Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:44, 12 March 2015

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Editor Retention and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

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: 30 days

Editor Retention

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Editor Retention, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of efforts to improve editor retention on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Editor RetentionWikipedia:WikiProject Editor RetentionTemplate:WikiProject Editor RetentionEditor Retention

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

(outdent) was implimented but a new thread is a better solution since the topic is completely different

I have removed the duplicate box banner regarding EOT from the project page. Was the addition of this box banner ever discussed here? For more see: User_talk:Northamerica1000#Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Editor_Retention. Ottawahitech (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't speak for other members, but it would be appreciated if there was 'no more' edit-warring on that topic :) The discussion you've linked to, should be brought to this talkpage, as it concerns this WikiProject. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I have no objection to “bringing” the discussion here. However, I leave this to the talkpage owner, but really what I want is an answer to my question:

Was adding the EOT banner ever discussed here before it was added to the top of this project? — if not why am I accused of edit warring just because I want it removed until such time that there is consensus here for this addition? Ottawahitech (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no talkpage owner. The potential edit war was between 2 editors. GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I think I'll let the other RETENTION members answer your questions. GoodDay (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

a voting process on possible WER initiatives

I haven't participated much, if at all, here at WER, but have watched. And I have a number of proposals for possible efforts to improve the Misplaced Pages community environment, in general requiring the coordinated participation of a group of editors. I've seen some good suggestions on running lists by other editors, and sometimes in discussions here. I wonder if this group would be amenable to running a voting process, to consider various suggestions and to adopt one top-voted choice as a priority to work on together, for a one year term. Like how I have seen some software products running votes among users of the software, about what features should be added (or what bugs should be fixed, in alternative terms). I haven't watched closely, but think that WikiProject Military History has used voting processes to good effect (at least to elect coordinators in various areas for one year terms). Create a list of proposals, each requiring some coordinated effort to carry off. Give voters here 10 points to allocate, say, amongst the proposals, with understanding if you vote for one proposal, you are saying you would participate in the effort if it is chosen. The top-voted proposal would be accepted, and 2nd and 3rd proposals would be considered for joint effort also. Maybe this would facilitate concentration of force to good effect. For example, I'd suggest considering:

• Identifying and helping new editors who are at first SPAs (to use an example discussed above)
• Establish a basic right for semi-private clubs to operate as WikiProjects, for advancement of wikipedia in any topic area, where membership requirements or admissions process can be defined, and where members can exclude participation of non-members (i.e. to allow an all-women task force to operate without interuption; semi-private in that what the WikiProject does is visible. This could lead to some wikiprojects splintering, which would not be all bad IMO.)
• Improving 3RRNB, so that it actually works to determine fault fairly (so that its outcomes are usable in further dispute resolution if necessary. Current focus is on ending immediate disruption, without providing any judgment of fault, which seems unhelpful overall, IMO)
• Improving AFD process, to update its guidelines and to undertake initiatives to reduce occurrence of AFDs (e.g. pursue alternative topic-area-specific programs to head off individual AFDs, like for running flood of AFDs about embassies) By its nature, AFD is destructive, negative, often humiliating. There's support at AFDs about not bashing newbies, not eliminating 100% of what they've contributed, sometimes, but this is not yet codified.
• Participate actively in ANI process for one year, to improve practices and enshrine those into guidance, to reduce delight in applying boomerang unfairly to newbies who have genuine concerns (too loaded a statement, but I hope you get the gist of what i mean)
• Develop guidelines on what constitutes bullying/harassment, and to participate for one year in ARBCOM as a friend of the court for perceived victims, a la ACLU

I don't mean for these examples to serve as real proposals--they'd need to be fleshed out at least. And I have seen better running lists of suggestions to improve the wikipedia environment. But the idea would be to run a formal proposal development process and then run a voting process on which initiative(s) to adopt. --doncram 20:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

If it'll keep editors from leaving & encourage recruitment, then sure. My participaton would be limited to 'voting' however, until May 21, 2015. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources, original research, and NPOV noticeboards could use a lot more eyes. They are supposed to be a venue of first resort for content disputes, but seem at times to be asleep at the wheel. A lot of requests don't get a timely response, or get gut feeling responses that are not grounded in policy. I've been trying to do my part this week and noticed part of the problem is people can easily tell when an article is fishy but have hard time explaining it properly. They often quote the wrong policies on the wrong noticeboards (eg, its a due weight problem, but they allege original research on the reliable sources noticeboard). I've been thinking of writing a wikiessay on identifying the locus of a dispute. I agree with trying to be a "friend of the court", but not just for "perceived victims". WP:POV_Railroading is alive and well. Rhoark (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I think updating guidelines and adding essays can be very good efforts. About proposals to vote on, I mean to suggest very tangible time-limited goals that require and engage multiple editors. Like producing a needed good essay on a topic, or achieving 2 day turnaround on reliable sources noticeboard for a 3 month period, or a combination of measurable efforts in one topic area. So we could see how we were doing, going along, and whether we succeeded or not at the end. --doncram 01:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Presentation at 2015 Wikimania

I propose to make a presentation (discussion type) on "editor retention" at 2015 Wikimania. 1 Who are going to join this event? Can we go for a group presentation? (note: my participation is not confirmed still) --Tito Dutta (talk) 06:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion notice

There is a redirect discussion that may be of interest to this group. Lightbreather (talk) 15:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• This is not related to editor retention in general nor WER specifically, and instead is directly related to your own interests and activities in your own user space. In other words, this would constitute WP:CANVASSING. Please don't do this in the future. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Whether you agree with my idea or like it, I am, in good faith, trying to help with recruitment and retention of women editors. Setting that aside, several other people have claimed this is canvassing. I have read the guideline several times now. There are four inappropriate notifications listed:
    • Spamming: Posting an excessive number of messages to individual users, or to users with no significant connection to the topic at hand.
    • Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner.
    • Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement). Vote-banking involves recruiting editors perceived as having a common viewpoint for a group, similar to a political party, in the expectation that notifying the group of any discussion related to that viewpoint will result in a numerical advantage, much as a form of prearranged vote stacking.
    • Stealth canvassing: Contacting users off-wiki (by e-mail or IRC, for example) to persuade them to join in discussions (unless there is a specific reason not to use talk pages)
    • Soliciting support other than by posting direct messages, such as using a custom signature with a message promoting a specific position on any issue being discussed.

1. The Arbitration Committee has ruled that "he occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Misplaced Pages's common practice. However, excessive cross-posting goes against current Misplaced Pages community norms. In a broader context, it is "unwiki." See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/IZAK#Principles.
2. See WP:False consensus for a series of finding by the Arbitration Committee concerning vote-stacking and improper CANVASS

Which do you think describes the notice in question?

What I'm saying is, I don't mind being told I've done something wrong if I've done something wrong, but I don't appreciate - nor would anyone - being told they've broken a rule when they haven't. Lightbreather (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

LB, please note that all three of the people who described this as canvassing are current or former admins. Wikilawyering is not going to help you if future instances of this type of behavior go to AN/I. The spamming clearly falls under the vote-stacking criterion (and I believe probably the spamming criterion). I believe the notice posted to GGTF was appropriate; the rest were not. You may disagree with this interpretation, but you should understand what the community feels is acceptable. Karanacs (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The concern is that this is a deletion discussion about a redirect to YOUR user space. This means you aren't a neutral party, and in fact you are the de facto owner of that space, as we grant higher latitude to a user's space, as well as higher responsibility/scrutiny in kind. That said, the way you made the announcement here was proper and didn't try to sway votes, so wording wasn't the issue. What matters most isn't the wording of a policy, it is the intent. The intent of the canvassing policy is to prevent people from stacking the deck to save/delete their pet project/article. Asking people at WER (a group you belong to) to participate in a delete discussion on a page that you control by virtue of it being your user space, and that is in no way open to everyone nor official in capacity would be seen as canvassing, likely by a consensus. Not a crime, but improper.

On another note, let me be clear to anyone passing by: Under no circumstances will any project or activity that discriminates against anyone based on their gender or other attribute be considered a part of, associated with, sponsored by, coordinated with, nor endorsed by WER, regardless of the motives. Discrimination of any kind, for any reason, is inconsistent with WER. This means that WER can't be used as a means to promote a group that discriminates. In my mind, this is not a small thing and it should be obvious to anyone that this would breach the very core of why we started the Project: to put us all on equal footing. I would actively prevent such use. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

LB, if your 'redirect' gets deleted & your WikiProject idea doesn't work out, then perhaps you might want to take a break from the 'gender gap' issue for awhile. :) GoodDay (talk) 05:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, participation will be especially important in the next few months during Inspire Grants Gender Gap Campaign. I have every hope that this grants program will work in synergy with the efforts of this WikiProject to retain existing editors, and urge everyone interested in editor retention to become involved! --Djembayz (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

where else would an exclusive, member-restricted WikiProject help?

• I was unaware of the KaffeeKlatsch proposal, though I knew of interest in having a women-only (or similar) area in Misplaced Pages, when, in a section above, I advocated helping to "Establish a basic right for semi-private clubs to operate as WikiProjects, for advancement of wikipedia in any topic area, where membership requirements or admissions process can be defined, and where members can exclude participation of non-members (i.e. to allow an all-women task force to operate without interuption; semi-private in that what the WikiProject does is visible. This could lead to some wikiprojects splintering, which would not be all bad IMO.)" It would help establish the right to use a WikiProject, for a Women's club, if there were other proposals on completely different topics. WikiProjects have a lot of useful tools, such as the use of article tracking scoreboards, and various notification services.
• There must be GOOD reasons to have an exclusive club, vs. BAD reasons. In the Kaffeeklatsch MFD and elsewhere fears have been expressed that if one exclusive club is allowed, then there will be terrible, mean ones. But if the purpose of a group is bad, or if the definition of membership boundaries is too uncomfortable, few will join and it will wither under scrutiny, I expect.
• I suspect GOOD reasons would be when membership boundaries and rules of order are clearly related to the purpose of the club. Some existing restricted areas within Misplaced Pages are the arbitrator-only sections in ARBCOM proceedings (where restriction is accepted as helping the elected arbitrators get their discussion and voting done). Arbitrators also have a non-transparent off-wiki email list. I wonder if elected wp:MILHIST coordinators have an on-wiki restricted area that helps them, or if they use an email list.
• What about when people want to assemble and share their interest in something, with a certain level of civility and positive collaboration, without being beset by too many critics or interruptors or well-meaning but uninformed newbies, who undermine progress?
• How about a group within WER to address bullying, without being overrun?
• Besides in the gender issues area, where else would it be GOOD to have a member-restricted club, governed by higher standards of civility or limited by a number-of-articles-created-criteria, or having any other difference from general rules?

--doncram 01:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I doubt I would be of much help in any 'gender gap' goal, as I don't see editors as 'male' or 'female. Furthermore, it's impossible to verify every editors RL gender. Anyways, if any of these courses of action leads to more editors of Misplaced Pages, that's cool. Though, I'll always caution against the potential for schism. GoodDay (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I meant in OTHER areas, where could it help. Say, if wp:WikiProject Libraries is trying to recruit more RL professionals to participate, but some are truly offended by cursing going on, that has become commonplace, can the WikiProject set a membership criterion (no use of certain words) and enforce it? Or can they create a cursing-free discussion board? --doncram 02:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how anything "exclusive" could be anything but divisive, which is the last thing the project needs. If the level of discourse violates community standards, then we should deal with it on that basis (and we aren't doing a good enough job on that). If it does not, then the people must decide whether they can live with it or not, and make individual decisions as to staying or leaving. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, from a practical standpoint, how would you limit access to members? Are you hoping the community would agree to automatic and immediate blocking for violators of the membership restriction? Surely you're not hoping that all non-members would simply go away because you asked them nicely. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe a WikiProject can censure foul language from its talkpage, if members are united on it. GoodDay (talk) 03:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Doncram:: Watch your stereotypes: Librarians are not the narrow-minded or over-sensitive types that comment suggests! Most of us can cope with the occasional foul language; it's the sniping and bullying, however politely expressed, and the constant flogging of dead horses, which might deter those who see themselves as adults and/or professional people from participating in an environment perceived to be dominated by that behaviour. (Actually I think librarians and former librarians are probably very well represented among WP editors: the urge to help people get access to information finds a new outlet here). PamD 09:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Right, sorry if that's the impression my comment gave, not intended. I actually perceive self-identified librarians that i've noticed to be professional, competent participants here, and relatively well-represented within Misplaced Pages, and sometimes actively reaching out to other RL professionals, and potentially a strong, positive force for change. I also don't think profanity is the worst behavior problem to be targeted by any self-aware, self-policing group; I focused on that as it is very simple to understand as a target for a behavior rule. Sorry that my conjunction seemed to make an implication that I did not intend. I'd be very interested if you could explain further, perhaps, on how adult vs. non-adult behavior within a Wikiproject could be defined and put into any rule for participating. --doncram 19:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Doncram, at this point, Outreach Wiki (also called "Wikimedia Outreach") is serving as the WikiProject for editors who need to maintain a more professional tone of discussion, especially for collaborations with GLAM partners. You will see some of your concerns about professionalism expressed at the Outreach Village Pump discussion, Proposal: merge the Outreach wiki into the Meta wiki. Some here may want to weigh in on the merger discussion. It's important to acknowledge that some working people receive rather restrictive guidance about participation in social media. If editors holding professional positions find they're basically tiptoeing around a bunch of craziness on the Misplaced Pages site, you get their polite, minimal participation at socially sanctioned editing events, or adding citations, and that's about it. (Or perhaps they oursource their Misplaced Pages tasks to a paid editor ...) In any event, the Wild West approach isn't proving the route to retention. --Djembayz (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You will not improve editor retention by creating private clubs segregated by gender, race, religion etc... Chillum 03:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with Chillum. While I support the right of individual editors to restrict access to parts of their talk pages/subpages (within certain parameters), I don't believe any restrictions should be allowed in project space. The sole exception is for areas designated for arbcom, admins, checkusers, etc, and in those cases editing is restricted to people who have been through special community scrutiny; the community, not individuals, has set up the restrictions. One of the fundamental goals of this encyclopedia is collaboration, not isolation. We all benefit from being exposed to a wide range of opinions; it reduces groupthink and increases the potential pool of good ideas.
• I've been in a position of responsibility on WP; I was a Featured Article delegate for two years. Discussions about FA process changes were held on WP, with the involvement of anyone who was interested (which included those who simply wanted to disrupt the process). With enough participation, enough voices heard, enough RFCs, the community (not just those most involved in WP:FAC) reached a consensus that the other delegates and I could then enforce.
• I've worked on article collaborations on a contentious topic, and the collaboration failed because it was "beset by too many critics or interruptors or well-meaning but uninformed newbies, who undermine progress". Those newbies tried extremely hard to have me and others removed from the topic because we were not of the religion that was the focus of the article. They could not see that our religion made absolutely zero difference in whether or not we could research and write a balanced, well-sourced article. I honestly see no difference between those well-meaning but misguided editors and those who are insistent on removing men from discussions on the gender gap, or otherwise creating spaces where men aren't allowed.
• I continue to edit here because I firmly believe we should judge other editors on their contributions, not their gender, their religion, their age, etc. Even setting up something for "professionals" or academics only is problematic, because many of them do not have the Misplaced Pages-editing experience needed to be successful here (and I say this as someone who has collaborated with professors before).
• Is it frustrating at times to deal with those who don't seem to understand the policies, who don't seem to be working for the good of the encyclopedia? Of course, and it's a big reason why I essentially retired for 2 years. But I am confident that those who I found most annoying in turn thought I was the one who just didn't understand and wasn't working for the good of the encyclopedia. So who determines which group of us is asked to stay out of the collaboration area? We have dispute resolution processes, and they work most of the time. Honestly, I have had similar frustrations to this at work, when I was in school, and even at my HOA meetings. Editors need to be able to deal with conflict....people need to be able to deal with conflict. Perhaps a much more useful idea than restricting editing would be to create an advocacy project to help new users who don't understand their options for dispute resolution. Karanacs (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree with all of that, but a comment re your last point. I've felt for some time that WP policies, guidelines, and procedures have grown out of control, so complex that the average editor needs an expert "wikilawyer" (a new definition) to interpret them. Lo and behold, that's pretty much what you just described. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

One of my most favorite projects was years ago, when a professor, jbmurray, brought his college class to Misplaced Pages, with the goal of their creating articles and getting them to FA status. They were all complete newbies. He taught them the basics, and a group of article writers agreed to help guide them through the other processes. There was a specific page for that particular group to ask for help, and mentors were assigned to each student who wanted one. Their initiative was very successful in that the students created some very excellent articles; I haven't checked to see how many of them still edit, all these years later. I don't know how to implement something like this on a larger scale (although I think the Teahouse is supposed to help?), but I think it would help some new editors. Karanacs (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

As I understand it, Misplaced Pages:Co-op will facilitate matching editors seeking guidance in specific areas with mentors who are able to help. isaacl (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding MILHIST - there is a coordinators' page, but posting to it isn't restricted to coordinators (unless something has radically changed recently, at least). Closed groups with restricted membership are a bad idea in a place like this where we already have issues with OWN of policy, canvassing, and other things. Intothatdarkness 16:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

A WP:Co-op mailing just went out to prospective mentors. See User talk:Buster7#WP:Co-op news for December 2014 – Feburary 2015 for an update. Mentors are needed. . Buster Seven Talk 18:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• I've made a finer point above, but the fact is: No group that discriminates may advertise here or be in any way a part of WER. Discrimination is 100% against the entire mission here and will not be endorsed nor tolerated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Understood. . Buster Seven Talk 23:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• • But, Dennis Brown, you're stating a rule here that you wish to be absolute, in this WikiProject, which is not a Misplaced Pages-wide rule. Which would be an example of trying to make a space that does not tolerate certain views. And, I don't want to stretch your intent beyond what you mean, but I would think it follows that you would want to eject a participant who did not adhere to the required behavior. I think enforcing a standard of behavior in an area is acceptable, and is the flip side of restricting membership to those who will abide by the rules; it's the same thing. So WER is an example that I was asking for? --doncram 00:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

There are more areas in wikipedia where behavior and/or membership is restricted, or should be.

• Another area in Misplaced Pages that enforces a different level of behavior is DRV. If i recall correctly, they do not tolerate "heat", if I may call it that, in discussions there, and will close a discussion rather than come to a DRV decision, if they judge the behavior in the discussion to be unacceptable to them.
• Also I think various WikiProjects do try to enforce behavior or belief standards, perhaps on wp:NOTHERE-type grounds. "Not here to pursue the purpose and strategy of this WikiProject", would be fair grounds, in my opinion, to ask persons whose oppositional beliefs and behavior seems disruptive to get out. I tend to think that empowering WikiProjects, including WER, to set some standards of behavior, would help the overall environment.
• About the academic professors who use their real names and have real expertise and interest, but are unable to deal effectively with others badgering them, maybe, yes, that it would be good to have area(s) where they can talk, share frustrations, and hopefully learn. Where they could talk among themselves, and learn how not to set off the anti-credentialist persons buzzers, say. Where they could ask around for help dealing with difficult situations for them, say, where persons they don't respect are pursuing and opposing. To discuss these things without being hassled endlessly. Don't get me wrong, I and most persons here would probably want them to "graduate" and get out into topic-based Wikiprojects, but I would think it helpful to give them a safe environment to commune in. --doncram 00:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• I will simply restate that the initial and ongoing goal of WER is to be all inclusive. There is a difference in creating an organization that caters to one type of user such as professors (where there is a neutral criteria based on life accomplishment, not genetics), and one that discriminates based on DNA, geography or deity. I am not saying I agree with either, btw. One of our most obvious objectives in editor retention is to forward the ideas of equality, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, religion or creed. Any program that discriminates based on those factors is inconsistent with WER and in no way should WER be associated with them. You can not fight discrimination by practicing it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Behavior based membership restriction can be invaluable. It was so on WP:SLR. We instituted it because of the experience with a previous WikiProject, which had failed because one side of the Sri Lanka conflict was underrepresented and, in a vicious cycle, eventually left the project altogether. So we had new members apply at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation/housekeeping#Applications and be approved by all existing members. Surprisingly, nobody ever voted against another member for partisan reasons; I think the only one who voted against any application was me; I set behavioral conditions, and everyone strove to meet them, and in the end everyone who wanted to join was admitted. (Actually, I just saw that there was an application which got overlooked after the project had served its purpose and became defunct after the end of the Sri Lanka Civil War.) All in all, I can say that my dream that "I want the membership in this group to become a badge of honor." became true. — Sebastian 10:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• • And I'm not saying there is no room at Misplaced Pages for groups with different criteria, each has to be judged on its own merits, but WER has to be the ultimate "open tent" and can only coordinate with those that reflect our initial values of equality (admin and editor, male and female, German and Mexican, Jew and Atheist, etc.) and our goal of creating an environment all over Misplaced Pages that makes editors want to stay. Whether or not another project is acting within policy or not, this isn't within our scope. That is for the community as a whole to decide. It is our choice and charter to NOT promote groups that don't share the same philosophy as the original intent of the Project. As Founder of this project, I believe I have a pretty good bead on what the original intent was. It is quite rare for me to be rigid on a philosophical point here, but this is core to our principles. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

There are a couple of opposing principles that apply: first, in accordance with the pillar that anyone can use, edit, or distribute Misplaced Pages, anyone who wishes to improve Misplaced Pages in a constructive manner is welcome to discussions on doing so. Second, as all contributors are volunteers, their interactions are a matter of personal choice: they choose what articles they wish to edit, and which conversations in which they wish to participate. The first principle takes precedence, so any conversations directly related to the improvement of an article must remain open to all collaborative commenters. Nonetheless, should I wish to seek advice on a matter, I can choose to whom I wish to request advice; I am not compelled to discuss matters of a more meta-level with anyone.

The line can be a bit fuzzy; for example, a discussion on how to deal with a combative editor is indirectly related to article improvement, as managing the situation improves the overall editing environment. Yet I feel there can be value for editors to be able to hold discussions with a self-selected group of similarly-minded editors, so they can refine their ideas without an undue number of interruptions from dissenters. I have discussed this a little in the context of mitigating issues with Misplaced Pages's current tradition of consensus. On a WikiProject level, this would translate to a group of editors who share basic goals of the project. A balance would have to be struck, to not unduly limit the range of viewpoints considered, and a global consensus could not be established on the basis of a limited discussion. However I think there are many nascent proposals that have floundered by being too quickly subject to criticism and would have benefited from being given some time to flourish and improve through discussion within a limited group first. In order to not pre-judge anyone's contributions based on personal characteristics, a self-selected group in a WikiProject should be based on the opinions held by the participants, and not any personal traits. (What users choose to do in their own personal spaces is more open, though subservient to the first principle I stated.) isaacl (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

All this is way off focus and out of the remit of this group. User:Dennis Brown in his post 02:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC) said it all- now move on. Some of us with grey hair have seen this all before in the late 1960- where the whole raison d'etre of volunteer organisations were subverted by militant pressure groups with their points of order and navel-gazing. The organisations soon became defunct. Alles diesen Klätschen ist echt Quatsch. (all this gossiping is pure rubbish) and destructive, we lose more good editors because they are sick of being harrassed by Klätschmaulen with a penchant for wiki-lawyering. Cut this whole discussion and paste it on a more relevant page - or a sandbox- with a tinylink to keep things tidy -- Clem Rutter (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe the dissipating of the focus of discussions is an important part of why editors get frustrated with Misplaced Pages and so stop editing.(My comment is in support of avoiding subversion of discussions.) I don't believe Dennis's statement is at odds with this. isaacl (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I have always promoted the idea that it is ok if discussion carry on too long, giving everyone a chance to speak, particularly since many don't visit this page daily. It is why my comments tend to be towards the end, if I comment at all. When I do make a strong statement, my goal isn't to end discussion, it is to give the discussion some direction, focus, or at least clarity. Then consensus can do its magic. Consensus isn't the end all here, we do have a charter, a mission, but I don't remember seeing those out of sync very often. Staying out of issues that have been at Arb, and are likely to end back at Arb, that is also a good idea, particularly when they are inconsistent with our mission. This isn't a judgement of those projects, just a prudent position. I may need to do some writing, not to make new rules, but to clarify the existing charter. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Doncram, the best way to answer your question, would be to create such a WikiProject & see what happens. GoodDay (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Doncram can be empirical and find out. Start one, Doncram! EChastain (talk) 04:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

editing break

With all respect to Clem (from a fellow Greyback), one of the beauties of WER is that we let discussions flow wherever they might flow (like the rising tide that lifts all boats). Subversion of discussion is a problem everywhere on Misplaced Pages talk pages and we try to deal with it as best we can without too much consternation. I personally don't like it when some editor, of his own choosing, decides to hat a discussion. I understand if its divisive and disruptive...but not if its an extended free-flow of ideas. If you notice, there are many open discussions above. No harm is committed by waiting for them to be archived. I tried to manually archive many times before and was asked not to, for good reason. Your suggestion to "Cut this whole discussion and paste it on a more relevant page - or a sandbox- with a tinylink to keep things tidy" is a very good one. I suggest DIY which I suggest to anyone with a good suggestion. . Buster Seven Talk 16:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

With all the recent discussions, I did consider creating a sandbox to collect Dennis' offerings. But then I reconsidered because it might be construed as the WER version of The Little Red Book. . Buster Seven Talk 17:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Buster. It's called brainstorming, and it is an excellent way to through out suggestions. It's like genetic mutations - most of them are not improvements but every so often one comes along that promotes survival. In fact, I've been thinking of one for a long time myself and will try to put it together for consideration... :D Gandydancer (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, the extended free-flow of ideas and philosophizing deserves its own section. Hadn't thought of this before, but if editor retention focuses on retaining the estimated 90% male majority editing population, perhaps Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Editor Retention is de facto A Voice for Men on our site ... ;) ... * dodges tomatoes in best 1970s style, and dashes off to her alternative women's wiki / Systers consciousness raising group* ... (Now, loosen up and giggle a little there fellow greyhairs, ain't we been down this road before together? You think Kathleen Cleaver is still churning away on Eldridge's mimeograph machine? Ain't it our turn to show the kids how to do it right this time, men and women both?) --Djembayz (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Very interesting links. Thanks. . Buster Seven Talk 14:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

A "voice for men", or for those men who wanted to maintain the 90 10 ratio would be a voice for not changing the site. We are a voice for changing it in ways that would stop driving away established editors male or female. Editor retention is about retaining our existing editors. That shouldn't put us into conflict with projects to recruit new editors, some of the issues we will identify may be ones that also make it difficult for potential editors. But Misplaced Pages can support multiple projects handling many different issues. The focus of our project is the things that drive existing editors away from Misplaced Pages. But that doesn't mean that our focus should be 90% male, if the stats are correct our editor retention problems are worse among female editors than among men so if we succeed it should help the gender gap. To put it more crudely, if a large proportion of the blokes here are going to stay until we die or get blocked, then by trying to fix the things that drive good editors away we are going to help both men and women and in more balanced numbers than the existing community. ϢereSpielChequers 12:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. We can be mindful, helpful and each of us can be in two or more different projects, but WER itself is getting big enough that we need to start being a bit more strict in keeping our scope narrow, which helps everyone. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Editor retention is about retaining our existing editors

I see the statement Editor retention is about retaining our existing editors made by User:WereSpielChequers and remember this was discussed somewhere in the bowels of wp:wer talk, but I did not realize this is now "official". If it is should it not be mentioned in this project's mission statement right at the top of this project page?. Ottawahitech (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned it is already there in the name, I didn't consider myself to be making some official announcement, just reminding people what this project is about. wp:WikiProject Editor Retention is unambiguous at least in the variant of English that I know. We could also have sister projects wp:WikiProject Editor Recruitment and wp:WikiProject Editor Reactivation. Of course there will be editors recruited since this project started who we would now want to retain, but the name seems pretty unambiguous to me. If the word means something different in American English then that doesn't seem to have reached wiktionary. To give a little background I used to work in IT and on a number of large consumer/membership databases, and I'm used to the idea that membership recruitment, retention, upselling and reactivation have different challenges. ϢereSpielChequers 20:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Recently the Main page was revised a bit. It will soon be revised a lot. Watch this space..... Buster Seven Talk 20:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• As has already been said, the scope has always been retention, even if we strayed a bit at times. We have no power to recruit, that is really the job of the Foundation, to reach out to people outside of Misplaced Pages, or to another new project as WSC pointed out, to covert readers into editors. Our job is to focus on systemic changes such as policies, programs like EotW, and instilling the idea that "retention" should play a part of all decisions here. These are things that make editors want to stay. When I get back to full time, I have several ideas for project to help new editors become more productive by giving them a list of "to do" areas that they might have fun with, to keep it interesting for the guys with 500-1000 edits and not sure where to go to next. Editors more advanced than an adoptee, but would benefit from some direction on finding interesting areas that need gnoming. This is in the archives here, btw, and fits the scope of WER perfectly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

EddyBox

Each Sunday, Go Phightins! acknowledges a new Editor of the Week and an Eddybox is posted (at the top right side) prominently on the main WER Project page and the Editor of the Week main page. This weeks 10 year veteran editor is facing some challenging eye surgery in the next few weeks. Stop in and acknowledge him. Retention happens one editor at a time. . Buster Seven Talk 21:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

This week's EotW

Editor Mmeijeri is this weeks Editor of the Week. He is an active supporter of NPOV and WEIGHT in topics in which he might subscribe to a different opinion than the majority. Stop in and acknowledge him. Retention happens one editor at a time.

• Thanks to Jim Carter and Lixxx235 for responding. Motivating members of WER to participate happens one member at a time. Buster Seven Talk 15:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Mmeijeri

Adam and Eve in the Garden

Editor of the Week for the week beginning February 22, 2015

While working on religious articles, Mmeijeri Identifies and accommodates the concerns of fellow editors. He has a willingness to engage in legitimate debate

Recognized for

Fairness and unbiased editing

Notable work(s)

Historical Jesus

Nomination page

Admin assistance required

I suspect helping this editor to vanish will allow him to return with a new username (that doesn't identify him). Can a friendly admin help him? Thanks, St★lwart 22:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The right to vanish is only for editors who intend to leave Misplaced Pages permanently. Do you mean instead helping to select and change to a new user name? Given that (so far) this editor is here solely to promote the company he works for, unless he claims that will never again touch articles related to his company or its products again and only edit non-related articles, then he should not be permanently disassociated from his old account via RTV. Voceditenore (talk) 08:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think he knows what he wants; I certainly can't work it out. He hasn't really "promoted" the company per se - its been announcements of stuff (so it seems) before that stuff is public and changes to information only available from those on the inside (unless the information is wrong, in which case he's just a fan). There's just no way to verify any of it. Whatever the case, he seems worried about the notes I've posted (and others) being associated with him and the company. I probably used the term "vanish" in the wrong context, but its the word he used. If I stay to try and "help", I'll know what name he picked and so his right to a clean start (I think that's the proper terminology) is effectively voided. Anything anyone can do to help him would be much appreciated. St★lwart 09:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Admins don't do vanishing, you might ask a crat if he wants to LEAVE forever, but that probably isn't the case. What you are talking about is WP:CLEANSTART, ie: abandon old account, wait a while, then come back. He needs to read that. Not really a WER issue, he just needs to read and comply with that page and he will be fine. Policy doesn't allow him to vanish the old account and come back, it isn't an option, that would be ripe for abuse. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Possible collaborative "thank you" efforts?

Even with the best of intentions, there are some editors who we will lose. Some, like User:Wadewitz, die. Others, like User:Neelix and User:TParis, retire, possibly permanently, possibly not, sometimes for reasons we would regret. I was wondering whether there might be any interest in maybe having some of those involved here engage in something maybe beyond what we do now and maybe trying to get some content of some sort together and up to a decent standard of quality as a "thank you" to these editors, maybe, possibly, with some sort of template on the relevant talk page indicating who was being thanked. User:Koavf and I have recently finished the transcription of s:Original Stories from Real Life at wikisource as a sort of posthumous "thank you" to Wadewitz, and Neelix indicated to me in e-mail that he would maybe like to see the Homestead (Star Trek: Voyager) article, in which the character Neelix left the series, developed as a "thank you" to him. I actually found a few sources online which might be useful there. TParis has indicated that something relating to the military and Hawaii would be something he wouldn't mind seeing improved as a thank you to him. I actually found a book called "Myths, martyrs and Marines of Mokapu" at archive.org about the Marine Corps Base Hawaii from the Marine Corps historical branch which could be used to help develop that article, and have done preliminary prep of the text for inclusion at wikisource. Unfortunately, I have no experience in writing articles about TV shows, and not much more in military subjects, and wikisource work wants .djvu files to use as the basis for transcription. I still can't figure out how to upload the .djvu file from archive.org so I haven't uploaded it myself. Anyway, would any of the rest of you maybe be interested in some efforts along these lines? John Carter (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, TParis is still active. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I just saw that actually. 2 edits today here, his first in 2 weeks. John Carter (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure John. I will be an active supporter and participant. I like the idea of paying homage to the hard work and endeavors of those editors that have chosen, for whatever reason, to retire. Khazar2 comes to mind. If they returned because of WER's efforts, so much the better...but that's not necessarily the reason for our thanks to them. It seems you have contacted the retirees you had in mind which is a good idea. Do you have a script of some kind? Whatever you create, I'm in! (I'm on strike in 1/2 an hour till Tuesday. I'm sure you know why and I understand why you are not. Someone has to watch the cookie jar!). Buster Seven Talk 23:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I am rather happy to say that User:Neelix has returned to active editing again as of yesterday, but I still think maybe, if anyone might want to help in a "thank-you" there, it would probably be welcome. And, FWIW, probably tomorrow I will try to put up the PD history of the Hawaii Marine base I found on wikisource. In that particular case, all that will be needed for at least the finishing of the document there will be someone going through to proofread and by their terminology "verify" my first proof read. There is one point of question with the source, a footnote which doesn't actually have an indicator where in the text it is to be added, but that is about the only one I can think of. John Carter (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Editors of the week and possible co-nominations?

If the backlog winds up getting too long, it might be possible, although obviously a pronounced increase in the workload of those involved, to maybe make it an award to multiple people in a given week. Also, although I think that some people might see the number of comments in the nominations talk page, it might not be unreasonable in some instances, particularly if people think that there is more information which others could reasonably be included, to more clearly allow multiple people to put some information in the nominations section. That might also be a way to seek additional support from people who might be more directly knowledgeable about individual editors, as maybe we might include a few "pings" in a nomination of other individuals who might be willing and able to provide more information about the laudable activities of individual editors. Anyway, thoughts? John Carter (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The backlog has never been more than 6 weeks. From the time of nomination, 2 weeks to get some seconds (and thirds, etc.) and then into the "Q" at accepted. 6 weeks to get the award. If it ever gets up to say...10...I might consider more than 1 per week. But my anxiety has always been to keep the "Q" stocked with at least 4 nominees. After Tuesday I'll make some instruction changes on the Nomination talk page to open the process up to more favorable comments. GoP mentioned to this weeks Awardee that they had received more than the required seconds which I thought was great. I really wish more members of WER would go to the Awardees page to congratulate but you can't make a horse drink water as they say. Not that WER members are horses. They are more like zebras...free spirits that can not be tamed. Buster Seven Talk 00:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

John Carter As you have probably noticed, more and more of the nominees have started to attract more than just a second. Your most recent nomination already has 7 seconds I believe. And both GoP and I have been willing to add comments made during the 2 week seconding period to the Award Prose on Sunday or to the Eddybox when it is delivered on the Tuesday following. . Buster Seven Talk 05:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Editor of the week — blunt criticism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I don’t like raining on others’ parades, but this is something I believe should be discussed. Please forgive me if I am blunt, but in my experience such things have to be dealt with out in the open, and hope my posting will not be removed. So here goes…

In particular I find the following guidelines have not been followed:

Today for the first time I carefully checked out the list of award recipients and saw several editors who received this WikiProject Editor Retention Award who are:

• Well known to the community (user: Eric Corbett is only one of those) and I say this as someone who normally stays away from WP:Dramah and other community water-coolers.
• Admins

In real life this awards dispensing is behaviour described as ass-kissing. I therefore wonder if Editor of the Week task force detracts from this project? I would appreciate any honest feedback here. Ottawahitech (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

What admins were awarded? I know of a few who became admins after receiving the award, but unless I dropped the ball, we have not awarded any individuals while admins. Go Phightins! 02:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Some admins were nominated but none ever received the Award. As far as the ass kissing goes, I'm gonna have to ask for Diffs. There have been over 120 nominations. I can't remember the well-known vs less celebrated quantifiers for each. If you provide the names of those that you think are contrary to the stated requirements, I can do some investigating after I return from being in strike mode. . Buster Seven Talk 04:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Just a side note that in lieu of admins receiving the EOTW award, deserving admins can be awarded The Administrator's Barnstar. NORTH AMERICA 04:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that so far as I can see the initial post here, for all its "bluntness," is also apparently in error. I acknowledge that there have been past and future admins who have won the award, but they were not admins at the time the award was received. Of course, if you can produce any evidence specifically contradicting that, I think we would be quite willing to see it. Regarding Eric, well, our main purpose is editor retention and that individual is someone whom many people consider in many ways an active plus to the project who has been, perhaps rightly, perhaps wrongly, regularly subjected to criticism which might cause many people to resign from the project. In such cases, I think the occasional exception is not to be considered problematic. John Carter (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

One of the ways to retain editors is to bring a little joy to the place. Let's look at EC's reply after he got the award
How extraordinary and completely unexpected! Thanks....
Sounds to me like the award did what it was intended to do. . Buster Seven Talk 20:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

You're concerned that the EoW Award is a popularity contest. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm concerned whose ass has been kissed and by whom. A rough count of the 120 or so nominations comes up with about 60 separate editors that have nominated a fellow editor for the award. Now...as long as a clear reason is given and a little vetting is done by the clerks and the seconds (+), there is no investigation as to the sanctity of the nominee. I think most nominators discover someone doing something for the benefit of the encyclopedia and they decide to put their name up for the award. No ass kissing involved. Maybe a little patting on the back for a job well done but no ass kissing. What someone could do is poll the 60 or so nominators and ask if ass kissing was their intended purpose. Or....someone could poll the 120 or so recipients and ask if they felt their asses being kissed. I can provide a list of all the nominators since the Awards began. It will take time to gather but it can be done. Other than the honest feedback already provided, I really don't know what to say.Buster Seven Talk 20:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I responding to Ottawahitech, Note the indent :) GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

As per this definition, "ass kissing" is undue complimenting of someone the person in question is seeking something from, generally of a personal nature of some sort. I can see no evidence from any of the above that anyone involved has specifically nominated anyone for the explicit reason of getting something in response from the nominee. On that basis, I regret to say that the "blunt" use of that term is perhaps more accurately described as the "irrational, unsupported, clearly prejudicial" use of that term. I acknowledge that, in some cases, the people I have nominated have been people I have had to work with in cases where most editors might be reasonably seen as getting some form of burnout, but I do not think most reasonable people would attempt to equate the one with the other. John Carter (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I've nominated 26 editors. 6 were editors I worked on articles with. The other 20 were strangers. . Buster Seven Talk 21:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The Editor of the Week recognition is basically a "thank you" in the form of a barnstar. When you've given a barnstar or thanks to editors for their contributions, I assume there was no intent to flatter someone in order to curry favour. I'm curious to know if there is something about the nominations for Editor of the Week that lead you to believe that the nominators were motivated by considerations other than those that motivated you to thank other editors? isaacl (talk) 13:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Not sure if the criteria were exactly my words, but they looks like exactly something I would write. Note there are no absolutes ("must" "can't"). In order to cast a wide net, some will get in that others might disagree with. That's ok. Our goal isn't perfection, it is improvement. As long as we get it right most of the time, we are doing good things. And as someone has pointed out, about 5 EotW have moved on to become admin. That is one of the greatest, unanticipated side effects of the program. Once we put eyes on someone, we discover that some of them would be perfect admin. I would like to think that some of the most respected and competent admin have come from the program, but I admit I may have a little bias. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Seeing as Ottawaitech hasn't given us anymore feedback, I'll assume he's satisfied. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

He came to edit his question just now, a day and a half later, but he cannot give us the courtesy of a thank you for all the time and effort to respond to a questionable comment. Look at how long this thread is and how many editors wasted their valuable time on it. For what? Now he wants to know about a banner two years after it was formulated. No one asked or gave permission in the earliest days of the project. It was every man for himself with ideas and action and discussion and editing. And the end result was a pretty damn good project if I don't say so myself. If memory serves, I asked him a question four years ago and he still hasn't answered. I'm not sayin'....I'm just sayin'.. Buster Seven Talk 00:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to let you & the other members answer Ottawahitech's future questions. PS: Someone might want to advise Ottawahitech to archive his talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 01:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Members of WER

You are all invited to assist at anytime. One of the simplest things that WER members can do is go to the week's awardees talk page and offer their personal 2¢ in acknowledgment. If 20 strangers, 20 well-known strangers, came to the awardees talk page I think retaining that editor and strengthening the resolve of that editor to keep doing whatever it is they are doing is increased. Think of all the time we waste in "ring-around-the-rosie" conversations. What I'm suggesting takes one minute! Editor retention happens one editor at a time. . Buster Seven Talk 14:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I am guessing the above message relates to Misplaced Pages:Editor of the Week. How does one locate "the week's awardees talk page"? Is it the talk page of the most recent editor added to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week#2015 Recipients of Editor of the Week aka The Eddy? If so, and if there is not some easier way of finding it, is it worth adding editor talk page links to that table? Or possibly there is some way to code a single shortcut link that will always point to the talk page of the most recently awarded person? Arthur goes shopping (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Or....See Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Editor Retention and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week, right at the top of the page is what I call an Eddybox. I put it there after Go Phightins! hands out the Award (almost always Sunday Morning). The List you mention can be easily used to get to the User page and then you are one click away from the talk page. I would love to broadcast it to a wider audience. Ideas are welcome! . Buster Seven Talk 15:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion pointer

I have started a discussion relevant to this project at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (idea lab)#Editor retention message --Geniac (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Recent retirements

Two valuable and productive editors, User:Yngvadottir and User:Sminthopsis84 have indicated their retirements today. The first seems to be maybe a case of, basically, burnout and frustration. The latter seems to at least relate to a rather contentious and maybe argumentative FAC for the article Cucurbita. Anyone who has had any prior experience with either editor and/or knows how to contact them offwiki, or who even wants to take part in the FAC, is more than encouraged to do so. John Carter (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I've left a message for both on their talkpages. IMHO, sometimes retired editors will sign-in, to see what's been happening since their retirement. GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I have not read the other but User talk:Yngvadottir is a worthy suggested read for any editor interested in Misplaced Pages and the editors that work here.. Buster Seven Talk 00:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Re Yngvadottir, indeed she is an important read. Thanks for the heads-up. Gandydancer (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Retirement of User:Catflap08

I regret to say that the above editor has made it known today that he is leaving the project, and has pointed out some serious problems we have regarding contentious recent topics which have devout supporters and detractors, specifically, the sometimes poor coverage in English or generally in academic journals, and also the sometimes extremely problematic behavior of individual editors regarding those topics. Honestly, I think the most effective way to proceed for cases like this one and others is to try to find some way to bring more uninvolved editors to help decide the matters reasonably, but be damned if I can figure out how to do that. Any ideas? John Carter (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• WikiProject Editor Retention articles