such as paid editing, the over emphasis on news, the lack of understanding that the Wikipedia of last decade cannot work in this decade. Walled gardens (pro wrestling comes to mind immediately.) The inability of projects such as this to effect any change; and repeated efforts to repeat failed efforts (like the notion at hand). The lack of institutional memory or any effort to acquire it dooms the current effort to failure. This project has never really accomplished anything. It gave people a safe place to vent when Dennis was here. The Eddy is the only positive thing that has come out of it, and it has strayed so far away from its original purpose that its shelf life is close to experation (sorry, Buster). This project started with one of the most respected and charismatic editors ever to grace Wikipedia driving it and still never once took one single idea and developed it to the point where any change was effected. No policy changes, not even a RfC. Wikipedia is a political beast. For all your good intentions, JB, you simply do not have the status or connections to do any better. I can only think of a couple individuals that might. I actually think disbanding this project would be the best idea. John from Idegon (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I completely agree with John. I can not think of a single editor in 5 years that was directly retained because of WER. In it's best times it was a robust Speakers' Corner-type page with as little governance as possible. Dennis called the shots and editors were provided the freedom to vent with very little over-sight. There were a handful of editors (that had been involved from the start) that were what might be called 'undercover hall monitors' that did their best to keep a conversation focused and as on topic as possible. But free speech and lack of censorship ruled the day. Not everyone was happy but there was an energy that is rarely seen here in WikiWorld. In the early days there were ideas galore, but nothing came of them. The archives are loaded with great ideas that never even made it to the drawing board.―Buster7 ☎ 20:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC) ALSO....No one was every told to take it to another talk page. ―Buster7 ☎ 21:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
      • I can agree with you, John and Buster.

      I don't see any practical value in disbanding the project, though. Also, I don't think the aim is to do better or prove past attempts as inferior to current attempts, but there can potentially be a value in trying to re-lift a project, even though trying is never a guarantee (or may be far from it as seen in the history of WP:WER). I understand that the history of the project has overwhelmingly demonstrated a lack of tangible change.

      John, is there someone (or a few people) in particular who is (are) active and has (have) the connections and status you referred to? --JustBerry (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• I guess there's an irony that a discussion looking for new ideas has been sidetracked by a thread that touches upon the difficulty of keeping discussions focused. (I'll open a new subsection to restart the brainstorming.) We could debate what's happened in the past all day, but I'd rather not. There are lots of other venues where people can vent and kick around ideas for major structural changes that need broad consensus. How about we make this a place where people can discuss smaller ideas that incrementally improve the editing environment, and can be implemented with a small, dedicated team? Yes, I realize this is like trying to bail out the ocean. But it's community that counts: if we can get some small teams building camaraderie amongst its members and those who are affected by their work, then this can be our small contribution to making Wikipedia a more enjoyable place. isaacl (talk) 01:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

  On point! I caught sight of your mentioning that you would start the thread later in the conversation; sorry about this. We can keep this section for venting if need be, but Isaacl's section might help push things forward a bit (hey, let's try...) --JustBerry (talk) 01:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• John has hit the nail on the head with his comment above. Probably best to look at this and see who the major contributors are - though I guess they might be disinterested. I suppose all those of us who are the original signatories to the project share the guilt for letting it go. Perhaps a mass mailing to all 215 members might be an idea but the message however short, would need to be crafted very carefully - but first, move your mouses or trackpads down the list of signatures and let pop-ups tell you their edit count and when they last edited. Be prepared for some surprises then stop to think again what WER is all about. No one joins a club that does nothing or where most of the members have already left. It's very hard work to raise things from ashes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

On the edit I reverted earlier

@Buster7:, with your consent, I propose the following:

All mention of coordinators past and present should be removed from the project page, retaining a brief bit crediting Dennis as the founder.

This project is pretty much dead, excepting the Eddy, which of course Buster should remain in charge of. As such, a coordinator is not needed. If a go-getter wants to jump start the project, just do it, for Pete's sake. No authority or appearance of same is needed. (FYI... project coordinators don't have any authority anyway). John from Idegon (talk) 07:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support - as proposer. Last year was enough. I don't want to do this again. It's frankly pretty childish. John from Idegon (talk) 07:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• There seem to be three proposals to be voted on here, so this will be a multi-part vote:
  • Support: "All mention of coordinators past and present should be removed from the project page, retaining a brief bit crediting Dennis as the founder." This can easily be done by Buster7 with some consensus.
  • Support (to keep the same): The Editor of the Week bit is being handled just fine at the moment.
  • Oppose the co-ordinator bit. There have been multiple, faint attempts to start other retention projects, but the efforts do not seem sustained due to a lack of focus, i.e. without the help of an active co-ordinator. Replying to the nominating statement, who said the co-ordinator is a point of authority? No editor has 'authority' over another. Wikipedia is a community. The co-ordinator's role is to organize the project, encourage discussion, assess consensus, and highlight important goals/tasks. --JustBerry (talk) 07:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

WHAT AUTHORITY DO YOU HAVE TO DICTATE? DON'T THINK YOU AREN'T? this will be a multi-part vote: Who died and made you king? This is NOT how Wikipedia works. Do not replace my talk page comment please. And try to remember that you have no authority. You continue to state you know this, whilst continuing to act in an authoritarian manner. If you are going to talk the talk, walk the walk. John from Idegon (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Can we take a step back and work towards an approach to move forward? This discussion was opened to specifically discuss the language on the members page regarding co-ordinators. The earlier thread is discussing the need for co-ordinators. Editor of the Week isn't within the scope of these discussions. If we establish that a co-ordinator role is not necessary, (*) then this discussion becomes moot, so perhaps this discussion can be put on hold for now?

(*) Some of the confusion may lie around the role Dennis assumed and thus what he was passing on. He sought to guide discussion with a light touch if it seemed necessary, but not lead it. Nor did he seek to drive all initiatives. Thus the "co-ordinator" role, such as it was at the time, was primarily to facilitate discussion as required. isaacl (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, let's do this step by step instead of making it confusing. If we are going to do a straw poll, let's start with one question only. Alex Shih (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is the talk page for the project page. By the nature of this project, this is its primary page. However, consensus for changes does need to be established somewhere. However, I agree we need to solve this puzzle. Suggest you hat this, Isaacl or Alex Shih. Also suggest we move to a straw poll. Their is a pretty clear consensus forming already. John from Idegon (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Dennis had a golden touch that no one has been able to replicate. When he left, he did not actually "give the keys" to anyone. He assumed the front door would stay open and editors would continue to stop in and share. Since I was facilitating the only viable result of Dennis' effort (EOTW), I have kept the place tidy and ready for visitors. There was a eclectic beauty in the lack of coordination. If this project is going to come back from the dead, we should not forget what made it special in the first place... No bosses! ―Buster7 ☎ 21:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

In the spirit of keeping the golden touch, we can continue our active discussions, which will presumably inspire efforts, to revitalize the project. --JustBerry (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• There are bigger projects than this that don't have/don't need coordinatition. Apart from EOW I don't see anything here that needs coordinating. Be aware everyone, that there is currently a general apathy across Wikipedia for Wikiprojects - see how I recently saved The Signpost from going on the rocks. Don't use that as an example though, because although I 'self designated' myself into the open slot of E-in-C, that project needs a huge amount of coordination and has deadlines to meet. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, crap on a stick. Berry just jumped off the cliff and requested a self block. I mean seriously. Anyway....I don't know what you did for signpost Kudpung, but kudos to you for whatever you did. I tried to volunteer for the signpost but I just can't keep up on a regular basis. I have offline stuff and WikiProjects are like herding cats.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Hmm... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Brainstorming ideas for initiatives to bolster the editing community

Ideas to improve the editing environment fall into different categories. I suggest that we brainstorm ideas to provide support and encouragement to editors. I understand this isn't a high-impact approach and will likely only affect a small number of editors. However I think that other venues are better suited to tackle changes that require broad community consensus, or major structural changes. I believe that working towards a common purpose is rewarding in itself, and it is a feeling that can be spread through small initiatives amongst the involved editors, potentially percolating outwards to others.

What ideas do you have that can be implemented by one to three persons? In this brainstorming phase, I suggest we not comment on any ideas yet. Let's just agree that 9 out of 10 ideas will have obvious flaws, and not worry about describing these flaws in detail right now. In a later phase, we can take the most promising-sounding ideas and refine them further. isaacl (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Please add your idea to the following list:

• A welcoming committee, to provide a bit of engagement with new editors, thereby making Wikipedia feel less impersonal. The committee would not try to replace the Teahouse; it would basically be an orientation buddy to help the newcomer get situated. isaacl (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• A milestone committee, to provide some levity by recognizing non-serious milestones passed by editors (for example, "50th (golden) talk page edit"). It doesn't have to be a continuously running program; there can be periodic blitzes to recognize those passing the milestone in a given week, for instance. isaacl (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• A instructional video, similar to commons:File:New medical editor.ogv, to help orient new editors regarding expected and best practices. isaacl (talk) 03:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• A Cohort Committee, to save the editor that just joined but is now disillusioned, to be an advisor when it seems all have turned away. A friend when one is needed. To give interactional advice about how to work in this environment but without judging what they may have done. To keep editors, especially new editors, editing...keep their spirits up.―Buster7 ☎ 16:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• Newbee User Page Creative Assistants - Help new editors create their User page. ―Buster7 ☎ 16:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• An impact highlighting committee that uses tools like the pageview tool to provide impact statistics to new users on how important their contributions are to Wikipedia. For example, the articles that Example user has contributed to are seen, on average (collectively), by 130,000 people daily. If this idea gets positive feedback from new users, further development can be done to create more customized tools for the project. --JustBerry (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• This is a bit of a meta project, but I'll still put it on the drawing board: creating an interactive survey (using some of the visually-appealing, interactive features of WP:Article wizard) to gauge the most enjoyable parts of Wikipedia, least enjoyable parts of Wikipedia, what editors need help with or understanding, etc. This will not serve to create another laundry list of ideas, but rather to get a feel for the most common, important issues that new, active contributors to Wikipedia face. By actively listening to editors, a more organic project/solution could arise. Alternatively, the survey could be informal, i.e. a "surveying" committee asking users a few questions to gauge relatively newer editor frustrations and putting them down on a page. The surveying would most likely be done on active editors who have been around for a few months. We don't need mass messaging features; an initially small and increasingly larger (in small increments) sample of people (10? 20?) over time is fine. To make this a less impersonal experience, the committee would really have to do an extensive job meeting the editor, collaborating with them on a few tasks/projects/articles, and then gauging their responses to questions over time. --JustBerry (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• A humor committee where the committee collects ironic, amusing, or generally 'funny' moments from talk page discussions, editor interactions, etc. The humor would have to be far from potentially offensive. Find something funny on a user page? Ask the user if it's okay to share it, and if they say yes, share it! We can post this on a page, and users can template this onto their user page, for instance, and read weekly/bimonthly/monthly (depending on how active the project is) and share with others. The idea of the project is not to take away from the serious work that Wikipedia does but to make Wikipedia a more enjoyable place for editors. --JustBerry (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• Split the editor retention talk page into an ideas page and a complaints page/"Identified injustices" page). (Borrowed from isaacl's talk page by Buster7) 04:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
• Clarify policy around 'right of reply'. I don't know how easy that would be, but it would make a big difference if that could be done as closing of discussions too soon, or seemingly inappropriate closings, especially in dispute resolution are very disconcerting and alienating for a newbie. I haven't been able to find a clear statement on it.Jed Stuart (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Introduce a system of repercussions for administrators who apparently attempt to place unilateral sanctions against community consensus, by saying "I will block you if you do X", which creates a chilling effect. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• Strongly discourage claims of "hounding" when there are legitimate concerns about an editor's behaviour. Wikipedia needs to retain editors who add good content, not editors who simply create more work for other editors. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Inspire Campaign idea for editor retention data

Hello. I have submitted an idea for the Inspire campaign: Retroactive, longitudinal study of new user experiences. It involves gathering a representative sample of new-user experiences, so as to better inform decisions regarding editor retention. As such, it may be of interest to participants here. Please have a look if you have time. Cheers, --LukeSurl ^{t c} 09:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• I joined "Editor Rescue" as a volunteer. Seems like a good fit. ―Buster7 ☎ 22:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

New editors

I think this wlecome message as at User talk:Adamstrangelove is an excellent initiative. It's one of the best welcome templates among all the ones that keep getting invented by the 'Welcoming Committee' which generally thank everyone 'for their much appreciated edits' including vandals. The problem with the Welcoming Committee is that it's another of those exercises that newbies are drawn to like a magnet and they issues these welcomes indiscriminately. I have been campaigning for a long time for exactly this kind of message to be posted automatically to every new user on completion if the registration form. Thoughts? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you, Kudpung. I wish I could clearly remember the evolution of it but there was considerable input and participation. Maybe others can recall and give credit where deserved. For those interested in using this welcome to greet new users... {{Subst:Template:WikiProject Editor Retention/Welcome}} ―Buster7 ☎ 06:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Are we retaining editors?

Yes! One at a time. As evidenced by Editor Krakkos' reply to his award:

:What a pleasant surprise! Having one's contributions appreciated like this certainly inspires one to continue participating in this project. I'll make sure to nominate more deserving editors for this award in the future. Thanks. Krakkos (talk) 15:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

―Buster7 ☎ 21:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 12

Newsletter • August 2018

This month: WikiProject X: The resumption

Work has resumed on WikiProject X and CollaborationKit, backed by a successfully funded Project Grant. For more information on the current status and planned work, please see this month's issue of the newsletter!

-— Isarra ༆ 22:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Campaign to use AI for Newcomer Retention - Labelling Help Needed.

Hello, I am working on a new Wikipedia-AI (ORES) campaign that aims to automatically detect good-faith newcomers for the purpose of highlighting them as editors valuable to retain. Currently the project needs help labelling examples for machine learning, if you have some time please consider using your human brain to complete a workset on labels.wmflabs.org. See more about, and sign up for the project at Wikipedia:Labels/Newcomer_session_quality. Thanks for your time.

Maximilianklein(CS) (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposed editor retention tools

There is a proposal for new editor retention tools on this year's Community Wishlist Survey. The advice of editors who have taken an active interest in editor retention would be really useful. Can you imagine new tools that would help you retain editors? Do you have views on the usefulness of existing tool suggestions? Comments and modifications are open until the 16th of November. HLHJ (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Wishlist proposal on one-click inline cleanup tags

Proportion of good-faith newcomers who are reverted using a tool (reverted newcomers are less likely to stay, editors who get personal criticism/assistance, like having their edits tagged or corrected, are more likely to stay).

The best editor-retention idea I've seen is proposed in the current Wishlist Survey. It suggests making it as easy to tag (with "citation needed" etc.) as it is to rvv, using semi-automated tools. There is evidence[1][2] that being tagged rather than reverted will cause more new editors to stick around and improve their edits and skills. Having their edits tagged for cleanup actually makes editors more likely to stay than if their edits go untouched. It should also be faster to tag than to write custom comments in a good-faith revert, so semi-automated tool users will be motivated to tag more, especially if they then see new editors fixing their edits. Our editor numbers started declining when we introduced automated vandal-fighting tools (see research, and graph); adding new functionality to those tools could reverse that change, and give us record retention rates, faster editor training, and better content. Please consider voting on the wish. HLHJ (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Attractive nuisance

Broadly speaking, an attractive nuisance is something dangerous that attracts people -- especially children. The classic cases are open mineshafts and unfenced swimming pools. If the owner of a property knows that something is liable to motivate people to trespass ("attractive") and likely to end up with them being harmed ("nuisance") this is generally considered to be a Bad Thing.

WikiProject Editor Retention attracts three basic classes of users.

[1] The experienced editor who really wants to help editors who are thinking of quiting -- especially new editors. We really want more of this kind of user.

[2] The well-meaning user -- often but not always a new user -- who has run into a confusing policy or an asshole editor and who is getting discouraged. We want to welcome these sort of users, and we want to fix whatever caused them trouble if we can.

[3] The disruptive editor who has run into problems because they refuse to follow our policies and guidelines, who thinks that "editor retention" means letting them do what they want, and who came here to rant about how evil Wikipedia is. These users often glom on to the well-meaning user described above: Question by well meaning user: "I tried to edit an article about my favorite band and was told something confusing about "WP:V" and "copyvio". I don't understand what I am doing wrong. Please help!" Reply by disruptive editor: "I know! I have had the exact same problem for five years as I have tried tried to show everyone the truth about how the Holocaust never happened. You wouldn't believe how mean Wikipedia has been to me."

We want this Wikiproject to be a place where we can help the well-meaning user who is getting discouraged -- and we do a lot of that -- but the Wikiproject is also an attractive nuisance for COI editors, spammers, fringe theory proponents, conspiracy theorists, and the occasional political ranter.

So, how do we discourage the disruptive users while encouraging the well-meaning user who is getting discouraged? Does anyone have any ideas? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Here's a start. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jclPWidTfak Andy Dingley (talk) 02:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the main problem with this WikiProject is a combination of (i) the third group (not a problem by themselves) and (ii) those members of the first group who assume everyone in the third group is really in the second group (the real problem). (ii) seem to assume that WP:AGF applies to editors who come here "looking for help" but show an unfortunate inability to treat the editors who "drove them here" to the same courtesy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

The project was not set up initially to assist with individual editors, but to look at ways to address systemic issues, although of course many participants are also interested in helping well-meaning users. My personal inclination would be to direct well-meaning users to the Teahouse for assistance, or for individual editors to provide personalized assistance on the editor's talk page.

My advice regarding disruptive editors who come here looking for allies is to ignore them. Nothing kills a conversation faster than not responding. However, for unhappy editors who reply to well-meaning users with rants, there isn't a good answer. There is a significant number of editors who (I believe) are still watching this page that support letting people respond as they wish, and past attempts to close digressions have failed. (Yes, it's true that the rants generally are complaining about some systemic characteristic, but usually in a non-actionable way. For example, "Power-hungry editors are ruining things," whether it is perceived or actual fact, isn't something that can be magically fixed.) Sometimes I tell editors there are lots of other places where we can complain about past wrongs; let's try to preserve this talk page as a place where we can talk about what initiatives we can work on as a small group. But frankly there has been close to no interest on working on initiatives. I get that editors prefer sexier policy and process changes, but in its current state, this talk page isn't the place to incubate them. isaacl (talk) 04:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Here is a serious question: How can Wikipedia retain darned-good editors who can write very good articles without subjecting them to the stultifying labyrinth of policies, rules, and editor culture that eventually dissolutions them and runs them off? Speaking for myself, I like writing the articles. i think I have subject-matter knowledge to share. But the constant drip of policy-correction saps any desire to keep going. Truly, there has got to be a better way to do this (and I don't mean this antagonistically). Shouldn't we really be focusing on the end result (great articles) rather than the process of creating them? If they turn out great, does it really matter how it was done? Einstein was a genius but he was a nitwit with 'process', he probably couldn't be a Wiki-editor under current circumstances. That doesn't mean people like him shouldn't participate. All I'm saying is that maybe we should try to make things more people-friendly and keep our eye on the ball.Architecttype (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

You had a good point. But your actions since, and vast copy-pastes between pages are never a good idea, mean that few are interested in discussing it with you any further. Certainly I'm not. I think these threads are dead now. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

There you go. Hung up on the minutiae. “It’s not what you look at that matters, it’s what you see” - Thoreau. The end result is more important than the process!Architecttype (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

The only positive solution I can recall being presented as a result of the last 5/6 days is this by User:Edaham.

If we can learn from this, I think we might more respectfully address newcomers who may or may not be experts in something. One way to do this might be to ask people about their particular field of interest as part of our default welcome message and in greeting newcomers. That way we could direct them to work with people who are more suited to editing the material they bring to the encyclopedia while at the same time offering a more personal touch to our method of establishing contact with new editors.

Solutions lie somewhere else rather than this page. You have created 4 really great articles. Fellow Wikipedia collaborators surfaced and worked to make them even greater (they hoped) based on years of accumulated Wikipedia guides and principles. You saw that as a affront to your ability. The thing to do is create article 5. ―Buster7 ☎ 23:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

We have to bear in mind that the vast, vast majority of the world's population are neither productive editors nor trolls here to harass productive editors, but people who either have no Internet access or use Wikipedia as an information resource. Such people naturally favour the productive editors over the trolls; so it is in fact the most "people-friendly" option to simply ban the trolls. Providing them with an on-wiki forum to complain about how the productive editors are "making their lives miserable" (or whatever) is not a good idea, and it should be WER's responsibility to tell them to buzz off when such a thing happens. Ideally WER should also help in dealing with them by opening ANI discussions to get the trolls off the productive editors' backs in such cases; in 2015 this was the opposite of what happened, in that it was the productive editor who was told to buzz off, and an AN discussion was opened to punish the productive editor. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

If there are editors who want to start ANI discussions on disruptive editors, more power to them. I don't feel there is any special role needed from this WikiProject, though. There are numerous other places set up to provide editor assistance that would do a better job. Adding another venue just provides another space for editors to complain, and to come back in the future and complain about the members of the editor retention project for what they did or didn't do. isaacl (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@Isaacl: I'm reminded of a brilliant scene in The Borgias (season 1) when Cardinal della Rovere is discussing, with Nicolo Machiavelli, the Florentine role in an impending invasion by the Kingdom of France intended to depose Pope Alexander VI, and when asked by Machiavelli what he wishes of Florence in this endeavour, della Rovere responds "Nothing", to which Machiavelli expresses feigned relief and says he will ask the cardinal for nothing in return, before della Rovere clarifies that he wishes for Florence "to do nothing" to impede the French invasion of Florence.

Whether or not WER wishes to play an active role in handling disruptive editors (in order, of course, to make editing a more pleasant experience for those who are here for the right reasons and to keep them from quitting), its members should be encouraged not to interfere with those processes. It seems to be (to have been?) all too easy for trolls to get "friends" by coming here (as long as it's framed in a "This editor is harassing me and I'm considering quitting" fashion it seems even good-faith WER members can be suckered in), and editors with friends are damned near impossible to deal with at ANI. (AN is slightly better.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

This WikiProject is just a handful of editors who continue to comment here. Given the opinions they've expressed, I'm pretty sure they've already formed their own opinions on how to deal with disruptive editors. As for getting friends, I can't recall any situations in recent memory where someone joined into a dispute because they saw a notice on this page and not any of the other pages they frequent. (I appreciate you believe your situation fell into this category; in the interest in moving forward productively, I won't be trying to recall what happened four years ago.) Time and time again, I've encouraged editors to step up and work on whatever tasks they feel they can do to improve editor retention. If they want to help out with reporting disruptive editors, great! isaacl (talk) 03:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Appreciate the input. As strictly a ‘content’ editor (as opposed to ‘process’ editor) I see myself writing the handful of articles where my contributions can be helpful, and then retire from Wikipedia. Probably a matter of weeks. Thus, my interest in learning the policies and rules of editorship is limited to whatever it takes to get the articles written and posted. Inevitably, conflicts occur when people like me cross paths with ‘wiki-careerists’ who see their job as ‘running a tight ship’. Perhaps ways can be established that allow these kind of (needed) content editors to contribute without hamstringing them with policy. We need the ‘cliff-notes’ version of rules, simply because our relationship with Wikipedia is so transient.Architecttype (talk) 03:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)