Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) at 07:00, 29 August 2013 (Robot: Archiving 3 threads from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

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)

Soliloquies

Greetings. I've started working on Wikipedia: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)
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?

  • INeverCry (talk · contribs) – From active sysop to retired in 5:01 hours, a chronological overview.
  • [1] - sysop unblocks another user prior to the block's expiry
  • [2] - sysop notifies unblocked user
  • [3] - a concerned editor asks why on the sysop's talk page 1 minute later
  • [4] - 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.
  • [5] - sysop responds at the AN discussion
  • [6] - another sysop reinstates the block
  • [7] - sysop unblocks the re-blocked user again
  • [8], [9] - sysop provides more replies on their talk page
  • [10] - sysop notified on their talk page of a Request for arbitration discussion initiated
  • [11] - sysop requests removal of administrator tools from their account at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard
  • [12] - sysop places semi-retired template on their user page
  • [13] - sysop leaves parting comment on their talk page
  • [14] - user desysopped
  • [15] - user thanks bureaucrats for timely response
  • [16] - user places retired template on their user talk page
  • [17] - 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)

    • 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. 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)
(edit conflict) 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.—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 | 2¢ | 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)
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 Ammodramus and Ammodramus

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention/Archive_8&oldid=570637586"