Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 29

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 27

→

This weeks EotW

Technical 13

A twenty-sided die (d20) as used in wargaming and roleplaying, most famously in Dungeons & Dragons.

Editor of the Week
for the week beginning April 26, 2015

Provides a calming professional voice behind-the-scenes on the technical side of Wikipedia which can be a hornets nest of contention.

Recognized for

a level of prestige and vigorous and eloquent participation

Nomination page

...is Editor Technical 13. Editor Retention happens one editor at a time and the "Q" of accepted editors is down to a precarious low of 3. Is there some editor that you have seen in action that surprises you, that makes you nod in agreement, that stimulates you to finish that unfinished article? Why not nominate them for Editor of the Week? It couldn't be any easier. Just click the banner below and support some one deserving with a pat on the back. They'll feel good...and so will you. . Buster Seven Talk 05:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Two nominations have been made but more are welcome. Thanks to User:John from Idegon. . Buster Seven Talk 13:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Just sticking my nose round the door

Just checking in to see what's going on because I saw an EoW announcement somewhere that caught my attention, it's been several months since I retired from WER closing the door behind me not too quietly after realising that I hadn't signed up on its creation to be part of what appears to have become, with the exception of its sub project, just another venue for trolling. Indeed, a flashback at recent archives shows that I wasn't wrong and I'm hardly surprised that apart from some routine announcements there have been no discussion for nearly two months. Obviously I haven't been missing much. At least we can be thankful that the AAB have given it a rest. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by. Yes, all is quiet...for whatever the reason might be. But isn't this a bit like bumping into an old girlfriend and saying, "I see you haven't been dating since we broke up!" . Buster Seven Talk 12:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Buffet is all laid out—editors are welcome to come in and have a sample. Does anyone have some ideas or proposals with which they plan to proceed, and are looking for some input? The only way to change the tenor of the conversation is to just do it! isaacl (talk) 13:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I keep meaning to come back and check in, but life keeps getting in the way. On Tuesday, I was crawling around the carpet in my suboptimal apartment, installing new speakers, and while sliding my knee, a hypodermic needle (embedded in the carpet somehow) jammed into the knee, under the kneecap, and broke off. Had to seal walk to the car then drive myself to the hospital. Surgery went well and the knee doesn't really hurt but everything else does, in part due to general anesthesia. I drove myself home a day later (they don't know that or they wouldn't have let me.) Always something, it seems. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Strange things happen when you try to convert a crack house into a bachelor pad. Hope all is well and your plans for renovating WER are still on the drawing board. . Buster Seven Talk 12:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

A note from some guy

I've been rather scarce since Jan 1 for personal reasons, although I have seen a lot of discussion here that was less than fruitful or just downright not helpful. Sometimes it is helpful to get back to basics:

Editor retention as a concept is fairly simple and unpolitical. It is about helping new users navigate the gauntlet of rules around here, helping experienced editors fight boredom by showing them new ways to help Wikipedia, and assisting very experienced editors who often get fed up. Let's face it, if you do good things around here, you will get in a fight or two along the way. It isn't our job to mediate or pick sides, but it is our job to encourage editors to get along, try new things, and keep the experience fresh. Lastly, we are here to insure that the concepts of editor retention are in the minds of everyone when they vote for various policies and programs, and that they keep these goals in mind. We don't have a singular vision of what is "best", we just have a singular goal.

We can't save everyone, and in fact we don't want to. Some people become more trouble than they are worth. Others are here for their own political agendas. Some people are simply not cut out to edit an unbiased encyclopedia. It isn't a statement on their character, it is simply a statement of fact. In those cases, we do not get involved because it is outside our scope. If they bring an argument here, anyone is welcome to close the discussion. I know we don't close discussions very often, but maybe we should a bit more often, then let consensus be our guide if there is an argument over a close; the same way we handle any close on any other page at Wikipedia.

The most important thing you will do as a member of WER will never be seen by me or anyone else here. It is the individual discussions, the emails, the note of encouragement, the barnstar you give. This has always been and will always be the most important function, individual attention by singular members acting of their own accord. WER isn't a good place to hang out if you wants lots of credit for doing good things, but it's a great place to hang out if you want to actually DO good things.

J.C. Watts is credited with one of my all time favorite quotes: "Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking.". What makes me proud of my association with WER isn't the flashy things, or the discussions on this page, it is knowing how many members are truly men and women of good character, quietly going around doing good things, without expecting recognition for it. If we all do that, and keep growing the ranks here, then we all can be confident that we are part of the solution.

Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 4

Newsletter • May/June 2015

Hello friends! We have been hard at work these past two months. For this report:

The directory is live!

For the first time, we are happy to bring you an exhaustive, comprehensive WikiProject Directory. This directory endeavors to list every single WikiProject on the English Wikipedia, including those that don't participate in article assessment. In constructing the broadest possible definition, we have come up with a list of approximately 2,600 WikiProjects. The directory tracks activity statistics on the WikiProject's pages, and, for where it's available, statistics on the number of articles tracked by the WikiProject and the number of editors active on those articles. Complementing the directory are description pages for each project, listing usernames of people active on the WikiProject pages and the articles in the WikiProject's scope. This will help Wikipedians interested in a subject find each other, whether to seek feedback on an article or to revive an old project. (There is an opt-out option.) We have also come up with listings of related WikiProjects, listing the ten most relevant WikiProjects based on what articles they have in common. We would like to promote WikiProjects as interconnected systems, rather than isolated silos.

A tremendous amount of work went into preparing this directory. WikiProjects do not consistently categorize their pages, meaning we had to develop our own index to match WikiProjects with the articles in their scope. We also had to make some adjustments to how WikiProjects were categorized; indeed, I personally have racked up a few hundred edits re-categorizing WikiProjects. There remains more work to be done to make the WikiProject directory truly useful. In the meantime, take a look and feel free to leave feedback at the WikiProject X talk page.

Stuff in the works!

What have we been working on?

A new design template—This has been in the works for a while, of course. But our goal is to design something that is useful and cleanly presented on all browsers and at all screen resolutions while working within the confines of what MediaWiki has to offer. Additionally, we are working on designs for the sub-components featured on the main project page.
A new WikiProject talk page banner in Lua—Work has begun on implementing the WikiProject banner in Lua. The goal is to create a banner template that can be usable by any WikiProject in lieu of having its own template. Work has slowed down for now to focus on higher priority items, but we are interested in your thoughts on how we could go about creating a more useful project banner. We have a draft module on Test Wikipedia, with a demonstration.
New discussion reports—We have over 4.8 million articles on the English Wikipedia, and almost as many talk pages as well. But what happens when someone posts on a talk page? What if no one is watching that talk page? We are currently testing out a system for an automatically-updating new discussions list, like RFC for WikiProjects. We currently have five test pages up for the WikiProjects on cannabis, cognitive science, evolutionary biology, and Ghana.
SuggestBot for WikiProjects—We have asked the maintainer of SuggestBot to make some minor adjustments to SuggestBot that will allow it to post regular reports to those WikiProjects that ask for them. Stay tuned!
Semi-automated article assessment—Using the new revision scoring service and another system currently under development, WikiProjects will be getting a new tool to facilitate the article assessment process by providing article quality/importance predictions for articles yet to be assessed. Aside from helping WikiProjects get through their backlogs, the goal is to help WikiProjects with collecting metrics and triaging their work. Semi-automation of this process will help achieve consistent results and keep the process running smoothly, as automation does on other parts of Wikipedia.

Want us to work on any other tools? Interested in volunteering? Leave a note on our talk page.

The WikiProject watchers report is back!

The database report which lists WikiProjects according to the number of watchers (i.e., people that have the project on their watchlist), is back! The report stopped being updated a year ago, following the deactivation of the Toolserver, but a replacement report has been generated.

Until next time, Harej (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week

DragonZero

Editor of the Week
for the week beginning July 19, 2015

Diligent work in the Category:WikiProject Anime and manga participants

Recognized for

bringing 8 articles to GA status, 3 to FL and for tireless improvements to numerous articles

Notable work(s)

In the Area of Anime and Manga

Nomination page

This weeks award went to Editor DragonZero, a fine example of the type of editor that goes well beyond normal editing tasks to provide assistance to fellow editors. Additional nominations will not be necessary for the time being. We have a comfortable backlog of accepted nominations that should take us into late-September. If you have someone in mind to nominate, feel free but with the knowledge that it will be a few months before they receive the award. Thanks to those that have nominated fellow editors over the past three years. Your choices have been exemplary. And thanks to those members that have taken the time to congratulate the awardee during "their week". The outpouring of genuine support can go a long way in retaining editors. It takes only a moment to congratulate and to thank, and the result is so rewarding. Dennis often speaks about individual attention by singular members. Editor Retention most often happens one editor at a time...person to person...editor to editor. Dozens of EotW recipients have stated that the Editor of the Week award and the supportive messages have given them pause to reflect on continuing what they love to do---edit Wikipedia. . Buster Seven Talk 12:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

A few examples:

The award has actually stayed my hand from complete withdrawal, since rather than a gesture of flattery, I took it as a reminder I had obligations to fellow-editors and to pages....
And thanks for doing your bit to encourage us old hands.
...feeling tired of Wikipedia, I cleared my watchlist. However - this award is an encouragement to keep my hand in so ... thanks again!
...you have just made a truly horrendous day become bright.......now I'll have to go and find a box of tissues because I think I'm going to cry (in the nicest way)...
Thank you so much. Very surprised I was and this at a time I nearly wanted to quit.

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.--Lucas559 (talk) 22:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Gadget850 retiring

See this announcement [1]. A sysop with well over 100k edits and 10 years of service to Wikipedia. He's literally retiring one day after his 10 year anniversary. Hate to see him go, and he doesn't give a specific reason, but sometimes people just need to move on. A note of thanks on his talk page might be appropriate. If you look at his user page archives, before it was redirected, you see a lot of barnstars for working on Boy Scouts and related articles. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

New Essay - Communication is required

I think this would fall under the WER banner, giving information to our quieter kin. I'm not sure if we have a talk page banner for it, I'm guessing we do, just haven't looked for it yet. Anyway, take a look. It can be linked by the full name, or WP:ENGAGE or WP:COMMUNICATE. The goal is to keep it very short, 5k if possible, and just provide the basic info on why you MUST communicate sometimes. This has been an issue with a number of editors lately, and historically. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: My 2¢. Indeed I, and others, been dealing with this issue on pages relating to Pakistani nuclear testing for 3 weeks! A lot of wp:IDHT. Edit warring, weird phraseology and grammar, absurd linking and massive over-linking. Barely any feedback from that editor, after weeks. I want editors to stay, but sometimes more time is spent reverting/fixing their edits and explaining the same issues to them over and over, than it is worth. See lengthy discussion re. a picture caption reverted about twice here.
(I strongly suspect this editor is a sock of a banned user) </ whinge>. 220 of ^Borg 07:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

- The purpose of the essay is for editors who are NOT socks, obviously. The essay is for the dozens or more editors that we have that literally will not use talk even ONE time. Ever. There are more of them than you might realize. And in India/Pakistani articles, there are a lot of socks, but this isn't the place to discuss them, as we are't an admin board. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

New editor that could use help

I normally don't single out individuals, but this is a worthwhile example Jack DeMattos is a newish editor, older and experienced guy, has actually done a tone of writing and researching, but is a bit thrown by our Manual of Style and writing for an encyclopedia. I found him at an ANI report, and went to his talk page (full of well meaning but not always helpful complaints) and started a discussion. If someone(s) here believe they can empathize and help him with some light duty mentoring, that would be great. As he has a lot of experience writing, this is exactly the kind of editor we want to retain, as once he gets the hang of our MOS and style, he will likely be a prolific contributor. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Co-op officially open, looking for mentors

After our pilot back in March and after making some tweaks to the space, the Co-op mentorship space is now officially open and we're looking for additional mentors. Our final report is still being reviewed by the WMF, but it is more or less done, and you are welcome to check it out. Here are some of our more prominent findings:

Editors who engaged with a mentor remained active longer, edited more articles, and made substantially more edits overall than editors who were not mentored.
Editors waited far less time for a mentor thanks to our matching system. Getting matched with an editor took less than five minutes, thanks to the use of HostBot. Waiting times for a mentor to actually contact an editor took less than a day, but was as low as an hour or two.
A minority of experienced editors sought out mentorship despite not receiving an invitation during our pilot. These editors may have gotten the most out of mentorship, as they interacted more frequently with their mentor and in more complex topics compared to newer editors.

Based on our results, the Co-op seems to be working in the right manner to provide editors the support they need to edit and stick around. But the Co-op will not work if we lack mentors. And while mentoring does require some time and effort, I think we are all aware of how important that time and effort can mean to an editor who is struggling or just has a few questions, whether they are new or not. If you're interested in becoming a mentor, please consider joining us. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

We're supposed to be a caring community

I've kept very true to my disappointment with ER and managed to stay away from it for a long time. However, now that Dennis is back in the chair and one or two trolls who used to be tolerated here have moved on, I might just pop in occasionally.

What actually brings me here is something else: has anyone given a thought what happened to Pesky? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference Tools

In my opinion, the most difficult thing in Wikipedia, and one of the barriers to editor retention, is the complicated formats for references, and the need to add them, typically manually. Is any thought being given to wizards or tools to facilitate the composition of references? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Another barrier to editor retention is incivility, especially incivility by experienced editors who are tolerated because they are content creators (and so may drive off future content creators), but that is an issue that has been discussed over and over. Is any work being done on making it easier to add references? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

There are numerous tools currently available; are you looking for something else, or some improvements to the existing tools? Zhaofeng Li created reFill to replace the Reflinks tool; it retrieves a page and expands bare references. See Help:Citation tools for other tools. isaacl (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

What I am looking for is a tool that opens a window or menu to allow the population of multiple fields in a reference, so that I don't have to hand-code the reference. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The Makeref tool may suit your needs; otherwise, you can have a look at the other tools on the Help page. isaacl (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: That sounds like a fair description of Wikipedia:RefToolbar, which is installable via user pref settings if you don't already have them set that way (do you see a "Cite" tab at the top of your edit window?). Because I don't care for the results of any tool I've seen, I personally prefer to code mine manually, starting with a copy of a skeleton {{Cite web}} that I keep in a .txt document:

<ref name= >{{cite web |first= |last= |title= |date= |accessdate= |website= |url= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |deadurl=no}}</ref>

. If I used a tool, I think it would be RefToolbar. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer; I believe I may have tried this tool before but I forgot about it. Personally I copy an appropriate skeleton from Wikipedia:Citation templates, but the RefToolbar tool looks pretty good. isaacl (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Community dysysoping proposal

A discussion is taking place on a proposal for a fast-track, community driven desysoping process which ultimately should also lead to making RfA easier to pass. You are invited to comment at RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Fight club

Hi, I'm going to go on a bit of a rant here, but anyway:

I was an editor of Wikipedia for years. Nothing super fancy, I was a bit of a busy bee, I would correct some mistake here, fix the wiki-markup there, follow trails of bad edits down the rabbit hole and try to undo damage caused by the sneakier sort of vandals or link-spammers etc, I would flesh out some sections of some minor entry, translate bits and pieces, I would help other editors in need of assistance, or take part in the various not very glamorous processes that keep the project clean (AfD and the like that is). I was in good standing and all was well.

Almost. Eventually, I realized that I was spending way too little of my time improving the encyclopedia, and way too much of it dragged into mud fights, trying to bring unreasonable people to reason, arguing over the most uncontroversial things, fighting big egos, fighting the owner of some article or another, fighting nationalistic feelings, fighting, fighting. Maybe *I* was the problem editor, but then again, browsing through my history of old edits, I've found out I've been arguing with editors that have since "exhausted the community's patience", editors that have since been topic-banned, editors that had multiple arbitration cases brought against them, and so on and so forth. Anyway, I decided at some point I didn't like what I think of as the editing process on Wikipedia: 5 mins editing some article, 5 hours fighting over it, and I just stopped actively trying to contribute.

Nowadays, I don't log in anymore, which is why I'm posting this as an IP but it does not really matter what my username was. I still use/read Wikipedia frequently, and very occasionally I can't resist the urge to fix something that I see needs fixing. I know I shouldn't but I have some kind of character flaw. I can't help it, I see something I can improve, I click the edit button, make the edit, save it with a comment, maybe comment further on the talk page on the vague hope that a little time now will save me hours fighting over a short sentence in the long run ...

...and get reverted within minutes, typically without so much as a comment. See, I'm an IP, I have not proven my *worth* in battle, I'm not worthy of being given a reason for being reverted, I'm probably long gone never to return anyway, I don't *matter*. I've found out editing Wikipedia as an IP is even worse than editing Wikipedia as a registered user. It does not seem to matter how trivial an edit, how inconsequential, I'll have to fight someone. It's my first night.

I'm sure most of you are aware that the environment can be pretty hostile and that a lot of (male...) 'editors' use the project as a battleground, and that's certainly an issue, but I hadn't even fully realized how disheartening editing Wikipedia could be until I did so as an IP. It's awful. I can imagine most potential editors are lost before they even register a username if my experience as an IP is representative. 82.231.41.7 (talk) 01:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi 82.231.41.7,

I realized that I was spending way too little of my time improving the encyclopedia, and way too much of it dragged into mud fights, trying to bring unreasonable people to reason, arguing over the most uncontroversial things, fighting big egos, fighting the owner of some article or another, fighting nationalistic feelings, fighting, fighting.

What you said touched a raw nerve. I also like to spend my time contributing to building up content: I contribute bits and pieces to articles and categories mainly. But just like you, I feel that I cannot stick to this pattern for long, because sooner or later someone stops by my talkpage and gets very offended if I do not drop everything else I am doing to "talk" to them.

I can’t pretend I am not at home by turning off the lights and not answering the doorbell. I am always expected to entertain people who drop by with a smile on my face, no matter how much I don’t like them, or just don’t want to talk to them, or how busy I am …

I don’t mind talking to other editors, what I do mind is the attitude that one must talk to everyone all the time. Not to some editors some of the time, but always to EVERY single editor ALL of the time. It takes priority over content contributions. Everyone here seems to think that simply not replying to others is a sign of being "antisocial" and apparently one of the greatest sins on Wikipedia. Those who refuse to spend their time "talking" can expect to lose many of their contributions at the various wp:XfD boards and may even be dragged before the wp:dramah wiki-courts. Ottawahitech (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Since this has started with two editors complaining about two completely unrelated things, it appears to be the "What I Hate About Wikipedia" thread. :)
82, I never blame anyone for choosing to leave Wikipedia. It's an environment with a lot of serious systemic problems, most of them, in my opinion, stemming from the fact that it is an experiment in group rule that may not even be workable in the end. This is why mankind invented command structures. From families to the military to business to government, someone makes the rules and decisions and takes the credit or blame for the results. There is always whining about the decisions made, and gossip about the competence of the people making them, but things generally go smoother than they generally do at Wikipedia. Imagine what your country would be like if, instead of electing people to make the country's laws, every law were made by popular referendum. Your country wouldn't last very long, I promise you, which is why no country does this.
As to the "IP" part of your comments, I know it's politically incorrect to say this, but I just have little sympathy for people (not you) who stubbornly ignore all the good reasons to register, for no very valid reason that I have ever heard, and then complain about the results, as if their constitutional rights were being violated. Yes, things are tougher on IPs, which is one more reason to register. If one repeatedly hits theirself with a stick because they have every right to do so, they shouldn't then complain about the pain. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Carrite put it well here : "Since such a high percentage of anonymous IP editors are vandals, they are all treated like shit. Trying to make serious edits to Wikipedia as an IP editor is like blindly blundering through the countryside on the first day of hunting season dressed like a moose." If an IP goes into an FA that three highly experienced editors have helped get it there and changes wording so it's slightly more POV than before without an edit summary, reverting it is likely to be seen as a net positive for the encyclopedia. Honestly, editing as an IP is awful - anyone can see you edit from ProXad in Paris, you can't be thanked, you can't be pinged, finding messages is hard, in a content dispute you can be shut up by semi-protecting, you can be easily blamed for vandalism you didn't do (thanks to shifting IPs). It's like an abusive relationship - just say no! We really should give turning the whole anonymous editing off serious consideration, it'll make socking just that little bit harder (though not much for serious vandals). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@User talk:Ritchie333: "Since such a high percentage of anonymous IP editors are vandals... Far be it for me to question two highly experienced Wikipedia editors such as yourself and user:Carrite. I am just wondering if you will share with us where the Wikipedia official statistics regarding the percentage of IP edits that are considered vandalism are kept. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd love it if it were true that WMF was keeping stats on the prevalence of IP vandalism. They can't even keep track of who their core volunteers are, sadly. So you will just have to rely on anecdotal evidence and personal observation. Start writing on a pad of paper the next 20 instances of vandalism that you come across whether it was a registered account or an IP doing the damage. Compare and contrast this to the edit histories of 10 or 20 or 50 decent WP articles: were the content of those generated by registered editors or IPs? Compare the percentage of vandalism you observe to the percentage of "good" production... Carrite (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Carrite, if it is anecdotal observation we are relying on to establish that IP editors are more likely to be vandals than registered users, may I suggest that this observation is highly dependent on the area of Wikipedia one frequents? It is my experience that most IP users are experienced users who like wikipedia but for various reasons have decided not to log-in. They do wonderful work in areas that I frequent, and frankly, I believe their loss to Wikipedia will take its toll on the registered users who will be left behind to carry the load, if we ban them. Just my $.02 Ottawahitech (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

This ties into two essays I've penned (with plenty of help): WP:IP addresses are not people and WP:Communication is required. Both try to explain some basics about policy, how we don't force anyone to do talk or register under most circumstances, and when both are needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Request assistance with a sad situation triggered by an issue with a new editor

collapsing out of scope discussion

Sorry to bother. I could use some help. An apparently new user User:Kochtruth was blocked and had his sandbox deleted by admin Ricky81682 after 30 hours and six edits, two article space edits and four talk age edits, with no prior attempt to engage from anyone regarding the user name. Unfortunately, I had welcomed using twinkle and suggested adding secondary and tertiary refs to the new users's initial contribution at Talk:Koch Industries, so find myself topic banned, not sure way, still trying to figure that out, but it seems at least in part for the crime of not reporting the unfortunate choice of user name. Sorry this is so involved but yes I am asking for someone impartial to wade in and help sort out and defuse. Hopefully the user will be back, frankly I'm worried about myself. Thank you in advance. Hugh (talk) 08:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

"Koch truth"? Do we want to retain an editor with such an obvious axe to grind? Andy Dingley (talk) 08:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

:: @Andy Dingley:. Two parts here. The new editor wasn't topic banned. For User:Kochtruth, see User talk:Kochtruth. Kochtruth was usernamed blocked (they can still edit as an IP or any other ways) as it was a disruptive name. Their first edit was a sandbox, the contents of which were this article dump. It was immediately reverted, brought by said user to the talk page Talk:Koch_Industries#Legal_and_Regulatory_Events_Removed. I blocked the user, told them pick a new name and that the sandbox was duplicative so I deleted it since it wasn't a separate article and its contents were intended to go to the article. I posted a note that they should wait because a new name should be picked (either this person is dead-set on being a "Koch truther" and nothing else or they'll pick something). As I told the user, just pick a new name and I'll restore the sandbox too if they want it (it's probably a giant BLP and ARBCOM violation too but I haven't looked at its contents). We just seem to disagree on whether this is a good new editor or not. As to HughD himself, see this discussion. HughD was topic banned for two weeks from the Americans for Prosperity after creating two separate RFCs and I think two maybe three ANI discussions. After the ban expired, HughD went to WP:AE to file a report on User:Arthur Rubin's edit at Americans for Prosperity pre-topic ban. When asked why the delay, HughD went with "An administrator recently recommended stepping back from Americans for Prosperity for two weeks, and I took the advice". I called him out for misleading them, for not having the sense against welcoming Kochtruth, for attacking the other editors for simply asking that the wall of Senate and EPA reports be discussed and trying to act like a topic ban was the same as a voluntary choice to disengage after creating a wall of destruction. I told HughD that we can't even trust that you won't just lie on the AE reports about a topic ban from the article you're complaining about the other editor's edits in, why should people spend time trying to figure out what's really going on and told him he's topic banned from the topic for a year under the Tea Party movement sanctions. All good? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

This wasn't directed at me. I'll let Andy respond, my apologies I got confused from my talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: Thank you for your interest and question. No, we do not want an editor with an axe to grind, and we do not want an editor with a bad user name. I think we do want to treat a new editor with kid gloves, at least long enough to find out if they have an axe to grind, and at least long enough for them to change their user name. Policy WP:BADNAME requires us not to bite newcomers and to ask the editor about their name. This was not done. The editor was blocked and had their sandbox deleted by Ricky81682 after 6 edits, 2 article and 2 talk page, at one article, after no attempt at dialog.

Myself, I find myself currently topic banned for a year, in part, for the high crime of not promptly reporting an obviously bad user name. I welcomed the user with Twinkle, and at Talk:Koch Industries, I thanked the apparently new editor for their contribution, and suggested elaboration of the contribution by inclusion of more secondary and tertiary sources. I use my own name. To me the user name seemed inappropriately aggressive but frankly no worse than some user names I look at every day, and nothing that threaten our project such that they needed to be confronted with on their first day. The POV problems with the article are so severe that the initial contribution, a new section of about a dozen referenced, one-sentence paragraphs, however unpolished, was genuinely a constructive contribution. The editor engage quickly at article talk and did not go on any kind of pointy rampage across our project. Time might have told whether or not the editor had an axe to grind, or simply naively chose an unfortunate user name, and now we may never know.

Have you seen this before? Does this seem appropriate? Is this a good precedence, year topic blocks justified in part by an editor being too welcoming to a new user, failure to promptly report a new user with a bad user name? Sorry this is somewhat involved. Please help sort this out. A blocked new editor and a topic banned experienced editor need calm words from an advocate. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

You received a year long topic ban for the crime of welcoming a new user, with no past involvement in the topic whatsoever? Why yes, that is quite shocking. I am aghast at the sheer injustice of it all. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Please be fair, I said in part. Hugh (talk) 15:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:AN is really the place for this. There is obviously more than meets the eye going on, but WER really is the wrong forum for it. WP:AN is for questioning/complaining about admin actions, and it is an investigative board. WER isn't an admin board at all, and since there is a claim of wrong doing (rather than just a problem with existing policy, etc.) it really can't be here. We have no authority to handle the request. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I understand, I am not seeking resolution here, just help. Hugh (talk) 15:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The name was blocked for username violation, the proper place to get help IS WP:AN. If it was a mistake, it will get corrected. Many users don't realize that most admin don't mind you bringing up an action at WP:AN if you do so calmly and in good faith. If you start to hyperventilate and act freaky about it, the average person can't help but question your motive. Again, we can't fix this situation at WER, it is a singular incident that on its face seems logical and within policy. You can always start an RFC to change the policy, but that takes time and effort. As for here, this is outside of the scope of WER, and probably should be archived or hatted. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: Thank you for your comment. I understand this is not the venue for resolution of this. May I please ask you a question on your comment above? You wrote that this incident seems within policy. I respect your assessment but I don't understand it. WP:BADNAME is a policy and in my read it asks us to avoid biting newcomers and to talk to the editor about the bad name. Do I misunderstand policy in this area? Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

What you have to remember is that policy is nothing more than writing down what is already consensus. Consensus is that certain names with high potential for abuse are typically handled quickly, and perhaps without a lot of grace, but the goal is preventing disruption, not making friends. So I saw quick and rough handling, but it seems to be within standard operating procedure for a username that is designed to cause problems in a part of the encyclopedia that is covered by at least two different Arb rulings. Again, WP:AN is where you appeal it, but you have enough eyes on you right now. If you were wise, you would just walk away and go edit an article as this is the wrong hill to die on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I don't wish to appeal, and I don't wish to die, but I still don't understand, may I be permitted another clarifying follow-up question? You're reminding me that not all policy is written policy, and behavior might seem to be non-conformant with written policy, but that appearance of non-conformance might be an artifact of lack of familiarity with the unwritten policies? Thank you for your patience. Hugh (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Unwritten policy might also be summed up as WP:IAR, or better yet is my favorite superpolicy WP:COMMONSENSE, which trumps all policies. It says to wing it when it is in the best interest of the encyclopedia. There are too many possibilities to have written rules on everything anyway, such a system would be unworkable as admin. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and your patience. As I say I am not seeking resolution or suicide by argumentation but trying to understand your viewpoint which I respect, so I appreciate your engagement with me on this. Ok, you are reminding me of WP:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE, and I think I understand WP:BADNAME, WP:IAR, and WP:COMMONSENSE, but maybe I don't because when I circle back to the application of these policies, if I may be permitted to try your famous patience, to the reaction to this new editor, perhaps I am lacking in common sense. We agree the user name could not be allowed to stand, long-term, medium-term, or even short-term, but first day, was there no time to ask him about it? Haven't all of us who embrace "don't bite" tolerated less than ideal choices by new editors, at least temporarily, to allow for engagement? Is some kind of imminent threat to the encyclopedia generally a prereq for invoking a WP:IAR or a WP:COMMONSENSE to override a specifically applicable written policy? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 01:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I haven't been doing much lately, but as someone who skims WP:ANI and similar, it has been hard to avoid noticing the turmoil associated with your account. Rather than arguing the case for an obviously inappropriate account name, it would be better to improve the encyclopedia. Such improvement involves adding good content, but it also involves not wasting the time of others with pointless argumentation. Johnuniq (talk) 03:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I would agree and say that my generosity has been stretched as far as it will go. WER isn't an admin board, but it is also not a debate forum for individual cases. Someone should feel free to close this now, I think we've covered the topic ad nauseum. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

DoneJohn from Idegon (talk) 05:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Blocking on Wikipedia

The previous thread started by User:HughD motivated me to try and explain why I believe wp:Blocking is not good for Wikipedia. and yes, I myself have been blocked, so I may be biased.

I was blocked back in 2012 and did not see it coming at all! I was so shocked and intimidated, that to this day I am still relatively timid in my edits, even after being here almost 8 years (I think?). In my view I was one of the lucky ones who was able to get another wiki-admin to unblock me, but I always wonder what happens to the thousands of others who aren't as lucky as I was.

To me Blocking is equivalent to capital punishment in real life. Even in civilized countries that allow it, legal process is available to accused individuals which allows them to publicly present their side of the story. Just about anyone here would be horrified (I think?) if they discovered that their country allows policemen to execute suspected criminals without trial, no? So why do we allow ADMINs to block/execute editors here with no due process? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Having been blocked myself twice, both times for good reason mind you, I am not entirely sure I agree with you. We do need a blocking policy of some sort, because there are frankly a rather scary number of unrepentant trolls out there. Are you proposing specific changes to the policy, and, if so, what are they? Personally, I wouldn't at all mind seeing a limited block notice for editors whose conduct might be questionable but whose motivations seem good which also includes some sort of invitation to one of the other WF entities or something like that, if we could get editors at those entities to help out in some way. But that is just my opinion, of course. John Carter (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Well one possible flaw in the capital punishment comparison is that blocking doesn't end your life. Maybe more due process is needed there. A blocked editor generally can appeal on their talk page, and I believe the appeal has to be handled by a different admin. If two admins think a block is in order, that's good enough for me. There are also practical considerations involving the time required to provide a "trial" before any block. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Some editors wear their block history as a badge of honor while others view them as a crown of thorns. I think we can agree that being blocked does result in some social stigma which, in some cases, outweighs "the crime". 2¢. . Buster Seven Talk 17:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

So maybe the block log should be visible to admins only, I don't know. Like everything else, it would come with a downside: Someone can claim in, say, article talk that I was blocked three times last year, forcing me to find an admin willing to look at my block log and attest that I was not. Thus adding yet another increment of complexity to an environment that's already far too complex. My personal solution to the social stigma problem is to refrain from doing anything to earn a block. No block, no stigma. Solved. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Back to "OT's" original question due process. We allow blocking because we have selected/elected/perfected editors among us that have the perceived ability to be fair and impartial. The fact that blocks sometimes are neither fair nor impartial shouldn't surprise us. Maybe its that 80/20 thing. 80% fair, 20% not so much. Bad actors abound in spite of AGF. . Buster Seven Talk 18:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

@Mandruss:

blocking doesn't end your life

May I disagree? In my opinion an indef block does end your wiki-life.

If two admins think a block is in order, that's good enough for me

As I said before, I may be biased, but when I was blocked it took hours (which seemed like eternity to me) during which another ADNIN faulted my unblock request. I was very fortunate that I was finally unblocked by user:Floquenbeam.

practical considerations involving the time required

True, however… In the United States .91% of the population is incarcerated. Are you suggesting that it is a waste of time and money to allow these people Due process? Ottawahitech (talk) 09:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to the kind of death that prevents one from ever again spending time with family, being in love, enjoying good food, reading a book, breathing, and so on, and so on. I'll be more blunt the second time, this is a patently false analogy. Yes, I think your negative experience with blocking might be affecting your thinking here. Sorry that happened to you if it was unjustified, but Wikipedia is a messy business all around, Homo sapiens sapiens is a deeply flawed subspecies in general, and no process is perfect. And the practical time considerations I mentioned have nothing to do with incarceration in the United States, that's another false comparison. With that, I'll bow out of this discussion as I have nothing further to contribute to it. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I've found that my block/ban history tends to be used by some editors, as a tool to remove me from any disputes. I've gotten alot of "this is why you were banned" comments. GoodDay (talk) 09:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

It irks me that we block goodfaith editors who edit war on their first offence whilst vandals usually go through four levels of warning before being blocked on their fifth offence. Ϣere SpielChequers 13:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

It irks me a lot that we block good faith editors for not having the mind-reading skills to know what our username policies are in advance and that misunderstanding that Wikipedia is about a charity you're peripherally involved is severe enough a sin that it somehow needs the same level of administrative action as an Syrian conflict POV pushing sock farm. However, on the rare occasions I spot a vandal and it is very obviously one, I go straight to blocking without messing around with templates. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I agree. I don't have the ADMIN-vision required to see what happened at User talk:Banyan Tree Huangshan, all I can see is that the editor who was blocked tried to submit an article to AFC. Ottawahitech (talk) 11:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Example : User talk:JoanneB123 - if I hadn't intervened I am convinced the user would have stayed blocked and tagged as a sock. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Most blocks are valid, routine, and essentially unnoticed by the community. Ottawahitech's block showed, as discussed at the time, extremely poor judgement by the blocking admin (who is no longer on Wikipedia) and must be considered an outlier. The fact that folks use block logs as weapons in disputes (e.g. [2]) is a chronic problem I'd personally like to see addressed but I've gotten little traction in previous proposals to address the visibility of bad / overturned blocks. Years ago, before Wikipedia, I participated in totally unmoderated alt-usenet group discussions. It was not an environment conducive to collaborative building of anything, let alone a well sourced NPOV encyclopedia. NE Ent 11:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The problem with the block tool is that it is very easy to use and works every time, even when it is unjustified. I agree with WereSpielChequers that our policies are a bit bent. I've taken some heat for full protecting a page instead of blocking two editors ("But that isn't fair to the other editors!!!!11"). Edit warring once in a blue moon, I can at least understand, but vandalism has no role in improving the encyclopedia. I also see good editor get caught up in battles with POV warriors and both end up getting blocked, when in fact, the POV warrior just needs an indef block so everyone else can edit in peace. As an admin, it is often very hard to see POV in a topic that is so far removed from my world. We need better participation from non-admin in these discussions, but many are afraid to come to ANI and just present a perspective, understandably. At the same time, some make ANI their second home and report stuff that is minor. It isn't easy to filter out all this stuff. Sometimes admin just do the best they can and yet make a mistake. More rare, they just don't do their homework and get sloppy with a block, and there are few consequences for a sloppy block. I notice that admin can RevDel a block entry, making it invisible to all but other admin. I suppose someone could make a request at WP:AN to have it revdel'ed, but I have yet to see a request, so can't imagine what the discussion would be like. Deleting it doesn't fit any of the criteria (Maybe #6) at Wikipedia:Revision deletion but if the block was so blatantly wrong, a consensus might use WP:IAR. If the blocking admin agreed, then you would have a stronger case. Policy kind of indicates that any consensus at WP:AN is reason enough, but not in so many words. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Since the example I linked above was by a very longstanding admin, revdeling wouldn't really help, just make the discussion more confusing in a mixed editor w/ admin - editor w/o admin discussion. NE Ent 13:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Ratio

Anybody know what the current ratio is for editors joining up/retiring? GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

If you take the metric of editors making more than 100 edits per month then we seem to be slightly on the up, there is a seasonal effect, but June 2015 is up on June 2014 and January 2015 was up on 2014. Ϣere SpielChequers 19:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
@GoodDay: For an update see the Signpost article An increase in active Wikipedia editors. Ottawahitech (talk) 12:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Is the tide starting to turn?

Am I the only one here who just can't wait to see September's statistics? Ottawahitech (talk) 10:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Winner 42

Just noticed that longstanding editor Winner 42 has retired, seemingly out of the blue (he has several GA reviews open), though possibly a recent kerfuffle on ANI was the straw that broke the camel's back. This doesn't look good - I had earmarked him as a future RfA candidate :-( Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I've found that the camel's back sometimes miraculously heals itself, and a retirement becomes a well-needed wikibreak. They have only been gone two days, and don't underestimate the power of the Wikipedia addiction. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

They have set their wiki-break enforcer not to let them back until the year 3000... All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC).

Milestone? Or just a number?

6,826,967 Buster Seven Talk 16:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Vote for a logo commemorating 5 millionth article

User:S Marshal

Does anyone know why User:S Marshall has retired? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Given the edit summary, I would guess he's got fed up of a proposed decision arriving on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles (it's almost 2 months late) and has given up hope of a solution turning up. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Unhappiness with the way this case is being dealt with, it appears. ‑ iridescent 09:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 5

Newsletter • October 2015

Hello there! Happy to be writing this newsletter once more. This month:

We did it!

In July, we launched five pilot WikiProjects: WikiProjects Cannabis, Evolutionary Biology, Ghana, Hampshire, and Women's Health. We also use the new design, named "WPX UI," on WikiProject Women in Technology, Women in Red, WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health. We are currently looking for projects for the next round of testing. If you are interested, please sign up on the Pilots page.

Shortly after our launch we presented at Wikimania 2015. Our slides are on Wikimedia Commons.

Then after all that work, we went through the process of figuring out whether we accomplished our goal. We reached out to participants on the redesigned WikiProjects, and we asked them to complete a survey. (If you filled out your survey—thank you!) While there are still some issues with the WikiProject tools and the new design, there appears to be general satisfaction (at least among those who responded). The results of the survey and more are documented in our grant report filed with the Wikimedia Foundation.

The work continues!

There is more work that needs to be done, so we have applied for a renewal of our grant. Comments on the proposal are welcome. We would like to improve what we have already started on the English Wikipedia and to also expand to Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata. Why those? Because they are multilingual projects and because there needs to be better coordination across Wikimedia projects. More details are available in the renewal proposal.

How can the Wikimedia Foundation support WikiProjects?

The Wikimedia Developer Summit will be held in San Francisco in January 2016. The recently established Community Tech team at the Wikimedia Foundation is interested in investigating what technical support they can provide for WikiProjects, i.e., support beyond just templates and bots. I have plenty of opinions myself, but I want to hear what you think. The session is being planned on Phabricator, the Wikimedia bug tracker. If you are not familiar with Phabricator, you can log in with your Wikipedia username and password through the "Login or Register: MediaWiki" button on the login page. Your feedback can help make editing Wikipedia a better experience.

Until next time,

Harej (talk) 09:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

While roaming around...

in the back rooms of WP:Project X (above) I found the following. Editor Invertzoo was a EotW recepient in back in June of this year. Buster Seven Talk 05:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcoming and mentoring, tried and true

Within WikiProject Gastropods, I am the welcomer and mentor, and have been for many years. I use the NewArtBot listings to find new articles that mention snails or slugs and then I look to see who is new who has started an article that seems to show the writer has an interest in slugs or snails. If the person is new to the encyclopedia, I welcome them using a template, and I also write a personal note welcoming them. New or not I invite them to joint the gastropod project, and tell them they can ask me any questions or leave any comments on my talk page because it's tough getting used to this new context at first. If they show any interest, I mentor them for as long as it takes until they feel comfortable: that could be weeks, could be months. If they join the project I welcome them to that too. I find this technique works great in terms of retaining editors. Yes it is labor-intensive and real warmth is necessary, not fake warmth, so not everyone is cut out to do this, but it does work well. My approach was written up a few years ago in the Wikimedia blog by Matthew Roth:

http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/03/08/the-kind-gentle-approach-to-retaining-new-editors/

Invertzoo (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Top 100

Holy smokers, I've just discovered that I'm in the top 100 most prolific editors. I've got well over 180,000 edits to my name. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Well Done, GoodDay. Buster Seven Talk 05:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks :) GoodDay (talk) 02:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Reading lounge

Following up on this previous posting, I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Reading lounge as a place where people can take a break and browse some interesting links. Note the links are all to Wikipedia or other Wikimedia projects, to take advantage of the work already done to categorize and list interesting content. Your contributions are welcome! isaacl (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Retirement of User:Rationalobserver

User:GoodDay, who has my profoundest respect for this, has already spoken to the above editor regarding their recent retirement. I have a feeling that a review of the recent discussions regarding this editor might reveal the reasons they have for leaving. If I am right in that, I think any comments regarding possible support and maybe help or at least review of any future situations regarding this editor might be welcome.

Having said that, can someone get GD blocked for awhile? He is currently 97th on the Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits, about 8000 edits ahead of me, and, dammit, I might need some help to catch up. John Carter (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Haha.. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week

This weeks award went to Editor Zussman1, a fine example of the type of editor that diligently works behind the scenes to enrich the encyclopedia. Additional nominations are needed. The comfortable backlog of accepted nominations that we had in back in June has dwindled to three. Thanks to those that have nominated fellow editors over the past three years. Your choices have been exemplary. And thanks to those members that have taken the time to congratulate the awardee during "their week". The outpouring of genuine support can go a long way in retaining editors. It doesn't take much time to congratulate and to thank, and the result is so rewarding. I'm sure we can all attest to the fact that individual attention by singular members is uplifting and challenging. Editor Retention most often happens one editor at a time...person to person...editor to editor. Dozens of EotW recipients have stated that the Editor of the Week award and the supportive messages have given them pause to reflect on continuing what they love to do---edit Wikipedia.

Buster Seven Talk 20:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

A few examples of responses when receiving the award:

The award has actually stayed my hand from complete withdrawal, since rather than a gesture of flattery, I took it as a reminder I had obligations to fellow-editors and to pages....
And thanks for doing your bit to encourage us old hands.
...feeling tired of Wikipedia, I cleared my watchlist. However - this award is an encouragement to keep my hand in so ... thanks again!
...you have just made a truly horrendous day become bright.......now I'll have to go and find a box of tissues because I think I'm going to cry (in the nicest way)...

GoodDay turns 10, today

As of today, I've been a registered account for 10 years :) GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Congrats! You don't look a day over 9 and a half. Buster Seven Talk 20:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Hehehehahaha. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

AfD culture

Looks like not a lot of editor-retention-related discussion is happening here, but over at the village pump the AfD culture discussion has been ongoing in spurts since 9 October 2015. Ottawahitech (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Are many editors retiring, over that topic? GoodDay (talk) 21:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

To answer your question here are a few snippets from AfD culture:

I just witnessed a new user give up over an AfD.
This is how Wikipedia actively drives away contributors.
I really think we need to nurture editors more often
…unwillingness to make Wikipedia an inclusive or welcoming platform, which will result in poor retention.
I think we would have more people participating if this was not such an adversarial environment
Then when someone decides to start a new article and sees that a previous version was deleted already, how likely are they to continue?
More editors might stick with it without all that unnecessary struggle.

Hope this helps, Ottawahitech (talk) 02:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)please ping me

What IdeaLab campaigns do you want to see?

Hey retention-minded folks. I’m seeking your help to decide on topics for new IdeaLab campaigns that could be run starting next year. These campaigns are designed to attract proposals from Wikimedia project contributors that address a broad gap or area of need in Wikimedia projects.

Here’s how to participate:

Learn more about this consultation and review submitted campaign topics.
Vote on and submit new campaign topics in the AllOurIdeas Survey (in English)
Discuss campaign topics and ask questions on the IdeaLab talk page.

With thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, Wikimedia Foundation. 23:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Stop vicious attacks on the content of new editors

There's a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G6_for_default_Article_Wizard_text that would result in the massive hateful destruction of the content of thousands of editors if approved. Someone needs to explain that unilaterally nominating and deleting their content is not good for editor retention. 166.170.46.95 (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The issue has been closed. 166.170.46.95 (and the range) hav a history of trolling and vandalism. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect User:Kudpung, until 166.170.46.95 showed up, few editors showed interest in participating in the consnsus-forming-discussion linked above (including you?) Ottawahitech (talk) 21:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me

166 has been trolling the reference desks and noticeboards for an extended period with completely misguided nonsense. Kudpung was clarifying the situation for people who may not be aware of the background. Johnuniq (talk) 05:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

A suggestion for welcoming new editors

Hello, I hope this is the right place. I have an idea about welcome templates and retention and I was wondering what everyone else thought.

I have been doing page curation/new page patrol as well as AfC for some time. This leads me to interract with and welcome a lot of new editors. I am often frustrated by the fact that we don't give them a welcome template with information about how to edit constructively until after they have edited, often for some time. This leads to them producing content that is not the best they can do (not to mention confusion, getting into trouble for breaking rules they don't know, not knowing how to get help etc.). This means more confusion for the newbies and more cleanup for everyone else. On both Commons and French Wikipedia, new users get an automated talk page greeting with lots of useful information and links the moment they register. This seems to me a more sensible way of getting information to new editors.

Of course, welcome templates also exist to welcome new editors and give them feedback on their edits. It also means more because it is done by a real person. My suggestion is that we separate the "welcoming/feedback" and the "information" aspects of welcome templates. The "information" template could be delivered by bot while the "welcoming/feedback" template or message could be delivered by the first experienced editor they meet. What do you think? Happy Squirrel (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

@Happysquirrel: Such a proposal was already made many times before, and was always declined. See here: Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Use_a_bot_to_welcome_new_users. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@Happysquirrel: You might take a look at Wikipedia:Wiki Guides, a project that surfaced a few years back. I'm not sure of the long-lasting effect or success of the guides but at the very least the "history" will provide you with editors that are interested in the topic. Also, User:Buster7/Sandbox-Wiki Guides was a sandbox I created to collect ideas and thoughts on the subject of the personal welcoming of Newbies. Any effort to improve the first few days of a new editors experience works toward editor retention. Buster Seven Talk 12:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC) My favorite thought was
The Newbie/Noob/Guidee senses the Wikipedia Community and they want to be a part of it. They reach out to shake hands and that first handshake should be friendly. Its why Wal-Mart has a greeter at the front door. It creates a bond. Good luck with your efforts and I'm confident many here support them. Buster Seven Talk 13:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Dreadstar, RIP

See here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 6

Newsletter • January 2016

Hello there! Happy to be writing this newsletter once more. This month:

What comes next

Some good news: the Wikimedia Foundation has renewed WikiProject X. This means we can continue focusing on making WikiProjects better.

During our first round of work, we created a prototype WikiProject based on two ideas: (1) WikiProjects should clearly present things for people to do, and (2) The content of WikiProjects should be automated as much as possible. We launched pilots, and for the most part it works. But this approach will not work for the long term. While it makes certain aspects of running a WikiProject easier, it makes the maintenance aspects harder.

We are working on a major overhaul that will address these issues. New features will include:

Creating WikiProjects by simply filling out a form, choosing which reports you want to generate for your project. This will work with existing bots in addition to the Reports Bot reports. (Of course, you can also have sections curated by humans.)
One-click button to join a WikiProject, with optional notifications.
Be able to define your WikiProject's scope within the WikiProject itself by listing relevant pages and categories, eliminating the need to tag every talk page with a banner. (You will still be allowed to do that, of course. It just won't be required.)

The end goal is a collaboration tool that can be used by WikiProjects but also by any edit-a-thon or group of people that want to coordinate on improving articles. Though implemented as an extension, the underlying content will be wikitext, meaning that you can continue to use categories, templates, and other features as you normally would.

This will take a lot of work, and we are just getting started. What would you like to see? I invite you to discuss on our talk page.

Until next time,

Harej (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Future IdeaLab Campaigns results

Last December, I invited you to help determine future ideaLab campaigns by submitting and voting on different possible topics. I'm happy to announce the results of your participation, and encourage you to review them and our next steps for implementing those campaigns this year. Thank you to everyone who volunteered time to participate and submit ideas.

With great thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, Wikimedia Foundation. 23:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Eddy Nominations

Don't hesitate: Visit the nominations page and nominate someone today for Editor of the Week!

Single-Purpose Editors in AFC

The topic of this note is single purpose account editors who come in to create an article about themselves, their company, their band, or some other topic that typically isn't notable. As a reviewer at Articles for Creation, I haven't kept statistics, but I am sure that a majority of the drafts submitted at AFC are conflict of interest or autobiography drafts, to promote a business or to get an article about the author. These drafts are declined, and what usually happens is that, after two or three resubmits, they get the message that they or their business is not notable, and they go away. (Occasionally the submitter gets tendentious. That isn't a matter for this project.) I will comment in passing that many autobiography drafts that come in via this route, while in violation of the COI policy, are not promotional in intent, because the submitter simply doesn't understand what Wikipedia is, and that it isn't a social medium. However, in any case, the drafts, whether autobiographies meant as social medium profiles, or promotional drafts, get declined.

I have two comments that are relevant to this project. First, these editors result in a downward-skewing of any metrics on editor retention. They come in, they edit, and they quickly go away. One may conclude that this means that Wikipedia isn't a welcoming environment, or even that new editors are typically bullied and leave quickly. The departure of these editors doesn't prove that Wikipedia is an unwelcoming environment. It illustrates that many people misunderstand what Wikipedia is and how it works. As a result, analysis of editor retention metrics needs to take this influence into account. They don't indicate something wrong with Wikipedia, and there may not be much that can be done to retain them.

Second, however, there may be something that can be done to retain, or perhaps recruit, these editors. There could be a mechanism to welcome them to participate in Wikipedia in general. As it is, they generally don't get one of the usual Wikipedia welcome messages, because those are typically given to editors with red talk page links, or to editors who make talk page comments to which providing a welcome with links to guidelines and policies is in order. They don't have red talk page links, because the decline message appears on their talk page. They do usually get an invitation to the Teahouse, but then they are usually more concerned, at least briefly, with getting their article approved, until they give up. We should consider some way of welcoming these editors, who came to Wikipedia for a "wrong" reason, to participate in Wikipedia for a "right" reason, such as to edit existing articles. Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Robert. I've seen your hard work at the dispute resolution noticeboard ("DRN help needed and volunteer roll call"). You are to be commended for your efforts and for this focus on a situation in search of a solution. I think you've come to the right place. I personally welcome editors on a regular basis and as you describe I, like most, use "Recent changes" and the "red talk page" method to find candidates. I also check the contributions so assure some modicum of interest and staying potential. Both areas you mention are fertile soil to grow the editors of tomorrow. Whatever we devise should be as simple as possible to assure ease of implementation. Nothing stops a good idea more than tedious steps to achieve its fruit. With your experience and the input of WER members, I feel confident we can move forward. Let's see what others have to say. I am going to also post this at the Editor of the Week talk page to get increased saturation. Buster Seven Talk 21:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I've been making a point of leaving a welcome message and watching the user page when declining drafts. I wish there was a tick box to do that automatically from the helper script. I do feel AfC is good even for editors who really don't fit with the project. When done properly, they get a more patient explanation of notability/promotion/COI, instead of the AfD/noticeboard/warning/block pattern if they tried to go straight to mainspace. Even if they do end up not being retained, they leave a good deal more at peace with the pedia, as far as I have seen. I've had some success once or twice suggesting other articles related to the draft that the new user could improve (usually articles already so POV I was really not too worried about it getting any worse).

The other problem is that paid editors may have some contractual obligations to their company preventing them to do other improvements around here. With our strict rules against multiple accounts in most contexts, they may be in a situation where their employer will not allow them to use their account for things other than work purposes, while Wikipedia objects to them having multiple accounts.

One big problem I see with all areas is that everything is always backlogged. In an ideal world, we could sit down with every new user coming through AfC and have a nice talk page chat about how they could settle in and contribute to Wikipedia. In reality, knowing how discouraging long waits for draft review can be, I try to prioritize my efforts so I can get more done. It seems to make more sense to spend an hour or two helping a new editor who shows signs of being willing and able to follow policy and do quick check and decline for clearly unsuitible drafts, rather than giving everyone 10-15 minutes accross the board. I don't know how others handle that. Happy Squirrel (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

My concern is not for the employer of the paid editor but for the loss of the potential of a positively participating editor. The potential to convert a paid editor (employee) or paid agent (contractor) into a fair collaborator at articles "in general" is an un-tapped gold mine.

When I go to welcome newbies at recent changes I know what to look for. I scan the page and look for red user & talk pages. What would I look for if I was searching for single purpose accounts that were still in the midst of ...(I don't know) negotiations lets call it? If we can identify them before they leave, we can interject a type of welcome designed to woo them into the fold beyond their single purpose. These editors usually know their way around the place and its a shame to loose them. But first we have to find them. Buster Seven Talk 06:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Years ago I started to save various Welcomes. I don't see any that fit welcoming a SPA with the level of vigor needed. Maybe I will work on one as this conversation continues. Buster Seven Talk 13:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

My experience as a new wiki editor

I had big plans, but never made it past one page ( List of Giant Monster Films). I ended up putting all of my effort into my own website and list, it's just kind of sad and a demonstration of someone who's willing to put a lot of work (1,023 pages) into increasing encyclopedic knowledge, so much so that he ends up learning an entirely new and awkward code to do that, because that's easier and more pleasant than arguing on the talk pages in defense of increasing encyclopedic knowledge. I guess I would be a single-purpose editor or what have you, but it's enough to keep me busy. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 06:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Doctor Kaiju. Let me ask. Had you been given a different kind of welcome, one less strident and stern, would your WP experience been different? Would you have been more expansive in your WP editing? Did the tense quality of the responses you got make you feel isolated and ostracized?...less likely to venture out into the World of Wikipedia Editing? Buster Seven Talk 06:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I initially made my website to include every monster from every movie on the list, so you could see what the monsters in those movies look like, as I noticed some of the monsters that did have a page at one time at WP were deleted for lack of notability. The ONLY REASON I made an independent site was, ironically enough, to avoid notability arguments. I wanted to see (and share) what those monsters looked like, somewhere they did not have to be notable. But of course I "discovered" a lot of movies that weren't on the list at all, and started adding those, hundreds of them. Once I had doubled the size of the list and got the initial mess of my site cleaned up I added my link so people could see what all of those monsters looked like, and I got treated like some sort of moron that wouldn't read all of the pages they threw at me. I read EVERY ONE of the pages of rules they posted to me and decided they were full of shit and haven't updated the list since at Wikipedia, why bother? I don't want to argue for hours about things that seem pretty basic. Why don't they just make the edits they want themselves? Why are they posting blatantly inappropriate rules at me? I just don't get any of this, I was immediately threatened with blacklisting for copyright infringement because I added the link to the Godzilla page, which has movie posters and monster pictures. And now they delete the ENTIRE LIST even though many of the films are sourced but they don't care. It's crazy. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 07:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and all but two people treated me with utter contempt, thank you Rocky on the list talk page and Anthony on my talk page for talking to me like I'm a human being. And I had planned on adding movie pages for many of the films that are lacking, but as you can see from the talk pages I'd be crazy to bother now. Doctor Kaiju (talk) 07:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC) Doctor Kaiju (talk) 07:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

SPA Welcome #1--Expanding your Wikipedia experience (Buster7)

Note:This Welcome is under construction in response to a need to salvage SPA editors. Let's call it SPA W#1. Some of the links may not be appropriate in that they are too basic for what we want. Its a work in progress.

Staying on

Please, stick around! While your recent experiences may not have gone well, there is more here that might interest you. These easily navigable links should be indepesensable to a user that is up to the challenge of becoming more than just a Single Purpose Editor.

How to edit a page

Tutorial

Sandbox, the place where you can experiment

Where to ask a question.

What this site is based on

Manual of Style

What Wikipedia is not

Wikipedia articles are in a constant state of change. Your participation in that change is welcomed:

Create an article

Help remove vandalism

Translate an article

Improve illustrations and upload new images

Perform maintenance tasks

Become a member of a project that interests you

Contribute mottos to Motto of the Day

Buster Seven Talk 16:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

If someone's recent experiences have not gone well, we might not want to encourage that SPA to stick around. Maybe it is just the wording, maybe I'm cynical and believe that most SPAs who get into trouble aren't here to build an encyclopedia, but instead to push an agenda, thus we are better off without them. I've seen a lot of traditional SPAs, protecting their band's page, GG, etc. and by virtue of their actions, they show a lack of interest in Wikipedia and policy on the whole. Again, perhaps I'm cynical, but my experiences with SPAs has been less than stellar. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Granted. We don't need more problem editors wasting our time. But there must be some way to discern the ones that have the potential to see the challenge and rise above their limited view of WP. Buster Seven Talk 14:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a big risk here. Someone who thinks "I or my company should have an article" and bummed that it's not going to happen (yet or at all) isn't a "problem editor", they're not really an editor yet, but confused person. Someone who's been fighting for 5 months to get their damned article or #$#% you all, well, they'll be self-evidently problematic and ejected; this template won't affect them, or through them, the project, either way. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 15:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Overall great idea! Now for the river of editorial suggestions: Festooning this with icons, however, sends a very undesirable message; the vast majority of COI editors (among many other noobs) are already coming here with the mindset that this is like a blog, a company website, or social network profile, and we do not want to give them the impression that festooning things with cutesy graphics is how we do thing. (Also, the blue "Wikipedia" text-in-image thing is virtually unreadable on my monitor anyway. The whole thing look like "Welcome to my Web site [sic], this is my Landing Page", ca. 1997. The icon based list is worse that decoration, but directly misleading; it's a usability failure because 99% of users are going to assume they're supposed to click on those icons to go to the name resources, and this will not work. The images also don't really have much to do with what they're linking to. Workworking has nothing to do with the manual of style, and graduating from high school is not what Wikipedia is based on; the "+" thing looks like an add for "green medication", and I can't even tell what the Sandbox one is. Just use a bullet list. The Wiki globe is already a few inches away, top-left corner (and why is this added one brown?) Please just model this on the standard welcome messages. The two-column layout should be even, or if one is meant to be a sidebar, there are already sidebar templates; you can probably borrow code from one of the sidebar navboxes. Don't capitalize things that are not proper names, since this is English, not German; it's "single-purpose editor" (hyphenate compound adjectives). We don't need to stress that links are easily navigable. Everyone using the Web for more than an hour knows links are easily navigable. One of the list items ends with "." for no reason. "Become a member of a project" -> "Participate in a project"; while a few wikiprojects are using "member" wording, this has been nixed several times (at CfD, etc.), and several times when people have tried to set up "membership" organizations (e.g. WP:Esperanza) they've been deleted or shut down by the community. Motto of the Day is trivia; it's not something we need to recruit editors for. '"Tutorial" of what?', they'll wonder, since "How to edit a page" sounds like the tutorial. Maybe put "Basic Wikipedia tutorial" first, then "How to edit a page", etc. "Perform maintenance tasks" is risky to include for noobs, since they are not competent to perform them yet. See whether WP:GLAM/WP:TWL wants to be listed here; someone who came here to work on a school or museum article, who works there and has a COI, might be converted to a more useful liaison position. That's enough for now. Repeat: Overall great idea! Don't let my nit-picks be discouraging. Just want it to be as practical as possible for the both what we need, and for what the target editor-to-be needs to see. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 15:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I actually rather like all the graphics, and to be frank I think it's better and more user-friendly than our standard welcome greeting. Why restrict this to SPAs? I think it would be good to send this kind of message to all new accounts. As for COI editors, SPAs, etc., I have no problem with sending this or a similar message. Those that want to stay and be constructive will do so, those that want to stay and not be constructive will also do so as well. They won't be influenced by a greeting. Those with constructive intent, yes, may find this useful. It is better to light a candle than to curse the you-know-what. Coretheapple (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I like the icons too. Shows we're not Citizendium. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
SMcC...I've taken some of your ides and created Welcome SPA#2 below. But I'm not a grafic designer. Hell, I can't even spell grafic designer. Might be best if you show us what you have in mind so we can see it "live". Buster Seven Talk 18:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
There are maintenance tasks that are good for newcomers, but they need to be specifically suggested. The one I usually suggest is to find and add missing references, but there are others, such as updating dead links, or finding an illustration to add. The advantage of being specific is that these are things that will actually help them learn what is needed. We don't have the same need for more people to find vandalism as we used to before edit filters; and I would not like to suggest that a newcomer should start out by checking other newcomer's articles.

But as already mentioned, the real problem is to distinguish between those people likely to repay the effort. I think we need to direct ourselves not primarily towards SPAs of the promotional sort, but rather to naive beginners who do not know what would actually be worth an article. There is no form that will do this effectively. (I don't mean we shouldn't design the most welcoming and helpful form that we can, but even the best possible form is not as effective as direct specific targeted competent personal advice and assistance. Unfortunately, there are too few people who do this. I have to admit I no longer do unless there is some special reason, because in practice I'm much more concerned with trying to correct the bad impressions left by those doing it wrong. The first necessary step is to stop incompetent new article and afc patrolling, because it creates more problems than it solves. DGG ( talk ) 22:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

DGG Can you please provide some examples of where you suggest ...to find and add missing references, but there are others, such as updating dead links, or finding an illustration to add. I want to be sure good suggestions don't just fly by us and get lost in yesterdays discussion. I can envision a good solid streamlined welcome, designed with an experienced user in mind and followed up with your prose (which I'm sure is eloquent). We can create a solid brief script to follow the welcome. What we are basically trying to do is to "sell" the bigger broader WP Experience to users that are familiar with the product but their familiarity is limited. Buster Seven Talk 13:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

In a lot of the not-immediately-obvious COI cases I think that a real part of the problem for the potentially good early SPA editor is the same one a lot of us old hands might face, trying to determine what is and is not notable and what is and is not already here somewhere. We've got over 5 million articles in English right now, and I tend to think that having to wade through all the articles related to a given topic to see if it is already covered somewhere and/or if it is likely to meet notability requirements is one of the bigger problems most of us have, new and old editors alike.

One answer, at least obvious to me, is that we have a very very few articles on specific books. It might very easily be possible that in at least some of these cases, even including the COI editor out to promote their own book, somehow indicating to them the guidelines for such articles might be useful. I know we have the teahouse, which is useful for those willing to try it, but many might not be willing to or necessarily think it worth the effort. Another thing we might do, somehow?, is to maybe get the teahouse hosts, and other interested editors, to maybe try to devise a list of the questions they think new SPAs and other editors most frequently face, get together a list of quick answers with useful links to policy and guideline pages for some of those questions, and, maybe, an indication of where they might be able to go to get help. WP:RX and better developed versions of the pages of Bibliography of encyclopedias might be particularly useful for some topics, for instance.

So also, unfortunately, would be more lists like those I've started at Category:WikiProject prospectuses and Category:WikiProject libraries. I am right now spending most of my available time getting together such lists, but, particular for the libraries pages, that pretty much involves having to read the bloody book through, which can take a great deal of time. Anyone willing to start a few for other topics is more than welcome to do so, of course. John Carter (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

SPA Welcome #3--Expanding your Wikipedia experience (Isaacl)

Note:This Welcome is under construction in response to a need to salvage SPA editors. It is SPA W#3, part of a continuing work in progress. Some of the links may not be appropriate in that they are too basic for what we want. Its a work in progress. Feel free to add or create your own.

Please, stick around! While your recent experiences may not have gone well, The challenge may be for you to expand your focus. If you are interested in contributing to more areas of Wikipedia, here are some suggestions and guidance that may help:

How to edit a page

Tutorial

Improve illustrations and upload new images

Manual of Style

What Wikipedia is not

Discussion

I have found in the past when a creative discussion ebbs and flows about what is being created (in this case a Welcome for SPA's), it is best to furnish an example of the suggested changes so we can all refer to them as more and more come on board. But we shouldn't get sidetracked on just creating a Welcome. I think the problem is---when we finally decide on a certain Welcome, How do we find the single purpose editors to send it to? Buster Seven Talk 06:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

That is one of the key problems. And not all SPAs like being called SPAs. This example is simple and to the point. I think "While your recent experiences may not have gone well, The challenge may be for you to expand your focus." doesn't work in any of them. "Many editors run into difficulties at first, so we hope you won't be discouraged from participating in other areas of the encyclopedia." might be better. Empathize and encourage. Still not sure we can identify without a bot that looks for editors with between 1 and $x edits to no more than $y articles (not counting talk or meta pages). Even that requires individual verification. Now that I'm thinking about it, I'm not sure I would want to mention "difficulties" at all, most SPAs don't really get into trouble here. I'm a bit fuzzy on the scope. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

SPA Welcome #2--Expanding your Wikipedia experience (SMcCavandish)

Note:This Welcome is under construction in response to a need to salvage SPA editors. It is SPA W#2, part of a continuing work in progress. Some of the links may not be appropriate in that they are too basic for what we want. Its a work in progress. Feel free to add or create your own.

Please, stick around! While your recent experiences may not have gone well, WP is more interesting as your focus expands.These links might be useful should you be up to the challenge of becoming more than just a Single Purpose Editor.

How to edit a page

Tutorial

Improve illustrations and upload new images

Manual of Style

What Wikipedia is not

Buster Seven Talk 18:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

I am neutral on icons, bullet points are OK too. I do like the concept of a "just because you got smacked around doesn't mean you are unwelcome" message, so perhaps there is use here in splitting concept from content. What I see at AfC is a bit too much knee-jerk "no evidence of notability" article declining without very good guidance as to what that means for the new editor. While it's true there is a lot of self-promotional cruft, there actually are a lot of people who ARE notable enough, they just are treating WP like PR Wire or something.

I've also run into these SPA accounts, and the tendentious ones at that, and so often that I am ready to pound my head against a wall some days. (And, because I insist they follow the rules, AND I sometimes get quite grumpy about it, they inevitably wind up hating me and joining the "that meanie Montanabw drives away new editors" club. Sigh...) So I kind of wonder if there could be two levels of SPA welcome, one for the fairly well-meaning newbie and one that's a bit stronger for the "devoted cult member." For the latter, I can give everyone here some examples of WikIProject Equine's ongoing headaches, such as Alexander Nevzorov, which is constantly being edited by SPAs (pinging Justlettersandnumbers, who deals with that one and a lot of other SPA articles too).

On the other hand, it must always be remembered that an individual editor with a strong area of interest is not necessarily a SPA, they just might look a bit like one when they start out. For example, I think White Arabian Filly with her work on gaited horse articles and SusunW with her work on biographies of women from Latin America are examples of fantastic newer editors who are going great guns in their area of specialty. (And I'm pinging them to this conversation because they might have good insights to offer). Montanabw^(talk) 21:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I like the first one better. Coretheapple (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yep, and I know that most of my articles would never get past AfC because of notability concerns... I think that one of the best ways to retain new editors, SPAs or not, is to keep a close eye on your favorite WikiProject's new article results. Drafts are normally included, and if you notice a new user getting slapped, you can step in and help them. I also think that not all seeming SPAs are making money off the stuff they write about. Some people are just much more interested in one thing than in all other things, and it comes out in their editing. It's not necessarily bad and most of us undoubtedly tend to that at one time or another. I write a lot of gaited horse articles, and I've never owned a gaited horse. Not once. I got interested in them because when I was younger, I couldn't afford a Western gymkhana horse, didn't like trail riding or hunter seat, and came across a lot of fun saddle seat horses. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I can add my two cents, but it's doubtful that it will make any meaningful difference. I write mostly about women, usually about minorities, non-Anglo women, but the fields they are involved in are as varied as they can be. Is that single purpose?, possibly, but I have written articles on scientists and politicians, film stars and musicians, educators and writers, architects and activists, buildings, awards, and organizations. What I find in general is that WP has a whole bunch of "rules" and "guidelines" that have nothing whatsoever to do with scholarship. For me, creating a new article is not hard, nor is finding adequate sourcing or writing NPOV. What is hard is that writers are expected to be programmers; MOS/citation is convoluted and tedious (why do the editing drop down boxes only give you trans-title for journal but not for web or news or book?); linking to other articles is difficult (why is it that articles on women mention spouses, children, siblings and articles on men don't mention their families at all? Why would a significant discovery by a woman not mention her at all but give tedious detail about the processes of the discovery?); and worse, the atmosphere is unwelcoming. For me, it's easier to work in my bubble and reach out to mentors when I need help or extend my hand to newcomers if they ask for help, but I'm probably not going to change my preference for topics. I don't delude myself that the gender gap can be eradicated, it is an impossibility and would be historically inaccurate. Thousands of years of unequal opportunity will always be with us. But, if I can learn about a notable woman and give another person an opportunity to learn about one, and possibly be inspired, that's progress, IMHO. SusunW (talk) 01:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I suggest not calling the recipient a "Single Purpose Editor" as if it were a title. Perhaps something like this: "If you are interested in contributing to more areas of Wikipedia, here are some suggestions and guidance that may help:". isaacl (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon started the thread with...The topic of this note is single purpose account editors who come in to create an article about themselves, their company, their band, or some other topic that typically isn't notable. And then Second, however, there may be something that can be done to retain, or perhaps recruit, these editors. There could be a mechanism to welcome them to participate in Wikipedia in general. As much as possible we should maintain a focus on sustaining "Single Purpose Editors". But, I see your point that maybe we shouldn't label them. I will take your suggestion and create a third SPA Welcome #3. Buster Seven Talk 05:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Just with regard to helping new editors learn, I definitely think we should encourage them to do some content improvements before jumping into creating new article. When you create a new article, you have to worry about notability, referencing, MOS issues, linking, NPOV etc. all at once. Perhaps we could link to simple maintenance tasks that would help them learn each of these areas separately before doing them all at once. We also want to fight the feeling of isolation and of being ganged up on so I think the Teahouse and helpme templates should be prominently displayed. Welcoming editors should also definitely try to link them to the relevant WikiProject (I mean, if they only seem to care about one area, they should get to know the people in that area). Some tasks I absolutely don't want to see new editors starting out with are New Page Patrol, article translation (the new tool seems to make it too easy for people to just dump lousy machine translations into mainspace) and dealing with COI editors and their work (they don't have the experience to deal with the weirdness). (For the record, I engaged in two of these before having sufficient experience and it was a mistake). After 500 edits and a read through of some relevant policy, sure, but not right off the bat. Happy Squirrel (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Truth be told, I think it's a huge mistake Wikipedia makes by allowing brand new editors to create new articles right out of the gate. It's like novice automobile drivers in the left lane on the Highway. They have no idea what they are doing and how poorly they are doing it. WE need an "Editors Learning Permit". Buster Seven Talk 07:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree with User:Buster7 that it is a huge mistake to encourage new editors to create articles in article space. My original comment had to do with new editors who create drafts in draft space that are not suitable for Wikipedia, to encourage them to learn about Wikipedia beyond their one area of interest. I wasn't thinking of new paid editors, but of new volunteer editors with only one interest. My original comment had to do with editors who submit a non-notable, probably COI, draft. We can give the same welcome, whatever it should be, to new editors who submit a non-notable, probably COI, draft in article space, but we should still, in my opinion, both delete the article through normal deletion procedures and advise them to use AFC for new submission. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that any information in article space immediately becomes almost the top hit in a Google search, gets mirorred I don't know where etc. We need to retain editors and promising content, but an unnaceptable article in mainspace is a major problem. Here I count clear POV, no references or illegible prose to all be unnaceptable. Especially in articles about medical topics that can do real harm, I honestly can't blame the new page patroller here. Should the templates be more civil? Likely, but even if they had kittens on them, it would not really soften the blow IMO. That is exactly why I'm not sure we should be allowing (or at any rate not encouraging) brand new editors to jump straight into article creation. It's harder than it looks and is extremely discouraging if you get it wrong. Happy Squirrel (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Not sure how to get the "restricted use till you know what your doing" idea to float. Seems like a major task. We need to fan the enthusiasm but at the same time protect the encyclopedia while also not upsetting the SPA too much so that they don't leave in a huff. Buster Seven Talk 13:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

My thought is that WP environment is extremely "overworrisome". Exactly what is the crisis if an unacceptable article appears in mainspace? No one will die, unless it is a BLP or medical quackery, no imminent harm is likely to follow. The simplest solution, IMO, is that articles which are inadequately referenced or POV be draftified rather than deleted. "Your article does not meet mainspace criteria at this time and has been moved to draft space for continued development" is a lot more welcoming than simply deleting it. If no further development is made in say 6 months then it can be deleted, but at least the opportunity is given, rather than the 10 second rule which now exists. SusunW (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Tick box

Happysquirrel At the outset, you mentioned a tick box. (I wish there was a tick box to do that automatically from the helper script.') Can you explain what a tick box is? Buster Seven Talk 13:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

A checkbox. For those who have not used the AfC interface, when declining a draft, you get a drop down menu with possible decilne reasons (sourcing, NPOV, topic exists etc.), then a text box for detailed comments. Underneath, you can check a box to leave a teahouse invite (if one is not already there). What I would like to suggest is that, if the code is feasible, there be a second checkbox that sees if there is a welcome already and if not adds a template. Happy Squirrel (talk) 03:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)