| Revision as of 00:55, 26 July 2013 editRobert McClenon (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers197,449 edits →Anything WER can do here?: uncivil editors are a problem← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:04, 26 July 2013 edit undoEric Corbett (talk | contribs)45,616 edits →Anything WER can do here?: which editor(s) are we talking about?Next edit → | ||
| Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
| ::::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. ] (]) 22:03, 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. ] (]) 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 ] or ]. 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". ] (]) 00:55, 26 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 ] or ]. 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". ] (]) 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. ] ] 01:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:04, 26 July 2013
| This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Editor Retention and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36Auto-archiving period: 14 days  |
 | Editor Retention | |||
| ||||
 Archives |
| Index |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
 | This WikiProject was featured on the WikiProject report in an article by User:Mabeenot at the Signpost on 22 April 2013. |
Discussion on AfC at the Village Pump: AFC ruining Misplaced Pages
A discussion is taking place at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#WikiProject Articles for creation Threatens to Ruin Misplaced Pages. 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)
Soliloquies
Greetings. I've started working on Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 (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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Suggest merge with the existing Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Editor Retention/Discovered reasons given for leaving Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
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/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)
This weeks EotW
Lugnuts 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)
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 Misplaced Pages 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 (note: not a bot!) 19:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Anything WER can do here?
- - 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
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.—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. Eric Corbett 01:04, 26 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)
- 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)
- 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.—Kww(talk) 16:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- 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)