Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Editor Retention: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:28, 10 February 2019 editIsaacl (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users23,471 edits →Regarding indef blocked members: don't recall this; Editor of the Week is basically an encouraging word← Previous edit Revision as of 06:32, 10 February 2019 edit undoHijiri88 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users37,390 edits →Regarding indef blocked membersNext edit →
Line 71: Line 71:
:::::Meh. I seem to recall it being treated, around here, as a big deal that a past recipient had stormed off the project in a huff after enough folks realized they were a NOTHERE POV-pusher who had added fake citations to dozens of articles. Maybe things have changed since then. ] (<small>]]</small>) 05:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC) :::::Meh. I seem to recall it being treated, around here, as a big deal that a past recipient had stormed off the project in a huff after enough folks realized they were a NOTHERE POV-pusher who had added fake citations to dozens of articles. Maybe things have changed since then. ] (<small>]]</small>) 05:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
::::::I've been here since the beginning and don't remember this, but maybe there was some incident that some people thought was a big deal. Truthfully, Editor of the Week is not; it's basically an encouraging word. ] (]) 05:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC) ::::::I've been here since the beginning and don't remember this, but maybe there was some incident that some people thought was a big deal. Truthfully, Editor of the Week is not; it's basically an encouraging word. ] (]) 05:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
:::::::Only because you asked: {{tq|''Editor Catflap08 is a recipient of the Eddy Award. He is a quality editor that is a bit frustrated with Misplaced Pages at the present.''}} I should probably state for the record, given that I was recently accused of bringing up editors I disputed with in the past "out of nowhere" that I am well aware of said editor having attempted to appeal his siteban twice in the last two months (once when I was having on-wiki trouble that would have prevented me from commenting, and once a few hours after I announced my retirement). I should also probably take this opportunity to disclose what I said to ArbCom about a year ago, that I would be open to supporting the removal of said siteban, and would even be willing to voluntarily stay away from him, but someone else would need to agree to keep an eye on him to prevent the aforementioned fake citations (which, by the way, had already come to light not long before the aforementioned EOTW award). Either EOTW is a glorified barnstar to be awarded to disruptive POV-pushers ''for the behaviour that will eventually get them banned'' without a second thought, or it is a meaningful award that can be brought up in later disputes to "prove" an editor's ''bona fides'', but I don't see how it could possibly be both. And again I should emphasize that I am '''not''' trying to discuss this particular incident, and only gave this example because you asked. ] (<small>]]</small>) 06:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
:It's an issue that any WikiProject faces; I think a general cleanup of inactive members may be warranted, rather than targeting specific ones. ] (]) 04:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC) :It's an issue that any WikiProject faces; I think a general cleanup of inactive members may be warranted, rather than targeting specific ones. ] (]) 04:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:32, 10 February 2019

Main pageEditor of the WeekMembersTemplatesTalk page

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Editor Retention and anything related to its purposes and tasks.
Shortcuts
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36Auto-archiving period: 20 days 
WikiProject iconEditor Retention
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Editor Retention, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of efforts to improve editor retention on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Editor RetentionWikipedia:WikiProject Editor RetentionTemplate:WikiProject Editor RetentionEditor Retention

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Editor Retention and anything related to its purposes and tasks.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36Auto-archiving period: 20 days 
One of our most obvious objectives in editor retention is to forward the idea of equality, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, religion or creed. No one who discriminates may advertise here or be in any way a part of WER. Discrimination is completely against our entire mission, and will neither be endorsed nor tolerated.

Previous conversations about newbies, all in one place, so we can harvest ideas for solutions and not re-hash them

An un-opened gift from User:Penyulap

This is a library of sorts. Open 24/7. No library card is required and no fines will be levied.

Back on July 1, 2012, Dennis Brown said: "I'm seeing a lot of discussion in a lot of place regarding editor retention, but not a coordinated effort. This is that coordinated effort, a way for us to actually do something beside speak out in random venues."

Another long term content creator retires

User:Hijiri88, who commented on this page a lot recently has quit in frustration and gives reasons on his user page . I don't know how many times I have seen this happen now. The focus of this project is entirely misplaced imo, the concern seems to be with new editors being driven away by others being mean to them, I haven't actually ever observed that unless they are pushing a clear agenda and in that case who needs them. Much more of a real problem is long term content creators quitting. Maybe we should start a "content creators support group".Smeat75 (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Please ignore. I got the timeline wrong and thus the real reason has to be something else.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It is not at all clear that Hijiri88's description of events gives us the whole story. He says that Misplaced Pages "sanctioned the victim in a harassment case". See:
I would especially refer the interested reader to read Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88/Evidence.
This is not to say that other parties in the dispute didn't behave as bad or worse.
Bottom line: Hijiri88 (along with the help of some willing opponents) made Misplaced Pages his battleground, and made the decision to keep on fighting after recieving an interaction ban. I don't consider that "sanctioning the victim in a harassment case".
"In the clearing stands a boxer, and a fighter by his trade;
And he carries the reminders, of every glove that laid him down,
or cut him till he cried out, in his anger and his shame;
'I am leaving, I am leaving', But the fighter still remains..."
--The Boxer by Simon & Garfunkel
--Guy Macon (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
There have been a lot of posts over the years on individual long-term editors leaving, and the "Reasons editors leave" section on the main page is full of reasons applicable to experienced editors. As for focus... it's been a struggle to get participants to focus on achievable goals. There are a lot of structural issues with Misplaced Pages (which I've discussed before), but they can't get resolved here: a broader discussion has to take place in a more visible venue. In theory, approaches to address these issues could be discussed here, but the very same structural issues have hindered that, too: Misplaced Pages's tradition of allowing conversation topics to be selected by consensus means these type of working group discussions can get diluted by people introducing too many digressions, and this has happened a lot. I think many people watching or who used to watch this page care about the problems faced by all types of editors, but English Misplaced Pages's decision-making tradition (straw poll with multi-branching discussion threads and no moderation) stalemates progress.
I still think there's an opportunity to find places to make a small difference that don't require broad consensus to proceed, and to work on that. I know this will probably only have the tiniest bit of influence on editor retention as a whole, but any step forward is good. If you want to create a content creator support group, more power to you! Set some goals, create a page, and solicit editors to join. I look forward to the results! isaacl (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
@Buster7: I would appreciate your retracting or blanking the above comment. I consider it a personal attack; if I changed my mind about retiring that says a lot less about the circumstances that drove me to announce my retirement than about my own commitment to this project (or perhaps a mental block preventing me from leaving: the "draw of the wiki", if you will). You have not posted to ANI since 28 September 2016, so "while pursuing something else" seems like a weak excuse. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 Done. Just because I don't comment at ANI doesn't mean I don't pay attention to what goes on there. I don't remember which editor I was vetting for the EotW but, to be clear, I was not stalking you. ―Buster7 ☎ 06:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I also rarely edit the incidents' noticeboard. I trust no one will assume that it is unlikely I will have read something at the noticeboard for that reason. isaacl (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Regarding indef blocked members

I've discovered that some of the members here have been indef blocked since they joined. Is it necessary to remove them from the member pages, or just keep them as is? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I would say not necessarily, but I would advocate revoking "Editor of the Week" honours from such editors. Anyone can join a WikiProject for whatever reason they want, so having blocked/banned members doesn't actually hurt the credibility of the project as a whole; granting awards to people when they wind up getting site-banned a few months or years down the line for essentially the same behaviour we awarded them for definitely does. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
As we've discussed before, Editor of the Week was deliberately set up as a low-key thanks in recognition of some good work done; it's just a slightly more fancy barnstar. If by some chance I end up blocked someday, I hope no one would go to my talk page archives and scrub them clean of barnstars. Editors typically aren't all bad or all good; I think people understand that someone saying "thanks" in appreciation of task A is not an endorsement of later behaviour B. isaacl (talk) 04:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, I'm talking about those cases where we thanked someone for (a questionable interpretation of) behaviour A (not a specific task) and they were later banned as a result of a more thorough investigation of behaviour A. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC
As always, editors are invited to comment on the nominations before they are awarded. But like Buster7 said before, these aren't Nobel prizes. Unless there's a dramatic increase in the numbers of editors regularly involved, and an increase in the desire to vet the editors, the recognition is going to continue to have a low threshold for being awarded. By design, being recognized is a feel-good moment for the recipient and the nominator(s); it has very little effect beyond that. This keeps the whole thing low stakes, reducing the risk of unhealthy competition for a shiny bauble. isaacl (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Meh. I seem to recall it being treated, around here, as a big deal that a past recipient had stormed off the project in a huff after enough folks realized they were a NOTHERE POV-pusher who had added fake citations to dozens of articles. Maybe things have changed since then. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I've been here since the beginning and don't remember this, but maybe there was some incident that some people thought was a big deal. Truthfully, Editor of the Week is not; it's basically an encouraging word. isaacl (talk) 05:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Only because you asked: Editor Catflap08 is a recipient of the Eddy Award. He is a quality editor that is a bit frustrated with Misplaced Pages at the present. I should probably state for the record, given that I was recently accused of bringing up editors I disputed with in the past "out of nowhere" that I am well aware of said editor having attempted to appeal his siteban twice in the last two months (once when I was having on-wiki trouble that would have prevented me from commenting, and once a few hours after I announced my retirement). I should also probably take this opportunity to disclose what I said to ArbCom about a year ago, that I would be open to supporting the removal of said siteban, and would even be willing to voluntarily stay away from him, but someone else would need to agree to keep an eye on him to prevent the aforementioned fake citations (which, by the way, had already come to light not long before the aforementioned EOTW award). Either EOTW is a glorified barnstar to be awarded to disruptive POV-pushers for the behaviour that will eventually get them banned without a second thought, or it is a meaningful award that can be brought up in later disputes to "prove" an editor's bona fides, but I don't see how it could possibly be both. And again I should emphasize that I am not trying to discuss this particular incident, and only gave this example because you asked. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
It's an issue that any WikiProject faces; I think a general cleanup of inactive members may be warranted, rather than targeting specific ones. isaacl (talk) 04:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Categories: