Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 28

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

where else would an exclusive, member-restricted WikiProject help?

I was unaware of the KaffeeKlatsch proposal, though I knew of interest in having a women-only (or similar) area in Wikipedia, when, in a section above, I advocated helping to "Establish a basic right for semi-private clubs to operate as WikiProjects, for advancement of wikipedia in any topic area, where membership requirements or admissions process can be defined, and where members can exclude participation of non-members (i.e. to allow an all-women task force to operate without interuption; semi-private in that what the WikiProject does is visible. This could lead to some wikiprojects splintering, which would not be all bad IMO.)" It would help establish the right to use a WikiProject, for a Women's club, if there were other proposals on completely different topics. WikiProjects have a lot of useful tools, such as the use of article tracking scoreboards, and various notification services.
There must be GOOD reasons to have an exclusive club, vs. BAD reasons. In the Kaffeeklatsch MFD and elsewhere fears have been expressed that if one exclusive club is allowed, then there will be terrible, mean ones. But if the purpose of a group is bad, or if the definition of membership boundaries is too uncomfortable, few will join and it will wither under scrutiny, I expect.
I suspect GOOD reasons would be when membership boundaries and rules of order are clearly related to the purpose of the club. Some existing restricted areas within Wikipedia are the arbitrator-only sections in ARBCOM proceedings (where restriction is accepted as helping the elected arbitrators get their discussion and voting done). Arbitrators also have a non-transparent off-wiki email list. I wonder if elected wp:MILHIST coordinators have an on-wiki restricted area that helps them, or if they use an email list.
What about when people want to assemble and share their interest in something, with a certain level of civility and positive collaboration, without being beset by too many critics or interruptors or well-meaning but uninformed newbies, who undermine progress?
How about a group within WER to address bullying, without being overrun?
Besides in the gender issues area, where else would it be GOOD to have a member-restricted club, governed by higher standards of civility or limited by a number-of-articles-created-criteria, or having any other difference from general rules?

--do ncr am 01:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I doubt I would be of much help in any 'gender gap' goal, as I don't see editors as 'male' or 'female. Furthermore, it's impossible to verify every editors RL gender. Anyways, if any of these courses of action leads to more editors of Wikipedia, that's cool. Though, I'll always caution against the potential for schism. GoodDay (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I meant in OTHER areas, where could it help. Say, if wp:WikiProject Libraries is trying to recruit more RL professionals to participate, but some are truly offended by cursing going on, that has become commonplace, can the WikiProject set a membership criterion (no use of certain words) and enforce it? Or can they create a cursing-free discussion board? --do ncr am 02:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how anything "exclusive" could be anything but divisive, which is the last thing the project needs. If the level of discourse violates community standards, then we should deal with it on that basis (and we aren't doing a good enough job on that). If it does not, then the people must decide whether they can live with it or not, and make individual decisions as to staying or leaving. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, from a practical standpoint, how would you limit access to members? Are you hoping the community would agree to automatic and immediate blocking for violators of the membership restriction? Surely you're not hoping that all non-members would simply go away because you asked them nicely. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe a WikiProject can censure foul language from its talkpage, if members are united on it. GoodDay (talk) 03:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Doncram:: Watch your stereotypes: Librarians are not the narrow-minded or over-sensitive types that comment suggests! Most of us can cope with the occasional foul language; it's the sniping and bullying, however politely expressed, and the constant flogging of dead horses, which might deter those who see themselves as adults and/or professional people from participating in an environment perceived to be dominated by that behaviour. (Actually I think librarians and former librarians are probably very well represented among WP editors: the urge to help people get access to information finds a new outlet here). PamD 09:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Right, sorry if that's the impression my comment gave, not intended. I actually perceive self-identified librarians that i've noticed to be professional, competent participants here, and relatively well-represented within Wikipedia, and sometimes actively reaching out to other RL professionals, and potentially a strong, positive force for change. I also don't think profanity is the worst behavior problem to be targeted by any self-aware, self-policing group; I focused on that as it is very simple to understand as a target for a behavior rule. Sorry that my conjunction seemed to make an implication that I did not intend. I'd be very interested if you could explain further, perhaps, on how adult vs. non-adult behavior within a Wikiproject could be defined and put into any rule for participating. --do ncr am 19:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Doncram, at this point, Outreach Wiki (also called "Wikimedia Outreach") is serving as the WikiProject for editors who need to maintain a more professional tone of discussion, especially for collaborations with GLAM partners. You will see some of your concerns about professionalism expressed at the Outreach Village Pump discussion, Proposal: merge the Outreach wiki into the Meta wiki. Some here may want to weigh in on the merger discussion. It's important to acknowledge that some working people receive rather restrictive guidance about participation in social media. If editors holding professional positions find they're basically tiptoeing around a bunch of craziness on the Wikipedia site, you get their polite, minimal participation at socially sanctioned editing events, or adding citations, and that's about it. (Or perhaps they oursource their Wikipedia tasks to a paid editor ...) In any event, the Wild West approach isn't proving the route to retention. --Djembayz (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You will not improve editor retention by creating private clubs segregated by gender, race, religion etc... Chillum 03:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Chillum. While I support the right of individual editors to restrict access to parts of their talk pages/subpages (within certain parameters), I don't believe any restrictions should be allowed in project space. The sole exception is for areas designated for arbcom, admins, checkusers, etc, and in those cases editing is restricted to people who have been through special community scrutiny; the community, not individuals, has set up the restrictions. One of the fundamental goals of this encyclopedia is collaboration, not isolation. We all benefit from being exposed to a wide range of opinions; it reduces groupthink and increases the potential pool of good ideas.
I've been in a position of responsibility on WP; I was a Featured Article delegate for two years. Discussions about FA process changes were held on WP, with the involvement of anyone who was interested (which included those who simply wanted to disrupt the process). With enough participation, enough voices heard, enough RFCs, the community (not just those most involved in WP:FAC) reached a consensus that the other delegates and I could then enforce.
I've worked on article collaborations on a contentious topic, and the collaboration failed because it was "beset by too many critics or interruptors or well-meaning but uninformed newbies, who undermine progress". Those newbies tried extremely hard to have me and others removed from the topic because we were not of the religion that was the focus of the article. They could not see that our religion made absolutely zero difference in whether or not we could research and write a balanced, well-sourced article. I honestly see no difference between those well-meaning but misguided editors and those who are insistent on removing men from discussions on the gender gap, or otherwise creating spaces where men aren't allowed.
I continue to edit here because I firmly believe we should judge other editors on their contributions, not their gender, their religion, their age, etc. Even setting up something for "professionals" or academics only is problematic, because many of them do not have the Wikipedia-editing experience needed to be successful here (and I say this as someone who has collaborated with professors before).
Is it frustrating at times to deal with those who don't seem to understand the policies, who don't seem to be working for the good of the encyclopedia? Of course, and it's a big reason why I essentially retired for 2 years. But I am confident that those who I found most annoying in turn thought I was the one who just didn't understand and wasn't working for the good of the encyclopedia. So who determines which group of us is asked to stay out of the collaboration area? We have dispute resolution processes, and they work most of the time. Honestly, I have had similar frustrations to this at work, when I was in school, and even at my HOA meetings. Editors need to be able to deal with conflict....people need to be able to deal with conflict. Perhaps a much more useful idea than restricting editing would be to create an advocacy project to help new users who don't understand their options for dispute resolution. Karanacs (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree with all of that, but a comment re your last point. I've felt for some time that WP policies, guidelines, and procedures have grown out of control, so complex that the average editor needs an expert "wikilawyer" (a new definition) to interpret them. Lo and behold, that's pretty much what you just described. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

One of my most favorite projects was years ago, when a professor, jbmurray, brought his college class to Wikipedia, with the goal of their creating articles and getting them to FA status. They were all complete newbies. He taught them the basics, and a group of article writers agreed to help guide them through the other processes. There was a specific page for that particular group to ask for help, and mentors were assigned to each student who wanted one. Their initiative was very successful in that the students created some very excellent articles; I haven't checked to see how many of them still edit, all these years later. I don't know how to implement something like this on a larger scale (although I think the Teahouse is supposed to help?), but I think it would help some new editors. Karanacs (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

As I understand it, Wikipedia:Co-op will facilitate matching editors seeking guidance in specific areas with mentors who are able to help. isaacl (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding MILHIST - there is a coordinators' page, but posting to it isn't restricted to coordinators (unless something has radically changed recently, at least). Closed groups with restricted membership are a bad idea in a place like this where we already have issues with OWN of policy, canvassing, and other things. Intothat darkness 16:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

A WP:Co-op mailing just went out to prospective mentors. See User talk:Buster7#WP:Co-op news for December 2014 – Feburary 2015 for an update. Mentors are needed. . Buster Seven Talk 18:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I've made a finer point above, but the fact is: No group that discriminates may advertise here or be in any way a part of WER. Discrimination is 100% against the entire mission here and will not be endorsed nor tolerated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Understood. . Buster Seven Talk 23:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

- But, Dennis Brown, you're stating a rule here that you wish to be absolute, in this WikiProject, which is not a Wikipedia-wide rule. Which would be an example of trying to make a space that does not tolerate certain views. And, I don't want to stretch your intent beyond what you mean, but I would think it follows that you would want to eject a participant who did not adhere to the required behavior. I think enforcing a standard of behavior in an area is acceptable, and is the flip side of restricting membership to those who will abide by the rules; it's the same thing. So WER is an example that I was asking for? --do ncr am 00:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

There are more areas in wikipedia where behavior and/or membership is restricted, or should be.

Another area in Wikipedia that enforces a different level of behavior is DRV. If i recall correctly, they do not tolerate "heat", if I may call it that, in discussions there, and will close a discussion rather than come to a DRV decision, if they judge the behavior in the discussion to be unacceptable to them.
Also I think various WikiProjects do try to enforce behavior or belief standards, perhaps on wp:NOTHERE-type grounds. "Not here to pursue the purpose and strategy of this WikiProject", would be fair grounds, in my opinion, to ask persons whose oppositional beliefs and behavior seems disruptive to get out. I tend to think that empowering WikiProjects, including WER, to set some standards of behavior, would help the overall environment.
About the academic professors who use their real names and have real expertise and interest, but are unable to deal effectively with others badgering them, maybe, yes, that it would be good to have area(s) where they can talk, share frustrations, and hopefully learn. Where they could talk among themselves, and learn how not to set off the anti-credentialist persons buzzers, say. Where they could ask around for help dealing with difficult situations for them, say, where persons they don't respect are pursuing and opposing. To discuss these things without being hassled endlessly. Don't get me wrong, I and most persons here would probably want them to "graduate" and get out into topic-based Wikiprojects, but I would think it helpful to give them a safe environment to commune in. --do ncr am 00:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I will simply restate that the initial and ongoing goal of WER is to be all inclusive. There is a difference in creating an organization that caters to one type of user such as professors (where there is a neutral criteria based on life accomplishment, not genetics), and one that discriminates based on DNA, geography or deity. I am not saying I agree with either, btw. One of our most obvious objectives in editor retention is to forward the ideas of equality, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, religion or creed. Any program that discriminates based on those factors is inconsistent with WER and in no way should WER be associated with them. You can not fight discrimination by practicing it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown:, I will simply restate that the initial and ongoing goal of WER is to be all inclusive….You can not fight discrimination by practicing it. If WER is to be all inclusive then how is it that back on 07 January 2013 you allowed another editor to remove my comments here with an edit summary removing unrelated crap, and later instructed me on my talk page to to leave things alone? Ottawahitech (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

First, the link you provided above is somehow a link to an article Dhimmi by User:Pecher. That makes it a lot harder to figure out what you are referring to. I am assuming that you are questioning whether this project can say it is "all inclusive" if it decides to remove content which does not further those objectives. I think the reasonable answer to that would be "yes, that is true of all WikiProjects." This project has as its stated goal editor retention, and comments which do not necessarily relate to that topic are basically irrelevant. That is not discrimination, but focus. If you could indicate exactly what you are referring to a bit more clearly, that might help a lot. John Carter (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't know what happened to my link, but I found a better one. Ottawahitech (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Behavior based membership restriction can be invaluable. It was so on WP:SLR. We instituted it because of the experience with a previous WikiProject, which had failed because one side of the Sri Lanka conflict was underrepresented and, in a vicious cycle, eventually left the project altogether. So we had new members apply at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation/housekeeping#Applications and be approved by all existing members. Surprisingly, nobody ever voted against another member for partisan reasons; I think the only one who voted against any application was me; I set behavioral conditions, and everyone strove to meet them, and in the end everyone who wanted to join was admitted. (Actually, I just saw that there was an application which got overlooked after the project had served its purpose and became defunct after the end of the Sri Lanka Civil War.) All in all, I can say that my dream that "I want the membership in this group to become a badge of honor." became true. — Sebastian 10:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

- And I'm not saying there is no room at Wikipedia for groups with different criteria, each has to be judged on its own merits, but WER has to be the ultimate "open tent" and can only coordinate with those that reflect our initial values of equality (admin and editor, male and female, German and Mexican, Jew and Atheist, etc.) and our goal of creating an environment all over Wikipedia that makes editors want to stay. Whether or not another project is acting within policy or not, this isn't within our scope. That is for the community as a whole to decide. It is our choice and charter to NOT promote groups that don't share the same philosophy as the original intent of the Project. As Founder of this project, I believe I have a pretty good bead on what the original intent was. It is quite rare for me to be rigid on a philosophical point here, but this is core to our principles. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

There are a couple of opposing principles that apply: first, in accordance with the pillar that anyone can use, edit, or distribute Wikipedia, anyone who wishes to improve Wikipedia in a constructive manner is welcome to discussions on doing so. Second, as all contributors are volunteers, their interactions are a matter of personal choice: they choose what articles they wish to edit, and which conversations in which they wish to participate. The first principle takes precedence, so any conversations directly related to the improvement of an article must remain open to all collaborative commenters. Nonetheless, should I wish to seek advice on a matter, I can choose to whom I wish to request advice; I am not compelled to discuss matters of a more meta-level with anyone.

The line can be a bit fuzzy; for example, a discussion on how to deal with a combative editor is indirectly related to article improvement, as managing the situation improves the overall editing environment. Yet I feel there can be value for editors to be able to hold discussions with a self-selected group of similarly-minded editors, so they can refine their ideas without an undue number of interruptions from dissenters. I have discussed this a little in the context of mitigating issues with Wikipedia's current tradition of consensus. On a WikiProject level, this would translate to a group of editors who share basic goals of the project. A balance would have to be struck, to not unduly limit the range of viewpoints considered, and a global consensus could not be established on the basis of a limited discussion. However I think there are many nascent proposals that have floundered by being too quickly subject to criticism and would have benefited from being given some time to flourish and improve through discussion within a limited group first. In order to not pre-judge anyone's contributions based on personal characteristics, a self-selected group in a WikiProject should be based on the opinions held by the participants, and not any personal traits. (What users choose to do in their own personal spaces is more open, though subservient to the first principle I stated.) isaacl (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

All this is way off focus and out of the remit of this group. User:Dennis Brown in his post 02:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC) said it all- now move on. Some of us with grey hair have seen this all before in the late 1960- where the whole raison d'etre of volunteer organisations were subverted by militant pressure groups with their points of order and navel-gazing. The organisations soon became defunct. Alles diesen Klätschen ist echt Quatsch. (all this gossiping is pure rubbish) and destructive, we lose more good editors because they are sick of being harrassed by Klätschmaulen with a penchant for wiki-lawyering. Cut this whole discussion and paste it on a more relevant page - or a sandbox- with a tinylink to keep things tidy -- Clem Rutter (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe the dissipating of the focus of discussions is an important part of why editors get frustrated with Wikipedia and so stop editing.(My comment is in support of avoiding subversion of discussions.) I don't believe Dennis's statement is at odds with this. isaacl (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I have always promoted the idea that it is ok if discussion carry on too long, giving everyone a chance to speak, particularly since many don't visit this page daily. It is why my comments tend to be towards the end, if I comment at all. When I do make a strong statement, my goal isn't to end discussion, it is to give the discussion some direction, focus, or at least clarity. Then consensus can do its magic. Consensus isn't the end all here, we do have a charter, a mission, but I don't remember seeing those out of sync very often. Staying out of issues that have been at Arb, and are likely to end back at Arb, that is also a good idea, particularly when they are inconsistent with our mission. This isn't a judgement of those projects, just a prudent position. I may need to do some writing, not to make new rules, but to clarify the existing charter. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Doncram, the best way to answer your question, would be to create such a WikiProject & see what happens. GoodDay (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Doncram can be empirical and find out. Start one, Doncram! EChastain (talk) 04:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

editing break

With all respect to Clem (from a fellow Greyback), one of the beauties of WER is that we let discussions flow wherever they might flow (like the rising tide that lifts all boats). Subversion of discussion is a problem everywhere on Wikipedia talk pages and we try to deal with it as best we can without too much consternation. I personally don't like it when some editor, of his own choosing, decides to hat a discussion. I understand if its divisive and disruptive...but not if its an extended free-flow of ideas. If you notice, there are many open discussions above. No harm is committed by waiting for them to be archived. I tried to manually archive many times before and was asked not to, for good reason. Your suggestion to "Cut this whole discussion and paste it on a more relevant page - or a sandbox- with a tinylink to keep things tidy" is a very good one. I suggest DIY which I suggest to anyone with a good suggestion. . Buster Seven Talk 16:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

With all the recent discussions, I did consider creating a sandbox to collect Dennis' offerings. But then I reconsidered because it might be construed as the WER version of The Little Red Book. . Buster Seven Talk 17:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Buster. It's called brainstorming, and it is an excellent way to through out suggestions. It's like genetic mutations - most of them are not improvements but every so often one comes along that promotes survival. In fact, I've been thinking of one for a long time myself and will try to put it together for consideration... :D Gandydancer (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, the extended free-flow of ideas and philosophizing deserves its own section. Hadn't thought of this before, but if editor retention focuses on retaining the estimated 90% male majority editing population, perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention is de facto A Voice for Men on our site ... ;) ... * dodges tomatoes in best 1970s style, and dashes off to her alternative women's wiki / Systers consciousness raising group* ... (Now, loosen up and giggle a little there fellow greyhairs, ain't we been down this road before together? You think Kathleen Cleaver is still churning away on Eldridge's mimeograph machine? Ain't it our turn to show the kids how to do it right this time, men and women both?) --Djembayz (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Very interesting links. Thanks. . Buster Seven Talk 14:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

A "voice for men", or for those men who wanted to maintain the 90 10 ratio would be a voice for not changing the site. We are a voice for changing it in ways that would stop driving away established editors male or female. Editor retention is about retaining our existing editors. That shouldn't put us into conflict with projects to recruit new editors, some of the issues we will identify may be ones that also make it difficult for potential editors. But Wikipedia can support multiple projects handling many different issues. The focus of our project is the things that drive existing editors away from Wikipedia. But that doesn't mean that our focus should be 90% male, if the stats are correct our editor retention problems are worse among female editors than among men so if we succeed it should help the gender gap. To put it more crudely, if a large proportion of the blokes here are going to stay until we die or get blocked, then by trying to fix the things that drive good editors away we are going to help both men and women and in more balanced numbers than the existing community. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. We can be mindful, helpful and each of us can be in two or more different projects, but WER itself is getting big enough that we need to start being a bit more strict in keeping our scope narrow, which helps everyone. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Editor retention is about retaining our existing editors

I see the statement Editor retention is about retaining our existing editors made by User:WereSpielChequers and remember this was discussed somewhere in the bowels of wp:wer talk, but I did not realize this is now "official". If it is should it not be mentioned in this project's mission statement right at the top of this project page?. Ottawahitech (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned it is already there in the name, I didn't consider myself to be making some official announcement, just reminding people what this project is about. wp:WikiProject Editor Retention is unambiguous at least in the variant of English that I know. We could also have sister projects wp:WikiProject Editor Recruitment and wp:WikiProject Editor Reactivation. Of course there will be editors recruited since this project started who we would now want to retain, but the name seems pretty unambiguous to me. If the word means something different in American English then that doesn't seem to have reached wiktionary. To give a little background I used to work in IT and on a number of large consumer/membership databases, and I'm used to the idea that membership recruitment, retention, upselling and reactivation have different challenges. Ϣere SpielChequers 20:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Recently the Main page was revised a bit. It will soon be revised a lot. Watch this space..... Buster Seven Talk 20:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

As has already been said, the scope has always been retention, even if we strayed a bit at times. We have no power to recruit, that is really the job of the Foundation, to reach out to people outside of Wikipedia, or to another new project as WSC pointed out, to covert readers into editors. Our job is to focus on systemic changes such as policies, programs like EotW, and instilling the idea that "retention" should play a part of all decisions here. These are things that make editors want to stay. When I get back to full time, I have several ideas for project to help new editors become more productive by giving them a list of "to do" areas that they might have fun with, to keep it interesting for the guys with 500-1000 edits and not sure where to go to next. Editors more advanced than an adoptee, but would benefit from some direction on finding interesting areas that need gnoming. This is in the archives here, btw, and fits the scope of WER perfectly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia board can really help with editor retention!

Hello all!

What is the wikipedia board currently doing about this crisis?

Thank you for your response! Namecheapblues (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the question could be paraphrased as "What are the WMF doing about editor retention?" Given I'm still finding bad CSDs and have to work to to stop newbies being scared away, not a lot. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

If that is indeed the question, then we need to keep in mind that the WMF's primary goal is to attract readers who will become editors. They can assist in retention (although I've never seen them volunteer anything here, maybe they have) but how we deal with editors is a function of the community, not the Foundation. It is a separation of power thing; they generally don't get involved directly in issues like retention on the small level and instead focus on the background issues, such as making the user interface more usable, etc. We have never asked directly for WMF assistance, again, that I know of. I wouldn't be opposed to doing so, but we are community driven and I haven't, and can't as I write this, think of an situation where their assistance would be helpful. Maybe a free T-shirt for all Editor of the Week recipients, but that is kind of a small thing that by itself may not be helpful and may in fact detract from the concept. They already have a Tshirt giveaway program, which is pretty random, but I think helpful for retention in its own way. We have promoted that here before. I don't have the link on me, if someone else does, please provide. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Merchandise giveaways will link you to Wikimedia. . Buster Seven Talk 00:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I hate to sound overly pessimistic here but the WMF cares little about finding editors or keeping them. They do not care about the politics of the individual projects and really don't care all that much if they succeed or fail. The only time they even show up is when they want to force the community to do something. They want to exert their influence when and where they want but when the community asks them for their help in areas where their help is truly needed they do nothing because generally those areas aren't exciting, don't generate revenue and more often than not, don't interest them. 96.255.237.170 (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

What is editor retention?

I'm not around much, and you don't want to be me this month, but I will take the time to reiterate one point, a point that addresses some of the questions above and in the archive: What is editor retention really about? Let me offer a different perspective, a different way of looking at how I see editor retention in general. WER isn't the only effort to retain editors, although we are arguably the most visible project doing that work. There are many other valid analogies, this is just one of many....

WER is a group of farmers. Like all farmers, it isn't a binary job, but rather one in which you do good work and you will get good results. Put a little more effort into it, and you will get better results, etc. Our first focus is on the soil, the medium in which our crop grows.

We try to give Wikipedia better soil, a better environment, so that good things will grow from it. We do this by encouraging policies that help new users, and ones that make it possible for blocked users to come back if we reasonably believe they will be an asset. We improve the soil by helping out in dispute and content resolution, by welcoming new users, and taking the time to help someone. It all starts with the soil, the foundation, the overall environment at Wikipedia. The more people you have working the soil, the better that soil is likely to be.

Editor of the Week and other programs like the T-shirt giveaway (which isn't WER but does the same function) is like fertilizer. it takes existing editors and makes them stronger, more vigorous. This has additional benefits, we have learned, in that it helps us identify new leaders, as we have several admin come from the program.

The crop is articles; the primary product that Wikipedia produces, and the only reason it exists.

Reading is the harvest. The beautiful part is that the crop is infinite. It is literally like an apple tree that never runs out of fruit. Once we have retained excellent editors, and they produce well written and sourced prose, it is available to be enjoyed by 1 person or 100 million. The most important Wikipedian IS the reader, and they reap the greatest reward from a competent editor retention program. Keeping high value talent here means better accuracy and sourcing, more readable prose, all on a well maintained page.

While it is easy to think about the individual editors we try to assist so they can be happy, productive members of Wikipedia, it is important to remember that all our work here at WER, just like all the editing, admin'ing, coding and even the people running payroll at the Foundation, is all about and for the reader.

Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your insights, Dennis Brown. Indeed, the WP:READER is of paramount importance to Wikipedia, and should always included when considering matters. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Personally I see the article as yet another tool of the Wikipedia "Farmer" and the crop we are growing is the free flow of information, but I like the analogy.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Bullshit

I made it half way though your section on "Reasons editors leave" and then I knew this was all bullshit.

The reasons editors leave is because of trolls. Trolls, in this context, are editors willing to argue for the sake of argument, but not for another goal, such as, maybe, improving the encyclopedia. The troll is the predominant species here. And as long as you fail to recognize and admit it, your efforts will fail. These editors exist from the newbie level all the way up though admin to the arbcom level. They are trolls. And I don't want to hear it anymore.

My ears are too old.

I'm the number one wikisloth having set a record of a wikibreak of 61 months (it could be broken, but, still).

If I make 19 good edits, and 1 bad, in one single save, I will be reverted, having wasted hours of my time at 1RR. But there is nothing to argue, BRD-wise at the Talk page, my one bad edit was bad, and the 19 good edits were good and lost. I'm not going 2RR, that's just it. The troll wins. The troll knew they would win. There is nothing to argue. They got me 1 out of 19. I'm dead. Nany nany boo boo.

If I ask you to justify a maintenance tag, then I am asked to put it back without justification. Bullshit.

This isn't Wikipedia. This is Wiki-maintentance-tag-mania. I have no way, because it is not discussed, nor required to be discussed, how the hell to get rid of of the maintenance tags. Yes, "The banana is yellow".^{[citation needed]} Give me a break.

No, the policies favor the trolls here. They do not have to justify the defacement of the article, but if we want to fix it, we do. Fuck off, get a policy, get a wiki that does not include the trolls, it's not that freakin hard, I did it. Is it this wiki? I hardly believe so. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 07:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

As an admin (currently without the admin bit by choice), I often find it frustrating to see someone that I knew we simply need to block, but if I block, it will be met by a barrage of questions and "admin abuse" claims, by people who fancy themselves as retaining editors, when in fact they are simply being contrarian. Editor retention isn't about saving every editor, it is about providing the best environment for those editors that want to create and improve articles. Most of the people on this page understand that, but sometimes I think many editors on the whole are more interested in the politics of the place instead of the articles. Sometimes, it is indistinguishable from trolling to me as well. It helps if you are very well versed in policy here, it makes it easier to argue against some editors, but most editors don't want to become policy experts nor waste time arguing what should be obvious, so I understand the frustration. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem you're experiencing with Wikipedia is that it's got a far wider demographic, both due to its design and the passage of technology over time. Back in the "good old days" (I'm a veteran of Monochrome BBS from 20 years ago - haven't been on for years, I can't believe it's still running!) BBSes had a particular community with a house point of view and the unwritten rule that "the sysop is always right". A good sysop would leave the community be, but if the community were bothered by one user, chances are they'd be kicked off. You just don't get that on Wikipedia because nobody's really in charge and the demographic is so much wider. Since no one person can dictate policy by fiat, decisions gravitate to whoever has the most time on their hands. And since the most annoying trolls also have lots of time to spare on the internet ... well you can guess the rest. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Good analogy. I started with BBSes in the late 80s, and ran a three line BBS for years in the early 90s. The hierarchy is very different. It was easier to kick troublemakers just on a whim, something we simply can't do here, even if it is clearly in the best interest of the encyclopedia. Right or wrong, there are a lot of hoops you have to jump through when you are an admin here. Most of the time, that is a good thing, but not always. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The cultural demographics have also changed. Even as late as 1995, the internet was the domain of the young and geeks - you wouldn't get too many people above 30 turning up - and systemic bias would be more apparent, if such a thing was even considered desirable. As the article on Monochrome says, a "spod" from the UK marrying a "spod" from the US in 1996 was significant enough to be on television and broadsheet news. 20 years later, I'm British and in a relationship with an American I met (albeit indirectly) on the internet - nothing odd at all. Man, I feel nostalgic talking about mono, spending an entire weekend away in some town drinking more real ale than I knew what to do with. Did you know .... in 1996, you could get a bottle of Newcastle Brown Ale for £1.30 in The Mission Nightclub in Edinburgh? Bargain! Sorry, that doesn't mean anything to anyone who wasn't there. I'll shut up now.... Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Although I agree that there is some trolling, I do not see that as the problem the submitter does. To me the problem that dives more editors off than anything else are unwarranted administrative actions. That isn't to say they are all abusive, but often they are unnecessary. For example, blocking IP's that have never edited, excessive length blocks or minor or made up infractions, baiting editors into blockable situations, assumptions of bad faith or lack of patience with newby's, etc. There are some problematic editors as well, but all they can do is annoy, admins can block or threaten to block and that can cause longterm morale problems by making editors and readers frustrated, confused and even just pissed off. The Arbcom only recently desysopped on admin for poor decisions but its exceptionally rare and its still too hard and too much of a novelty for admins to be even questioned about bad decisions. Now, most admins and most admins decisions are just fine. But when the same half dozen continually make mistakes and they are high output blockers, it tends to make people lose faith in this project when everyone just turns a blind eye to obvious problematic actions. 96.255.237.170 (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't dispute that we have blocked millions too many IPs, but there are several reasons under current policy why an IP can be blocked without ever editing. Most blocks are hard blocks, if you have been hard blocked then the next time you log in your IP is automatically blocked. We block Tor and other open proxies, and I think we do this using lists of open proxies, and sometimes we need to do range blocks, blocking a whole range of IPs to deal with a persistent vandal whose IP keeps changing. Some of those things could be done better with less collateral damage, but other parts are necessary. Ϣere SpielChequers 08:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I understand that some people don't want to register an account - I'm not interested in registering for Twitter, I run full speed away from software downloads that require me to give an email or any other information, and I dislike clicking "I agree" for licensing agreements. I get it. However, if it means you are technically indistinguishable from a relentless vandal, there's not much that can be done other than creating an account or putting up with it. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Retirement of User:Catflap08

It should be unnecessary for me to intervene and close or collapse threads, we are all supposed to be adults. WER isn't an admin board, it isn't a dispute resolution board, and my patience isn't what it used to be, thus my threshold to block someone is getting lower. That is the last time this crap will be tolerated, and I would ask any admin to simply use the block tool as needed. This is ridiculous coming from adults. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I regret to say that the above editor has made it known today that he is leaving the project, and has pointed out some serious problems we have regarding contentious recent topics which have devout supporters and detractors, specifically, the sometimes poor coverage in English or generally in academic journals, and also the sometimes extremely problematic behavior of individual editors regarding those topics. Honestly, I think the most effective way to proceed for cases like this one and others is to try to find some way to bring more uninvolved editors to help decide the matters reasonably, but be damned if I can figure out how to do that. Any ideas? John Carter (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Editor Catflap08 is a recipient of the Eddy Award. He is a quality editor that is a bit frustrated with Wikipedia at the present. Let's hope he revives his spirit and returns. . Buster Seven Talk 00:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@ user:Buster7, user: John Carter I have decided to retire from editing in Wikipedia as to my mind it has become increasingly dysfunctional. I cleared my talk and user page yesterday. Even though de. Wikipedia, which to my mind is due to its editing policy, runs much smoother, I have decided to stop editing there too. All rules and regulations are useless if the quality and correctness of information on display is no more the prime objective. The ignorant clique like behaviour of some individuals, and I have to say also by some admins, does not help matters either. The areas in which I edited and specialised in are for most parts on the fringe of Japanese Buddhism / Politics / Architecture. Being an academic I am well familiar with research methods and describing facts, lately though (over the past few years) I have noticed that articles that under normal circumstances attract not a high amount of attention can serve as a soapbox and means to advertise personal opinions and views. None of us run around with a halo, but finally being personally attacked and even my nationality ridiculed is a sign for me to leave – this is not what I want my spare time to be used on. The knowledge and expertise I have gathered, also by contributing to Wikipedia, is still there and might be of better use in more serious projects. So thanks to all those who displayed the ability to edit and work together in an amicable productive and most of all respectful manner. I might keep an eye on one or the other article – no idea if I can be bothered to edit them though.--Catflap08 (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Sad news indeed. Quality editors such as yourself are the heart-blood of WP editing. I regret that you feel forced to leave a place you love. Any artist will tell you, "We give our critics too much of our time and our mind. We should just nod at them and move on. We don't need to be loved by everyone. We turn away from the LOVE that surrounds us and pay attention to the UN-Love and it gains power over us and we abandon the thing we love. I respect your decision and will continue to hope for your return. . Buster Seven Talk 13:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I myself, perhaps irrationality, continue to have some sort of hope for a "content committee," rather than just an arbitration committee, being established, which can deal with matters of content, which I believe is probably the main problem which led to Catflap's recent decision. Having said that, I myself have experienced similar doubts and sometimes disgust at how POV pushers, particularly those of a cliquish nature, can continue to keep our content unenyclopedic by their abuse of consensus. And I will also, to the limited degree I as a single individual can, make it easier for editors who might be able to basically function as a "content committee" to help enforce NPOV, even if all that means is being able to make it easier for them to find relevant recent and not-so-recent reference works. Otherwise, I wish @Catflap08: the best of luck with his future endeavors, whatever they may be, and suggest, if he so wants, not knowing the exact nature of his status as an academic, if he would be motivated in the interim to perhaps spend the time he might spend here working for publishing some material relevant to the contentious topics with which he has dealt here, I for one would love to see such publications. John Carter (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Inevitably something fundamental will change (if only because something fundamental always changes with everything eventually): it could be an editorial board or a binding mediation process to rule on content disputes, or the advocacy editors will outnumber the others and shift policies to their liking, which might trigger the WMF to become more selective about anonymous editing, or something else. Whatever does happen, there will be a shift in the editing population, one way or another. isaacl (talk) 00:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

This thread is bs. Catflap appears to have left Wikipedia because he was frustrated in his attempts to post unbalanced OR on the Kenji Miyazawa and Kokuchukai articles by me and every other user involved, and his attempts to post OR and distortions of sources (nothing to do with NPOV) on the Daisaku Ikeda article. He engaged in several extensive edit wars on these and presumably other articles, and was either unable or unwilling to use article talk pages. Whenever he got the chance he posted on AN and ANI looking to get his content dispute opponents banned or blocked for the minorest of conduct infractions. I have not seen a seriously positive edit on his part, as every article edit he ever made was either a misinterpretation or a deliberate misrepresentation of what he claimed were his sources. I find it ironic that John Carter's recent behaviour has been devoted mainly to fighting with Ret.Prof for this same behaviour, or lambasting me for doing the same. Catflap's constant disruption will not be missed, although it may be a while before it can finally be cleaned up. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

What is bs is up to the observer. A study of your edit history including IP edits speaks for itself. Placing attacks and striking them afterwards is a sad state of affairs and reoccurring pattern. This includes the history of your talk page (visible and invisible) and sandbox (visible and invisible). Taking into account that my decision to retire was discussed here without even mentioning your name in the thread is amongst other cases a sign for WP:HOUND … some would describe all this using terms more blunt. Since calling others names like “jackass” and “jerk” seems not to be considered an insult anymore it is for “jerks” and “jackasses” that I consider editing in Wikipedia to be a growingly tedious task. So be rest assured that amongst all the “jerks” and “jackasses” I have come across through the years, the latest incidents, amongst others, were just the final straw. As stated before I do completely understand people who consider en.Wikipedia not to be a reliable source of information at all anymore. If Wikipedia, that is en.Wikipedia, is unwilling to change the current editing policy to allow registered and approved editors only to conduct and clear edits we are facing a problem. So if matters won’t change I fear that en.Wikipedia is left to be a playground (or Kindergarden) for advocates and, concerning the issues I dealt most with, for sectarians and revisionists. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I would only add that so far as I can tell Hijiri has rarely if ever shown any visible interest in this project, and his adding a comment to the effect of the kind he made above to a page which he has, rather clearly, rarely if ever taken part in, might be seen not unreasonably as WP:STALKING in addition to the sort of generally unacceptable hyperbole which he has a regretable tendency to engage in with virtually anyone who ever disagrees with him. I regret to say that if I personally had a choice between keeping Catflap and Hijiri as active editors, I would have no reservations whatsoever in the very quick choice I would make. John Carter (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that even if John Carter's very broad generalization of my 10-year edit history was accurate (it isn't), it would still be completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Whether or not I have made a worthwhile contribution to the project (I have) doesn't have any significance for the question of whether the project has lost a valuable asset or relieved itself of an unnecessary burden with Catflap's retirement. Catflap's above assertion that my posting here is "hounding" is flawed, given that the thread was started by John Carter and not two weeks ago the latter started an ANI thread requesting I be sanctioned for "hounding" Catflap into then-semi-retirement. I did not hound Catflap off Wikipedia: he left of his own accord because he was tired of 80% of his article edits being reverted as non-neutral, OR and/or misrepresentation sources, and 90% of editors interacting with him on talk pages and project pages agreeing his edits were problematic. (The latest editor to join this chorus was actually not me but User:Snow Rise, on the Kokuchukai talk page, immediately before Catflap announced his retirement.) The rest of the community can review these if they so-choose, but John Carter's attempt to post a one-sided "obituary" for Catflap here, after the latter caused so much trouble for so many users on so many pages, is not helpful. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure just what "chorus" I am meant to have joined here, but my comments on Talk:Kokuchūkai were mostly concerned with the narrow content issues and the fumbling approach of both parties with regard to the RfC process. I can't see how they could reasonably be construed as an observation that Catflap's edits are overwhelming problematic, or even that they are supportive of the notion that he was the more problematic editor in that discussion.

I did note that Catflap and Hijiri both had failed to observe WP:C and WP:AGF as strongly as they might have in their dispute (a look at that talk page will quickly illustrate why for any interested parties). But other than that, nearly the entirety of my two postings on that page (the full extent of my comments upon the matter) are concerned with the content issue itself, and in that regard I found myself overwhelmingly in agreement with Catflap's perspective, and felt that Hijiri was insisting on a standard of neutrality that does not reflect policy or community consensus on the matter. After my comments there (I was brought there via the RfC), Hijiri did implement what seems to me to be a reasonable compromise, which Catflap did not seem to object to, but it's worth noting that the approach settled upon is more or less the standard Wikipedia approach to the situation in question and the one that should have been adopted from the start.

Look, I really don't have nearly a substantial enough understanding of the larger dispute between these two editors to reflect upon who is ultimately the more obstinate and problematic editor, nor was my involvement in the RfC in any way concerned with that issue. But in responding to said RfC and following the attached conflict back some, I did take note of a few discussions (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive876#User:Catflap08, Talk:Daisaku Ikeda, User talk:SilkTork#Catflap's still at it) which, if I'm pressed for an opinion, seem to suggest that A) this feud has been going on for some time now and B) both parties seem to have at times engaged in idiosyncratic approaches to policy that do not fully conform to community consensus and have then been more than willing to overly-personalize the resulting arguments. I'll further note that, just a week ago, it seems that the last administrator to be involved in the issue (SilkTork -- and Silk, my apologies for the obligatory ping from linking to the discussion on your talk page) advised the following:

"I'd like to look at your contributions history in a week's time and see some positive work on building the encyclopedia or in helping out the project, and not to see you trawling through talkpages talking about personal conflicts. That simply stirs up trouble and wastes people's time as you and they and others then have to deal with the consequences."

Under any circumstances I would share the perspective of others here that Hijiri's presence in this discussion is hard to interpret as appropriate and good-faith -- and in context of Silk having provided Hijiri this particular piece of advice, it seems like perhaps Hijiri would benefit from refreshing himself on WP:IDHT, a policy which it seems he has several times cited with regard to Catflap. Catflap has decided to retire from the project; if Hijiri's perspective and main concern is that Catflap is a problem editor, then it would seem he could ask for no better outcome here than the one Catflap is voluntarily opting for, so I can't see the benefit in continuing to engage over this matter.

Regardless, any suggestion that I've joined a list of people who are making concerted and substantial observations that Catflap is a problem editor are, at best, a wishful misinterpretation by an editor with a powerful confirmation bias on this matter or, at worst, a willful misrepresentation of the extent and nature of my perspectives on the editor in question. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: and @Buster7:, please remove some of the comments here if you see fit, but do not delete them because I have a feeling I may try to get some attention to this matter. I would also welcome your input regarding whether you believe the conduct here might merit some outside attention, possibly at ANI or RFAR. John Carter (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I must say the behaviour of the Hijiri person leaves me flabbergasted. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

As you well know John WER is a site that prides itself on not being to quick on the "You can't say that" trigger. So, I'm gonna leave it up to Dennis. Of course, I do not condone the name-calling one bit and could easily remove it without any concern for what anyone might say. But, let's here what Dennis has to input.. Buster Seven Talk 19:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I would like to support John’s plea for this thread to stay visible for a while. The terms “jerk” and “jackass” are not my usual vocabulary – not here nor in life. I used the terms as I was named that way by a user – hence me quoting them. This went unchecked though – which I find to be disturbing. In a last effort I will consider taking some action to end what this thread sadly is a testimony of. In the course of all this I received messages and e-mails which do seem to indicate that the somewhat uncivil behaviour by a certain user has a long history. We all know that we run into conflicts on issues we care about, but this all goes a wee bit too far. It all indicates towards a reoccurring pattern and simply striking personal attacks is just no good anymore. Over all though the project does need to be reassessed in many ways – the number of editors is going down just as well as the number of admins. I’d hate Wikipedia to support pubertal behaviour. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

@Buster7: The only name-calling that has taken place here is Catflap insisting that because User:JzG, an unpingable IP user and I called him a "jackass" over a month ago we ourselves must be "jackasses". I highly doubt Catflap's name-calling is what is being referred to in JC's proposal. JC and Catflap want my comments to the effect that JC's posting here is a bad-faith attempt to bring back a user who has caused this project nothing but trouble.

@Snow Rise: Sorry for my ambivalent wording. I could have pinged any one of the dozens of users who disagreed with Catflap's edits in the past few months (seriously: John Carter is the only one who has agreed with him, it seems), and picked you because you were the most recent and si seemed to be "the last straw" so to speak. Your comments on the Kokuchukai talk page appear to be what convinced Catflap that he would never get his way on that or other articles. It might just have easily been my article overhaul, though. But no one could seriously claim that Catflap's final retirement was a result of personal attacks or other users engaged in problematic article edits when literally no one has been defending his edits and no one made anything approximating a personal attack in the preceding three days.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Why do you need to speculate on his reasons for leaving under any circumstances? People retire from the project constantly and I often find the reasons they post explaining the decision to be melodramatic or otherwise suggestive of the possibility that their own approach was a big part of why their involvement in the project was so laden with drama, but I don't feel the need to point it out. No one here made an accusation against you in particular, nor referenced you, nor even specifically referenced a discussion you were involved with, so why does it seem necessary to you (or even appropriate) to show up here and begin questioning the manner in which his departure is being taken? You say that virtually everyone he edits with has problems with him, but I've only seen evidence of this protracted contest between you two (which is very much a two-way street) and the editors who were commenting here seem to think his departure is a loss for the project.

Maybe Catflap has legitimate gripes and observations or maybe his claims of systemic problems are mostly hyperbole and rationalization -- and maybe everyone here who supports him would only be wasting their time on similar hyperbole -- but even if the latter is the case, it's their time to waste. And regardless, your coming her to nitpick another user's rationale for leaving the project is clearly not producing anything for the project but additional animosity and is very much directly in the opposite direction of the advice you've been getting from an administrator on avoiding unnecessary interaction with a person you clearly conceptualize as an opponent. Frankly, I'd count yourself lucky that Catflap has decided to retire, because given your apparent inability to back of from the issues you have with him (and in particular how little you've internalized and adhered to the directions of an admin on this matter), you'd probably have ultimately been headed for an IBAN or TBAN otherwise. Catflap is retiring and any issues (real or imagined) that you might think he represents for the project will therefore not be of concern. So why are you getting in the way of that process just to make a point? Snow ^{let's rap} 03:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

All right kids...why don't you all just have a seat over in the green room...down the hall, third door to the right. Uncle Dennis will be here soon. I think he is still at the April Fools Day Party above. I think you should all know that this is not considered a Conflict Resolution page. And no more name calling or your asses WILL get jacked! . Buster Seven Talk 04:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused, Buster, is this meant to be in response to my comments? It was initially posted before my above post, it has been jumping around since and it doesn't seem to be directed in response to my comments, which are neutral with regard to the dispute between these two.Snow ^{let's rap} 04:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. No it was not meant as a response to you. When I did a read after saving I noticed that the time stamp indicated my edit came after yours so I assumed I had placed it into the thread incorrectly (as to time) and so I fixed it. . Buster Seven Talk 04:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see, gotcha! Snow ^{let's rap} 04:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

People come, people go, people take Wikibreaks, people retire one account and return with another. Thus has it always been. I hope Catflap will be back but individual users deciding to LANCB has never been a reason to change much about anything. Guy (Help!) 07:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I think some things need to be cleared up here so most of this post is not aimed at any one user in particular.

Given the not-so-subtle references to me in both John Carter's opening comment in this thread ("contentious recent topics which have devout supporters and detractors", "extremely problematic behavior of individual editors regarding those topics") and Catflap's first comment ("The ignorant clique like behaviour of some individuals", "even my nationality ridiculed"), both before I first decided to post here, I find the repeated assertions that I shouldn't be allowed defend myself, or that I followed either Catflap or John Carter here, and that my defenses should be removed, somewhat disturbing. The last quote by Catflap is an outright lie that he has repeated numerous times over the last few weeks (the original "racist" comment is here -- check the following string of comments). Even if John Carter is not directly requesting sanctions on me this time, he very clearly asked for "more uninvolved editors" to continue pushing Catflap's POV on the pages he has been editing recently. The fact is that more uninvolved editors have already spoken on those pages, and that is precisely why Catflap08 retired, by his own admission. Why was this thread even started? It is, as I said first, bs.

@Snow Rise: Your quoting SilkTork's advice to me is noted, but you and I seem to have interpreted it differently. John Carter commented several times that I was not active enough in contributing content -- something he has repeated above -- to be allowed criticize others (the very much false implication being that I am only interested in getting in fights, not in building an encyclopedia). SilkTork agreed that I should contribute more content. S o I d i d s o. You have already commented positively on one of these articles. Now, I don't like prolific content producers saying that I can't defend my more limited edits from people trying to push OR on those articles (it happens often), but when in the past week I've contributed more in terms of article content than either John Carter or Catflap have in an entire year, I think such accusations should most certainly not go unquestioned. As for Catflap08 retiring: if this time it is true, then the better for Wikipedia. If it's yet another stunt like last time, then I'd like to see John Carter stop posting bogus accusations against me and the other 90% of users who have interacted with Catflap every time something like this happens.

Propose closing I would like to see this whole thread closed, given that it's not going to do the community any good to continue going on, and on, and on about these issues. If Catflap is really gone this time, then we can see if anyone else thinks his edits to the relevant articles were any good and they can continue arguing his points. If not, then so be it.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC) Edited 11:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC).

Note: It is Common Practice on this page to allow threads to remain until they are archived. This, of course, dose not include any detrimental behavior or edits. . Buster Seven Talk 15:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

What needs to be cleared up, I regret to say, is your unfailing insistence on denigrating others with virtually every comment you make, as in this edit summary. This regular attempt at "one-upsmanship" through putting others down is a rather obviously transparent stunt, and raises serious questions regarding whether you are capable of interacting in a productive way with virtually anyone. I welcome Dennis' input, as a sitting administrator, whether this regular name-calling and insulting of others, which I believe is rather obviously demonstrated by Hijiri's recent history of editing, is perhaps worthy of being taken to the Arbitration Committee for perhaps requesting of i-bans, and, maybe, asking for the institution of some sort of temporary, quick, i-bans in the future in the event the editor in question continues to engage in insults. And, by the way, I notice the obviously quick expiration of any sort of "peace offering" which the above comment almost exclusively on others demonstrates. Frankly, to my eyes, the comments of Hijiri here are "just another stunt" in his rather obvious insistence that he and his actions cannot be questioned without regular and long-term insults at the people who do so. And, regarding the obvious, rather obnoxious, insult in Hijiri's already linked to edit summary, I do think putting together two encyclopedic sources over at wikisource, including wikisource:Index:A dictionary of the Book of Mormon.pdf, and wikisource:Index:Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature (1911).djvu, as well as wikisource:Index:The Cambridge History of American Literature, v1.djvu, in addition to pretty much all the content of the Bibliography of encyclopedias articles he obviously denigrated, is probably worthwhile and useful, even if he obviously attempted to use it as yet another of his rather ongoing insults at anyone who ever disagrees with him. John Carter (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. Reoccurring patterns must say. Who is User:JzG ??? @ Hijiri 88 It is up to me if I decide to come out of retirement and so far I have not edited any articles. You seem to ignore it’s your language that causes the problem … and you continue doing so. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter: I'm sorry, but I was getting pretty tired of virtually every comment from you being to the effect that "this user never contributes to the encyclopedia". After the fifth or sixth time I decided to look into it: despite having about 30 times as many edits to the encyclopedia as I do, your article edits are about three times mine. And you have only edited one article in the past two years, instead hanging around ANI and the like to harangue other users. So you're in a giant glass house on the matter of "contributing to the encyclopedia". Stop talking about how I never contribute, and stop trying undermine my contributions, and I will stop responding in kind (though in a much less harsh manner).

@Catflap08: If my language is what causes problems, then why can you not come up with a single instance of my language causing problems in the first eight months of my dispute with you? My dispute with you was not caused by my language; my language was a direct result of your haranguing me for months. Admit it: I did not use any "foul language" at all between June and February. You immediately posted on ANI just for reverting you on the Kenji article. (I know it's not really ANI, but you clearly don't know the difference between AN and ANI, or it's possible as one user speculated that you posted there deliberately so I would be unable to defend myself: not so dissimilar to what you and Johnshu Cartsori are trying to do now.) You outright refused to use the talk page to discuss with me. You inserted your own POV into the article constantly, even after your own RFC told you you were wrong. I asked for you to be TBANned for this disruptive behaviour, and User:Dennis Brown said that while your behaviour was definitely disruptive, a TBAN was not necessary yet because you already needed consensus to be on your side to continuing pushing that edit on the article. You came back a few months later and continued the same POV-pushing, you were opposed by me and User:Dekimasu, so you started another RFC because you were still unwilling to use the talk page to discuss with me. I then went to ANI and asked that you be TBANned again because it seemed very much like it had elevated to the level where Dennis Brown would have changed his stance. You continued to openly lie on the ANI thread, pretending for about the seventh time that you had not used the word "nationalist" on the talk page with reference to your then-current proposed edit. I called you a "jackass" for this constant IDHT behaviour. You have been going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and and on and on and on about this single, very brief instance of "foul language" for the past month, as though there had been no context to my using this word.

Tell me this is not how things went down. Just try it. Go on. Give the people your version of events.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Catflap08: Also, JzG is, as I said when I pinged him, the other user who directly called you a "jackass". Several other users said other things to similar effect, but JzG is the one who said that I was justified in calling you a "jackass" because you were behaving like one. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Hijiri, I'm going to ask Catflap not to give his version of events and I'm going to ask you, again, to stop giving yours. This is not even remotely an appropriate forum for you to air your grievances at length. You've already taken these issues to ANI last month and then requested yourself that the discussion be closed. The last admin to engage the both of you on these matters has very explicitly asked you not to search out further opportunities to re-ignite these issues through various discussion spaces, which seems to be exactly what you are doing here; the exact word he used was "trawling" and given that no one here mentioned your name or even so much as directly referenced any discussion you were involved with, interjecting yourself here to discuss Catflap and his reasons for leaving the project certainly seem consistent with said admin's interpretation of your inability to not actively prolong this feud. In trying to get a better grip on that contest of wills, I just finished reading every word of the lengthy ANI linked above and reviewing yet more of the related discussions. I do see some indication from other editors there that Catlfap has occasionally engaged in tendentious practices--I needed to hear that from other parties because, quite honestly, I couldn't take it on faith from you, having seen you misrepresent the positions of others here, myself included--but none of that makes your current involvement here useful or appropriate.

I repeat, this space is specifically reserved for the narrow purpose of discussing means of editor retention, not to discuss content disputes and personal conflicts between editors. If you feel there is an ongoing behavioural or procedural issue that requires community attention, then please take it to the appropriate forum or to an administrator. But please leave this space in peace unless you intend to discuss the topic of editor retention. I'd likewise like to ask Catflap and John Carter not to respond further to the claims you've made in your most recent post. Everyone has said more than their piece and, at this point, neither side is likely to convince the other that they were the "true" aggressors/party whose approach was inconsistent with policy, so this line of discussion can only constitute disruption, which is doing the project (and this space in particular) no good. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, given Buster7's recent notification on Dennis Brown's talk page, it seems he has made the good-faith mistake of concluding that John Carter, Catflap08 and I are hashing out a content dispute, and that I (we?) don't understand the normal purpose of this page. The content dispute in question was on this article, and is already resolved. My reason for posting here is that John Carter and Catflap08 posted personal attacks against me here and I want said attacks stricken. I will withdraw once said attacks are withdrawn, and set ER back to doing what ER usually does. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Hijiri, but neither WP:TPG nor any other policy is conditional on your getting the specific apology you think you are due from any of the involved parties. This is not the place for this discussion, period. Further, you've been asked by an admin to disengage from one of said parties and at this point it is hard to construe your activities as anything but WP:hounding. Frankly, I've only hesitated as long as I have to inform said admin of this nonsense because he is clearly exhausted with trying to wrangle you on this issue and I thought I A) try to avoid imposing this drama upon him again and B) protect you from earning yourself a block (seriously, look at the edit summary for that post and then read his comments very carefully). But frankly, at this point, I'm done trying to defuse this situation if you're not willing to let well-enough alone and quite while you are ahead. Snow ^{let's rap} 17:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Close

This has evolved into a discussion over editor conduct in a content dispute. Recommend it be closed & archived. GoodDay (talk) 13:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is altogether appropriate. First, the opening topic raised here is good-faith one with merit (even if I doubt any major community solutions are going to result from this small thread). The fact that someone has injected a personal dispute into shouldn't be cause to shut-down a meaningful discussion. If that were a standard approach on the project, it would be leveraged to that effect anytime someone wanted to put an end to a given line of discussion or wanted to stimy another editor's efforts. Indeed, in this case, because Hijiri has already tried to force the issue of having the discussion closed, I fear this will, consciously or otherwise, embolden these hassling tactics and he will simply follow these parties to the next venue and find an excuse to insist they are bad-mouthing him there (whether he was in any way mentioned or not -- note that he wasn't here, before he showed up) and start the whole process over again. Buster's worthwhile thread should not be closed just because Hijiri can't let this (very separate) issue go, even in the fact of any administrative warning to do so.

Just my two cents, anyway. I'm not particularly attached to this headache of a thread, I just think closing it in this context would be bad on principle. But if Buster himself made the request and was giving up on making any headway in his discussion amidst this acrimony, I'd feel better about it. Snow ^{let's rap} 17:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The issue of what to do in cases such as this has come up more and more. It's a quandary. In one sense WER clerks have nurtured a sense of tolerance toward "off into the cornfield" type discussions and I, for one, don't like to stop brainstorming. But, in an other sense, there comes a point where brainstorming becomes brain-numbing. I think we have reached that point. Since I'm not sure what the best procedure is (best as to what is best for the WER project, its members, and its history of tolerance). Hatting? Archiving? I'll let one of the other clerks, maybe John since he actually started the thread, decide the best course forward. . Buster Seven Talk 18:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@ User:GoodDay, User:Snow Rise, User: Buster7 In many ways I support your line of thought. On the other had I do not want this thread , and WikiProject, to be used to carry on a somewhat useless discussion, which in my books has some highly irrational elements, it is like beating a dead horse. An alternative might be to keep the thread visible for at least a wee while (ten days or so) – I’d very much appreciate that. I will change to semi-retirement for the time being as engaging in discussions like this and keeping up the retirement is a bit absurd. I received quite a number of supportive messages especially in respect to a certain group of articles that I usually keep an eye on. I will take it from there. Instead of going into a huff it might be better to at least make some proposals to improve certain protocols. For the current debate my talk page can still be used (if it pops up again) and I never the less would like to thank those who gave their opinion in a constructive manner.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

In order to close matters I have decide to ask for an i-ban between me and the user in question on Arbcom.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Woops, my bad, misread and thought Buster had opened the discussion. That fact not withstanding, as every single other involved editor has voiced a preference for halting this discussion in the interest of avoiding further disruption, it would seem it would be the best course of action after-all. I'll close it myself, but any other party should feel free to reverse said closure. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editor of the Week, April 12, 2015

If you know Editor Kiki or have worked with her, take a minute and stop by her talk page to offer Congrats! Editor retention happens one editor at a time! . . Buster Seven Talk 00:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Add a new nomination now!
Criteria for Editor of the Week

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 3

Greetings! For this month's issue...

We have demos!

After a lengthy research and design process, we decided for WikiProject X to focus on two things:

A WikiProject workflow that focuses on action items: discussions you can participate in and tasks you can perform to improve the encyclopedia; and
An automatically updating WikiProject directory that gives you lists of users participating in the WikiProject and editing in that subject area.

We have a live demonstration of the new WikiProject workflow at WikiProject Women in Technology, a brand new WikiProject that was set up as an adjunct to a related edit-a-thon in Washington, DC. The goal is to surface action items for editors, and we intend on doing that through automatically updated working lists. We are looking into using SuggestBot to generate lists of outstanding tasks, and we are looking into additional options for automatic worklist generation. This takes the burden off of WikiProject editors to generate these worklists, though there is also a "requests" section for Wikipedians to make individual requests. (As of writing, these automated lists are not yet live, so you will see a blank space under "edit articles" on the demo WikiProject. Sorry about that!) I invite you to check out the WikiProject and leave feedback on WikiProject X's talk page.

Once the demo is sufficiently developed, we will be working on a limited deployment on our pilot WikiProjects. We have selected five for the first round of testing based on the highest potential for impact and will scale up from there.

While a re-designed WikiProject experience is much needed, that alone isn't enough. A WikiProject isn't any good if people have no way of discovering it. This is why we are also developing an automatically updated WikiProject directory. This directory will surface project-related metrics, including a count of active WikiProject participants and of active editors in that project's subject area. The purpose of these metrics is to highlight how active the WikiProject is at the given point of time, but also to highlight that project's potential for success. The directory is not yet live but there is a demonstration featuring a sampling of WikiProjects.

Each directory entry will link to a WikiProject description page which automatically list the active WikiProject participants and subject-area article editors. This allows Wikipedians to find each other based on the areas they are interested in, and this information can be used to revive a WikiProject, start a new one, or even for some other purpose. These description pages are not online yet, but they will use this template, if you want to get a feel of what they will look like.

We need volunteers!

WikiProject X is a huge undertaking, and we need volunteers to support our efforts, including testers and coders. Check out our volunteer portal and see what you can do to help us!

As an aside...

Wouldn't it be cool if lists of requested articles could not only be integrated directly with WikiProjects, but also shared between WikiProjects? Well, we got the crazy idea of having experimental software feature Flow deployed (on a totally experimental basis) on the new Article Request Workshop, which seeks to be a place where editors can "workshop" article ideas before they get created. It uses Flow because Flow allows, essentially, section-level categorization, and in the future will allow "sections" (known as "topics" within Flow) to be included across different pages. What this means is that you have a recommendation for a new article tagged by multiple WikiProjects, allowing for the recommendation to appear on lists for each WikiProject. This will facilitate inter-WikiProject collaboration and will help to reduce duplicated work. The Article Request Workshop is not entirely ready yet due to some bugs with Flow, but we hope to integrate it into our pilot WikiProjects at some point.

Harej (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)