Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 7

Thanks extension
Hey all. As described on this dedicated page, we've built a system to thank editors for individual edits. As I'm sure you're all aware, it's relatively trivial to deal with bad contributions (undo and rollback are your friend!) but we don't really have any way in MediaWiki to encourage editors who have made good edits. We can send out barnstars, sure, but barnstars are justifiably Kind Of A Big Deal - they're for really substantial contributions or a large number of small ones. There's nothing to thank people for individually helpful, gnome-ish edits except dropping a personal note - which is quite a lot of effort to do every time someone corrects a typo.

The Thanks extension solves for this; with it, you can send an editor a notification about the value of their edit with a couple of button-clicks. If you're not a fan, there will be preference options to turn off (respectively) receiving thanks, and seeing the interface elements of the extension at all. You can read more here. Hat-tip to Dennis for suggesting I poke you guys specifically; something I should work into more messages, I think :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Oliver. I think you will always find a receptive audience here.  We appreciate the hard work.  Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 21:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I like this feature but it doesn't seem to be available just yet. AutomaticStrikeout ?  22:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So how do you know you like it then? Eric   Corbett  22:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess I should put it this way: I like this idea, and I expect that I will like the feature once I have tried it, but it doesn't seem to be working yet. AutomaticStrikeout ?  22:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The thought of receiving a flood of thank you messages for gnomish edits fills me with horror, but switching off the ability to receive thank you messages just seems rude to me. I'm not sure this feature has been well thought out. Eric   Corbett  22:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know. My guess is that during the first few days, people will use this feature a lot. However, it won't have the novelty aspect for forever. I think it's worth a try and, based on what I read, it's coming this week. AutomaticStrikeout ?  22:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I predict I'll be proven right, but time will tell. Eric   Corbett  22:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Eric, most of my notices are "He called me a name!" or "Protect this page!!1" or "Bob called you an asshole on talk:article", so I will be happy to have a few "thank you"s in the mix. It will likely get overused at first, then settle in to reasonable use, like wikilove. I like the idea very much.  I've actually gone and typed messages saying thank you before, when someone went and added a really nice paragraph to an article on North Carolina or another subject I really care about, so this is just easier and simpler.  And less obtrusive than a talk page message. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 00:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's within the bounds of possibility that I may be an outlier, but I've done loads of work on articles for which I've received not one word of thanks, and to see others thanked effusively for correcting a few typos might be the last straw for a less robust editor. My gut feeling is that this is a bad idea. Eric   Corbett  02:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You won't see the thanks sent to those other editors, unless you voluntarily go digging through the logs. Thanks sends a private message.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Not out yet: It's expected to be released on May 30. Also, it will just be displayed on "history pages" and "diff pages" - not on our watchlists, so that should cutdown on mass-thank-spam potential (as worried about above). As with any new feature, it will probably get over-used for a few days, and then calm down afterwards (so don't judge its quantity based on the first few days of testing ;) HTH. –Quiddity (talk) 22:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So you're predicting a Nutella pattern. I wouldn't be surprised.  I imagine that it would follow approximately the same pattern as WikiLove, and the stats might be available for that.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikilove stats would be really easy to pull, actually. Want me to try and grab them? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Doesn't hurt anyone :) Lets see what the stats tell us. Also, if its possible to do a correlation between the stats and the user editing history (Comparing people with wikilove to another sample group without it) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's much more difficult to do usefully; finding a group that is similar in all-other-comparators-but-editcount...ech. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Reminder
When you get a few moments, stop by User Petrarchan47's talk page to offer your congrats as the latest Editor of the Week. And, be on the look-out for deserving nominees. Also feel free to check on the current list of nominees and offer your comments on the nominations. ```Buster Seven   Talk  13:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Templates nominated for deletion
Hi. Templates This is a new user and Edited by a new user have been nominated for deletion. See Templates for discussion/Log/2013 May 29. -- Whpq (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

This weeks Editor of the Week is...
If you've worked with this fine editor, stop at his talk to offer congratulations. If you haven't, stop in anyway. There are 134 members of this project. One would think that we could generate more than an average of 5 editors that respond to these weekly announcements. Also, feel free to present your choice for EotW @ Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Nominations. ```Buster Seven   Talk  03:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

No ping template

 * Moved from WP/WER/Editor of the Week talk.

Hey guys, it's a nice WikiProject here. Anyway, there is a way to mention userpages without notifying the editors. Template:noping can do that. For instance will give, but Buster is not notified. Hope this helps.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  19:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I always misread that as nope-ing, instead of NoPing. Nopenopenope. ;) –Quiddity (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Nominations

 * is this weeks Editor of the Week. Stop by his page to congratulate him. The more the merrier! ```Buster Seven   Talk  12:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:Snuggle is live at snuggle.grouplens.org
Snuggle, the newcomer socialization tool I've been building, is finally ready for general use. All you need to do to get started is point your browser to https://snuggle.grouplens.org. Let me know if you run into any trouble. I'll be watching WT:Snuggle. Or you can also just contact me directly. Thanks for your patience.

See also:
 * Documentation
 * Bug tracker
 * Open source code repository
 * My work log describing the last few months of work

--TheOriginalSoni (talk) on behalf of EpochFail  (talk &bull; work) 08:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Note from Soni - This tool is wonderful to quickly locate all the newcomes, especially the productive ones. Many newcomers go away after the first week, and if he target them with a simple welcome before they do so, we'll be much more likely to convert these editors. The same way, it turns out to be pretty good in vandal fighting, as it helps locate the vandals and allows us to quickly revert/report anything that may have been missed. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you know
User:SMcCandlish is considering retirement. This editor has been around since 2005 and has tens of thousands of contributions. XOttawahitech (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not very familiar with them, but I've emailed them. As always, I don't try to talk someone out of leaving, but instead offer an ear, an attempt to understand, and a willingness to help if there is something I can do that will make Wikipedia more enjoyable for them.  Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 01:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * For anyone who will  take the time to  read it  and inwardly  digest  it, User talk:SMcCandlish is worth  reading. Some of it (certainly  not  all  of it) echoes my  own  thoughts and I  don't  believe there is much  that  WER  can do  about  it except  insist  that  not  all  admins are badmins, although as I  have stated in  the  past, there may  well  be some rotten apples in  the barrel, and that  ARBCOM  may  not  always be as effective as one may  anticipate.  Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If all the apples in the barrel were good, I'd suspect one of those horrible waxy coatings had been applied. ;)
 * And yes, just like the police-forces around the world, the vast majority are good people, but there are always a few bad ones who spoil it for everyone else (whether through corruption, or through over-reaching their competence, or through just a string of bad decisions). Unfortunately the solutions for removing bad apples tend to also impact negatively on the good apples. Hence the world as we know it. –Quiddity (talk) 02:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Kudpung, I think you would have agreed with my email, even though I phrase things in my own unique way. And we agree on your other points here as well. As I've taken a 2 year wikibreak in the past, it puts me in a bit different situation than most, I understand the frustration with admin (it eventually drove me to seeking the admin bit, like you, to help fix some of the problems).  And yes, there isn't much WER can do as a project.  We can't rescue all the individuals, that is too broad and controversial a task, but I never mind a note so someone can at least offer both an ear, and a thank you for the previous gifts of time. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; © &#124;  WER  13:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Anyone care to join me over at Merchandise giveaways in nominating this prolific contributor for an award? Djembayz (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that nominating someone for a prize when they get upset and are contemplating a retirement is the best solution. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; © &#124;  WER  14:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with Dennis, that could actually come off as insulting-- Cailil  talk 15:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Note
With the various concerns about editor retention on people's minds these days, I thought you all might be interested in this concerning m:User:Magister Mathematicae. - jc37 17:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Steward requests/Permissions
 * this diff
 * I was already aware but not of anything that could be done here, particularly since there are cross-wiki issues. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; © &#124;  WER  20:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

To all the 140 plus members of this project. We are the self-identified individuals that have stepped forward to express an interest in retaining editors. Editor of the Week is a great project, and to those who have yet to congratulate our Awardees, maybe this is your opportunity. Editors like Chiswick deserve at least a little bit of our time considering all they do to improve the encyclopedia. ```Buster Seven   Talk  11:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Will Beback
I would like to have User:Will Beback contributing to WP again. He has been banned. He did great work on Los Angeles, California, articles. How do I do this? GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The short answer is: you don't. The community generally takes a dim view of unsolicited third-party requests to lift a restriction. Will would need to send an email to WP:BASC as it was the arbitration committee that banned him. They are basically the gatekeepers for ArbCom bans. I think this ban reviewed not all that long ago though. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey George. Will has apologized to all concerned parties...3 times I think. Check out Will's talk page and User:Jmh649/Will Beback. Will was (and will be) great to work with everywhere! Thanks for the interest. Let us know if you find something interesting. There was (and is) much support to get Will contributing again. ```Buster Seven   Talk  22:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. I'd like him to at least be able to comment on the Talk Pages. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, this is not the page for this kind of discussion. Please see Beeblebrox's answer above. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Give me a break, please. You are talking about "editor retention," and the topic of my post was certainly about retaining an editor. While I am at it, I don't need to be chided. No editor does. Politeness and assuming good faith does wonders in retaining editors. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Editor Retention is a relatively new project. Providing a page for any type of discussion pertaining to retaining editors is one of its cornerstones. It is a logical place to come for information or to ask questions or to begin a conversation (even if there are dozens of conversations elsewhere). Editor Louis asked a question and was given two different answers. One was a "Road Block-Do Not Enter" and the other was a "This Way" sign. I think we should protect fellow editors capacity to come to this page and ask, pretty much, anything they want. ```Buster Seven   Talk  23:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. When I  joined WER, I  understood it  to  be a project  for retaining  the editors we have rather than frightening  them away. I  still  do  not  believe it  to  be an appropriate  venue for petitioning  for the return of banned or blocked users. Withdrawing  my  support for this WER now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry about your decision. But I dont see how a conversation about a well-renowned quality editor who happens to be "in a pickle" is going to frighten editors away. If you were in Will's shoes would you not want fellow collaborators to "fight" for your return if there was the slightest doubt of you bannings validity? Personally, I feel an editor like Will BeBack should be retained. That's what this project discusses and works toward---Editor Retention.```Buster Seven   Talk  01:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The ban was an ARBCOM verdict, and WP:BASC is the only  appropriate channel  for WillBeBack as Beeb correctly  states above. See  also  Nathan's closure at  User:Jmh649/Will Beback. Sorry, but this WER project, started by Dennis in  GF, is loosing  its focus - it  will  be discussing  the undeletions of AfDs next -  and I'm  out. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I hope Dennis is not as disappointed as you seem to be...and if he is, I hope he speaks up. ```Buster Seven   Talk  06:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * For the record - If you take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 1 you will see that from the onset of this project (a year ago) my concern was for veteran editors that were unceremoniously banned. Conversing about banned editors happened in the very first thread of this projects talk page. ```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  00:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 'unceremoniously' ? There is never an ARBCOM  debate without  a lot  of pomp  and circumstance. That  said, I  generally trust  ARBCOM  to  do  what  we have elected them  for (although  there have been hiccups), but  in my  own honest  opinion, when it  comes to banning  recalcitrant  users and/or admins, they  are not  nearly  severe enough. There are lots of theories about  rules & regulations; some of them  are for punishment (which  we don't strictly  do  here), some are for prevention (which  we do  do  here), and most  are to  serve as a warning  to others. There is of course the old adage: Rules are made to be broken ... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * To be clear, the original intention of the project wasn't to be a sounding board to return individual editors. Occasionally, an individual comes up and I have no problem with discussion individual cases in a general way here, ie: how do we prevent similar situations in the future?  What could we do as a community to prevent similar problems?  Is there a flaw in the overall system that helped lead to this situation?  Things like that.  But this isn't about rescuing individuals after the fact.  Sometimes we jump in before hand and walk someone away from the edge, take a new user who has a lot to offer but is getting in trouble because they don't understand the system, offer mentoring, etc. but that is different than entering a political debate over a returning editor. If you want my opinion about why I started it, it was about the "big picture", about helping shape policy with retention in mind, about finding ways to make the environment more positive and to reward those that give but don't get noticed (like our exceptional Editor of the Week program.)  It is about supporting existing programs that help new editors, like the Teahouse.  The goals were to help shape policy to be new user friendly and make the place more rewarding for established editors.   Getting editors with a long history "unbanned" is a bit outside the original intent of the project and far outside of any authority we have here (as we have zero authority here).  Beeblebrox and Kudpung are correct, and we have to be careful to not be something we are not, and we are not WP:BASC.  Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 02:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Based on this, I've rolled back  my  retirement  from  WER. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Part of the issue in this case seems to have been the conflicting advice present in some Wikipedia policies. The policies in this case being WP:COI and User:Jimmy Wales public statements that he will ban people who have an obvious conflict of interest and WP:No personal attacks. Discussing whether or not a person has a conflict of interest or insinuating that they do have a conflict of interest has more or less been deemed a personal attack. Adjusting policies to reflect this reality would be useful and hopefully prevent other editors from running into trouble. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Retaining a different kind of editor
I've been working as an online ambassador (or volunteer, whatever we're calling ourselves at the education program) with a class that is almost finished. During the course of my work with this class, I have run into some students who are exactly the right kind of editor for Wikipedia: they are inquisitive, they are good researchers, they have a desire to learn more. These are the kind of editors of which we need more here on Wikipedia. So my question is, how do we retain them once they are no longer required to be here for their class? Let's discuss it.  Go  Phightins  !  13:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Editing has to be interesting for them, and more fun than a video game. Getting them involved with editors with similar interests would be good.  This is a bit of one on one work, to find what interests them, which articles get them excited, to mentor them further.  Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 13:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that they have to want to do it, and that it has to be enjoyable. The problem is that many of their interests are likely to be in areas where the associated WikiProjects are dead, which I would think over 75% are. So finding others with similar interests might be difficult. Let me rephrase that, finding others with similar interests who are experienced enough that they can give advice that won't set a student coming into the encyclopedia back might be difficult.  Go  Phightins  !  14:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking through the membership roster here and finding willing mentors with similar interests might be a start. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 14:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I came here from the note at the Education noticeboard. One thing that I think can never hurt is that when you find a student editor like this, be sure to leave a message at their user talk page while the class is still ongoing and they are likely to see it. Tell them that you are impressed and hope that they stay around, or even give them a barnstar (successful example). If you're worried about mentoring, you can offer that they should feel free to ask you on your user talk page whenever they have a question. If the student is already predisposed to become a productive editor, that's probably all they'll need, and if they aren't persuaded, then they probably just don't want to, and that's that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We have a lot of admin at WER and admin talk pages tend to have lots of stalkers, so a good source for finding mentors when the time comes. I have around 300 stalkers, I assume other admin have more or less.  And like Tryptofish says, the key is starting early enough. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 20:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably the same sorts of things that would help retain them would help retain the unwashed masses as well. A positive, helpful community.  A working dispute resolution process that isn't antagonistic.  Admins that mediate disputes, rather than letting their block stick do the talking.TeeTylerToe (talk) 23:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Being inquisitive and good researchers are both very positive things. But volunteering to write an encyclopaedia also requires altruism and spare time. Not everyone has both, or they may have but not for decades to come. Other volunteer organisations find that people will slip in and out of activity over several decades, the trick being to keep doors open. As for Wikiprojects, don't consider the dormant ones dead. Some have people who still watchlist the project and who resurface when activity resumes, others may join in the future. I'd agree that a single dormant Wikiproject by itself is not a great start for a newbie, but if you talk to them you may find that multiple Wikiprojects are in their areas of interest. You might also try referring them to the Teahouse.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  01:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd say you've made a great start by being an online ambassador, Go Phightins. The best thing we can do is match a promising new user with an experienced editor. Then when they have question or get stuck, they know where to get help. I'd also point out that Wikipedia has room for all sorts of editors, including the occasional editor that only edits a few times a year. They all contribute to the project and it's very helpful when they do it right. We don't require people to edit every day and any help that is positive moves the project that much more forward. 64.40.54.72 (talk) 00:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think one of the biggest qualities they have to have, is the ability to be a good diplomat, and the ability to read other people's work. You can be an expert editor in an out of the way area, with a high productivity rate, but all it takes is another expert to join in, and if you don't agree on everything (and who does?), you've got dramah on your hands. The only reason I've survived seven years on here, with a particular ramp-up of activity in the past 12 months, is the ability to just take stuff on the chin and forget about it. Anyone's free to revert any edit I make in good faith. I wish it were not so, but we have to accept that Wikipedia has jerks, and be pragmatic about them. Ritchie333  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   13:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Just throwing something out there from left of field: how about a target. I mean there used to be "drives" to improve random articles by set dates. May be goal driven editing would help retain ppl who used to edit here in class environments. Maybe it'd help other ppl too. Some (very active) wikiprojects used to do this, so maybe there's already a system out there. It just comes to mind that mentrship isn't always needed to keep ppl (in fact it might make ppl feel that there's a hierarchy. Perhaps the Tearoom fills the role of guidance better these days-- Cailil  talk 22:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of projects like your idea of improving random articles on the community portal iirc. One of the problems though is that it's so fragmented, and no concerted effort seems to gain momentum.  There are successes with more motivated projects, like railfans, and naval military things.TeeTylerToe (talk) 07:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Assignment 2 for my course included the following: "Critically evaluate three existing Wikipedia articles (at least two of which are directly related to the class and one of which can be anything of interest to you). For each of the three articles, you should either (1) add 1–2 sentences of new information, backed up with a citation to an appropriate source, or (2) leave suggestions for improving it on the article's talk page." It was really fun for me to see what they selected that was unrelated to the course (articles about their home city, high school, recent novels and movies) and a good way to start them with something familiar. It might also be a good way to help them get and stay connected by including something more personal, not just coursework. Just a thought. Biolprof (talk) 04:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In the thread above this one, D Brown mentions that one of WER's reasons for being is to "change policy". I have never liked that we are called "Users". I was a user back in the sixties during my hippie days. We should be called what we are: "Editors" or "Collaborators". I suggest that this Project  support a Wikiwide shift from calling them the User and User talk pages to start calling them the Editor and Editor talk pages. I seriously think it would elevate the millions of discussions that take place on WP. If right from the start, newbies are called "Editor" I think, sub-consciously, they will be less likely to be vandals. I think they WILL be more likely to listen to and follow the lead of veteran "Collaborators" than they currently are to follow the lead of just another "User". Just a thought...and I think a valid one. ```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  12:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

AFC
Not really a VPP thing and certainly not an AN thing but there seems to be a slow-moving impact, especially on new editors, so I thought I would post this here. I've noticed, especially over the last few months, some serious problems coming from Articles for Creation. In particular, there has for quite some time been a significant black-log there and the solution (as far as some seem to be concerned) is to simply accept everything that comes across their "desks". If there's going to be little or no actual "review", what's the point of having it?

"Delete - shouldn't have been accepted at AFC" seems to be a more and more common refrain these days and it's having a detrimental impact on new editors who think they are doing the right thing, are told they are doing the right thing but are then admonished for creating sub-par articles about non-notable subjects. To be frank, I've never used AFC to create any of my almost 160 articles and I've basically stopped recommending that new users go there to create articles. I've always liked WP:RA but it puts article creation in the hands of existing editors who hope that the IP/new editor who requested the article eventually discovers their requested article and contributes.

Part of the problem seems to be that unlike AFD (where inexperienced editors are often left behind in the suck-y quick-sand of notability and verifiability policy), AFC submissions can be reviewed by anyone, with little oversight, support or guidance.

Solutions? I have none (short of shutting down AFC until it can be fixed). But my two examples aren't the only ones - just two from the last few days. This project exists to retain editors and I can tell you we've likely lost those two and they are just two of a great many more I'd guess. I'm open to suggestions on how I might take a reform agenda forward and though y'all might be a good bunch to start with. Stalwart 111  07:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * As a semi-regular to AfC with I would estimate about 1,000 reviews, I've read your case studies with interest, and can offer the following comments:
 * I've seen the exact opposite argument being used just yesterday (here) ie: "Clearing the AfC barrier is too hard. Why can't you just create pages directly?"
 * I can't honestly see AfC getting closed down at the moment, simply because too many people know of its existence, and it's the de facto home where articles that get userfied / sandboxed from CSD or AfD end up. Where you're seeing a problem I think is simply because the more experienced reviewers take time to digest an article before accepting or rejecting it, while less experienced reviewers just rattle through submissions with a lower quality threshold. So, all else being equal, you're going to get more bad reviews over time because the output of the good reviewers is lower. We could make the ability to review submissions a requestable right in WP:RPE, with the possibility of auto-assigning it if the user has some track record of understanding basic notability policies eg: 100 correctly called AfDs.
 * I think it's reasonable to say that experienced editors don't need to go via AfC (I tried one or two articles just to test the process out, before concluding I didn't need it) and hence it's the domain of newcomers. With that in mind, it is vitally important that we get things right, and explain things to article submitters carefully, diplomatically and correctly. I don't do many AfC reviews these days, but where I do, I make a point of explaining in more depth what the submitter can do to make this article pass, rather than the bland generic boilerplate "you need more sources. Go away." text, or suggest, if passing an article, what the creator can do to further improve the article, particularly if there are additional sources they could add, or the layout of the article can be improved. I think hitting the "decline - not sourced enough" button on the review script with no further explanation is just as bitey to editors, if not more so as it happens more often. (Example here)
 * There is a list of AfC submissions sitting at AfD at WikiProject Articles for creation, but I don't believe that's particularly well publicised - certainly I have had a handful of mine pulled up to AfD where notability has been non-obvious (eg: Clemmie Moodie (AfD)) or controversial (eg: BBC sexual abuse cases (AfD)), and while I keep tabs on this page, not everyone does.
 * In your first case study, I would say that has done far more biting than anyone else here with stupid and pathetic tagging (here's another example). I personally wouldn't have passed the article through AfC, though since the band contains a member of a notable band, and has some reliable source coverage, it does seem to be a borderline case.
 * In your second case study, the AfD suggests he is mentioned in multiple news sources, but dig a little closer and you'll discover they're all promotional or tangential to the subject as best. This is actually a good demonstration of one of the problems we're increasingly seeing at AfC - a puff piece bio with 75+ references, which experienced reviewers take one look at and baulk, and less experienced ones look, see "lots of news sources - bingo!" and accept it. Regarding your comment to the AfC reviewer who passed Michael Cheng, you phrased your statement as "thought I should let you know", which doesn't necessarily imply a response is required. Ritchie333  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   09:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. A couple of quick things - I wasn't expecting a response from the reviewer, I only pointed out that I didn't get one to highlight that he may not have been aware of the issue in the first place and still may not be. I mis-ordered that; I tagged it and then informed him rather than informing him, waiting and then tagging when I got no reply. It was going to get tagged either way. I also have no actual desire to see AFC shut down but, as Dennis points out, the only other option is a complete overhaul.


 * On the other stuff - I like the idea of "AFC Reviewer" right being included as a specific user right. After all, it's a critical part of our interface with new users and there should be some level of oversight or control. We do have autopatrolled rights for the creation of new articles which suggests a minimum article creation record of 50+. Restricting AFC review to autopatrolled editors might be a good start.


 * The NPP/AFC thread looks interesting - I'll have a read. Stalwart 111  10:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I've been chatting with DGG on and off about AFC, as there are other problems, such as a few socks who patrol to get articles passed. I personally find AFC to be a complete and utter mess, confusing and almost unusable.  The design is fatally flawed, the administration is burdensome.  There are a lot of good people trying to do good things there, but the system fails them.  I have been trying to get more involved at AFC but honestly, the layout and design just aggravates me too much, so as soon as I start, I move on to something else instead. It doesn't need an engineer to fix, it needs someone that actually understand interface design and "flow".  I understand those things, but I'm not up to fighting the political battles to get a major change through the system. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; © &#124;  WER  09:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Forgive me for adopting a perhaps old-fashioned and punitive approach, but in my view anyone active at Articles for Creation who "simply accepts everything that comes across their desks" should be first warned about their behaviour, and then topic-banned from it. As far as I can work out, I've accepted 78 articles at Articles for Creation, with less than 5% of those even taken to AfD, let alone deleted. I've declined probably more than five times that number. Perhaps this means I go too far to the opposite extreme, and I do have more to learn about how better to help editors whose submissions are declined, but I don't think we should be condemning the Articles for Creation process before even trying to address the individual reviewers that are responsible for the problem. There is nothing about the Articles for Creation process that forces one to click the Accept button. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's anything unusual about your ratio of accepts / declines. The only comment I would make is you should strive towards having no accepted submissions fail at AfD. Obviously if you're new to the process, you'll make the odd mistake where it's not obvious whether something's notable or not - nobody's perfect after all, but every passed AfC submission that goes to AfD (even if it get closed as snow keep) is a big slap in the face to the article writer, so we really do need to avoid it at all possible costs. As Dennis implied above, your work on AfC is very much appreciated, but the problem is that people want massive and substantial change. How often have you seen a submission whose body text has a big section saying "put your references here" that is completely unused? That's the kind of thing I think of when people say AfC is "unusable". There's a related discussion on DGG's talk page. Although you can see an example of me disagreeing with him in an AfD linked above, he's one of the most knowledgeable editors we have on this project IMHO and always worth listening to. Ritchie333  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   11:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I do think the primary problems are one of technology, which makes the system easy to abuse. As to refusing most entries and having a 5% AFD ratio, I would consider those as positive attributes, demonstrating that you aren't the problem.  AFC needs a flatter interface with better scripting.  That they happen on "talk" pages is awkward as well, since there isn't a capacity to discuss the article during creation.  That alone makes it a fatally flawed system.  You should be able to converse about the article, at the article, while it is being created. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; © &#124;  WER  11:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Reviewers are able to add "comments" at the top of the submission, which is about as close to conversing about the article at the article as we can currently get. Perhaps it would be useful for the "declined", "waiting for review", and "not yet submitted" templates to also include a link allowing the submitter to add a comment. For one thing, it would be helpful for the very large number of cases where the article submitter wants to specify something about the eventual title of the article. It would also allow discussion to happen closer to the submission itself, rather than spread all over helpdesks and reviewers' talk pages. But it would have the disadvantage of an article submitter adding a comment or question and then potentially not seeing a reply for one or two weeks, which is much much more than most people are prepared to endure in these days of fast living and slow food. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 12:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Ashes to ashes, dust to dust - I think we already have a working format at AFD that could be adopted for AFC but with only titles and basic info transcluded to a log rather than the whole article. Each can then be watchlisted with an associated talk page for discussion and the talk page (with history) can become the talk page for the article if/when it is accepted. On the other bit - AFD'ing an AFC article should be rarer than rare. It's a problem that it isn't and the fact that some are being speedy deleted is a shocker! Stalwart 111  12:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be any way for the Afc reviewers to satisfy anybody, no matter how they try. It just isn't true that we "just accept everything that comes across our desks". We frequently have complaints that we are being too strict!  I personally have declined nearly 900 articles, and spent many days of my life helping new editors understand the concept of reliable sources.  I still struggle every day myself trying to sort out press releases (in some cases very well disguised) from real news reports.  The reviewers have clear guidelines: [].  If there is something wrong with these guidelines, please speak up and say specifically what needs to be changed.  If there are reviewers not following the guidelines, that is a different issue, and needs to be addressed on an individual level, not with "massive change".  Since this is the Editor Retention Project page, I would also like to point out that of the articles that I have reviewed, at least 80% have been written by people with a direct conflict of interest, who are only there to promote their company, new product, new concept, etc., and once that was accepted would never have written another article in any case, unless it was to promote the next product. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 12:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting all reviewers operate that way but when you have things coming out of AFC that are being tagged for speedy deletion, or even discussed deletion, almost immediately, something has fallen down along the way. This isn't about devaluing the work good reviewers are doing, it's about highlighting the impact the system is having on new users. Stalwart 111  12:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Your views don't seem to mesh with the conclusions in the discussion on DGG's talk page referenced above. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No, I think its two concurrent issues. The suggestion there seems to be that some reviewers apply too strict a set of guidelines when reviewing. I'm suggesting the opposite seems also to be true in that there are some reviewers who don't adequately apply the guidelines and accept things that should never have been accepted. Both are problems for retention; some editors are being discouraged at AFC by the things highlighted in that discussion, some are being rubber-stamped through AFC but hit a wall thereafter when their article is immediately tagged for deletion. Stalwart 111  13:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, so there are reviewers going too far in two opposite directions. (Or possibly even the same reviewers doing both opposite extremes with different reviews.) Therefore, as Anne said, If there are reviewers not following the guidelines, that is a different issue, and needs to be addressed on an individual level. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, which is why I think there is some value in an AFC Reviewer user-right that can be revoked if an editor consistently goes either too far or not far enough. It would give good reviewers like Anne a tool for addressing those issues "on an individual level". What option is there now? An AFC topic ban? Stalwart 111  14:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Anne, you are a textbook example of exactly what AfC was supposed to do, mentor a new editor, get them up to speed and become a positive contributor to the encyclopedia. Your enthusiasm for the project is brilliant, and very very much appreciated. I can't emphasise that enough. Ritchie333  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   13:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Adding a single comment at the top of an article isn't talking with the editor, it is talking at them. It would seem that the purpose of AFC shouldn't be just to force an article out of mainspace while it is being created, but to mentor the editor a bit on how to create articles that will pass AFD in the future.  If you want to teach editors how to create articles properly so they can stop using AFC soon, the current system is woefully inadequate for the task.  If I had to use the current system as a new user, I would quickly be discouraged and quit.  Because of this, I see AFC as hurting retention because it discourages dialog at the very place that dialog is needed most.  Again, this is a technology issue, not a statement on the hard working people reviewing there. I don't blame the reviewers, only the system in which the reviewers are forced to work. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; © &#124;  WER  12:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If they are able to reply and encouraged to reply (which was my suggestion), then it is talking with them. Or at least, it is closer to talking with them than what we have at the moment, and would be fast and easy to implement without completely re-organising everything we have at the moment.


 * My understanding is that unregistered editors cannot currently create pages other than in the Talk: space. Without getting this changed, what else do you suggest? A separate project page Wikipedia_talk/Articles_for_Creation/Submission_name/Discussion for each submission? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds a bit clumsy. I am assuming that most submission are by registered users, but only some are by IPs?  There could be a technological fix that would allow IPs to edit subpages of /wp/afc.  One of the main reasons why I think you need it on a regular page is that these are new users, and they need to develop the habit of taking discussion onto the talk page of the article.  Currently, we are teaching them methods that don't sync with the real mainspace.  I can't to know the best solution, but I know a problem when I see one.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; © &#124;  WER  13:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * That technological fix would have to come from the WMF, I assume? I can't speak for the people who maintain the Articles for Creation scripts, but I would hope they would be able to make the necessary changes to the scripts, if you were able to organise the WMF fix.


 * On a more minor quibble, in the real mainspace, from what I have seen, issues tend to be raised at the other editor's user talk page, more often than on the article's talk page. Maybe this is not how it should be, but it's how it is. And for now, Articles for Creation works rather similarly. The one exception, as DGG has rightly pointed out, is that the rejection reasons do not appear on the submitter's user talk page. Of all possible exceptions there could be, this is the worst! Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the best way forward is to create a new Mediawiki namespace - it's technically possible to do in MediaWiki, and I've done it for another wiki I'm an admin and developer for. I set the namespaces up so I could write some custom user interface code to give people a rich UI (for the technically minded this uses the AlternateEdit hook - without it, the standard text based editor was just unusable for them. So you'd end up with AFC:Norman Nonnotable and AFC Talk:Norman Nonnotable. You can then set up the relevant permissions accordingly so only people with a reviewer right are allowed to move AFC namespace pages to the mainspace. It's all technically doable - the problem with Wikipedia is, unlike my own Wiki where I just jump in and write code to do what I want how I want, I have no idea how to get clearance to do all this without any real authority or credibility to do so. Ritchie333  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   13:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I will just say that problems with an editor's behavior belong on that user's talk page, but discussion on an article should be on the article talk page, that way many people can participate and there is a record of any consensus or previous discussion. Starting a new editor off in AFC using this method is best. Yes, it would require some kind of help from WMF to get it so a subsection would allow IPs to start articles, or we would have to start them for the IPs, both are fine. I'm not sure how big of a problem that really is. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; © &#124; WER  14:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Articles submitted to the Afc have no talk pages, so usually discussion takes place either on the submitter's talk page or on the talk page of the reviewer if the submitter has asked a question there. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 14:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I know, that is part of the reason I hate the current AFC interface. It is inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia and teaches new users "wrong" methods.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; © &#124;  WER  14:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

My two cents: Dennis has hit the nail on the head. The problem with AfC is AfC... There is no real system, AfC was designed as a workaround to facilitate the creation of articles by unregistered editors. Unregistered editors can only create pages in talk namespace. AfC's progression as a system can be defined as one messy hack following another, we have always responded to shortcomings by finding (sometimes quite ingeniously) one technical workaround after another. This has left us with a system that is difficult to navigate, clunky, nightmarish to administer, and prone to breakage (like when AfC bot goes down). The only tangible solution to the problems surrounding AfC, as others have said, is for the WMF to create an 'Article creation and page landing flow'. This would be a massive undertaking that would take considerable time to develop and get off the ground; which is probably why it seems to have fallen very much on WMF's back burner. Making the ability to conduct reviews an assignable userright is sensible enough, but if you were to launch an RFC on this subject tomorrow it would fail to win enough community support – consider how long it has taken to get pending changes in... So, until the above can be achieved, AfC will continue to suffer from the same problems as NPP, as well as: It should be no surprise that AfC submissions end up at AfD. AfC is not a replacement for AfD. It would be concerning indeed if it was the de facto responsibility of an AfC reviewer to make judgement on the notability of a subject – this is AfD's job. It's a matter for community discussion, not one individual. While it is the policy of AfC to 'review' submissions, this is done only with the intent of keeping out obvious policy violations. AfC reviewers should not be accepting submissions that end up being speedily deleted as this wastes everyone's time, especially the new editor's. Having said that, even experienced reviewers are human and will on occasions make mistakes, sometimes more than one. AfC has evolved far beyond its original aim of allowing unregistered editors to create articles, but it should not be seen as a system of GA level peer-review for all newly created articles. I share Ritchie333's concerns that AfC's future is uncertain, it seems often that too heavy a responsibility is placed on the project's shoulders. Pol430  talk to me  15:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) New and inexperienced editors accepting things they shouldn't, and conversely, declining things they shouldn't; both of which have a huge impact on user experience and editor retention.
 * 2) Tendentious, vain, disruptive editors installing the reviewer script and 'reviewing' their own articles in order to push their spammy corporate bio's into a high value forum for SEO.
 * I think that if AfC reviews are supposed to be more in-depth than a template and some comments, there should be more people reviewing. The back log, even with most reviews being rejected with just a template, is huge with normally around 900 articles needing to be reviewed at one time. I wish that I knew of AfC when I first started creating articles. My first articles were tagged as copyright violations and I was labeled as a possible vandal. It seems like AfC reviewers are less judgmental about such things. SL93 (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding "The only tangible solution to the problems surrounding AfC, as others have said, is for the WMF to create an 'Article creation and page landing flow'. This would be a massive undertaking that would take considerable time to develop and get off the ground; which is probably why it seems to have fallen very much on WMF's back burner." You're right that this is a hard problem. There was definitely some serious discussion and planning for WMF to tackle this previously, but the team involved decided it was fairer to the community to try and build tools for New Page Patrol first. After the new feature set for Page Curation and Special:NewPagesFeed was finished, the team in question ended up moving on to work on notifications. In any case, I fully agree that the best long term solution is to stop making the community deal with this using a cobbled-together set of scripts, bots, and templates, and build something that can scale well. Right now my team is focusing on ways to help people who've just registered who are willing to edit existing articles, such as through guided tours and some suggestions about what to edit. We know that these type of new editors are a much larger and more easily retained group than brand new page creators. However, we're starting to come up with our 2013-14 Goals in WMF engineering, and I am strongly considering new page creation as one of the areas my team should work on in the coming year. This is not an easy project, but I hope that by taking a lightweight experimental approach can make development less of a headache. If you're interested, I would be happy to go in to more detail regarding how I'd weight the priority and difficulty of this against other potential areas of experimentation. <span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   19:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Steven, thank you enormously  for your input  and comments here. The WMF team  possibly  moved on  because (maybe due to the many  changes and reshuffling  of task assignment  and personnel within  the WMF office structure) the Article Creation  Work  Flow project simply got  forgotten - but  not so much  that  someone archived it  away and out  of the way. In  the aftermath  of ACTRIAL, Article Creation  Flow raised some enthusiasm  and excitement  from  the community, especially  as its initial  concept was engineered by  someone as important as Brandon. What  we got, as somewhat  of a tangential  consolation, was the new page patrolling  tool. I  have always said that  Page Curation is excellent, and never doubted the worth  of its development by  the Foundation; the downside is however, that  while it  is extremely  useful  in  the hands of experienced editors, it  does not  address the three  major problems: the creation  of unwanted pages,  the quality  of page patrolling, and the very  few editors who  actually  patrol  new pages on  a regular basis.


 * Many editors have spoken  about issues over the quantity and quality  of AfC reviewing, many  of which  are not  entirely dissimilar to  those  of NPP. So  what  I  would like to  understand better are the metrics that  the Foundation  applies to  deciding  on  its priorities. In my  opinion, development  of a proper landing  page, and/or radically  improving  AfC and/or the Article Wizard, are beyond the scope  and call  of duty that  we can reasonably  expect  the volunteers to  undertake, in  spite of the facts  that a)  there is no shortage of volunteers who  have identified the problem and issues that  need to be addressed, and b) that  among  them,  are plenty  of competent  programmers. Again  reiterating  that  while the Page Curation  is a brilliant  tool, it  was thrust  upon a community  that  didn't  actually  ask  for it. It  was nevertheless developed with  some extraordinary  input  and collaboration  from  the volunteers (as you, Steven, are aware, because we both  took  part  in  some  off-Wiki  video  conferences about  it  at  the highest  level). Now if we could get  a solution  to  AfC/Page Creation  Flow developed with  the same amount of collaboration as we had for NPP, I  don't  think that the much  wanted  software solution (whichever form  it  takes) would be a long  way  off. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * @Steven: I would be very happy indeed if new page creation became a 2013-14 Wikimedia engineering goal! I would suggest that the idea floated below about creating a NOINDEXED 'Draft' namespace would be a good first step that could serve as a building block a for more comprehensive software solution. As Kudpung mentions, there are editors at AFC who are competent programmers, I'm sure they would be happy to assist and they have a working knowledge of the technical aspects of the current 'system' that is second to none. Pol430   talk to me  08:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
It's a shame when important issues such as these start  getting  discussed in  too  many  different  places at  once; for one thing, it  leads to  a duplication  of effort. So for the benefit of those who  have missed them  at  WT:AfC, here are two  vital  recent threads that  will  answer some of the questions above, propose some solutions, and explain  the reasons why  nothing  has been done: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation


 * I raised it here because it has become a matter of editor retention. As has been demonstrated above, this is being discussed in a few places (including some I wasn't aware of). My intention wasn't to duplicate effort but to raise issues relevant to this project with members of this project. Stalwart 111  22:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The idea of a 'draft' namespace has been suggested a few times, it may be used for AFC and Article Incubator, should it recover WikiProject Abandoned Drafts may join in. This could actually be a way to integrate both systems: a user reviewing AFC articles may choose to add promising articles to the incubator category or equivalent, so that even if the creator fails to improve the article to make it mainspace-worthy, others may join the efforts. Technically, it would be possible to create a new namespace ('Draft' or similar) where IPs could create pages and where only specifically authorized users may move pages (as for files), and that wouldn't be indexed. The AFC script could be adapted, and page curation enabled. A resistance to the proposal rests in that it may become a vehicle for eventually limiting the ability of registered users to create articles, through technical measures or by using this as a dumping ground, reassurances would have to be provided. I would suggest that a guideline be created, establishing when a draft page can be moved to mainspace and when an article can be moved to draft space (and moved back), as well as criteria for deletion of drafts (which may be relatively complicated). A new userright would be created ('movedraft') which allows to move pages from draft namespace to article namespace (similar to 'movefiles'), and vice-versa. This new userright could be added to an existing 'trusted' usergroup such as reviewers (I wouldn't recommend a new usergroup considering the overlap with reviewer in the standards for granting this right, and usergroups shouldn't be multiplied unnecessarily). Propositions or nominations for deletion of AFC-created pages moved to mainspace would still occur, but this cannot be avoided, since if the standards are enforced too stringently, too many pages that could eventually become proper articles would be rejected, and the views regarding inclusion criteria are just too divergent; AFC is efficient to screen out most inappropriate pages, and no more can and should be expected from a process where a single user makes the call. Cenarium (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the idea of draft namespace -- NOINDEXED but public, and which we can promote or depromote articles from -- is a solid idea worth testing. Other Wikipedias like Russian have implemented versions of this incubator-style idea with great success, and there are varying ways we could go about it to make sure that we get an adequate level of review without overworking people and causing the AFC and NPP problem all over again. <span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   19:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This would also make it very much easier for me to go in, see an article, fix it and just promote it myself. Or use the talk page. It feels awkward to do so now, too much bureaucracy in doing so. It needs to be easier to promote (by a simple move) or utterly reject (csd tag) articles, so we can get rid of some backlog.  I don't mind doing the groundwork, but the environment makes me shake my head and walk away every time. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; © &#124;  WER  19:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, in view of the likely future changes that the WMF will make to the way talk pages work, see Flow, it may become no longer possible to use talk pages for such a purpose. Cenarium (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What I see as the fundamental brokenness of AfC is that it aims to be a gentle introduction to wikipedia editing, but it doesn't accomplish it. To start with the good: AfC fills an important role of stopping spam at the door for articles that aren't G12 material, but are still promotional and about marginally notable organisations. The bad is a far longer list in my opinion.
 * First and foremost, it is anathema to being a wiki. It is a place where we introduce new editors to Wikipedia by letting them own an article that they bring for a board for curation and then either gets accepted or not. This is a terrible, terrible way to introduce people to a collaborative project, and goes against the very nature of being a wiki.
 * Second, the acceptance criteria are undefined and differ from reviewer to reviewer.
 * Once an editor is autoconfirmed, they can easily move an article in to mainspace themselves. In case it is AfD'ed the faith of the article should be decided on the merit of the subject, not the quality of the article. Keeping it in AfC space longer, and letting the editor work on it more shouldn't influence an outcome of a possible AfD. If it does (it probably does) that means AfD needs fixing, not new pages.
 * The question then arises: why do we have AfC in the first place? The answer seems to be because we are undermanned at NPP, and too many bad pages slip trough, as well as too many newbies get bitten by overworked new page patrollers. The latter is a very meager utilitarian reason for not solving the problem of biting newcomers by shoving them away in some corner. The first one has little merit in that we now have to divide the same workforce between AfC and NPP. We just have an easier time at AfC because backlogs don't pass the event horizon as they do at NPP.
 * There is no talk page and no proper page for discussion as AfC is carried out in Wikipedia Talk.
 * Once an article gets approved, it's on its own. Getting 'accepted' at AfC gives some sort of impression that the article is somehow accepted by Wikipedia. It's not. It's just accepted by some dude or dudette who happened to yoink it in to main space, no community descission involved.
 * AfC is still backlogged enough that instead of giving a wrong (as explained earlier) yet gentle introduction, we are still templating the newcomers in a completely mechanized and impersonal fashion.
 * All in all, I think we have AfC to be nice about telling people where to stick it with their spam piece, and failing at it just as hard as we are failing at welcoming newcomers in the rest of Wikipedia. I know I promised to deliver stats on editor retation of editors who made their first article through AfC vs editors who made their first article outside of it, and I have been very busy much slacking in that regard, but for me to keep faith in that AfC provides an actual function despite it is learning newcomers how to do Wikipedia wrong, those figures would have to be mighty rosy.
 * If we do want to have something like AfC to help newcomers write their first pages, it has to be done in a very very different way. I'm happy to talk about it, and see what we can come up with, but the process we have now is broken by design. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Martijn. Although you  reiterate much  of what  has already  been said over the past  two  years and more so  recently, it's important  to  have it  heard again. Only  so can we convince the Foundation that  we need their help. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure we can or should enlist the help of the foundation - other than to join in the discussion - before we have a good idea as a community what we want to do about it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Draft: namespace The idea of a Draft: namespace is a grand idea, but it needs a person to champion the idea to move it forward. I know because I've proposed multiple variations of this idea over the years the most recent being in 2011 and 2012 and they never went anywhere. The foundation even worked on this idea in 2011, but we still haven't made any progress. Somebody needs to organize support within the community for this to go anywhere. 64.40.54.5 (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you read this entire thread, you'll understand why  Article Creation Workflow never got  off the ground. If we piece together the numerous discussions and initiatives over the past two years or so, you'll see that the community already knows what it wants to do about it. Those are solutions however that ultimately need some tweaks to the Wiki software, and there is always a risk that if the volunteers have spent hundreds of hours developing something and got consensus for it, the Foundation may still either reject it or not consider it to be a priory. That said, if they can do big stuff engineering like they did for Page Curation, then I firmly believe they could do great things for Page Creation. IMHO, the only  support we need from the community is to  convince the Foundation that these new solutions are too  big  for the volunteers to  be expected to  accomplish  through endless discussions and gathering  of consensus before anything  can be done. When the Foundation  takes something  on, it  does get  done rather quickly by  comparison. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "the only support we need from the community is to convince the Foundation" Agreed. The foundation has limited resources and cannot justify working on something if the community has been unable to show support for it. 64.40.54.167 (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, those resources are not quite so  limited nowadays. There have been huge increases in  personnel  over the past  two  years. It's more a question  of getting  their priories right. Where the Visual  Editor  may  be of some use (though I can't  see myself adopting  it  as my  default  edit  mode), things like the new talk  page system IMO, are a low priority. Where liquid threads are being  used on  other Wikis, I  find it  annoyingly  confusing. Editor retention and new-editor  education  should be right  at  the top  of the developer list. And as for AfT, well... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Editor retention and new-editor education should be right  at  the top  of the developer list." Absolutely. These should be priority one and two. Educating new users is in our best interest as a volunteer run project. Articles for creation is not well-suited for educating new users, but it's where a lot of new users start. 64.40.54.167 (talk) 02:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

AfC School
Has anyone ever thought of doing  anything  on  these lines? Perhaps the two could be combined. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

This weeks Editor of the Week. Stop by his talk page and give him a hearty "Well Done". He deserves a few moments of your time. ```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  02:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Editor of the Week is a recognition award for unsung heroes: editors who do excellent work in improving Wikipedia while typically going unnoticed. Any one in your circle of wiki-editors that fits the bill?```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  22:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

A discussion at the VP
Hello,

There is currently a follow-up discussion to to have a "Mass removal of indefinite rangeblocks". We have been losing several possible constructive users because of rangeblocks on their IPs. This proposal is to remove those rangeblocks after a definite time period. You are requested to participate in the discussion. Your views will be appreciated.

Cheers, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Are the rangeblocks hard blocks or soft blocks? Can registered accounts be created from the blocked addresses?  (I personally don't worry much about loss of unregistered users, but the ability to create registered accounts should not be blocked.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

No link to Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians???
I am surprised that there is no link from this WikiProject to Missing Wikipedians. I tried to add it, but I cannot figure out (without wasting precious time) how to edit this project. XOttawahitech (talk) 13:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It has been discussed in detail (archives) and some members are involved on their own, but it is a bit to the side of the core mission here, which is focused on understanding why people leave, then fixing Wikipedia by making it more user friendly. Part of the problem of us getting involved with individual editors (as a project) is that some editors leave due to edit wars or personality differences and it is imperative that we don't inject ourselves on one side of a personality or content dispute, as a group. People do care, people do work on that list some, but mainly to learn why the leave.  From experience I can say that it is usually fruitless to bring back previous editors and our efforts are better spent understanding why editors in general leave and fix those problems, where we can.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; © &#124;  WER  14:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Dennis Brown, I still do not understand why there is no link from this WikiProject to Missing Wikipedians. You say that this project  "is focused on understanding why people leave", but the missing wikipedian list provides a long list of editors who are no longer active – so why not use information already available (or add to it) instead of creating a whole new list? XOttawahitech (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't own the place, I just work here. You could always just add the link.  I suggest doing so in way that demonstrates that it is important to a lot of the members, although it isn't the core objective, but anyone can edit the project pages.  There is no ownership by me or anyone else. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  12:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Editor Ottawahitech. If you go to the main Project page, under the thread "Peripheral links suggested by editors", and click "edit this space" (in the lower left corner) you can add as much as you like. ```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  21:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Short opinion piece
With all the talk  about  editor  retention, admins hounding  users, users harassing admins, Arbs harrassing  admins, admins harrasing  admins, and desysoping, I  see another excellent  admin  has now retired in  a huff and thrown his toys out  of his pram. How about some admin retention?

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I had already tried by emailing him before you posted this. Boing! was a mentor for me when I first got the admin bit, so him leaving affects me personally. I can't blame him for being frustrated and honestly, I've been seeing this coming for a while.  Wikipedia is a much lesser place without him.  I am still hopeful this is a temporary state and not a permanent one. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  12:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I know proposals like Admin of the Day have (justifiably) failed and that being an admin is considered by some not to be a big deal.  But as someone who appreciates all the legwork admins do and the interpersonal tension they often deal with, I would certainly like to be able to let admins know that I appreciate their work without feeling disruptive or like I'm putting admins on a pedestal when they're, in many ways, just like everybody else.  I learn from admins constantly, they help me be a better editor, and generally speaking, many admins here make me want to stick around here for the long run.  Personally, I feel compelled to do this privately, over e-mail for instance, because of the aforementioned reasons.   I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 15:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hardly had I  spoken above, and Wikipedia  has become a bloody  madhouse what  with even more admins handing  their tools in, users divaesquely asking  to  be indeffed, and even Foundation  employees throwing  insults about. Even I'm  now seriously  considering  an exit although I said I stay  and hold Fort Sysop. Good thing  I  haven't  booked my  flight  to  Hong  Kong yet - if I  were to  go there I'd need some boxing  gloves. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm taking a wikibreak. The bulk of it simply has me too demotivated to even finish the articles I just started. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  17:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm taking two days away from dramah noticeboards this weekend to work on articles instead. I recommend it! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Incivility and Editor Non-Retention
Here are my thoughts on one issue with editor retention. I have written this in user space both in order to test the Visual Editor and in order to be able to expand it as necessary without threads breaking it up.
 * User:Robert McClenon/Uncivil Editors

To summarize, editors who are considered good "content creators" but have a long-standing history of incivility are a barrier to retention of new editors. Even if they don't attack the new editors, the fact that they are seen as attacking other editors is a disincentive to new editors staying in Wikipedia (and possibly especially to new female editors, who may be less tolerant of incivility). The current system of dealing with difficult editors by "community consensus" at WP:AN nearly gives uncivil editors a free pass, because, even though a majority of admins may support blocks for personal attacks, a "consensus" does not. Rather than try to deal with incivility via "consensus", maybe the community of administrators should let the ArbCom deal with the uncivil editors. The ArbCom doesn't have much of a caseload in the last few years, and isn't bound by "consensus" because they vote. Letting uncivil editors off with a slap on the wrist because they are good content creators sacrifices the future (retention of new editors) for the present (allowing rude content creators to continue to improve or create articles while insulting other editors). Those are my thoughts for now. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps broadening this to double standards of all kinds. Editors that get special treatment because of the people they know.  Editors that get special treatment because of the privileges they have.  Editors that get special treatment because of their contributions.  Editors that get special treatment for any reason.TeeTylerToe (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I mostly agree. When you refer to editors who get special treatment because of their contributions, you presumably are referring to the "content creators" of whom I was speaking.  When you refer to editors who get special treatment because of their privileges, I assume that you refer to editors who are admins, who get special treatment from the community of admins.  The latter double standard is clearly wrong.  The former issue appears on its face to be a difficult tradeoff between content and civility, which is true in the short run, but giving rude "content creators" a pass on civility because of their contributions sacrifices the future for the present.  In any case, the policy to be civil should be enforced more strictly than it is currently.  Since getting "consensus" on how to deal with uncivil editors is elusive, like nailing jelly to a tree, the most flagrant violations of civility should be sent to the ArbCom rather than argued at WP:AN.  Perhaps the policies on civility and personal attacks should be clarified to specify that violations may lead to blocking and even banning.  (I haven't checked those policies to see if they contain such language already.)  Some admins in the endless debates over blocks of experienced uncivil editors claim that incivility isn't normally blockable.  Maybe that is true in practice.  The practice needs to be changed, because experienced uncivil editors interfere with retention of editors (and possibly especially female editors) who might themselves become important contributors in the future.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This is pure hogwash. New editors have no idea what so ever of all this special treatment blah, blah, blah, that is supposedly going on. They don't quit because someone called someone else an asshole.  The problem lies with Wikipedia's idiotic thinking that somehow the word "asshole" is enough to ban a good editor. Stuff like that.  That is not to say that I have not seen admins getting special treatment, though they are seldom the ones that are doing the real work around this place. (Not to say that some of them are not the best editors I know and that some of them  work very well and endlessly in negotiating disagreements)  Gandydancer (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The idea that calling someone an "asshole" is a personal attack isn't idiotic. The problem is that enough experienced editors get away with it long enough that other experienced editors come to think that it is acceptable.  The issue that I see isn't "special treatment", but a long-standing disregard for one of the pillars of Wikipedia.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a fact that we don't have very many female editors, and it is generally thought that women are more sensitive to incivility than men, and ensuring that fewer editors call each other "assholes" might mean that female editors wouldn't be appalled by the incivility on talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You said, "it is generally thought that women are more sensitive to incivility than men". Could you please provide a source for this? Gandydancer (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Women may or may not be more sensitive. But consider... almost every society that humans have created have had strict rules about the way men act in the company of women. Incivility toward or in the vicinity of women is frowned on almost everywhere and at every time. Except here. I have a banner on my user page that reads; Always Assume That Ladies/Women/Females/Girls/Your Mom Are Present. Discourteous behavior will not be tolerated even if not directed toward them. . I think a mind-set by veteran editors along a courteous nature would go far to change the environment here. Excepting boorish behavior just because of editorial output is ridiculous. I won't mention names because he and his many aliases and his legion of supporters can be vengeful. [I have a history that goes back to an un-gentlemanly comment directed toward an obviously female Administrator. I took the offending editor to task...and became his new target.) I've learned to stay away (as I'm sure have many others) but that just give permission to the continuing incivility. We (Wikipedia Editor) are a new type of social entity. We need to protect each other against behavior that would not be tolerated in Real Life. ```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  22:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Woman speaking: I mind incivil action much more than incivil words. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case, what would you say about the editors at User talk:Victoriaearle who are convinced that they can see my motives and are intent on defaming me and rewriting history in the process? AutomaticStrikeout ?  22:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't speak about other editors ;) - I was "off" today and returned to see what Drmies and Dennis did, makes me sad. Please I understand that I am tired now, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Buster it just makes me grit my teeth and cringe when you say "But consider... almost every society that humans have created have had strict rules about the way men act in the company of women" as though there is something admirable about it. The other side of that argument is that almost every society that humans have created has also had strict rules about the way that women are expected to act in the company of men, and it has caused untold pain to millions of women.   Not one person in my wide circle of friends would dream of suggesting that respect had anything to do with cussing.  The quicker we get rid of these outdated double standards about how men and women should act in public, the better.  And I'm willing to bet that any feminist would agree with me. Gandydancer (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess in your world chivalry is dead. In mine, it lives on. When ladies are around, I don't curse, I don't treat them like bowling buddies, I don't piss in the sink. ```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  03:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm possibly slightly unusual here, and, based on these comments, perhaps I had misunderstood the nature of my fellow editors whom we're trying to retain. I never piss in the sink (whether ladies are around or not), and I have a theory that my female co-workers are of the firm belief that I am incapable of cursing. (I tested this once, and my theory was duly confirmed.) I don't really mind working with individuals who are more uncouth than myself - I've done it a lot in the real world - but I do wish the sink-pissers and pottymouths would stop assuming that everyone else is either like them or should be like them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

A big problem with incivility is that too many of those who want something done about it know exactly what it is and know exactly how it can be stopped. And they're wrong. Late last year there was a well intentioned attempt to tackle those two questions, and it died. Cultural and language variety differences around the world make it unlikely that there can ever be total agreement on what incivility is, let alone what to do about those editors that some more sensitive folks here define as uncivil. If we can't even define it, we can't stop it. HiLo48 (talk) 05:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Very well put, as usual, Demiurge. I have never understood why it is assumed by some to be a bad thing to show a little extra respect for women.  I do it because I was taught to do it, and my son will be too.  Just because I am male and give some extra overt demonstrations of respect to females does not in any way imply that they are somehow weaker or less capable than myself.  I was taught to open doors, not swear, etc, both around females and my elders.  Well, even though I am old now myself, I still have some elders and I open doors for them always.  I give up my seat on the bus for them always.  Not because I assume they are too weak to stand or open the door, but simply as a sign of respect and as a way to help make the world a better place.  I open the door for anyone whose arms are full, just because I would want the same done for me.  I do the same for women, as a sign of respect.  We were a better society when we honored the seniors.  We are taught from birth to honor our mothers and rightfully so.  I believe I was taught to honor women in general because they are (or may be) someone's mother.  How does that imply in any way that I think I am superior or they are less?  I think everybody  should have the same rights to get a job and be paid the same for it.  What does controlling my mouth or opening doors have to do with that?  You know, the Chinese society has lasted through numerous political changes for thousands of years.  Their respect for their mothers and fathers and all their elders is quite possibly why. Ideally, women would open the door for men, too.  Then this whole discussion would be moot.
 * Some of the best editors on Wikipedia are women. We need more.  I would have quit my first week if not for some well-timed encouragement from one of our female editors.  I never look at a userpage of someone I am trying to reach a consensus with until we are done.  Nothing there matters.  Not how long they have been here, their sex, or their nation of origin.  Like cops are all blue, we are all Wikipedians.  More respect around here can be nothing but good. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That comment about Chinese respect for elders may not be as true as you thought. HiLo48 (talk) 06:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I came to strike the pissing in the sink comment. But I see that it has been commented on by others so I'll just apologize. It wasn't respectful...to men or women. And it is completely contrary to how I feel we should treat each other. ```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  05:25, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's OK Buster--people that know you know that you are a nice person. I guess we are all different.  I much prefer to hang out with people that speak their mind regardless of whether in the company of male or female.  Actually I was not aware that it was against some Wikipedia rule that we could not say asshole, fuck, or whatever we wanted on our own talk page.  Wikipedia should change that rule--we should be allowed to say whatever we want on our own talk page.  Gandydancer (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It seem that Wikipedia is not censored, but editors are. Weird. HiLo48 (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

(editing break)
There can be no WP editing without people. And when people gather there follows some sort or form of association for the purpose of maintaining order among those people. It is a given that WP is vulnerable to uncivil behavior. Incivility displays a lack of consideration for others...a lack of respect. The question becomes what to do once the behavior and the perpetrator of that behavior have been identified. WP should be bound by an ironclad commitment to a safe and comfortable working environment for ALL employees. (I say employees knowing we are all unpaid. But, except for that minor detail we are "at work".) We should be assured of a professional workspace. But, Wikipedia, like all "user generated content" projects, is bottom up, not top down. It consists of an invitation to the entire world to edit and then hopes that the Users that show up will maintain an environment where it is possible for individuals from that world to edit abuse-free. All user-generated projects are radical democracies, despite the inconvenience of that in practice. Except for our made-up names, we are all either unidentified opponents or unidentified collaborators. Civility is a cornerstone of civic foundation. Civility maintains a collaborative base on which to operate. Incivility makes things unstable. Civility is a buffer against aggression and chaos. It shows respect for each other and maintains the fluid state of interpersonal relations. As far as "speaking one's mind"...there is absolutely no need to dredge the linguistic sewer in order to communicate. ```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  13:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * To a point I do agree with you Buster and I certainly would never come to your home and say asshole. That is your private space and you have every right to lay down the rules.  It would also not be appropriate for me to say asshole in public because, as you say, our social norms do not allow it.  On the other hand, if in my home a friend or I were to say asshole we would be using that word because we believe that it is sometimes the best and most appropriate word to describe what we mean. In the same way I believe that our own talk page should be seen as our space where we may speak frankly in the manner that is appropriate for us.


 * I don't see any connection between civility and cussing. Kindness, understanding and acceptance of differences are more likely to promote cooperation.  Gandydancer (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Buster7 speaks sense. I've been thinking on this topic recently - specifically, the problem of the argument "well, X writes a load of articles, so...". As someone who has written a load of articles I should presumably be fine wit hit, but I'm not.
 * My big problem with the argument is not, actually, the inherent inequality - it's a massive issue, but it's one that other people have written about in a better way than I could. My problem is that it's an argument based on fundamentally flawed data. The "X writes a load of articles, so..." argument is fundamentally utilitarian; it says that they are more of a benefit than a detriment, and so they should stay. But when someone makes that judgement call, they are not operating off valid data and cannot be operating off valid data.
 * Let's say we have a user who has written 10 FAs. They're uncivil, and drives some people away, but they've written 10 FAs - that's a lot of content. How much content would the people they have driven away have written, had he not been present? How much time could other users, still here, spend writing content if they weren't sucked into AN/I? How much content would have been written by people who never even start editing, driven away by our growing reputation for unpleasantness - a reputation based on the atmosphere created by people who write 10 FAs and gratuitously insult others.
 * Ultimately we can't make that judgment call fairly, because we'll never be able to get data on articles and content contributions in potentia - not least because the people we're seeking to evaluate, by definition, can't be part of the conversation. And so it's a useless argument, and one we should, as a community, reject. Ironholds (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Nobody seems willing to tackle the cultural issues I raised earlier. I was blocked once for writing something that almost nobody in my country (not the USA) would find offensive or problematic, but which some American administrators got in a huge tizz over. (Some didn't, and understood what I was saying.) I still don't know how to raise the issue here again without massive drama. I am told I am a valuable editor, but I was almost driven away by that incredibly aggressive response to a very innocent comment on my part, that some saw as uncivil. Please look at all aspects of this. Incivility is ALWAYS in the eye of the beholder, and often not even intended. HiLo48 (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What was the comment? :/. Ironholds (talk) 00:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I really don't feel safe even describing what happened in detail without being granted total immunity in advance from the wrath of angry American administrators. That's because when I tried to explain my actions in the past, I was faced with what I saw as irrational rage. (Which, of course, I saw as far more uncivil than anything I had said.) I will say that it didn't involve bad language. HiLo48 (talk) 02:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * en.Wiki is a multicultural  workplace. More so  that any  of the other Foundation  Wikis. There are cultural dichotomies between the various regions that  use English, some are clear, some are quite subtle. Users need to  be made aware of this and avoid anything that  could injure the sensibilities of any  of the users, and that  even friendly  banter will  almost  always be taken wrongly by  someone -  it's human nature to  see the worst  in  things, some even go as far as to read between the lines and deliberately  take things  out  of context  if they  can perceive something  negative from it, especially  if they  think they  can gain  an advantage with  it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * On the subject of civility, there is a thread at WT:Civility where I would appreciate whatever input people care to give. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The perennial discussions on  civility  have changed nothing  in  the policy  and nothing  in  users' behaviour. Civility  is a matter of common  sense (bearing  in  mind my  comment  above) and mutual  respect  for each  other in  a largely  anonymous workplace. I'm  not  quick  on  the civility  block  trigger because I  feel  it's something  the commnity  itself should  be able to  resolve, although I  did immediately and unilaterally indef one user who  was clearly  not  here to  build an encyclopedia, and I revdel'd the particularly  nauseating  PA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among the contributors. There are some few among us that are not civil. They create an atmosphere of tension. They are repeat offenders. At the drop of a hat, at the hint of questioning an act of editing, at the temerity of pointing out their boorishness, these editors will bully and attack and behave with extreme aggressiveness toward anyone in the vicinity that dares to speak up. But, editors need to voice their stand against incivility when confronted by it...active resistance rather than acquiescence. And I don't mean a few swear words thrown around between adults. I mean speak up against active, mean, aggressive words used as a weapon, as a vehicle to intimidate (to make timid), intended to hurt and to quiet anyone that dares to question the troublesome editor. These repeat offenders are like grenades...ready to explode at the smallest touch. They create consequences that degrade the standards and policies of discourse and behavior at Wikipedia. The presence of 'grenades' is uncomfortable for most editors. (Its OK as long as no-one pulls the pin!) When bullying and negative conduct is such that it destabilizes the community, when the grenade's quarrels and attitudes are more important than building the encyclopedia, when the hostility causes editors to cringe, the entire Wikipedia community of editors suffer. And it's not just the person being attacked. It's everybody listening in. It's everybody that will spend hundreds of hours in debate and discussion to deplore or defend the act of attack. ("He was goaded into responding like that!") It's the new editors that are scared off...afraid to speak up because no-one else is speaking up. This is about retaining editors. Most humans won't stay in a hostile environment. When given the choice, they move on. ```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  07:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not only  are there grenades lurking  on Wikipedia, but  the whole place is aready  a minefield. The dirtier the war gets, the dirtier the soldiers fight, and the dirtier are the orders and sanctions given out by  their officers. The end effect  is that  there are some extremely fair and competent admins out  there who  are just  too  afraid to  go  near the warn and block  buttons so  they  tiptoe around in uncontentious backroom bunkers, leaving a handful of front-line  corporals without  Kevlar™ vests to  do  the dangerous  work. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So Buster, you believe it's OK to tell someone that you think they're boorish, even though that's obviously just your opinion and clearly a negative comment on another editor, but if that person reacts in a way you personally disapprove of, it's incivility. I think you've just perfectly illustrated the definitional and perspective problem here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If I'm having a group discussion, at an article's talk page, and an editor calls another editor (with a clearly female name) a stupid cunt and when asked to retract (by me) his bullying comment tells others to pretty much pound salt...then yes, I would consider him and call him boorish. Especially if its about the 24th time I've witnessed it. But you and I have had this discussion before and we don't see eye to eye. Which is fine but I'm not going to get drawn in a long drawn out discussion. I've said my piece. ```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  00:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And that again illustrates one huge aspect of the problem. I believe I have made some very valid points, and your response is to not discuss them, but to just walk away, while still believing that you (and all other reasonable people) know exactly what incivility is and what to do about it. And I'm sure you will continue to post from that position. That's head in the sand stuff, and quite unhelpful. HiLo48 (talk) 01:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * HiLo, I am understanding you to say that much of the civility problems we have here stem from the fact that en-wiki serves all the nations of the world that have English as one of their official languages, and the fact that the cultural norms in the many places that encompasses vary widely. Is that just about correct?  BTW, if you would be willing to Email me that thing you got blocked for, I would be willing to bring it up if you thought that might help illustrate your point. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

#26
The 26th Editor of the Week is Editor, nominated by member Sophus Bie. Stop by his talk page and give him a hearty handshake for a job well done. Or go thru your rolodex of editors and nominate someone. ```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  06:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on AfC at  the Village Pump: AFC ruining  Wikipedia
A discussion is taking  place at  Village pump (policy). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * For a bit of background on Articles for Creation see this Signpost article. XOttawahitech (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Savannah Phillips
Savannah Phillips is the granddaughter of Queens Elizabeth 2 of Great Britain. She is the daughter of Peter and Autumn Phillips and has a younger sister Isla. Debrafir (talk)DebrafirDebrafir (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It isn't clear what this has to do with editor retention. However, Savannah and Isla Phillips are the great-granddaughters of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Australian Democrats page needs a neutral editor
Hello lovely editing people, if someone has the time I've put a note at the bottom of the Australian Democrats page about the split in the party, with two different Australian Democrats now in existence, which is causing confusion (unsurprisingly). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Australian_Democrats

I do not have NPOV - although I have been heavily critical of both sides, I'm still too close - I doubt anyone inclined to edit the page would, and obviously tension is high. It would be great if an independent editor can look at the source material and edit as they see fit. Kathoc (talk) 02:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, Kathoc! Generally, getting involved in editing disputes is beyond the scope of this project.  Have you tried dispute resolution?  Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)