Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 8

This weeks EotW
is the honored recipient. Do stop by his talk to offer congratulations. As a community, we need to support our valued collaborators. ```Buster Seven   Talk  15:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Soliloquies
Greetings. I've started working on WikiProject Editor Retention/Soliloquies with Buster7. If anyone wishes to join in, feel free to do so. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I like the idea, but I think they may end up giving a false view of why people leave. Most users who truly depart simply...depart. In my experience those with long-winded rationales about their reason for leaving are normally the adrenaline junkies who have got too involved in drama and will be silently back in a few weeks anyway. Ironholds (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ironholds, and I think these soliloquies represent a minority of users. I think that many have stopped editing for rather routine reasons that have nothing to do with Wikipedia per se (i.e. they simply can't devote as much time to the project as they used to).  New priorities like jobs, travel, school, and kids arise.  Maybe there are some things to glean from this (perhaps reasons what kinds of situations compel people into taking wikibreaks), but I don't think it is helpful to place undue weight on these (only sometimes) parting words.  Also, can we change the name to something else?  Soliloquies seems excessively dramatic.  I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 01:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed; I'm not saying there isn't value in them - I think there is. But at the same time, we should be careful to understand that it's not evidence we can wax on in isolation. Ironholds (talk) 02:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't  think  it's helpful  to make a list of soliloquies, except  maybe for historical  interest, but  even then, is it  worth the editing  time? Nothing  alters the fact however, that  some editors, even well  respected admins, who  leave with  a soliloquy have expressed genuine feelings of discontent with other editors, their fellow admins, and the Foundation. Sometimes these things just  need to  be said and they  are not  all  voiced by  divaesque teenagers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think I said anything about teenagers; divaesque behaviour can strike in all age groups. Certainly, some concerns that are written down are indeed genuine, but genuine and useful are distinct things. Ironholds (talk) 05:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Suggest merge with the existing WikiProject Editor Retention/Discovered reasons given for leaving Wikipedia page. Or a pointer from one to the other, and an explanation of how they're meant to differ. –Quiddity (talk) 04:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oliver, I don't  think I  said you  did either. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I quit Wikipedia some time ago, after a good number of content edits. I looked on here today to see how the celebrated website was doing, and found the above interesting. You are all still discussing. I had intended to write something about my unhappiness before I left, but did not get a chance, so I have added to the list for departure reasons now. And looking around the website again, yes, I made the right decision to quit. Not here anymore (talk) 11:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Rehoboam
Why are editors leaving? What can we learn from the negative example of Rehoboam (permanent link)? —Wavelength (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Apparently, I am not on the same wavelength you are (sorry for the pun). Can you maybe tell us what you see as the problem there? Gtwfan52 (talk) 16:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * My questions are rhetorical, and the second one refers to Rehoboam (the king), and not to "Rehoboam" (the article)? Please see "Use–mention distinction".
 * —Wavelength (talk) 16:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you explain what insight we should be finding, within the biography of Rehoboam? (I too was completely confused initially, and thought you meant there was a talkpage dispute at that article. I now understand that you're using it as an analogical reference, but beyond that it is unclear. What aspect of the person/history are you referring to (his 18 wives and 60 concubines?!) ? What aspect of Wikipedia are you comparing it to? etc. Is there a clearer way to convey your thoughts, perhaps one that doesn't require comparisons to a controversial historical person?).
 * Are you trying to start a discussion on something in particular, or are you asking for links to prior research on "why editors leave" ? –Quiddity (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Rehoboam ruled oppressively, causing many people to rebel and ten tribes to secede. It seems to me that administrators acting oppressively can cause editors to leave.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you had a specific idea that you believe contributes to why editors leave, it's not clear to me why this conversation started with "Why are editors leaving" instead of discussing the idea itself. Anyway, sure, many editors have argued that admins have made bad or otherwise controversial decisions that have resulted in editors feeling excluded.  I'm not going to turn this thread into a "let's point fingers at specific admins," but I think it's safe to say this had probably happened.  I think one way abusive admin actions are mitigated, or at least addressed, is through surveillance by users and other admins. This recent ANI thread notes a bad block that was undone and the admin apologized.  Many editors and administrators participated.  I'm not saying every case can be addressed this way, but that there are some mechanisms in place to prevent long-term harm here.  I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 19:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Anything WER can do here?

 * – From active sysop to retired in 5:01 hours, a chronological overview.


 * - sysop unblocks another user prior to the block's expiry
 * - sysop notifies unblocked user
 * - a concerned editor asks why on the sysop's talk page 1 minute later
 * - sysop notified on their talk page of a new discussion created at Administrators' noticeboard by the concerned editor, 12 minutes after the initial query. Sysop wasn't given much time to respond on their talk page to the initial query.
 * - sysop responds at the AN discussion
 * - another sysop reinstates the block
 * - sysop unblocks the re-blocked user again
 * , - sysop provides more replies on their talk page
 * - sysop notified on their talk page of a Request for arbitration discussion initiated
 * - sysop requests removal of administrator tools from their account at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard
 * - sysop places semi-retired template on their user page
 * - sysop leaves parting comment on their talk page
 * - user desysopped
 * - user thanks bureaucrats for timely response
 * - user places retired template on their user talk page
 * - user places retired template on their user page


 * – Northamerica1000(talk) 09:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, if it were not for "sysop unblocks the re-blocked user again", this would have probably not degenerated. The sad thing about this is that it looks like there is a consensus forming at AN in favor of the unblock. Had INeverCry been more patient, he could have had his wish met in a policy-compliant fashion. Looking at WP:RFA, I see INeverCry got his bit on this wiki earlier this year. I guess the lesson to draw from this is: newbie admins should tread carefully. I find the post-factum accusation of "DIVA exit" at WP:AN the most disgraceful part of this. INeverCry has indeed made a clear procedural error, and has had the moral fortitude to immediately resign when it was explained to him. I guess making sure that new admins understand WP:WHEEL should be part of the RfA process. Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note the arb case was withdrawn so it may be hard to even find . The verdict of "suicide by Arbcom" from an arbitrator was a bit unpalatable as well .Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Malleus is a problem way beyond solution by WER...
 * The sad part here is the clear bullying by Kww (one of the worst admins around for bullying tactics, although I've not seen them do it to admins before). There is no excuse for running off to Arbcom in this timescale, whatever INC had done. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty unfair accusation, Andy. I don't "bully" others, nor did I "bully" INeverCry. I simply expect people to follow behavioural policies. For admins, WP:WHEEL is one of the most important. How would you have reacted if I had simply reinstated my indef block of Eric after Floquenbeam lifted it? There would have been a chorus calling for my head, and for good reason: we are not permitted to use our tools repeatedly to try to get what we want. As for the timescale comment, Andy, there is no dispute resolution for wheel-warring but Arbcom. There's nowhere else to take it.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid he's right. Like edit-warring, believing one is right is never an excuse for wheel warring, and there was nothing here that justified breaking that rule. INC would probably have been summarily  desysopped by arbcom anyway, it's happened before, many times.  I don't know why so many admins are willing to take their fondness for Mal/Eric to such extremes, this is (as far as I know) the third admin we've lost over this latest chapter in this seemingly endless saga of blocking and unblocking. As I've said many times before, prolific creators of quality content who are regularly extremely rude and condescending to others are the most problematic kind of user we have. The community, as a group, simply seems unable to decide which aspect outweighs the other, and so admins are similarly divided. We all lose when admins go all cowboy and start wheel warring. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Beeblebrox that editors who are excellent creators of quality content but who are regularly extremely rude and condescending are deeply problematical. They are, in my view, a net negative, in that I think they drive away more potentially useful content creators than the content that they add.  Part of the problem is that habitually uncivil editors are now dealt with by the will-o-the-wisp of community consensus.  In 2005 through 2008, they were often dealt with by the ArbCom, but now they are usually dealt with an WP:AN or WP:ANI.  The problem is that consensus is elusive, and that many of the posters to WP:AN and WP:ANI are very experienced editors (often but not always admins), and there is a group who are sympathetic with the editor in question because they support content creation more than they are concerned about incivility.  As a result, blocks are temporary, but habitually uncivil editors do not learn from blocks, and know how to game their way out of being blocked.  My own thought is any editor with a long history of incivility, even if an excellent content creator, should be written up for the ArbCom.  The ArbCom does not have to rely on consensus, because the ArbCom, unlike the community, votes, and a majority is sufficient.  That is my opinion.  Uncivil editors should, in extreme cases, be sent to the ArbCom, rather than dealt with repeatedly by "consensus".  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Uncivil administrators, of which there are far too many, are a way bigger problem than allegedly uncivil plebs like me. I can't arrive at your talk page to threaten and bully you, but they can, and do. Eric   Corbett  01:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It is true that many of the uncivil editors are administrators. I could but won't name a few.  I disagree about bullying.  Uncivil non-admin editors do create a hostile atmosphere for inexperienced editors, and I have seen cases of uncivil non-admin editors bullying an experienced editor.  It is true that uncivil non-admin editors won't intimidate experienced engineers like myself.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I am unclear how this is a WER issue.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Uncivil editors are an editor retention issue because they drive away new editors who are seeking the civil atmosphere that Wikipedia seeks to be, but often is not. Bullying admins are an issue to editors whom they threaten -- and sometimes to themselves.    Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That analysis is oversimplified and does not acknowledge the underlying problems. Recent cases of incivility from Eric have involved someone poking him while also demonstrating a lack of clue on whatever point they were trying to make. If an editor goes to a user's talk page (when they should have used the article talk page if they really wanted a free writing lesson), that editor should be clever enough to understand that the blunt initial response is telling them to go away—returning for more is POINTy. The ideal Wikipedian knows how to play the game and how to dismiss interlopers while using language not proscribed by CIVIL, but for unknown reasons, Eric's much-admired talent with words in an article sometimes fails him in talk page interactions. The community needs to help by interceding before things get out of hand. Another issue is that there have been almost no cases where a reasonable block has been applied to Eric, and where the reasonable block has stuck. Instead, we see admin A blocking for 24 hours, followed by admin B's "reduce to time served"—it is admin B who is responsible for the whole mess. Johnuniq (talk) 02:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear that I was quite resigned to sitting out this latest block. I didn't ask to be unblocked; I've never asked to be unblocked, and I never would. Nevertheless, at the short-lived ArbCom case there was a suggestion that I should be sanctioned because editors were arguing about my block. Classic. Eric   Corbett  02:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * One might also argue that unreasonable blocks have been applied to Eric. I can't help but ask myself how things might have been different if Fram had blocked Eric for a shorter time period than 30 days, or had gone to AN before making the block. Would things have gone differently? Would the body count have been lower? ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, things would have been much better. That's the problem—on one side we see attempts to fix the problem by doing the wiki equivalent of an amputation, while some of the other side claim that they call their mother an asshole twice before breakfast, and anyone who doesn't like it is an asshole. The two extremes are ridiculous. There is a real problem which needs a real solution. Johnuniq (talk) 02:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I am not trying to end the discussion just trying to figure out how this applies to the project as I am hoping this is not just being used to prolong this discussion when the AN closing asked us all to move on. If this is something members feel is constructive...more power to ya.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want to keep editors you have to control the block-mad administrators. Eric   Corbett  02:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the answer is to stop blocking editors who regularly add and improve content and who help others who regularly add and improve content, all without pushing a certain point of view, without issues of violating policies on copyright, conflict of interest, or biographies of people who are living or whose families and friends are living. Just stop blocking them, stop calling them a net negative unless you're willing to provide diffs showing how they net-negatively influenced the encyclopedia, our product. Stop blocking them now. Seriously. ---Sluzzelin talk  02:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * @Amadscientist, I think it is at least partially relevant to the project, since editors have been lost in this, though it's probably not the most appropriate forum.
 * @Johnuniq, your analogy made me laugh, but there is definitely truth to it. Do you have any ideas for a solution? (My last try wasn't thought out as well as it should have been, and got shot down.)
 * @Beeblebrox, you still watching? What ever happened to that CERFC project?
 * @Eric, the only way I can think that would come close to "controlling" an administrator would be to change the policy. Do you have any specific ideas on that? ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Many, but they'd all be blocked by the administrators. Eric   Corbett  02:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd be interested in hearing some of them (perhaps not here and now, and only if you want to share). ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Amadscientist: Wikipedia lost a valuable, active contributor in the course of just over 5 hours. This project is about working to retain editors, so I figured posting the events that occurred here would generate some ideas about how to prevent these types of things from occurring in the future. Upon consideration, I could have titled the section differently, such as "Can we prevent this in the future?" or something to that effect. From what I've read here and there relatively recently, there's also concern in the Wikipedia community about administrator retention and a dwindling numbers of admins. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I understood that...but as this was an admin issue and not really just an editor issue, a great deal of that is out of our hands. Discussing it isn't the issue for me. Its a matter of how much this actually effects "Editor" retention and I can't help but think we, as a project, may not have any route to take to overcome this issue. How can we deal with wheel wars, admin frustration with each other and the back and forth at AN that sometimes gets carried away. But I see that it is an issue, important to many so it is important to discuss it. But, as many of the members here are SYOPS, I can understand the reasoning. Hey...someone has to play devil's advocate, it might as well be me.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I am and have been, one of the first  to  admit that Eric is a content  contributor and reviewer par excellence of the kind that  is desperately  needed on  Wikipedia. There has to be a reason  however why  all  discussions about  (in)civility and anti-adminship gravitate towards him, his talk  page, and his block  log. Not all  admins are badmins by  a long  chalk,  and it  harms Wikipedia to be constantly  tarring  them  all  with  the same brush. What needs to  be done is to  cease making  Eric the Aunt Sally  of civility, pick  some other victims instead if we must, but brush  away the notion  that  Eric may  be the only  editor  (or admin for that  matter) who  might  or may  not  resort  to  frequent unpleasant  comments to, or about  other users and admins. There's no solution  to  adminship, apart from  giving  all  users the bit, and that  would spell  disaster. All users of Bigideapedia already  have far more powers over content and each  other than they  would have on any  common  or garden Internent  forum  or blog -  perhaps that's why  some of them  come here. For many, it appears that becoming an admin  is just  an other step  towards one-upmanship in  an already  rights-crowded environment. Hence the high criteria these days at RfA,  which unfortunately still  misfire occasionally  as we have seen recently. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * People need to keep in mind that WP:WHEEL is an important source of stability. On a practical matter for this case, it's one of the main reasons that Eric isn't still indefinitely blocked since December: once Floquenbeam unblocked him, I wasn't permitted to reinstate the block: I had to try to persuade others that Floquenbeam was wrong and get a consensus to reinstate the block. Since I couldn't, Eric remained unblocked. It's also the reason that when INeverCry unblocked him, I did not immediately reblock. Even though I believe INeverCry was wrong to undo the block, too many people would have seen it as wheel-warring for me to reinstate it because of my relatively recent block (seven months is still relatively recent in my mind). That's why I took it to WP:AN, made my opinion known, and left it for others to discuss. Prodego reversed INeverCry, and that reversal is a judgement call. Prodego hasn't got a history of having blocked Eric, and there's a real question as to whether INeverCry's unblock was actually a "reversal" of the original block (making Prodego guilty of wheel-warring) or whether enough time had gone by that INeverCry's action was the first in the chain to consider. If the case had gone forward, Prodego may have been in trouble. Once INeverCry unblocked again, knowing full well that other admins objected to his action, it's black-letter law. There's no way to view that as anything but a violation of WP:WHEEL, and it's exactly the kind of action WP:WHEEL was written to forbid. I can't think of a case where the same administrative action was undertaken twice in 67 minutes by the same admin without desysop coming within hours. I have a hard time believing that INeverCry didn't know that, and that's why Risker called it "suicide by Arbcom". Once he touched that button the second time, the outcome for him was inevitable. It's possible that it was a procedural error, but since Prodego had specifically told him that repeating the unblock would be wheel warring that seems pretty unlikely.
 * Think of what Eric's block log would look like without that rule. He'd be blocked by one group of admins and unblocked by another so fast he'd be lucky to save an edit in-between. We can argue back and forth about whether it got us to the right answer or the wrong answer in this case, but it serves a valid purpose: when there's a major disagreement between admins on something, it forces us to stop and talk.&mdash;Kww(talk) 07:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm still on break due to real world obligations, and only here now due to insomnia. Losing INeverCry as admin is a loss.  I'm not prone to debate the minutia of detail (and probably won't have time to revisit this thread) but this bludgeoning by process seemed totally unnecessary.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  07:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll put my 2p on the table - Eric is indeed a content contributor par excellence. His copyediting, albeit brief, on Keith Moon made for the fastest GA pass I've ever had, and gave me the confidence that FA was something I could actually seriously contemplate doing at some point, as oppose to merely thinking it's what only superhumans with a BA in English can do - and I think Dennis would probably be in perfect agreement with that, having had the full copyediting experience at Sunbeam Tiger. As someone who regularly works with lower middle and working class British people, I can assure you all that his comments, even when they're along the line of "why don't you just fuck off and do something more appropriate for five year olds" are nothing out of the ordinary for the typical banter I deal with in the real world day in, day out. Furthermore, with very few exceptions, each time it happens, I can trace a retort like that to somebody else trying to bear-bait or pick a fight with him. Personally, I think we'd be all a lot better off if every time Eric felt like saying "now fuck off, there's a good chap" he just said it to his monitor and not take it to the "Save page" button, but I do have the general feeling that people often get what they ask for. I'd like to see a list, if it even exists, of people who have actually voluntarily left Wikipedia because they couldn't get on with him. And, for what it's worth, my interpretation of WP:WHEEL is not "do this and you will be desysopped, end of." Wheel warring usually makes normal editors suffer, but I think we can all agree that Eric is perfectly used to being blocked and unblocked every ten minutes by now, and shrugs it off. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   09:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * He shrugs it off because people like you don't draw any practical distinction between the times he can legitimately claim to have been provoked or baited, and the times (just like this one), where he was rightly blocked for making an unprovoked and unjustifiable attack on another editor (and because people like you always gloss over the fact that such things are, by policy, only ever considered as mitigating factors, not justifications). As a Brit myself, I can only feel shame at the idea that you think the proper environment a global encyclopedia should have is British lower class 'banter'. I can banter with my mates, I frequently call them cunts, assholes and tell them to fuck off, but I wouldn't think for a moment that this was an acceptable way of interacting with people on the internet who I've never met, let alone in an environment where it is specifically requested that people treat each other with politeness and respect. The whole point about banter is that, out of context, it looks like rudeness and disrespect. Wikipedia is not that context. And this is irrelevant anyway, banter is only supposed to occur between friends, or at least friendly aquaintances. The people Eric uses it against are neither, so the intention is quite clearly to be offensive and disrespectful. And for the benefit of people like you or anyone else who continues to be amazed that other can even think that meeting or even hearing people who act like Eric are the reason why some editors leave Wikipedia, why don't you actually read one of the many surveys that say just that? Here's one from just 2011, but there are others, both in house and independent. Banana Clock (talk) 11:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I wish I had a solution to this. But in life, you had to deal with what you're given, not what you want. Civility is one of the hardest problems on here to crack, and notwithstanding Beeblebrox's attempt last year, I'm not sure we've got an answer. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   11:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Someone said 'The Eric Corbett quagmire seems to be steadily destroying the admin community.' Eric makes his fair share of anti-admin  comments, even if they  are not directly  abusive, but  one can understand his dilemma. The question  still  remains: how did he come to  be the centre of it  all? A couple of things need to  happen: trigger-quick  admins need to  lay  off Eric's block  log whether they  are blocking  or unblocking  him; Eric needs to  lay  off his persistent  snide comments about  admins/adminship, because that's what  gets the admin community riled most even if they're getting  what  they  asked for, or are good admins and passive onlookers. And most  importantly, something  needs to  be done to  prevent  the kids from  taking an example from  from  the quadmire and believing that  being  on  Wikipedia is some kind of 'I can be nastier than thou'  sport, at  least  they  don't  behave like it in  the classroom even if adults use more familiar language with each  other in  the office. Heck, we need admins -  let's give them  a break, and let some of them  call  each other to  order more often before they  get  dragged to  an under-performing arbitration  system - wheel-warring  takes two  to  tango. And let's get  RfA sorted out  so  that  more candidates of the right calibre will be prepared come forward, instead of admins going  AWOL - or apeshit. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Civility is not hard in cases like this. Did Eric call someone an asshole? Yes. Does he have form for it? Yes. Already we're in unambiguous block territory. Did he have any reason to call them an asshole? No. Does he regret calling them an asshole? No. Does he understand why calling people assholes is bad for Wikipedia? No. Now we're into indefinite block territory. Has he said he will not stop calling people assholes if he thinks they're assholes? Yes. This is the stage Wikipedia is at now with Eric. By rights, he should already be banned. Any other editor who acts like this, is already banned. The reasons why he is not banned is because people keep getting away with telling lies about both Eric (e.g. this idea it's never ever his fault, when it often is) and about editors like Eric in general (this continued nonsense about how there's no evidence people who act like Eric drive away other editors, when there is). They also keep getting away with clouding the issue with total nonsense like these quite ludicrious claims that because he is the most productive/valuable/highest quality editor on the project, he must be exempt from basic policies. Which is just pure rubbish. So the solution is obvious. The people here who claim to be interested in editor retention in general, rather than just Eric retention, should stop people telling lies like this at ANI and elsewhere about what Eric does and doesn't and do, and what effect he does and doesn't have on Wikipedia, and challenge head on the times when people say the most ludicrious things in order to prevent him being held accountable the same way anyone else is here. If that happens, then the next time he does something like this, there is no defintion of consensus that would ever see him unblocked unless or until he actually commits to acting within the rules everyone else has to. If it doesn't happen, well, it will continue, and everyone here will be culpable, through their inaction. Despite what he claims, if he was indef blocked and knew it would stick unless or until he changed (which is the whole point of it), he would change, because he clearly loves editing too much to let his so called pride get in the way. The problem with Eric is that he has never ever been put in a position where he has no reasonable doubt that he would not get out of a block eventually without ever having admitted any guilt or made any promise to change his ways. So why would he? Banana Clock (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why we focus on Eric, who has always been gentle to me (look for Malleus on my talk), while I miss INeverCry and just cried when I saw what he left on his user page (link above). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This is another example of the sort of thing that needs to be stopped at ANI by the people interested in general editor retention, rather than just Eric retention at all costs. When a block of Eric is being discussed at ANI for a case like this, where he has been unambiguously offensive to someone without any cause or justification, it is of absolutely no relevance at all that he has the ability to be polite and helpful to other people at other times. Infact it only makes Eric look worse, because it highlights the fact that he is making a conscious choice to be rude and disrespectful to some editors but not others. The explanation for this is, as he has often admitted himself, is that he thinks they deserve it and feels under no moral or policy obligation to moderate himself in those situations. Which is not, never has been, and never will be, part of Wikipedia's policy for how people should interact, for obvious reasons. Banana Clock (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment About "Working Class British Banter"
The comment is made above about a controversial editor who is esteemed for his content addition and criticized for his incivility: "As someone who regularly works with lower middle and working class British people, I can assure you all that his comments, even when they're along the line of "why don't you just fuck off and do something more appropriate for five year olds" are nothing out of the ordinary for the typical banter I deal with in the real world day in, day out. "  That comment not only overlooks differences between different cultures, but also overlooks a key factor in electronic discourse. It has been known since the 1980's that a difference between regular discourse and electronic discourse is the lack of non-verbal cues in electronic discourse. The working-class Englishman who uses vulgarities may be smiling. The middle-class American who uses strong language may give non-verbal cues that you shouldn't take it personally. On the Internet, no one knows that you are being sarcastic. On the Internet, no one knows that you are engaging in banter. The lack of non-verbal cues, and not the differences between different Anglophone cultures, is why Wikipedia must enforce a higher standard of civility than is observed in live discourse. (Many email communities learned this in the 1980s and 1990s. Usenet never did, which is one of the reasons why it is Usenet.)  Editors who neglect that standard may be excellent content creators but are a barrier to editor retention, not because of the differences between different Anglophone cultures, but because of the lack of non-verbal cues in electronic discourse. The standard of civility really must be higher in electronic discourse than in live discourse. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's irrelevant though. You simply cannot have British style 'banter' with anyone you're not friends with. That's the whole point of it - taken out of the context of a friendly exchange, banter employs the sort of words that would normally be seen as disrespectful or offensive (or at the very least humiliating, in the 'piss taking' variant) in normal speech. Anyone trying to excuse Eric's insults when directed at people he's never interacted with as 'banter', is simply wrong. I don't think Eric has even tried to palm this off as banter, it's something that others try to do, presumably as a form of misdirection, if it's not simply borne out of a complete misunderstanding of British culture. Banana Clock (talk) 12:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So you registered an account today just to have a go at me here? Interesting. Why aren't you using your real account name? Eric   Corbett  12:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I was wondering about  that  too (only 4 edits), but  to  avoid drama I kept  my  trap shut. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if you think telling the truth is having a go at you (feel free to correct me on any matters of fact I might have got wrong). I registered today to comment here, yes. Not so much interesting as a simple observation easily deduced from my contribution record. What my "real" account name is, I have no idea. I suspect you're reading too much into my knowledge of Wikipedia politics like this - don't assume that everyone who knows about this stuff must also be an active editor. Rather the opposite I would have thought. Banana Clock (talk) 12:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * So how did you find this discussion, which for some strange reason seems to have degenerated into yet another let's kick Eric thread? Eric   Corbett  13:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Rather than wonder "Who is this masked man?" we may all be better served to wonder if his comments are valid. ```Buster Seven   Talk  13:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * They may be superficially valid, Buster, but in terms of long-term issues and solutions they're more of a smokescreen. Intothatdarkness 13:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Interesting that you see no problem with this single-purpose account Buster. Here's a hint for you; I think you'll find that it's a she, not a he. Eric   Corbett  15:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * [ec] People focus on Eric because it's easy. Beating someone for cursing is easy. Taking on civil POV pushing (which is incredibly discouraging and is really nothing more than baiting), OWN of policy (which does more to strangle en-wiki than about any other issue, IMO), inconsistencies in admin behavior (hell...this place can't even agree on what an admin IS, let alone what accountability they should have), and some of the other important issues would be hard work and upset too many established apple carts. It's far more satisfying to organize a lynch mob periodically. To me it should be incredibly troubling when the most common advice when someone's being baited or harassed by a civil POV pusher is "take a wiki-break so you'll feel better." ANY community that encourages its members to "go away and come back when you feel better" has deep-seated social issues. Intothatdarkness 13:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Like I said Eric, don't assume that just because I'm not an active editor I don't know how to navigate the site. I'm a regular reader of all the internals, it's part of my academic interest in Wikipedia generally. As for this being "yet another let's kick Eric thread", well, I can yet again only be sorry that you think people discussing truthfully what you do, and what other people do with respect to you, on Wikipedia, is an exercise in "kicking" you. As someone said above, what happened here is clearly a legitimate topic for the people interested in editor retention. Banana Clock (talk) 13:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You must believe that I'm as daft as you are. Eric   Corbett  14:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * And with that you've brought this exchange to a dead end. I know you have a particular disaste for people who try to tell you what you feel, so I am at a loss why you would even try to go there. Barring the obvious of course, which only reinforces what I've been saying above about the way you make deliberate choices about how you interact with others on Wikipedia. Banana Clock (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I make deliberate choices about how I interact with everyone everywhere. What do you do, roll a dice? Eric   Corbett  15:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Stop. Whatever your other faults, Eric, you are rightly lauded as one of the finest writers here, so this does not become you at all. I know you have a particular distaste for people who try to do this to you, so again, I am at a loss why you would even try to go here either. If you don't dispute any of the facts and don't want to add any insights from your own personal perspective, then what more is there for you to say here, really? If you've got nowhere else to go with this thread than this, then why not just leave it and get on with your other work? I've no need for any interaction with you to be able to prove my points. If you can't find some level of detatchment in here, if you can't shake off this idea that everyone is out to get you or give you a good kicking, then further comments are unlikely to get us out of this conversational dead end. Banana Clock (talk) 15:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Banana, I've read your "truths" and they are a bunch of bullocks (and I'm not even British). "[...] it's part of my academic interest in Wikipedia generally" -- well then you must be at the bottom of the class, because your arguments are a shallow version of black & white. And you're baiting Eric to engage you, but you're not worthy, in fact your undefined account disallows you from being blocked for calling people like me "liars" without diffs and serious support for personal attacks like that. Why don't you just blow? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I've blocked Bannanaa Clock per WP:DUCK, and, just to be clear, for no other reason. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * At least that turns off the smoke screen generator. Intothatdarkness 16:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the block of Banana Clock (correct spelling} was untimely.```Buster Seven   Talk  01:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * She'll be back. Eric   Corbett  16:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's try and look at this rationally. How many editors have admins such as Kww driven off the project this month, as opposed to how many I've helped? Eric  Corbett  23:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Higher Standard of Civility
I was trying to make two points about uncivil editors before the distraction of an argument with a sockpuppet. The first point is one that I have made before. Habitually uncivil editors who are excellent content creators are deeply problematical. They make retention of new editors difficult, because the new editors often expect Wikipedia to be the collaborative environment that its policies say that it is. It is hard to say whether these editors do as much good as the harm that they do. They do add content to articles, which can be measured, but they drive away new editors who might also be future excellent content creators. They also have followers who support them and argue for their unblock (or for short blocks) when they are blocked for incivility. Because they have followers, it is difficult to obtain a community consensus, because the followers take part in the discussions at Administrators' Noticeboard or Administrators' Noticeboard for Incidents. For that reason, it is my opinion that repeat-offending uncivil editors, especially those who are known as excellent content creators, should be written up for arbitration rather than dealt with the the elusive consensus; the ArbCom does not require consensus, because it actually votes. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Second, a higher standard of civility should apply in Wikipedia talk pages (whether user talk pages or article talk pages) than in live discourse. On the Internet, there are no non-verbal cues. This has been recognized in publication at least since 1985. (See http://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R3283.html.) On the Internet, no one knows that you are being sarcastic rather than mean or rude. On the Internet, no one knows that you are "bantering", and so you aren't bantering. Also, on the Internet, what you write is permanent; it can't be taken away. (In Wikipedia, in rare cases, what you write can be taken away if it has to be redacted or oversighted, but in that case, you may be taken away also. Editors who are so uncivil that there remarks have to be redacted are not the problem that I am discussing.)  Because there are no non-verbal cues, and so relatively little opportunity for humor, the standard of civility in Wikipedia should be even higher than it is in live discourse. The fact that a particular remark would be permitted in live discourse, or in live discourse in a particular Anglophone culture, is not important. A higher standard of civility is expected on Internet projects that take themselves seriously, such as Wikipedia, which is building an encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, on the Internet, you don't know the gender or nationality of your audience, and so you can't even infer (inferences being guesses) whether they will be offended by your style. Your own gender may or may not be indicated by your name, and your own nationality may or may not be inferrable (for instance, from your spelling), but the gender and nationality of any members of your audience who are not posting cannot be known, so that any assumptions as to whether your audience will be offended are vague assumptions.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Where is your evidence? I'm unable to drive anyone away, but admins such as Kww do so in the thousands. Eric   Corbett  00:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Where is your evidence that uncivil editors do not drive anyone away by creating a hostile environment? Where is your evidence that hostile admins drive away thousands of editors?  I will agree that hostile admins drive editors away, but do you have a count?  It is true that uncivil editors cannot drive away tough engineers, but we don't know how many newbies have been driven away by a climate of incivility.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Block logs provide the evidence. Eric   Corbett  01:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "On the Internet, no one knows that you are "bantering", and so you aren't bantering."


 * If an editor falls in the woods, and no one is there to hear....do they make a sound?--Amadscientist (talk) 00:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The question about a tree is patent nonsense, because squirrels hear the tree fall. An editor doesn't fall so noisily that the squirrels care.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What is your religion? The original question was a bogus attempt to prove the existence of God, by saying that God heard the tree fall.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Does the editor get up again and resume editing, or do bears eat the editor?   Robert McClenon (talk) 01:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

What if the squirrel is deaf? That old proverb is actually a test of logic when you understand that sound is a perception requiring a receiving ear to pick up the vibrations created by the falling tree, and I'm Pagan.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The "proverb", which is actually a trick question, depends on the definition of "sound", which may reasonably be defined either as a perception in a cerebrum or as an acoustic wave. The acoustic wave is present even if no one hears it.  It's a trick question because it turns on which of two reasonable definitions is used.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I always thought the tree proverb was an alternate version of Schrodinger's cat. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Editor
This weeks Editor of the Week. Lets all take a break from trying to figure out what incivility looks like and do something civil...congratulate Ammodramus. ```Buster Seven   Talk  02:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Please Accept My Apology
Orange Mike,

My company has asked me to create a Wikipedia page earlier this month. The companies name is Central States Bus Sales, Inc. I tried creating the page to the best of my ability and apparently did something wrong. Please accept my apology and could you help assist in the process? My editing name is Sharktail and any help would be gladly appreciated.

Again, I'm so sorry I violated any conditions with Wikepedia. My only intention was to submit my project for approval.

Please contact me at your earliest convenience.

Respectfully,

Sharktail — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharktail (talk • contribs) 16:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * @ Editor Sharktail. Orange Mike doesn't live here. He just visits from time to time. Go to User:Orangemike and you should find him. Once your current project is completed we hope you stay and continue to edit Wikipedia. ```Buster Seven   Talk  16:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor/Default State RFC‎
Those interested in VisualEditor may be interested in this. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

#4:Ignore attacks
Is there any reason the word "administrative" is capitalized mid-sentence here? Is "administrator" treated as a proper noun here? If so, in referencing a specific Administrator with a pronoun rather than an antecedent, does protocol require we write "Him" or "Her"? Joefromrandb (talk) 10:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you have come to the right page? As befits the ever increasing power and status of administrators Administrators on Wikipedia, protocol should now require people who have come here only to write the encyclopaedia to address an Administrator, say with the user name FineFellow, as Administrator FineFellow. The address should always be capitalised and in bold, respecting the practice most Administrators follow of signing their name in bold. Gender needn't come into it, but one should always genuflect solemnly after typing an address to an Administrator . Similarly, if a Wikipedia talk page is graced with the presence of just one Administrator, that administrator can be appropriately referred to as The Administrator . --Epipelagic (talk) 10:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess I should have asked at the "Goals" sub-page. I changed it to lowercase, but will humbly revert if asked by any Administr-tor who feels I have offended Him or Her. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Very wise... --Epipelagic (talk) 12:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I often capitalize (camelcase) CheckUser when the refer to humans to differentiate it from checkuser as it applies to the process. I do the same for Clerk, just to differentiate the task from the human.  It is only for clarity and I don't expect others to do so.  I sometimes capitalize Administrator but usually just say admin.  I always capitalize Arb or Arbitrator. Perhaps it is just because it is an elected title, plus it makes reading a little easier.  We use a lot of odd capitalization and words here that aren't really words.  Like desysop and onwiki. I don't need the title or capitalization myself.  I don't even like being called "Mr. Brown" (that's my dad's name) nor do I prefer my name be prefixed with "admin" in any way.  The admin bit is not what defines me. Just call me db, D. or Dennis. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  12:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I almost always refer to anyone as Editor rather than User. It reminds me of why they are here. It gives dignity to their actions. ```Buster Seven   Talk  14:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It could have been from the original proposal to use the text and just continued to get transcribed that way...or it could be because I'm a self taught typist and often make mistakes.--Mark Miller Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 17:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I prefer something like  ADMINISTRATOR , can we change it to that? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * At least here it is just blocks with no fellow admin willing to speak up.  In my field, the medical field, thousands of people die every year because physicians are unwilling to speak against another clearly incompetent physician's actions.  LIke in the police force, a code of protecting one's "brothers" seems to always develop.  Gandydancer (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not  so  sure you're right  there, Gandydancer. I first  became interested in finding out what  'A/admins'  are  because I  was the target  of bullying  by  admins -  two  of whom have since been desysoped and another who  has simply  practically  stopped editing  a couple of years ago. I never asked to  be an admin,  but  being  one has certainly  been an eye-opener. I don't  believe in  admin  cabals, and I  don't  even believe that  such  a thing  really  exists even if occasionally  there might  be some off-Wiki  correspondence between them, which  in  my  experience has always been extremely positive and in  the very  best  interests of the project, though I must admit I've never used any  IRC channels, and I'm  not  involved in  email  exchanges that  don't  concern me, so other than what gets reported to  Arbcom, I don't  know 100% what  goes on there.

I'm frankly  disgusted with the way the admin corps is constantly tarred with  the same 'badmin' brush. Bad admins do exist and do come under fire -  and often enough from  each other - and I would be the first  to  start  a complaint against  one if I felt  the need arose, but  usually  someone else has beaten me to  it. If there is a 'cabal' of any kind on  Wikipedia, it  has to  be the one I  loosely  call  the 'anti-admin  brigade'; they  don't  always act in  concert, but the same ones appear to throw in cynical, sarcastic, and even borderline PA comments about  sysops wherever they  find an opportunity, and they  sometimes seem to  congregate on  a user talk  page, project  page, RFC/U, or AN/I when one of their number is called to account. Editor retention also  means admin retention, and several  of our nicest and most  experienced admins have walked out this year. I know many  of the few 'front-line' admins personally  -  including  some who have left  this year - and perhaps if the 'brigade' were to  meet them  too, they  might  just  change their opinions. Unsurprisingly, a lot of admins go  to  meet-ups and Wikimania - perhaps because they  are older, more mature, and can afford to  go - so  anyone who  has something  negative to  say  about  them can come to  Hong Kong next  week and is welcome to  say  it to  my  face. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Kudpung, that is good to know. I was not aware of the many backroom brawls till I received what I felt to be a very bad block which I felt certain would be lifted once it was reconsidered.  I had a very bad experience with Arb Com, as well.  In both cases I was given no warning and was not even aware that I had done anything wrong--that sort of experience can leave one feeling bitter.  Perhaps it is a case of not being aware that the incidents that I read about are actually quite rare, but seem more numerous because it is only the poor behaviors that draw attention.  Gandydancer (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not clear what you are you saying here Kudpung. Are you saying that people like myself who think the admin system can be significantly improved are responsible for the problems with Wikipedia, and that we should be silent? I often get the impression from you that the opinions of non admins are not welcome. You even explicitly canvassed for admins only to have their say on handling complaints about admins, and then complained that non admins don't take such findings seriously. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * There was no canvassing - or would you  have preferred it  to  have been entirely  off-Wiki  so  that  you  could claim it  were concocted by  some sort of cabal? It  was clearly  a draft  of a 'private members' bill' on  which  all editors could have their say  if and when it  goes live as a RfC. I'm  hardly  likely  to  ask  for the opinions of people on  that user page draft  who, in  my  carefully  considered opinion, might  not  have anything positive to  say  about  an idea which  theoretically  the anti-admin brigade would welcome with  open arms. If  you  self-identify  with any  groups, that's your problem, not  mine.
 * I happen to  identify myself with  the user group 'Sysop' and I'm  not  ashamed to  admit  it, after all, my  draft  was something  that  concerned them  directly,  but  was specifically designed around the demands and constant  whining  and whingeing  from  those who  would like a streamlined and more efficient system  for sanctioning  admins.  If  you  would like to  discuss these matters in  a more collegial fashion, you  can take up  my  invitation  to  come to  a meet-up  or Wikimania. At least  there, whatever we say  or do  on  Wiki, we don't  hide behind the traditional anonymity  that  the Internet  affords, and IMHO, we're actually  quite nice to  each  other and we all have a positive common  goal. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Well actually you did canvass sysops.      and  are all sysops, and you didn't canvass a single non sysop. You can't have a group of sysops deciding the structure to be used for disciplining themselves. You must know that never works. It was tried where I live where the police authority was responsible for disciplining it's own members. The squeaky clean record they established for themselves was truly impressive. The disciplining of sysops needs to be set up in a similar manner to the disciplining of productive substance editors. You refer to "the demands and constant  whining  and whingeing  from  those who  would like a streamlined and more efficient system  for sanctioning  admins". Beeblebrox refers to it as "unproductive crybaby crap". It's difficult to see how anything constructive can progress from such a position. I don't see non sysops dismissing the concerns of sysops in such uncompromising ways. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Retiring
Thanks for your good works! Kiefer .Wolfowitz  15:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It's always a shame to lose another editor. Goodbye Kiefer, enjoy your retirement ツ Jenova  20  (email) 15:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Another helpful editor gone, another win by attrition for Kww, et.al. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

WER is a Failure
I don't agree. Just take a look at the topics being discussed on this talk page. Editors retiring and what to do about it. Eulogy saving. Content contributors vs administrators. Working class banter. Visual editor. Civility. Dozens of ideas for potential solutions to problems that face Wikipedia. I challenge any one of you to find a page that is so diverse and wide ranging in its topics of discussion. And lets not forget the success of Editor of the Week. Take a look at WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient response and tell me it hasn't rejuvenated editors to continue their work here. This project was started with the best of intentions and those intentions still exist. If it temporarily has become a "park bench for editors to come and discuss their hemorrhoids" whats so bad about that? Read the header on the Project page. How have we strayed from that?```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  07:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree, even though I'm not a member. I think it's being declared a "failure" because it's not meeting the expectations held by one or two people. It tends to cycle through phases of interest, as any project with an aim like this should. Intothatdarkness 18:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It should not be surprising that building an encyclopedia using volunteers that are using consensus for agreements is indeed a difficult task. The big surprise should be that it has worked at all.  Especially so when one considers that by necessity the way that we use consensus hardly resembles the type of consensus used by working groups at all.  To make consensus work well a group requires a talented, well-trained facilitator.  Since our groups lack facilitators, we end up with torturous, exhausting discussions that lead to angry words and accusations and it is at that point that an admin must step in.  Small surprise that the admin then often gets blamed by one side, or perhaps both.   And one has to feel sorry for the admins who are willing to step in to try to settle disputes only to feel that all they receive in return is criticism.   I agree with Buster--any place where we can meet for discussion is a good place. Gandydancer (talk) 22:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Very well put Gandy!
 * I agree wholeheartedly with Gandydancer. I think part of the problem here is that we're seeing symptoms of problems elsewhere on Wikipedia...we seem to get a lot of spillover from ANI and controversial cases. I've often seen discussions closed at ANI with a summary along the lines of "This discussion is generating more heat than light". While I think those kinds of closes are appropriate on ANI, they don't always result in the drama ending...It's kind of like trying to squeeze a water balloon...it comes out at the edges. I think Beelebrox made a reasonable close above (well-intentioned, but unnecessary in hindsight...no comments were added after the close). Likewise, Mark Miller/Amadscientist reverted in good faith, since this isn't ANI and we're used to letting discussions kinda die on their own. I don't think this indicates a failure of the project...in fact, I think it's something we can all learn a little from. Anyway, that was my thought on the matter. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This pretty much hits it on the nail as well. Thanks!--Mark Miller Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 23:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Unnecessary is a good description. The thread would have sat there for awhile and then disappeared into the archives without a second glance. I sensed that it was residual stuff that came here from other discussions and situations on other pages. But to condemn this project with such vehemence, here and elsewhere, for a simple act of monitoring by a respected member of WER is out of proportion with what happened. ```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  23:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nobody likes getting reverted. My only concern with what happened was that an editor reacted so badly to being reverted that they blamed the entire projects as just being worthless. I have been involved in DR/Ns that ended in the same manner also to watch as the said editor then ran to create a proposal to close the board as useless. That over reaction was awful, but their complaints had some merit. In this instance I do not believe there is any such merit as no specific complaint is being stated, just an over perception of failure. it is that exact excuse that admin have used to unilaterally delete or remove things. This isn't going to be TAFI on the main page. This project does not require a perception of success to exist. It exists to allow editors to collaborate. In that way...it is certainly a full success.--Mark Miller Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 00:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This project is not a walled garden. It is more of an open air marketplace. And if there is any "small cadre of users...dictating rules as they see fit" (which I don't see evidence of) they are well-intentioned and non-censoring. ```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  00:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo's birthday
On a more cheerful note, Jimbo's birthday is this coming Wednesday. Perhaps this project would like to make a card for him or something like that? AutomaticStrikeout ?  18:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Jimmy Wales has disputed the birthdate on Jimmy Wales for years (see Talk:Jimmy Wales/Birthdate), and has literally spent years arguing that his birthdate is not and should not be public information. As this is possibly the single most famous example of verifiability not truth taken to an extreme when it comes to a BLP, he's likely to take any birthday celebration as a calculated insult. I'd advise against it. – iridescent  18:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Very sound advice. I second that. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of that. Thank you, AutomaticStrikeout ?  19:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * For the past 4 years I have gone to Jimbo's page to wish him a Happy Birthday because, blushing, Wednesday happens to be my birthday. Now I know why he never responded!!!!```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  00:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Substance and form
It seems that problems with editor retention often come down to a tension between substance and form. Substance editors are here to build an encyclopaedia. They are rarely seen on drama boards apart from occasionally trying to protect other substance editors. Form editors are here to enforce their personal ideas of how people should behave, and impose labyrinthian restrictions and procedures that they make up. They have their own distinctive jargon, using quasi legalistic terms or terms such as "community consensus" (meaning that other form users agree with them) or "broadly construed" (meaning that they should be able to block you for anything they don't like).

Kww is a classic form editor, endlessly advocating that all blocks should be indefinite, that blocked substance editors should grovel before being unblocked, and that when an editor has been blocked several times they should be banned permanently from the project. Blocked editors who get upset should be regarded as devas and subjected to harsher blocks. Blocking, banning and humiliation seems to be the principal goal. I have never seen Kww advocate that a substance editor shouldn't be blocked (though he may have somewhere). The climate Kww seems to be trying to achieve on Wikipedia is one of fear and meek acquiescence to Kww, or at least to the form editors as a group. If Kww were to leave the project now, the legacy of his time here would be the climate of fear and recrimination he leaves in his wake and the significant loss of real contributions to the encyclopedia due to the harsh working environment for substance editors he has worked so hard to impose.

Eric/Malleus is a classic substance editor, endlessly adding real substance to countless articles and setting standards in many areas for other substance editors. Form editors pretend Eric drives other users from the project. I have never seen a bona fide substance editor driven away by Eric, unless you count the posturing of a Matisse sock. I understand certain form editors being upset by Eric, but I don't see how that is in any way detrimental to the development of Wikipedia.

Form editors have largely triumphed on Wikipedia, paralysing and demoralising substance editors everywhere. I know I personally have lost the will, at least for now, to write difficult articles. What volunteer would want to contribute under this dark regime? The shadow seems everywhere. It is only by the grace of substance editors who continue anyway that Wikipedia grows at all. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know how fair an assessment that is. I have been familiar with Kww for a very long time. We clashed at first, but that was more my fault than theirs. Kww understood the policies and procedures and I learned a great deal from them. However...I also learned a great deal from Eric. To say that one is of form and another of substance is just inaccurate. They both have a great deal to contribute to the project. They are just very different people. And that last part is what we have been trying to get everyone to understand here at this project. Editors are all people. They are not machines and they will err in the course of a great length of time.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussing Kww and Eric as equals ignores the point. Eric has no power, except by virtue of admins kindly to him who might use their power to defend him if he is abused by another admin. (Which raises Q what about other, less-famed content editors? They have no admins who will fall on their sword if necessary to do the right thing on their behalf. They are all alone.) Admin "gangs" can sanction, block, ban anyone they don't like, and they know it and some show smugness because of it. For example their "untouchability" in their actions that circumvent policy (because they are mostly so difficult to challenge by regular editors or even other admins, who first have to decide to stick their necks out and risk being the black sheep of admin corps). Some admins have become polished inventing lists of templatable "policy violations" in order to justify block of an editor they have a grudge against for offended their all-so-special importance and ego. That is what is responsible for the chill effect. For me, continuing with any significant content work, both of which I know I'm capable of, and that I also want/wanted to do, and also know will mean a learning experience along the way that will grow my editorship skills, presupposes time to stick around to be able to traverse that learning curve. (The chill is like this: "Why should I do it? If I put in that serious effort, and wake up tomorrow to find I'm INDEF-blocked by an SOB admin who has a grudge against me?") The problem is Admins have the power-bit for life (which is nutty and creates the bed for rottenness to proliferate), and that power goes to the heads of the less enlightened ones (a general challenge and problem for humans invested with power), they go around trying to assert control over others and threatening others to make themselves feel useful or important or to reconfirm to themselves their entitlement/Admin status, or whatever. (Are they focused on the quality of WP articles? Or are they focused on their own statuses and struts around the chicken pen? "See me!") When an Admin doesn't like you, the quality of your editing or the promise of it as future editor, or the lack of it, isn't a factor in their collaborations at all -- only their need to fulfill themselves by asserting power and sweet revenge. Some of the discussion between these admins is absolutely comical to read for any intelligent person, but, if they can block you and wipe out your Wiki-existence, they get the last laugh, don't they. Power corrupts. (See WP.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Administrators have no authority or power. They are nothing special. They just have more tools and are needed to intervene in some circumstances to avoid more problems. Part of the issue is the perception of power with Admin. Do some think they have special powers? Sure. But then some editors also feel they are either above or separated from the rest of us by virtue of their education of personal experience...but that doesn't make it accurate. If an editor doesn't like you...avoid them. That's what I do.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Administrators have no authority or power." Duh?? From WP:Administrator (policy): "If an administrator abuses administrative powers, these powers can be removed." (Are you going to tell me "it really doesn't mean what it says"??) Nice chattin' with you, but it is hard to know how one would respond to you, with how you disconnect to basic undeniable facts. (Ever hear of "block button"??) Is your plan to chase me out of this dialogue with irrationality? You've succeeded. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really mean what it says and should probably be changed. Undeniable facts? I hardly think so. (pun intended).--Amadscientist (talk) 20:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * First, the statement that administrators have no authority or power is silly. As Amadscientist says, they have more tools and are needed to intervene in some circumstances.  One of those tools is blocking.  That is power.  If Amadscientist is saying that certain editors are wasting time on this board by raging against administrators, I agree, but administrators do have particular tools that have some power.    Robert McClenon (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Second, however, this rehash of raging against administrators and their misuse of power distracts from a different real barrier to editor retention, and that is that habitually uncivil editors, whether substance editors or form editors, create an environment that is perceived by many new editors, some of whom we would like to retain, as a rude and hostile environment. Dealing with habitually uncivil editors will (surprise) require action by administrators with tools.  At the same time, I am recommending that uncivil editors not be dealt with by "community consensus" but by a smaller group of editors with an even more powerful tool, the ArbCom.    Robert McClenon (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Third, this rehashing of the conflict between one uncivil substance editor and a few administrators is becoming tiresome. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "[...] habitually uncivil editors, whether substance editors or form editors, create an environment that is perceived by many new editors, some of whom we would like to retain, as a rude and hostile environment". If you're referring to Malleus, the head of your argument is screwed on wrong. (Malleus does not *create* a hostile environment, he responds to same. Always. Perhaps your hostility detector needs a tuneup.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There have been similar arguments about other habitually uncivil editors who have a reputation as content creators (substance editors), at least one of whom creates incivility. The issue is not limited to one particular uncivil editor.   Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you stay on longer Robert, and start getting actual experience by rolling your sleeves up and really contributing to articles, you will understand why the editors who build Wikipedia can find it so difficult having to put up with the demands and fantasies of certain form editors. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what tenure or article creation have to do with the ability to recognize incivility. What demands and fantasies do article creators have to put up with? The demand that collaborators are treated with respect as humans? The fantasy that this encyclopedia which we are building has a low tolerance for bullying? Editor McClenon came here to discuss Civility. He did not come to be chastised for not working hard enough... or not being experienced enough. ```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  06:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't mention "civility" Buster, nor did I "chastise" McClenon. I just pointed out a fact. This section is about substance and form, not civility. Still it is true that form editors seem keen on using their personal ideas of what is "civil" to attack hard working editors who have made huge contributions towards building the encyclopaedia. They then demand with much moral posturing blocks and bans. Those, in my view, are amongst the more violent, truly uncivil, and deeply ungrateful acts on Wikipedia. For more on this, see this thread] --Epipelagic (talk) 07:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This "class" distinction being emphasized is, in itself, a retention issue in my opinion. It places some over others and creates more problems and does not alleviate any, and is not something I see as constructive or an improvement to this project.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right. The way form editors and admins have been placed so firmly over the editors who write the encyclopedia "creates more problems" and alleviates none. Form editors are largely focused on promoting themselves and their own views, while substance editors are largely focused on building articles. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And further, it is some editor's focus on bad words without consideration of underlying issues that makes civility enforcement so difficult. Sometimes a productive editor momentarily loses it and gets a civility block. Often, comments supporting that block include appeals to decency and so forth that demonstrate a massive lack-of-clue about the damage to the encyclopedia caused by WP:CPUSH editors. It would be much better if everyone wanting to say "I do not approve of bad words" would just keep quiet—then there could be a sensible discussion about what needs to be done. Johnuniq (talk) 08:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ever noticed how the niceness police often demand that others swear less, but those who are their targets never demand that the civility cops swear more? HiLo48 (talk) 09:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

My point is, this is a simple issue of perception. I think it says more about the editor that separates by class of contribution in a manner that only seems a way to elevate their own point of view. I don't see how the creation or the discussion of a distinction is helpful. How is it helpful?--Amadscientist (talk) 09:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As far the system itself is concerned it's not helpful. It would be helpful only if the goals of the system were radically refocused to provide skilful support systems for content developers. But the system seems irretrievably broken and beyond help and that seems impossible now. Long term productive content developers are just there to be picked off. It would good if, at least, truth about the system can still be stated somewhere, though stating the truth usually just generates backlash from users who benefit from the status quo. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * When editors start discussing "truth" I tend to be somewhat suspicious.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So I notice :) --Epipelagic (talk) 08:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I have never, not one time, advocated that anyone "grovel". Take a look http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CloudKade11#blocked_2 for an example of the kind of block you complain about so loudly. Where's the demand to "grovel"? What argument could you make for unblocking that editor?&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You have, in fact you always do. Eric   Corbett  23:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Back that up, please: show me where I have demanded anything more than the editor agreeing to cease whatever disruptive behaviour he has been blocked for. I don't even ask people to apologize, feel bad about it, or even agree that what they have done was wrong. I simply ask them to agree to stop.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You can look through your past comments easier than I can. In fact easier, as you can see the deleted ones. Eric   Corbett  23:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's true. It's you that's making a false assertion, however. I have never asked that anyone grovel. Certainly if it's something that I "always do", you should be able to back up your assertion with some evidence.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I really can't be bothered to waste time with you on this. All I'd suggest is that anyone's who's interested spend a little time investigating your attitude on indefinite blocks and make their own minds up. Eric   Corbett  00:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's shame that you have the time to make false accusations but don't have the time to admit that you have no evidence to back them up. Perhaps a little more attention to veracity and time management would serve you well.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In a way this is kinda healthy for the two of you to talk this out. I'll only suggest that negative comments about each other could be counter productive.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer it if people paid attention to my original point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CloudKade11#blocked_2 is an example of the kind of block this section complains about. Where's the demand to "grovel"? What argument could anyone make for unblocking that editor?&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Then, in keeping with that, sure its a demonstration that you can be reasonable and make a good block. Is this just sort of asking for someone to then counter with a negative example?--Amadscientist (talk) 01:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd love for someone to either come up with an example of me demanding that someone "grovel" or stop making the accusation. That block is pretty typical of the kind of block I make that Epipelagic objects to, and I think his characterization of them is completely wrong.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It could at least shed light on the perception. I would like to make a suggestion. I wonder if Eric, and you would like to continue the discussion in earnest at a subpage:WikiProject Conflict Resolution/Kww-Eric Corbett-INeverCry with the intent of asking User:INeverCry to take part to help resolve the conflict in an open mediation format where editors are encouraged to help mediate and comment as involved or uninvolved parties. How does that sound?--Amadscientist (talk) 02:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What on earth does my objection to INeverCry's unblock have to do with Epipelagic accusing me of asking editors to grovel? So long as Eric doesn't attack other editors, I have no quarrel with him.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That isn't a question you've already asked yourself?--Amadscientist (talk) 02:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware that there are people that conflate these disparate issues. That doesn't keep them from being disparate issues. Epipelagic began the "groveling" rhetoric long, long ago.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * How would you like to proceed. You see the thread was made by another party, but it seemed the direction of the thread of substance and form was meant to compare you and another, in what I felt was a long term conflict they were observing, not actually participating in. Perhaps :WikiProject Conflict Resolution/Kww-Eric Corbett-Epipelagic instead?--Amadscientist (talk) 03:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Epipelagic and Eric have a dispute with most admins, not me in particular. I'm just today's particular flashpoint because of Eric's recent unblocking. Given that, I see no reason to proceed with any level of dispute resolution.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Conflict Resolution is not currently a part of our DR process.It is a sister project of Editor Retention. Just an informal WikiProject that attempts to find ways to resolve conflicts not directly related to a content dispute. This would allow you to continue to address anything brought up, and discuss the issues involved at your own pace with help from volunteer editors just rying to help or comment.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Well I've just read the slightly odd exchange between Kww and Amadscientist above. I gather Kww doesn't consider his attitude towards content builders is condescending and humiliating, which is perhaps even more worrying. The opinion I formed of Kww's attitude was largely shaped by a series of threads here, here2, and here3 on the wp:Blocking policy talk page. Any readers who want to follow this up can form their own judgements after reading these threads. You say Kww that I have a "dispute with most admins". You made that up. It's not true, though I do query the value of a small number of admins and have serious reservations about the admin structure. Most admins like most content builders do a good job.
 * As far as the indefinite block you cherry-picked goes, that is not in any sense "an example of the kind of block this section complains about". You behaved well there, so well done. But isn't there another indefinite block somewhere here that might have been more appropriate to discuss? --Epipelagic (talk) 07:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm sick to death of this fucking place. Eric   Corbett  08:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If we were face to face with these guys we'd clean the place up in no time. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We really would, and we'd have time for a few beers afterwards I hope. Eric   Corbett  10:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As block logs go...I'm impressed with that. Not the getting blocked...getting unblocked. That says as much as all of the blocking.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you have to have been blocked for using the word "sycophantic" to get the full flavour of the idiocy. Eric   Corbett  10:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * My first block I was falling on my sword because I didn't know that if I am being offered a way not to be blocked, just saying I should have known better is like admitting the prevention is still needed. I was also blocked for one revert where the editor I reverted and I began immediately working together to rescue the information and bring it back and when the admin realized his mistake stated that I was agreeing not to edit war. That never happened and was a part of the unblock request that I remember. I told them they acted to quickly and I was told "Well, you have a history of edit warring so...".~--Amadscientist (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Substance and Form False Dichotomy
I think that the conflict between substance and form that Eric Corbett and Epipelagic are emphasizing is a false dichotomy. There are editors who have made great substance contributions to building the encyclopedia in article space who do not clash with the so-called form editors, because they have the judgment not to insult other editors, even editors who deserve to be insulted. They show up even less often on the drama boards than habitually uncivil substance editors. They get their articles to GA and FA status without the need to insult ignorant editors. It isn't a matter of being nicey-nice; it's a matter of treating other editors the way they would have wanted to be treated when they themselves were newbies. More newbies will stay if they aren't insulted for being newbies. I am aware that some editors have a long history of anger at and resentment of admins. It isn't clear to me whether they would prefer that Wikipedia do away with admins and be an anarchy like Usenet, or whether they think that the culture of or rules about admins should change? If it is the latter, I think that it would be more useful for them to say what should change than simply to continue raging against admins. If the former, do they have any ideas on how to prevent their creations from being vandalized? By the way, the importance of civility isn't unique to Wikipedia. It is a characteristic of electronic media in general, because of the combination of the lack of non-verbal cues (on the Internet, no one knows that you are being sarcastic) and the permanence of the electronic record. (See http://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R3283.html.) I will be continuing this discussion at the civility talk page, since some editors here are interested in civility and some think that content creation provides a pass from civility. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I feel incredibly insulted that you have not engaged with the text that I have taken quite some trouble to write, in order to explain what the real problem is. Yes, expletives and gratuitous insults are bad, and should be strongly discouraged. But continuing to bang on that drum without knowledge or concern for the bigger picture is very dismissive to those who have tried to engage with you. Johnuniq (talk) 01:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Since some editors here wanted to rage against administrators and to suggest that content creators be given a free pass, I took my concerns, which do address the matter of editors using apparently civil language to provoke and bait other editors, at the civility talk page. I did so address what you wrote, although you never answered my question of whether you were referring to POV-pushers or the editors who engage in bait-and-provoke tactics in order to get another editor to start cursing.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem with civility is not in the wording of the policy but in its application. The policy explicitly prohibits baiting and lying.

2. Other uncivil behaviours
 * (a) taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves. All editors are responsible for their own actions in cases of baiting; a user who is baited is not excused by that if they attack in response, and a user who baits is not excused from their actions by the fact that the bait may be taken.
 * (b) harassment, including Wikihounding, bullying, personal or legal threats, posting of personal information, repeated email or user space postings
 * (c) sexual harassment
 * (d) lying
 * (e) quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them


 * So my first question is, again, should "substance editors" get a free pass on civility? Should they be allowed to insult other editors (some of whom are simply inexperienced, and some of whom the insults do apply to?  Second, do those editors who point out that there is a problem with enforcement of the policy have any constructive suggestions, rather than raging against admins?  I have a suggestion, and that is that serious continuing civility issues should not be dealt with by "community consensus", which is elusive, but should be sent to the ArbCom.  (Maybe we are closer to agreement than we appear to be.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Well again Robert, you are talking of civility and not of the more general issues around substance verses form. And even on civility, you are talking only about a small subset of the issues. If you get wider experience by developing articles you will also develop a wider sensibility and not see things in such black and white ways. I strongly agree with your idea that civility issues (and more broadly the disciplining of productive substance editors) would be better dealt with by a committee specially constituted for that purpose, somewhat like ArbCom. It is clear that something along that line is one of the key reforms that needs to take place. The idea is periodically proposed in various forms, but a core group of admins that covet their power to block productive substance editors always converge to make sure the proposal is rejected. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Questions About Dichotomy
First, I will comment that I would prefer to describe the distinction as between substance editors and process editors or process advocates, editors who have an interest in enforcement of guidelines and policies, which establish a process for creating the encyclopedia. However, in order to avoid confusion, I will use Epipelagic's terms and refer to form editors. Second, Epipelagic appears to be saying that form editors are regularly interfering with the work of substance editors in creating the encyclopedia. He says that "a core group of admins that covet their power to block productive substance editors always converge" to defeat reforms. He doesn't say how those power-hungry admins and form editors block substance editors, except presumably in terms of blocking them for incivility. Since Epipelagic says that I am overlooking the more general issues around substance and form, is he or she willing to give other examples of how power-hungry admins and form editors interfere with the expansion of the encyclopedia? (Do they revert sourced additions? That is a substance issue and is dealt with by dispute resolution.  Do they revert unsourced additions?  That is a substance issue, and the substance editors should source their additions.  I assume that Epipelagic is referring to something else.  Facts are requested.)  How, besides by civility blocks, do form editors interfere with the expansion of substance? What reforms does Epipelagic say are regularly proposed and defeated? (If Epipelagic is saying that certain types of civility disputes should be dealt with the the ArbCom rather than by "administrative consensus" at the noticeboards, I agree.) Third, this is the Editor Retention project. Does Epipelagic have any suggestions that would improve the retention of editors? Do his or her ideas have to do with retention of new editors (to whom I am referring) or with retention of established substance editors? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)