Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 17

Editor Retention related discussion
User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 160 ```Buster Seven   Talk  15:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC) --Mark Miller (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I had already caught that admin/editor at WP:BN when he requested his bits removed and did a little homework on him. (for someone who is inactive, I manage to stay a bit active behind the scenes...)  He hasn't been willing to be forthcoming as to the reasons, but he really hasn't been "active" in two years either.  I didn't see anything obvious, and I wouldn't jump to any conclusions here.  Some people don't like change, like something when it is new and hate it when it becomes mainstream.  Some people hate steak, although I can't fathom why.  So, I have no idea why he left but it appears to be an atypical case. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  21:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Isn't this the editor who quit over his contribution at Ancient history? I believe that it was added back as it was accurate and relevant.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is there now:
 * I thought others might be interested in the discussion that followed there, (at that thread). ```Buster Seven   Talk  21:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that when it was originally posted and made the change on the article myself but when I went back to check It appears my save didn't take, but that thread is TLDR to me. I suppose my point being that if that contribution was actually returned and has stuck, what reason does the editor have for staying away. I hope they return, but some people get upset over time and get worn down.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This is why I said it was atypical. The single edit issue was bothersome, but that isn't likely "the" reason.  Some people do get bored or tired of the place, and not every exit gives us useful info on improving the place.  I'm not sure this case does or not, but it wasn't obvious. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  22:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What it reminded me of, was that our ancient history editors are under constant attack by editors with far less experience and expertise and that these articles can get pretty heated. As one of those ancient history editors I can at least attest to why this editor may have been worn down. Sometimes it can be very difficult to get others to understand their mistakes or errors in these areas and many times students seem inclined to edit over with garbage in good faith, but don't understand that there are sources and academic mainstream research that must be used for referencing and not just some random history website...and good lord there are a lot of those.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Which reminds me, I need to get back to work on the article Theatre of Pompey and finish referencing the article. It lacks a lot of references from when I was researching and writing many years ago and then forgot to add the actual sources I was using. It was one of my first major contributions and its also a nice, obscure article that hardly anyone else edits. I kinda liked that. But I also tend to coordinate some of the ancient history projects like WP:ROME. Perhaps a discussion on one or more projects could gain us some further information about how these editors feel about issues and problems they have and what they think could be done to better the situation.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * But he was an admin, so he knew the system. Often, admin will leave for different reasons.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  22:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I actually believe there had to be other reasons but this just reminded me of why I stopped contributing to the ancient history articles. it can be as bad as political articles at times.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

"I actually hate it here"
Thanks to User: Buster7 or starting this thread. I actually hate it here is discussion about the toxic editing environment at wikipedia which many, including Jimbo Wales, agree exists. The discussion, which is long, but not wp:TLDR due to the quality of participants, revolves around how pervasive this toxic environment is, whether it is getting worse, whether it affects admins more than other editors, whether it is only the reflection of normal society/human nature and nothing more, the changing nature of wikipedia, etc.

Some interesting statements such as the following make it a must read:

and much, much more....XOttawahitech (talk) 12:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Bad people are certainly driving the good people away
 * it's just anonymous people working without pay
 * set of skills needed for a start-up are not the same as the set of skills appropriate to manage a mature company
 * Like most of these discussions, I didn't find it particularly satisfying, because the participants in more or less equal measure seem to be of one these two minds:
 * The problem is obvious. The admin corp (and ArbCom) contains horrible bullies who prey on hapless and innocent editors. Of course there's a toxic environment and people are leaving in droves.
 * The problem is obvious. The editor corps contains horrible bullies, trolls, and fanatics who insult and alienate hapless and innocent editors, and the admin corps (and ArbCom) is very weak and slow to act. Of course there's a toxic environment and people are leaving in droves.
 * Well it can't be both. Having been here about nine years my experience is tend to lean pretty much to #2. (I note that the "I hate it here" guy is, after, an admin.) But others disagree and disagree vociferously and in reasonable numbers. Whether this is a manifestation of generally being disappointed with formal authority in general I don't know. If we could mostly agree that was #1 or #2 we could move forward. But we can't and, I guess, neverf will, so I don't know what we can do beyond nibbling at the edges of the problem. Herostratus (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Why can't it be both? Wikipedia is not a zero sum game, and it's huge -- five million articles. So it's certainly possible some editors are lost to #1, and some to #2. Hard to for me to say which, but I've undoubtedly seen potentially more of #1 because of the unsavory (dispute resolution or dramahboard) places I hang out, so, like everyone else, my experience is obviously not universal. NE Ent 20:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Why can't it be both? Only the most simplistic view would think that all admins are the same, or all editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * OK yes there are places where the first parts 1 or 2 apply. I spend less and less time at the dramah boards and more in our quieter and more productive places so my perspective is somewhat skewed, but if people were leaving in droves I would expect to see evidence of that. For starters the number of admins would be falling much more sharply. True the trend is downwards, but with so few making it through RFA we would need a nett turnover of 5% in our active admins for there not to be a decline. As for editors more generally, yes we are facing a gentle decline, and unlike some earlier years I don't think we can dismiss the recent decline as just more efficient processing of vandalism. But a certain amount of turnover is inevitable in any volunteer community. I'm not convinced that the drop we are seeing is more than one should expect from the rise of the smartphone and with it the shift of Wikipedia from a potentially interactive site to largely a broadcast one; and the fact that our readers are less likely to see the vandalism and typos that used to recruit them into editing.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "Crisis? What crisis?"
 * Go to a Wiki meetup. First thing that comes up is the toxic atmosphere, the reasons behind it and some of the names involved. Then compare across a random selection of WP people there (presumably active if they're there, and geographically selected) and even though they all edit in disparate areas of interest, you hear the same problems and the same names. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well what names? If the problem really is "Well, there are some bully admins and they drive people away and at the same time there are some bully editors and they drive people away and the admins won't do anything about it" then we're kind of screwed, in that we have a kind of situation where the admin corps is too strong and too weak at the same time. Unless... if there really are bully admins on a power trip, could we not sic them on the bully editors somehow? If there are admins who are looking for excuses to harass and block people, wouldn't pointing them to editors who are the habit of writing "go fuck yourself" to other editors or whatever be grist for their mill? It seems like it would much easier to harass, power-trip, and block someone who is actually a bad editor then just some unoffending mook you run into. I suppose it's not that easy though? Herostratus (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see "admins vs editors" as the big distinction – it's more about cliquey bullies vs. the rest. We have a lot of cases where a narrow subset of editors and admins work together, against other editors or the aims of the project. This is often thought to be caused by "my wikifriends can do no wrong", but I think it's more about self-selecting cliques of the middling (but easily led) following the downright harmful in righting one (and only one) Great Wrong. When some wikipedians see one particular policy as important above all others (copyright / BLPs / sourcing / socking / spam, all of which are reasonable to a reasonable level), there's a tendency for those who share the same bias to club together and support each other. We saw this very clearly about the return of the long-banned Betacommand, when a handful of admins who are similarly dogmatic about NFC images were very quick to sweep any discussion of this socking under the carpet. There's an infamous tag team of an editor who deletes massive amounts of articles for lack of sourcing (out of all proportion to the need, and with regular abuse of our RS standards) working with a bully of an admin who threatens blocks for anyone who disagrees, or even someone who adds new sources to support the removed content. Bullying and simplistic bureaucratic dogma are the problems, not administration or admins. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Without naming names (we probably have different names anyway), I think Andy makes a good point. To be honest, an editor who occasionally tells someone to "go fuck yourself" isn't really the problem.  That is annoying but typically well earned, from my experience, and I'm not prone to overreact.  Some of the best and most prolific contributors tend to be a little temperamental and I think you have to tolerate a bit of heat.  Encourage better behavior, but not overreact to every use of the word "fuck".  I see the bigger problem being one where people use the system against editors to push their flavor of dogma, as Andy states.  We do have some people who go on crusades against whatever perceived "threat" to Wikipedia they are hot about, and overzealous enforcement (which is often selective enforcement) does drive people away.  Most contributors don't want to have to be a policy expert to edit here.  Others just want to be policy experts more than edit.  And yes, it isn't admin vs. editor, the camps are divided by Wiki-dogma, not by bits.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  12:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree Wikipedia has problems that cannot be classified as “admins vs editors”, however I believe some admins do  not realize the chilling effect of their words and actions on the community. Take for example the new/old article I just created/re-created. Russell Mills (publisher) ‎ apparently had a wiki-article about him which was speedily deleted in 2010, and no one saw fit to re-create since then, XOttawahitech (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Had to do some digging to find what you were talking about. In my opinion Kevin shouldn't have deleted it G10 without review from another set of eyes, but that was recently after enwp became paranoid about negative BLPs.  It also shows why admin should only tag articles that aren't obviously vandalism, so two sets of eyes are on every deletion.  I probably would have removed the "fired" part, and maybe even sent it off to AFD or stubbed it if I couldn't find any sources.  Even now, having only one source is worrisome, I assume others exist and should be added.  I don't see what Kevin did as abuse or misuse, just hasty.  BLP is one of those areas where there isn't a singular consensus and there are people who really go overboard "protecting" people from Wikipedia. BLP fanaticism is problematic, but I'm not sure this is a prime example.Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  14:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not being specific enough - I have now corrected the link above to point to Russell Mills (publisher) (instead of Russell Mills), and thanks for providing information about the deleted article that non-admins are not privy to. For example I had no idea that the deleted article used the word "fired". I hope the current "dismissed" will not get this article deleted again, sigh…
 * By the way the new article which was created on April 7, has had nothing added to it since its creation save for a nice big fat notability banner right at the top, another sigh… It still has no categories, no stub-links, no additional refs (which can easily be located in other wiki-articles that link to it), no information at all except:
 * Russell Mills was the publisher of the Ottawa Citizen. He was dismissed in 2002 by CanWest Global Communications Corp. following the publication of a story critical of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and an editorial calling for Chrétien's resignation. After he was dismissed he was became a Nieman Fellow. XOttawahitech (talk) 11:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The deletion was quite correct under the guidelines at the time. The article had no references, and contained controversial (not just negative) material.  Now, it would be tagged per BLP prod, but there was a backlog of about 59,000 articles, with no sources, about living persons.
 * You created the article, you should be the one to add the information, if you can find a reliable source. I could improve the article, but I do not believe it would meet Wikipedia's notability requirements anyway, so it would not be (IMO) a productive use of my time.  I have occasionally added references to articles about subjects I do not consider notable.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * One of the areas I am active in on WP is history of early Christianity, historicity of events in the Bible both old and new testaments, biblical scholarship, and WP lost two of its most valuable editors in related areas, PiCo and History2007 in the last year, so this is not generalised speculation "it's bullying admins,no it's bullying editors" but actual cases, maybe untypical due to the area of editing, I don't know, but what those two editors could not deal with any more were the constant disruption caused by POV pushers, either biblical fundamentalists, or more frequently, strident anti-religion editors who would not be satisfied until every article about Christianity has "this is all a lot of made up rubbish" written across the top of every page in large letters. The problem in this area anyway is that it takes weeks or months or years of arguing, collecting "evidence", going to various noticeboards and dispute resolution procedures, to get an admin to do anything, they are much too lenient and slow moving in my opinion. "The encyclopedia that anyone can edit" brings in a lot of ignorant people with strong prejudices to contentious areas that require a bit of knowledge, for WP's concept "just let anyone edit anything" to work it needs some way of removing obviously biased editors with no idea of what they are talking about instantly, not only after they have worn everyone's patience out and driven away the few valuable editors willing to spend their time making WP a credible resource.Smeat75 (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That is very true. The problem is, people lean on admin to come in and sort it out when all the parties are pissed off at each other over POV, and we aren't experts on that topic.  This is why admin don't make content decisions, yet our actions sometimes can CHANGE the content if we end up blocking a couple of people on one side of the argument.  I think that sometimes, we get labeled as taking sides, when really we are just doing our best to figure out who is causing the most problems.  And yes, I'm sure that sometimes an admin does take sides even if trying to be coy, but not most of the time.  I hate being dragged into Middle East brawls for this reason, for I'm utterly ignorant of the content, and no matter what I do, someone is going to call my actions "biased", in one way or another.  Of course, this is one reason that many admin avoid these areas, and they are under "policed", so to speak.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  17:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

You know, Andy, your definition of "bully" is a little strange, and your definition of "threatens blocks for anyone who disagrees, or even someone who adds new sources to support the removed content" is even stranger. I certainly threaten you with blocks periodically, but I suspect it's far less often than your misbehaviour warrants one. Assuming that the "someone who adds new sources" pertains to Torchiest, I'll point out that I didn't threaten him at all. He made one large edit, an edit that contained a policy-compliant citation for one section and set of non-compliant tags for other sections. I removed only the sections that did not comply with policy, issuing no threats in the process. He later added back in the material with citations and it remains there without complaint. Compare that to your behaviour, where you reverted against WP:BURDEN, ran to ANI screaming, didn't get much support, yet you reverted again, once again violating WP:BURDEN while simultaneously accusing people that were editing in alignment with WP:RS of attempting to disrupt Wikipedia. Then you come here and make insinuations without naming names, as if that somehow makes spewing falsehoods more palatable. So, here we are on a talk page about editor retention. Care to explain exactly why you think you are an editor that people should be concerned about retaining?&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Were your ears burning Kww? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It perplexes me as to why you think making false statements is somehow acceptable if you don't "name names", or why you think making them would lead to a less toxic editing environment or increase editor retention.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has a wide variety of personalities among its editors. and some people who are willing to take strong action are needed to balance people who prefer to edit less boldly. I like Herostratus's point about matching up admins and editors with these overbearing personalities, since the latter won't likely be cowed or driven away, and the rest of us can get on with improving the encyclopedia.  HOWEVER, there's another, more subtle form of "bullying" which experienced editors sometimes use with new editors, often without realizing it, and that is patronizing comments ("There, there, dearie, don't get excited; your ideas are quaint, but we know better, and someday you'll see how smart we are and come to agree with us.")  While it's unpleasant to have nasty comments thrown your way by "bullies", at least with these their improper behaviour is obvious to everyone; the patronizing putdowns, on the other hand, are just as damaging and hurtful, yet are more difficult to respond to in a calm rational way when you think others won't value your response anyway.  Even editors like those of us here who work on Editor Retention (and I include myself) may need to consciously avoid falling into this patronizing mode of interaction. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe the solution is to just get head out of asses, and realize "anyone can edit" doesn't mean one is entitled to be a dufus, and/or a jerk. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Anne, that is one reason I'm not a big fan of punishing "civility" based solely on swear words. If you block only the blunt people, you are left with patronizing passive aggressive types. "I'm sure you're a smart person, but only a fool would think that $x" is no better than "Don't be an idiot, $x is true".  Both are insulting, even if one is wrapped in saccharine. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  14:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Research shows editor retention problem isn't with old hands
This point is made by User:WhatamIdoing over at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales. According to WhatamIdoing research established the problem is  that newbies don’t stick around, not that experienced editors are  leaving. Do you agree? XOttawahitech (talk) 11:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC) There have been strategies piloted by researchers regarding feedback to new editors a summary of this is in the lit review I mentioned in the sections above. Fundamentally if you want this project to have an impact you need to look at the facts. We can all talk around in circles here & come up with great initiatives or theories about user groups that although interesting have no impact on editor retention. This page wont remain if it's used primarily to talk about other people - it's not a forum-- Cailil  talk 12:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This project must look at research about this problem rather than giving opinions. It's thoroughly logical that in a volunteer environment people can't/wont stay here forever. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a life sentence. But the issue with editor retention is with newbies. How to keep IPs and other people who do drive-by edits. And while I agree that some of the "protected" editors whose behaviour wouldn't be acceptable elsewhere are not helpful either to new or current editors, the fact of the matter is all research shows that it's run of the mill actions (templates, reversion) taken by many many users are putting new editors off.
 * Templates are great for saving time, but we need to counterbalance them with personal interaction. Even if new editors are finding the processes mystifying, they are more likely to persist if other editors encourage them and admit to having had similar problems when they were beginners.  A little reassurance that any mistakes can easily be undone is good too; many new editors may worry about making a mess, and don't know about the saved history of the articles.  Another way to make new editors feel wanted is to ask their help with an article related to one their working on; for example, if they've added sources to one article that might be useful in a related topic, maybe ask if they'd consider adding them there. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes but it's actually quiet complex. Different editors respond in different ways, and I highly recommend reading the paper 'Don't Bite the Newbies: How reverts affect the quantity and quality of Wikipedia work' for a fuller explanation & view on this. As well as 'Thee rise and decline of an open collaboration system: how wikipedia's reaction to popularity is causing its decline' & 'Defining, Understanding, and Supporting Open Collaboration Lessons From the Literature'. The WMF is aware of this research and that's why the Teahouse exists. If this project wants to help with those efforts then the contributors here need to read themselves in. A soft measured tone in personal correspondence will help some of the new editors stay, but others don't need that (and in fact assimilate quite well already), and again others wont stay either way. So from the research it seems that it's as much about current users knowing how to behave with different types of new editor and how best to help these newbies, rather than asserting the importance of their own "wikipedia experience" (read: agenda). That requires a major shift in emphasis and attitude. The site has over 4 million articles it no longer needs the kind of behaviour and attitude it did in 2003. We've moved from creation to curation (for the most part) and that's an uncomfortable shift-- Cailil  talk 20:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not an "uncomfortable shift", it's simply untrue. Eric   Corbett  20:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The above isn't my opinion it's what's in the research. When wikipedia started off not only content but policies were in development. Now we tweak policy (at best) & we have 4 million articles, many of which are high quality (thanks to content writers like yourself). New editors don't have the same opportunity to write about the big topics (Marxism, Shakespeare, cold fusion, the big bang) in the same way we all did in 2003-2006. I don't know about you but when I look at other wikis the most attractive ones to edit are the ones that are incomplete. En-WP's incompleteness while it may never be gone is always shrinking. And as a wiki it is/was designed for that open-ended, crowd sourced content creation. That's why en-WP has succeeded. BUT according to studies on editor retention and the gender gap (you can find many in google scholar and some here) the fact that 4 million articles exist (with thousands of them being Good Articles and Featured Content) does have an impact on the community in terms of a) its rules and b) its openness to new members and new ideas. Interestingly one of the earlier pieces of research on editor retention suggested (and I don't totally agree here but this is their argument) that the number of new "good faith" editors has been falling since 2005 & that this related to the fact it appears that there's less to do. Now I'd love to say "this is untrue", but frankly if this wasn't the case we wouldn't be loosing new editors, this project wouldn't exist, and neither would the teahouse-- Cailil  talk 02:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * When Wikipedia was first in development, all of the other wikis didn't exist. Now there are specialized wikis for everything including the kitchen sink, not to mention all of the blogs and social media sites, etc.  It's not surprising that there are fewer editors here now when people have so many other choices. On the contrary, it's amazing that so many thousands of people still show up here every month to add to the encyclopedia.  Many of the other sites have very little in the way of standards or policies, so editors can muck about freely, but Wikipedia can't do that and maintain its quality, so there's always a balancing act between making it fun and keeping its direction.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 03:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Editor retention is about retaining our editors, editor recruitment is the problem of recruiting new editors. Historically our biggest problem was in the very low rate at which we convert people from trying Wikipedia editing into becoming regular editors. Once they become regular editors then only a minority leave each year, and of course some who leave eventually come back, which adds to the complexity of measuring this. But we have problems with both recruitment and retention, hence we now have this project as well as longer standing ones such as the welcome committee.
 * The retention and recruitment situations are both complex, and we should beware overly simple analysis of either of them. Yes one of the factors is that some of the topics people might want to edit about are now much more complete, and also that the average level of quality has risen, those wikipedia readers who would fix the odd vandalism or typo as they come across them are making fewer changes per hour of reading wikipedia. Another factor is that our de facto quality standards have risen, so the community is no longer welcoming to those who make uncited additions..... We also shouldn't underestimate the shift from PC to tablets and mobiles, and the resulting shift of Wikipedia to being less of an interactive medium and more a broadcast one. Those are just some of the factors now affecting recruitment. This project however is intended to focus on editor retention. The teahouse and the welcome committee can worry about recruiting new editors, in this project I would suggest we try to focus on retaining the editors who we have.
 * There is some evidence that our retention of the editors who became very active in the early years of the project is much better than it is for newer editors. I noticed this some years ago re our admins, though I don't know if it applies more generally. That could be a sign that we have become cliquey and that more recent active editors find it difficult to become "core" members of the community, or it could be a statistical illusion and we will find that once the wikigeneration of active editors who first edited in 2010 reach their fifth anniversaries of their first edits their retention rate will improve to the same level as others who have been active for five or more years. One of the things I have been doing is looking at the editors who have created fifty or more new articles and not yet had the autopatroller flag set. It is surprisingly easy to find such editors who have been working with barely any interaction with the community. I'm hoping that my setting those of them who are ready for it as Autopatrolled will do a little to make some of those editors feel more appreciated, but if anyone has the time, I would really like to see what would happen if some of those editors then found that one of their articles was nominated by someone at DYK.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  20:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I wonder if one reason that the editors that started out early in Wikihistory have stuck around better than newer editors (assuming that is the case) is simply due to the type of people that were attracted to Wikipedia when it was unknown, versus now that is is mainstream. If I were to guess, using nothing but instinct, I would imagine that early adopters were turned on by the "Free as in speech and Free as in beer" aspects, and because back then, Wikipedia was virtually counterculture.  Now, it has a social network aspect to it, plus the host of spammers now that didn't exist back when I started in 06.  Anyone who is really into GPL, "Free", etc.....they have already joined and likely many years ago.  Those (like myself) are more ideologically driven by the idea of creating an encyclopedia simply because information wants to be free, so they stick it out.  Some new users might feel that way, but I would guess that isn't the motivation for most of them. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  22:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * @WereSpielChequers I see where you're coming from but actually the research is showing exactly what Ottawahitech said at the top of this subthread - the retention problem is with the newer editors. Yes there is a difference between recruitment and retention, but the problem seems to occur after the reader becomes an editor and before they feel anchored in the community. I also think there is a little bit of fallacy in the idea that we should trying to stop old hands leaving. Wikipedia is not a life-sentence editing is a charitable act that requires a lot of free time and some basic IT knowledge/confidence. Not everyone can sustain these for 10 years plus. Hell not everyone can do it for 3. In a sustainable community new people come on board to replace those who are no longer active. What En-WP is experiencing is a lack of newer editors becoming experienced editors to replace the "natural wastage" (that's a horrible HR term but that's what this is called) of older wikipedians who leave or who have less and less time to contribute. If we focus on retaining the people who have less and less time to contribute we're actually missing the point. Something is putting newer editors off staying at En-WP. If we don't start retaining them then En-WP has a limited future or at least it wont continue to exist in its current form. I think Dennis has a point about the generational gap as do you about WP becoming a broadcast medium, but as yet the community or site policy (or both) hasn't caught up with this fundamental shift in media and market-- Cailil  talk 14:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I do a fair bit of work over at wp:Missing Wikipedians which revolves around established users. I agree that some leave simply due to "natural wastage", but not the majority. It is my anecdotal observation that many leave when they become disenchanted with certain aspects and feel they cannot effect change.  There is also a surprisingly high number of established editors who have no choice in the matter because the community "rejected" them. XOttawahitech (talk) 08:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * By the community "rejecting" users I assume you're talking about bans. Frankly bans whether handed down by arbcom are off the table here. On the issue of you observation there's an article called 'Governance, Organization, and Democracy on the Internet: The Iron Law and the Evolution of Wikipedia' and others in my own lit review that deal with the power structure here. Outside research is showing that while there's a a lot of clamour about cliques and cabals we don't actually have an oligarchy here. Now in my own experience I've seen people who've gone from having a "following" to not having a personal power base leave because "they become disenchanted with certain aspects and feel they cannot effect change" - the founders of wikipedia review for example. People who want to use this site for whatever personal reasons wont/can't last - it is designed to counter this impulse because its a crowd sourced encyclopedia based on 3rd party scholarly research but that excludes original synthesis of materials. In 'Membership turnover and collaboration success in online communities: explaining rises and falls from grace in Wikipedia' the authors are suggesting that "knowledge creation and knowledge retention are actually distinct phases of community- based peer production, and that communities may on average experience more turnover than ideal during the knowledge retention phase". Now that this site has entered a curatorial or "data retention" phase editors who were of the earlier mindset (content creation) are lost because the site changed but they haven't. But again a wider understanding of why some poeple leave volunteer activities is needed, and believe it or not research exists on that topic: 'Voluntary engagement in an open web-based encyclopedia: Wikipedians and why they do it' and 'Volunteers in Wikipedia: why the community matters' are worth reading, as would general research about why volunteers give up voluntary activities-- Cailil   talk 14:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not mean only wp:banned editors I meant all of the ex-editors who are not permitted to edit. There appears to be tens of thousands of blocked users . XOttawahitech (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

And "there are 10 million bicycles in Beijing". There are over a 100,000 accounts blocked specifically for violating the username policy. This non-negotiable and people who violate such core policy by coming here to advocate for, promote or push whatever agenda don't fall into the category of good faith editors. Also many users who accidentally run a foul of that policy create a new account (WP:UNC) so not every one of those accounts represents a lost wikiepdian. There are also around 7,000 vandalism only accounts and around 10,000 accounts for spam/advertising only & nearly 30,000 sock-puppets. Frankly for 11 years or so worth of en-WP that's less than I thought there would be. But it makes no difference to this discussion or area. These are nuisance/pov-pushing/spammer accounts they'd all have to be blocked anyway. The only users "rejected by the community" are the 831 banned accounts and these are off the table (btw 209 of them are banned due to off-site issues related to Bogdanov Affair - see WP:BOGDANOV). The others are just not here to improve the encyclopedia-- Cailil  talk 10:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Re: "We also shouldn't underestimate the shift from PC to tablets and mobiles, and the resulting shift of Wikipedia to being less of an interactive medium and more a broadcast one." Now that's insightful. It's quite possible that the decline in the number of editors simply reflects the fact that editing an encyclopedia on a phone or tablet doesn't work very well. It may have nothing to do with Wikipedia policies or culture at all. John Nagle (talk) 06:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I am not sure I agree. The research shows (I believe) that the mean "lifetime" of editors recruited later is less than the mean "lifetime" of editors recruited earlier.  To jump from this to that being "the problem" is a leap.  Firstly there is the possibility that most of those people who will make long term active editors have already been recruited, those who are leaving "earlier" may be largely those of the "leave early" demographic.
 * Possibly the model we should be looking at is a core of 1-2000 dedicated highly productive editors surrounded by (in fact part of) a Gaussian cloud of contributors. The rate of top up ( Σ NewUserproductivity /t ) has to be sufficient to replace the rate of exit ( Σ ExitUserproductivity /t ).   (Of course user productivity varies over time, but this is simplified.)  Either increasing new editor retention, or old editor retention will assist this purpose, as will recruiting new users, reviving exited users and helping existing editors to be more productive.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC).

Check out this communication
I found this while wandering around the back rooms. It's not something we see often. Looks like a good partnership will develope. Ive changed the names to protect the innocent. ```Buster Seven   Talk  18:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Co-mentoring
Hi Editor A. I am grateful for the opportunity to work with you on Wikipedia, and look at this as an opportunity for "co-mentoring", given your experience and expertise with Wikipedia and whatever of value I may be able to offer back. I noticed that when I made some edits to a controversial article you undid my edits and tagged another unrelated article I have been working on. Thank you for helping me to understand the importance of sync with a primary article, attending to appearances that relate to neutral point of view, and minimizing or eliminating use of primary sources. I encourage us to use this as an opportunity to develop rapport and open communication for future work on Wikipedia. Sincerely, Editor P 14:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Procedures/2014 review
A discussion is being had regarding decoupling the CU/OS assignments from the Arbitration Committee. While this isn't a first priority for Editor Retention, it may affect how Functionaries are selected, so may be of interest to a number of people who frequent this page. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; WER  21:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Some thoughts
Hey, User:Ansh666 here. I'm retiring (for the foreseeable future), and I just thought some of you may want to hear my reasons, so here goes...

Apart from personal reasons (you could probably extrapolate from my old user page), I got fed up with people, especially new users, who didn't bother to learn the rules before coming in and generally raising hell because of it. Maybe it's because I have such a knack for picking up and working within that sort of thing (I'm going into Game design for a reason), but it really bothers me when people don't explore everything they can about a site or process or something before they try to use it. (I did write a short user essay related to this to blow off my steam; it's located here.) And since what I've been dealing with mostly includes areas such as current events articles, AfD and AfD-related cleanup, and lurking on the various admin boards (WP:AN/I really does suck the life out of you), I get large doses of this with everything I do. I think that initiatives such as WP:The Wikipedia Adventure will help in this regard, but you can't force people to use it (that is, if they even learn about it), and a lot of people (POV pushers, WP:FRINGE types, advertisers, etc.) wouldn't care anyways. Sucks, but what can you do, eh?

A smaller reason is related to what I was doing with AfDs. I'd comment, close some now and then, and clean up after screwed up closes or incomplete nominations. Problem is, much of those tasks require administrator tools (CSD/G6 deletions and delete closes for AfDs, though as far as I can tell a non-admin can close a discussion as delete and tag G6, though heavily discouraged), and looking at recent RfAs (read: Cyphoidbomb) there's no way in hell I'd ever be able to convince 50+ people to give me the bit, even if it's just for uncontroversial G6es. Honestly, the pain of waiting for an admin to get to a G6 or obvious pile-on delete AfD close is excruciating, and contributed a lot to my decision to stop doing that stuff.

Now, I was never one to be a content creator, as I hate writing and citing with a burning passion - this is actually probably the longest thing I'll ever write here on Wikipedia (at least, in coherent sentences) - so I've chosen to just step away, since there's nothing really that I would potentially enjoy apart from that. It'll take a while; I'm still IP-editing right now, but without stuff like a watchlist it should be a lot easier to drop the habits. And, bonus, all of you guys won't have to suffer through my horrible parenthetical notes and tangents any more.

Well, thanks everyone here for trying your hardest to keep this wonderful place from going too far downhill. Cheers, 206.117.89.4 (talk) (ansh666) 03:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Is it appropriate, with all the content policies that are in place, to describe Wikipedia as "the compendium of all human knowledge"? If not, this image does need to be changed, since a lot of the problems that I allude to in the first section are caused by newcomers thinking that anything can - and should - be on here. Then, they're driven away because they violated some policy stuff that they didn't know about (ugh!) and the cabal doesn't want their epic knowledge or something...


 * Wikipedia has never been or aimed to be "the compendium of all human knowledge", and if you're approaching it with that mentality, it's likely to explain why you're becoming frustrated at deletion debates and policy discussions. Ironically, for the author of Don't cite policies or guidelines until you've actually read them, you don't appear to have read WP:NOTEVERYTHING, which is the first of the five pillars and probably the most core of all Wikipedia's core policies with the arguable exception of WP:NPOV. – iridescent  16:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * According to Compendium: "... a "universal" encyclopedia can be referred to as a compendium of all human knowledge..." XOttawahitech (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * [double ping!] yet another shining example of people misreading me. I'm arguing that it's not, and that people who do claim this piss me off. Thanks. 206.117.89.5 (talk) 22:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, did I cite WP:NOTEVERYTHING? I didn't even mention it. You seem to be the one misusing my essay here, ironic, innit? 206.117.89.4 (talk) 08:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * New users cannot learn all the rules, because we have too many. That is why I proposed a temporary task force to cut down on the length and number of our polices and guidelines. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC).


 * Interesting. As you have been sanctioned for violating rules which I, at least, consider obvious, I can see where you are coming from.  I think it might be better to shorten some of the rules by reducing qualifiers, making the rules more restrictive, and then have corrections to allow more actions where they can be seen by experienced editors.   That way, new users would be less likely to violate the rules.  Where is this proposal?  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I would be interested in knowing which "obvious" rules you think I have broken and been sanctioned for, have a look, if you wish, at the finding about "responsiveness", and tell me which of the three diffs, given the respective context, supports the finding. Then, if you agree that there is sufficient support, find the "obvious rule" about responsiveness that they break - you can respond on my talk page to avoid cluttering this page.
 * The proposal is on User talk:Newyorkbrad. And I see no need to make rules more restrictive, the truly bad actors fall afoul of NPA, NPOV,  and edit warring.  We should, perhaps, think instead about revising the way we deal those who "don't get it", as I remember it used to be a "30 minute block while you read our message" rather than machine-gunning indef's all over the place as I recently saw. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC).

Is the situation at ANI a concern for editor retention?
wp:ANI is a huge drain on the goodwill of the community - at least I and a couple of other participants here, seem to think so. It draws over 70 thousand page view per month and dozens of contributions every day. Think of all the contributions to content if we could somehow channel this energy? Anyway, this is complex and I just wonder if there is something constructive we can do by discussing it here from the editor retention point of view? XOttawahitech (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It cuts both ways. When an SPA POV warrior gets reported, and I block them.  I've helped make it easier for good editors.  When a content dispute gets ugly and shouldn't even be at ANI, I try to close it down, as do others who regularly patrol ANI.  Some fairly inexperienced editors love to patrol ANI and frankly make it worse with their drum beat of drama.  Sometimes stuff gets screwed up and bad outcomes happen, but most of the time, handling things quickly is the best solution.  The longer a thread is open, the more likely that someone who hates the person being reported will come in and just drag up every instance where they disagreed.  Admin do make mistakes, and do stupid things from time to time, but I don't think that ANI has anything to do with it, they usually do so outside of ANI, with fewer prying eyes.  From my experience, ANI brings out the worst from armchair admin, but not from admin themselves. Not sure anything can be done other than manage the place with a tight grip to quickly close problems once they are solved, to discourage pile-ons (and experienced non-admins can close just as well as admin).  Sometimes, there just isn't much at all you can do, it will just be a train wreck. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  14:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've devoluted this so that it is a single thread. I agree AN/I is a big concern. I propose three mechanisms that may help:
 * State specific threshholds for editors to come to AN/I and reject applications that are below these, with some discretion. We have the 3RR and it works very well because it sets in stone an exact number. Users can make mischeif below this but above this there may be intervention. This clarifies what is 'wrong', reduces the impression of impartiality, and reduces the burden on dispute resolution-admins. --LT910001 (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * State specific pathways for action and follow them. Same as above. Have several pathways. A 'bullying' pathway. A 'harrassment' pathway. These should have set-in-stone penalties and escalation procedures. We have a good system of law which emulates this in real life and developed in part because of arbitrary sentencing. This is good for users, as they can immediately see what the problem is, and good for admins, as it reduces the appearance of arbitrariness. --LT910001 (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Have a mild cost for the user. Have a policy that all users bringing complaints, regardless of their position, will be, as policy, blocked for 1-2 days. This will not influence editing, but will increase the threshhold to complaining for editors and, ideally, encourage other forms of dispute resolution. --LT910001 (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * How about some significant consequences for bad behaviour AT AN/I, by Admins and others alike? Dennis Brown mentions several types of such bad behaviour above. At present, a reported editor is routinely subject to attacks that would not not be tolerated anywhere else on Wikipedia. Boomerangs are too rare to be effective. HiLo48 (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. --LT910001 (talk) 23:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've held my tounge for a week while thinking about this, points 1 and 2 I can get behind, but point 3 is a absolute non-starter. I believe we already sanction editors who bring frivilous complaints to ANI that aren't yet ready for ANI's intervention or aren't appropriate so that discourages that route.  To sanction editors who have a valid reason for seeking help are as a matter of course blocked for "bismirching ANI" all you will have is a shifting of the 3-ring-drama-circus to some other venue.  What I would like to see is those editors who abusively kibbutz on requests be sanctioned for failing to adhere to the purpose of the board (to help editors resolve the dispute). Hasteur (talk) 14:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * IMO ANI (and even AN) are the most disgusting 21st-century inventions of humankind, allowing for public stonings and complete irresponsibility re comments be they false accusations, slanders, smears, personal attacks, and insults coming from every direction of a dark corner an editor has ever accumulated a wiki-enemy cognizant of the ANI which subjects him. There are no rules, no patrols, no nothing. So be ready for abuse, shaming, lying, mud-throwing, pile-ons, and all kinds of feces one can imagine at that cesspool board. (Dennis, you're mollifying. I know you can do nothing to destroy that venue, which it surely deserves burning to the ground, but nonetheless, you're mollifying when giving sage advice how to cope w/ that disgrace. [I guess an admin may not, or cannot, criticize a WP structure or venue, i.e. its very existence, because by signing on to be admin, it equates to tacit acceptance of the current cultural venues as-is, including those disgusting boards. {What's next after public stoning? Exorcisims!?}] Shut that damn thing down and curse and burn the resulting cinders. Or, let it go on and be a deeper part of a chapter in a book by a future anthropologist documenting what it is and what it does and how it does it and how it reflects on civilization post [fill-in-the-blank].) p.s. Oh excuse me, it's called "community consensus". (Will someone please give me a clean argument how lynchings in American history are also not "community consensus"? [I think the answer is already out there. Otherwise "lynch mobs" and "witch hunts" would not be current idioms popularly used to describe that venue by a multitude of editors.] Supportive reference: [...] this place is one step removed from an anarchy, so our "standard practice" that gets enforced in any particular case varies tremendously depending on which admin(s) and arb(s) and kibitzer(s) feel strongly about the editor in question. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2014.) (UTC)Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm going to back what Dennis says - ANI often serves as protection for editors who are being abused. As for blocking anyone who brings an issue there, I can't get my head around that one. Someone comes there to say they are being called a Nazi or a pedophile and we block them? Yes, it deteriorates at times, often because of inexperienced editors or those with an axe to grind, but it does have the benefit of being democratic. What's the alternative? Submit everything for Admins to decide? As an Admin I'd hate that. I'd rather trust in the community. Dougweller (talk) 14:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * There are alternatives. (For instance, ask User:Epipelagic. Thinking there is no better option is what keeps the WP elephant foot tied down. I also have my own idea of alternative that would consume less community time and sidestep the freak show. [A dedicated discussion page with the two parties and uninvolved neutral admin. If reasons for discontent with the result, escalate to a higher forum, but not anything like AN/ANI public swimming abuse board where anyone can pee in the water. It doesn't take a whole lot of creative thought to come up with a better solution, particularly because just how bad the current venue is.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem with the alternative you just described is that's precisely what ANI is - a place for two parties to bring a grievance which needs input from an administrator. You might be right in saying that lots of other editors also weigh in where they aren't needed and make things worse, but it's difficult to establish a board where certain people are prohibited from editing, and even if it were possible, the input from other editors is often useful.  Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 21:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There's already a precedent with blocks and block appeals. (An admin [theoretically] evaluates the facts surrounding a particular situation and issues a block. On a block appeal, a [theoretically] neutral admin reevaluates the same facts and additional arguments to make her/his determination. There's no wider participation [including abusive kibitzing] allowed.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * AN/I is a place where extremely obvious personal abuse is rife, with consequences rare. Why is content accepted there that wouldn't be accepted anywhere else? HiLo48 (talk) 22:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hardly the only place where such abuse is rife. WP:RfA and ArbCom spring immediately to mind. Eric   Corbett  22:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So a solution may be creating or improving a code of conduct for these venues? --LT910001 (talk) 23:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Eric. The abuse flows from the fact "anyone can comment" (which seems to find default acceptance [i.e. resistance to re-think] because it apparently modelled after "anyone can edit") and that soil blooms irresponsible commentary which often = personal abuses. (As pointed out above, blocks & block appeals did not follow that bowling ball gutter [default model]. It could have!; but it didn't.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Good AN/I threads look like "User A is doing X - signed User B" "Warned, - signed Admin C" or "User A is doing X - signed User B" "No, that's fine - explained on your talk page, - signed Admin C". Maybe the mistake is trying to use AN/I as a sort of dispute resolution or discussion forum.

I would like to see a more decisive AN/I, even if it meant more blocks, provided that we were relaxed about having the blocks reverted. If the saved effort went into dispute resolution, it might be a big step forward.

Oh and something I was thinking recently - how about if (as a cultural thing) admins tagged new threads "I am looking into this" - it would save a lot of extraneous work and maybe extraneous comment.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC).


 * My idea-suggestion above to eliminate the current irresponsibile and abusive public stoning venue and model ANI instead after blocks/block-appeals would seem to (or be in position to) achieve all three of your points at once. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Interesting thread. Would it at all be helpful though if we included more admin that are regulars at these venues? I can't think of much that would improve admin noticeboards except....well....more non admin. Admin tend to stick together often but not always and sometimes one can almost expect what will be the reaction to certain issues. But more discussion from experianced non admin is something I always feel is needed and the main reason why I tend to be a regular at the boards. We don't have the tools but we do have our voice and we can contribute to discussions. The worst thing about the admin boards is that there can be hostility that is simply not needed.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * One possible unintended consequence is that the more formatted and formal you make ANI, the less accessible it becomes for new users. The free form and informal nature of it makes it easy to use for people who don't frequent admin areas.  I would expect some resistance to anything that makes it more formal, like DRN or ARB.  The more difficult it is to report, the less "user friendly" it is, which might itself be an editor retention problem.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  00:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I really dislike the formality of DRN. I get a little tired of having to fix the requests because of just how complicated it seems to some. But also, because of the formality, editors are expecting things we can't do and well.....it is also the very reason why, DRN has 100 volunteers and yet only a handful of those 100 are actually volunteering. Maybe as few as 4 or 5 regular editors work at DRN. So...yeah...please don't do that to ANI. I beg you.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * the more formatted and formal you make ANI Don't know where that came from -- I didn't suggest that (maybe someone else did!?). The "informality" that anyone can comment leads directly to the abusive cesspool that is now (and has been for a long time). So keep it limited to an admin and the pertinent parties. Like block/block appeals. That's the idea and I don't get how something so simple could get derailed. (NE Ent said elsewhere that wide participation is important when discussing and !voting on new procedure or modifying existing procedure. But ANI at least involves interpretation of currently existing policy and violations of same.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Accusations of fake retirements
I have watched this accusation being increasingly used by bullies elsewhere to reinforce editor decisions to leave, after some of us have done what we can to persuade a positive contributor to reconsider their decision to quit editing. While I am sure that there are a few who post a retirement banner as a tactic, going that far for the overwhelming majority reflects severe frustration with toxic Wikipedia environments in which some editors are allowed to game the system to relentlessly insert and maintain unencyclopedic and PoV content. Some of these editors have latched onto retirement banners as a way to shame editors who attempt to come back. I am certain that there are also a few other editors who use the retired template instead of the more accurate semi-retired or Wikibreak templates. Slamming people for posting retirement banners is destructive to efforts at editor retention and irrelevant to whatever was the original source of conflict. If other editors manage to convince them to come back, someone is sure to state or imply that they were insincere or gaming, prompting them to again limit or cease contributing altogether. I think that WP:CIVIL should make a brief, but explicit, mention regarding dunning editors for changing their status. It might also be time to consider changes to the templates (a retired person in real life often does continue to contribute in his/her field occasionally, or even come out of retirement from time to time). &bull; Astynax talk 18:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There's an essay at Goodbye you might find interesting. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Punch and Judy moment... No there isn't! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * While that would be a good read for editors considering posting a retired template, it really does not, and cannot, address the thinly veiled attacks directed at constructive editors who decide to try returning from retirement (for whatever reason). Those are irrelevant, incivil and incompatible with a goal of editor retention. Making the ad hominem nature of such snide remarks clearer in policy would help put a stop to this. &bull; Astynax talk 22:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. This is completely counterproductive. A "right to return" should be part of policy. --LT910001 (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, that is kind of unnecessary for a couple of reasons. The "retired" banner has no power in policy, and changing policy has never made someone start being really nice.  Can anyone give an example of someone who was shamed after coming back when they had a banner up for a while?  I know that  a couple of people who had previous disagreements might make a wise crack (again, policy changes wouldn't change that) but I've never seen wide spread ostracizing. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  23:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Surely you aren't meaning "This is a non-issue if editors are attacked after returning, unless it actually gets so bad that they do leave"?
 * If you want examples, a favoured spot for it would be amongst the trolls at Wikipediocracy. They're running a whole thread on it right now. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm saying without specific examples, any comment is a vague generalization as every situation is different. And we all know that "changing policy" alone doesn't mean much.  If people are harassing returning editors, we already have policies against that.  As for Wikipediocracy, that it isn't a site I normally visit.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  01:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It depends upon the editor, I put up a retired banner myself a couple of times out of frustration and eventually quit with the genuine intention of not returning. My reasons for doing so stemmed from being the object of a sustained bullying campaign that was never really dealt with.  Instead, they took the usual wikipedia attitude of assuming both sides being equally responsible and punishing the victim as well as the abuser.  It really does stick in the craw to this day.
 * Equally I have seen editors who in reality are WP:DIVAs who trounce off in the huff, then have their sycophantic acolytes rush around saying how terrible the whole business was and how the people their WP:DIVA criticised were responsible. I've also seen their acolytes carrying on the same bullying behaviour their WP:DIVA pursued when their WP:DIVA is under an interaction ban and can no longer do so.  It would be better for WP:DIVA's accolytes to tell them to quit being a WP:DICK in the nicest possible way.
 * In the first situation, then snide comments from the original editors responsible for said campaign of harassment are in reality continuing it but from my personal experience, wikipedia handles this very badly. If you comment on this as an ad hominem, which it is, then usually you're going to be accused of not being able to let the "dispute" go.  Another case of victim being punished and the abuser going scot free. Whilst I respect your opinion Dennis, I have to observe from personal experience, the policies will usually not be helpful. WCM email 15:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, that is kind of my point. If an action is already against policy, adding more policy won't solve the problem.  Admin alone aren't the answer either, our tools are pretty much limited to blocking.  You can say something to someone violating WP:DICK as well as I can.  Blocking for DICK violations is a guaranteed drama fest, so some admin will just avoid it.  Your other point is right on the money, and I would add that it isn't always a case of DIVA or not, there is grey area inbetween.  If someone puts up a retired banner, their page may also get ignored or unwatched, since they are "retired".  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  15:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It'd be better and more sensible to delete the Retired template and advise people not use it or an alterntaive due to the drama/ragequit issues and issues when some people come back. Actually do ppl think that that would that be a constructive proposal - and if so could be write it up-- Cailil  talk 16:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting proposal but, amongst other things, deleting a template that's now used historically by some editors to mark themselves as retired may be akin to modifying our history. --LT910001 (talk) 08:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No you'd have to "substitute" it (wikicode "subst:") where it's currently transcluded. It would remain where it already exists and those using it currently would be advised to the draw backs and advised to remove it and in general an advisory could be written to suggest its better to avoid such templates-- Cailil  talk 14:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That would certainly drive a stake through the heart of any user who didn't die fast enough. —Neotarf (talk) 06:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Those pesky retirees sure are a problem. Don't they realise that the DIVAs have important flouncing to do and that all this subst:ing would take time and effort?
 * Just maybe we're looking in the wrong direction for blame here?
 * WP:DICK is a problem itself. It's one of the most pervasive problems around, yet (as noted by Wee Curry Monster above) it's near impossible to call anyone (of a handful of the obvious regulars) on it, without a chorus of boomerang wielding acolytes. Saying DICK is rude and rude is uncivil (sorry WP:UNCIVIL ). Andy Dingley (talk) 09:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no desire in policing Wikipedia to insure we are all proper and sweet, and lift our pinkie fingers when we sip tea. I hate it, but you can't handle a little rough and tumble discussion every now and then, a person should edit non-controversial articles or get a different hobby. Policing civility at Wikipedia is like herding cats: pointless and frustrating.  I won't tolerate personal attacks, but you can't force people to like each other. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  01:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have never understood the WP:DICK thing myself. Where I come from, the penis is very highly regarded. —Neotarf (talk) 02:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's just a typical Americanism. Then again, I can't understand how Europeans can eat mayonnaise on french fries. Different cultures. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  12:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm American, all right, but I've never heard of it. Perhaps quality varies by region?  But I totally agree about the mayo.  Some practices are nothing short of barbarian. —Neotarf (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm old, and have lived all over the US, calling someone a "dick" seems pretty universal. See Team America: World Police for examples, or this particular scene.   And no, it is not safe for work, and yes, it is rude and graphic but covers the topic. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  18:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

{od|:::::::::::::::::}I think that movie is Not Safe for Life Hasteur (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * if you can't handle a little rough and tumble discussion every now and then, a person should edit non-controversial articles or get a different hobby - when I first started as an editor on WP I wanted to improve its coverage of classical music articles, especially Baroque music, but a quick look showed me that there was a long-running, bitter, hate-filled feud that had been going on practically since WP started about whether classical music articles should have infoboxes or not. I saw that editing in that area would necessitate getting involved in that and did not want to waste my time on such a ridiculous argument that admins had done absolutely nothing to stop for five years or more, so I concentrated on early Christianity and Biblical scholarship instead, where one might expect contention and indeed there was. A particularly striking example was of a user who went barging into about six articles about Jesus all at once, insisting the articles should state that the Bible says Jesus "flew in the air like a spaghetti monster zombie". If anyone challenged him he would respond with "let me guess, you're a Christian, right?" When he had been on WP for a couple of days I posted on this very page that it was obvious he was going to be blocked eventually, why not just do it right away instead of waiting for months, but it was only when he blanked the main Jesus article and replaced all the content with "Jesus is a c--t" much later that admins did a thing about it. You may think you are working quietly in a non-controversial area, and get a shock at finding yourself involved in a war about whether a particular term should have a dash or a hyphen in it! The only two valuable editors I have worked with who have left WP and I have known why they left were History2007 and Pico, who edited in Bible subjects and they could not stand any longer constant arguments with POV pushers. If admins had been more active with pushing out the POV pushers that would not have happened. I see people complaining about admins being bullies, I have no idea what they are talking about, I have never seen such a lot of spineless wimps in my life. They almost all just looked away and facilitated grotesque anti-Semitic propaganda being promulgated with the article "Jews and Communism" despite two long threads about it at AN/I. This culture needs to change.Smeat75 (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, these disruptions seem to go on forever. And if you try to say anything about it, never mind if you have a bazillion diffs and an RFCU to back you up, unless you are an admin, you will be told that you "casting aspersions", so flake off, or worse.   No one dares say anything for fear of getting sanctioned themselves.  Where is the venue where you can bring this sort of thing and be taken seriously? —Neotarf (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about abusive atmospheres, I'm saying you will butt heads with some people, some times. As far as "changing the culture", Wikipedia is edited from people all over the globe.  I don't know of any way to "change the culture" of an entire planet's worth of people.  You can't really enforce civility (see WP:BIAS), and frankly, the most obnoxious incivility I see is sweetly worded saccharine from some patronizing someone whom they think is stupid because they come from a different culture (see WP:FARMER).  You can't make Wikipedia a sweet, polite place and still be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit.  Pick one, but you can't have both.  This doesn't mean I like it, just that I accept there are limitation to what we can do in regards to making everyone get along.  We encourage a better environment, but we can't do that by blocking everyone who gets into a heated but otherwise productive argument.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  18:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think anyone who's been around the Wikiblock a few times will have butted heads with someone. It happens. People get strong opinions and ideas, and clash. I've given the odd editor what for with both barrels, and received the same. I generally chalk it down to having a bad day, and assume everyone else is the same, which, more or less, has proven to be the case. By far and away the best thing you can do in these situations, as WP:MASTADON and WP:PRAM eloquently state, is ignore it, wait until the anger cools down, and then, ideally, ignore it some more. Nobody really cares that Sega Genesis isn't called Mega Drive as its primary topic, and it's worth putting it in perspective. The infobox dramafest is tiresome, and the persistence of some editors has made a mountain out of a molehill, but I'm confident there are enough articles to go round for people to edit without worrying about whether they're going to get stalked by an infobox ninja. Don't hate the haters. The "retired" template serves a purpose to ensure you don't waste your time asking a question about an article that someone took to FA status ten years ago but hasn't edited for 5. It can be abused by drama whores, and frankly when it is, it says more about their penchant for drama than anything else. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   19:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree you have to forget it. But it seems most people don't.  I removed a personal attack from a users talk page, he reverted with a blunt edit summary.  Years later he was attacking me on AN/I.  There are many similar stories, I think people simply mark you "good" or "bad" and forget the reason.   All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC).


 * Dennis, culture can be changed. Even Wiki-culture.  We have seen many changes, some of hen desirable, some not.  To dis-empower ourselves by stating that we cannot be agents of cultural change is a council of despair. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC).


 * I know that culture can change, I've seen it over the last 8 years, but it isn't like changing policy, which can be done in a matter of weeks. It is very difficult to change the ways of so many people, and no singular change in policy can change the culture.  At least none that I know.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  00:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree, and cultural change starts with conversation. We as a whole are starting to recognise several issues discussed here at Editor Retention, and discussing it is the first step in addressing it. I am heartened to know this conversation is happening within numerous Wikiprojects, between Wikipedians, and at an individual and WMF level. Change may happen slowly but through these conversations we make others more aware of why it needs to happen.--LT910001 (talk) 10:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)