Cracking down on hasty deleters and new-page patrolers is productive of much heat and little light. It amounts to a lot of heavy lifting for very little outcome. I think many women have enough patience or insight to stick around long enough to get though preliminary unpleasantness, survive the systemic problems we have, and make substantial contributions to content and policy, particularly if there is social support.

On 2/6/2011 1:19 PM, Brandon Harris wrote: Yeah, I'm not the only person on this mailing list who has stated that I stopped editing in the beginning due to this issue. The main reason that I decided to start editing again was because I was a member of a team, a team that stands by one another when an outsider stirs the pot. :) And yes, that's from social support, but, new editors rarely have that. Sarah

On 2/6/11 10:10 AM, Fred Bauder wrote: I don't think this is a wise perspective. The treatment that new users receive is very clearly one of the reasons why they don't stick around. Simply saying "oh, they'll get over it in time" doesn't do anything to help solve the problem, it only perpetuates it.

On 2/6/11 11:02 AM, Marc Riddell wrote:

I think you're incorrect with this assessment, actually. I am an employee of the Foundation, and I can tell you that my primary task is solving this problem (the overall "participation" issue, that is). I have several ideas about it and will be rolling up some discussion points in the coming days.

This is my starting point, however: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jorm_(WMF)/Collaborative_Systems

On 2/6/11 11:02 AM, Marc Riddell wrote: > You are absolutely right, Brandon. This is a systemic problem that has been > in existence nearly as long as the Project has. And it has been documented > countless times. If this were a technical problem it would have been solved > long ago. If it were a problem that the Foundation felt was affecting > financial contributions to the Project, it would have been a problem given a > high priority to solve. Instead, the problem involves people. And the powers > that be don't seem to know, and are not willing to learn, how to solve it. > The attitude seems to be, "If a person leaves, there are plenty to replace > them." There seems to be a high regard for content in the encyclopedia, but > a very low one for those who create it. This is a recipe for disaster.

I think you're incorrect with this assessment, actually. I am an employee of the Foundation, and I can tell you that my primary task is solving this problem (the overall "participation" issue, that is).

> > On 2/6/11 11:02 AM, Marc Riddell wrote: > >> You are absolutely right, Brandon. This is a systemic problem that has been >> in existence nearly as long as the Project has. And it has been documented >> countless times. If this were a technical problem it would have been solved >> long ago. If it were a problem that the Foundation felt was affecting >> financial contributions to the Project, it would have been a problem given

>> high priority to solve. Instead, the problem involves people. And the

on 2/6/11 2:16 PM, Brandon Harris at bharris(a)wikimedia.org wrote: Brandon, the "overall 'participation issue'" is a large and complex one involving many parts. I will be interested in how you approach the person-to-person-interaction part. This is the part I am most concerned about. Marc

2011/2/6 Brandon Harris <bharris(a)wikimedia.org>rg>: and it probably has two more effects: * it acts as a filter to only let a specific personality type enter wikipedia * it educates newbies the wrong way how to behave in wikipedia It is also one of my personal reasons for leaving Wikipedia (I don't want to live in a house any more where well-meaning people are regularly beaten up when they try to enter) greetings, elian (wikipedian since 2002, wikipedia researcher 2006-2008, passive observer with occasional edits since then)

He had been notified of this discussion before I saw this, and of the discussion on Jimbo's talk page.

I doubt he will leave, but he was certainly in need of some feedback.

Feedback mechanisms are essential to the functioning of any complex system.

On a different, but not completely unrelated issue, how do women editors feel about illustrations like those used here (Warning - not safe for viewing at work): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hogtie_bondage

As to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hogtie_bondage there is no question that people do this, but it is hard to see an overriding public interest in need for information as is present in say, anal sex. Bukkake is at least interesting. I guess all of this stuff can be justified on that basis, seeing how the other half lives, so to speak.

From looking at the jean skirt category on Commons (other projects such as

They illustrate different options. “male-gaze”/ That would seem to be easily fixed, although all seem women here: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/wiki/Category:Hogtie_bondage That said, I'm certainly not going to fool around taking the needed pictures. Perhaps you could edit in other areas. For example "male gaze" might make an article, or be part of one: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Gaze#The_Male_Gaze_and_femin… People generally edit about what they are interested in. Fred _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/wiki/Category:Hogtie_bondage

From: Lena ... &lt;lenarohrbach(a)gmail.com&gt; There are 5 photos (why do you need 5 anyway?) <snip>

For me, looking at the article feels like sneaking into a men's club,

Looking at these articles, it just doesn't feel like Wikipedia is from people for people, but like it's a boys for boys service.

From: Fred Bauder &lt;fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net&gt; Not saying anything about what you think is a serious issue is passive aggression, saving up issues while neglecting to give notice that there is a problem.

Wikiproject? Yes, go do it, tell us where you put it. Although perhaps a bit of discussion about the exact nature of the project might be in order.

You were right there: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Timneu22&diff=prev&… I did think the incident would have left less of an impression on *him*. ;)

OK, but let's get down to cases. What should we do about it? Think ahead to community reaction, but assume, in good faith, that he is doing his best and could do better. (or is that just a game of going through the motions?)

Diagnoses of the sort you are making are inappropriate, however, even in our closed lists. None of us are qualified to do so, and even if we were, have had no opportunity to evaluate him in an appropriate way.

It doesn't surprise me that Wikipedia would attract such serious Asperger cases as this.

Timneu22 has now blanked his user talk page, again, deleting the ongoing RfC Fred started on it.

What is really funny is that this user and WP:VANISPAM fan has a Wikipedia biography: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Neumark

which as far as I can make out is as clear a case of a vanity biography as I have seen; there is not one decent source among the references. His youtube channel has had all of 125 views since 2006: http://www.youtube.com/user/timneu22 Notability? This is the sort of biography which, if it were on a garage band, the chap would nominate for deletion within five minutes of creation. On top of it, the account that created his bio looks like a sockpuppet or meatpuppet ... responding to the AfD within four hours, after not editing for more than a year.

Let's focus on solving problems, not creating them. I don't think this thread is a productive use of this mailing list's time and energy.

Actually, I think the roughness Tim just got at the hands of some of the experienced people (all men, funnily enough) from this list is part of the problem.

If Tim is rude, taking him down a peg to even the score won't do much to make the wider community a much nicer place. I don't think any of us likes having one of those days where the dreaded new messages bar pops up every few minutes, especially when it's all these people you don't know turning up out of the blue to complain about your past actions they had no involvement in. Yes, his reaction was predictable; it was predictable insofar as you instigated it.

Really, this mailing list has an unfortunate signal-to-noise ratio already, considering how new it is and how few subscribers there are. We can be better, for example, about focusing on the actual causes of the problem, rather than personal gripes.

It isn't just *her* eyes. Based on the information provided, I found the user in question. He *is* ridiculous. No, scratch that. He would be ridiculous only if he didn't hurt anybody, and if he had that effect on your wife imagine how many other people out there gave up as well. As I would have suspected, he's a heavy Twinkle user. He has been on Wikipedia a little less longer than I have; he has rollbacker and  reviewer rights but is (thankfully) not an admin. He has, in addition to all the self-applied barnstars (a practice that should be forbidden), two userboxes near the top of his page proclaiming his use of Twinkle (only one is needed, really, if that's something you want to brag about). *And*, near the top of the page, links to both WP:VANISPAM (which I haven't seen invoked in deletion discussions or anywhere for that matter in a long time) and a short essay of his own where he complains about some inconsistencies in the speedy deletion criteria (OK, somewhat rightly) and other aspects of the deletion policies. The solution he advocates is (surprise!) more admins invoking WP:IAR to resolve those conflicts in favor of ... deletion! Elsewhere on his userpage, his boxes indicate interests in energy, classical music, piano, various Google apps and aspects of computer programming. I hate to say it, but the whole thing just adds up to "extremely socially awkward geek". I'm not at all sure I want to meet him in person. And looking over his user history, his recent contribs show, indeed, a lot of AfD nominations, talk pages, and very little actual content editing. Nothing on his userpage indicates any interest in content; he doesn't point you to any GAs or FAs or anything else he's had a hand in, or suggest he's a member of any WikiProject save the one on infobox creation. He's, frankly, the stereotypical deletionist (and makes me not doubt the wisdom of taking that box off my own userpage a long time ago). Reading his page and thinking about it, I wish there was some reality to the old "In Soviet Wikipedia, article delete YOU!!" joke. Frankly, this guy isn't an editor. He's a [[griefer]]. This is a prime example of someone for whom Wikipedia has become a video game where he tries to rack up points by getting as many articles as possible deleted. What else can you say about someone who so clearly brags about this sort of thing and says he enjoys it? This guy screams "referral to the school psychologist needed". Of course, here I am trashing him out, in a forum he'll likely never read and wouldn't care to know whether it exists or not. The question is what can we do to prevent people from becoming this sort of user. I do have some ideas. I have long said we could benefit from making the block function page specific, so that editors could either be allowed to work on a set of pages and those pages alone, or otherwise more effectively topic-banned by being blocked from a certain set of pages, but free to edit anything else (The current setup would be a bit like if, instead of issuing a restraining order that says "don't go within 150 yds/meters of X", the judge had only the option of forcibly excluding the individual from the city, state or country for the time period in question). This would be an extreme option, but better than blocking them wholesale (and might cut down on socking as well). It could be used to enforce a policy whereby editors are watched via a filter/bot for patterns that suggest this sort of behavior (i.e. X large percentage of deletion-initiating edits vs. Y really small percentage of namespace edits) and then it would be suggested to them that they take a break and do something constructive instead for a while, with the possibility of a page-specific block on AfD etc. and temporary suspension of, say, rollbacker rights, to make sure they do, beyond a certain point. Yes, some editors might consider this heavy-handed and just leave. But look at what they become without this kind of shepherding ... I think the community and the encyclopedia would, on the whole, benefit. Daniel Case _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

I am reminded of what Sydney said earlier, that behaviours that are normal in real life -- e.g. that you talk to friends when a situation has upset you -- are not normal in Wikipedia. The assumption in Wikipedia is that any such conversation would serve a nefarious Machiavellian purpose, rather than the simple human need for emotional support.

You can't let your hair down in Wikipedia, because anything you say on a talk page can and will be taken down and used in evidence against you.