Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention

Don't hesitate: Visit the Editor of the Week nominations page and nominate someone today!

This is a WikiProject, an area for focused collaboration among Wikipedians. New participants are welcome; please feel free to participate!

Shortcuts

WP:RETENTION: These editors are willing to lend a helping hand. Just ask!

WikiProject Editor Retention aims to retain Wikipedians. Editors are as important as content. Without editors, there are no contributions. Without contributions, the encyclopedia grows stagnant. Editor retention is the concern and proactive effort of retaining contributors.

We aim to do the following: discuss patterns of behavior or processes that discourage editors, guide editors to optimal venues for having their questions answered or disputes resolved, and create projects to provide support and recognize editors. Policies are not decided here, but are discussed, hoping to find solutions that are specifically geared toward retaining editors. Since some of the topics are controversial and contentious, we ask that editors strive for civility in their participation in discussions and projects here.

(edit this section)

Interested? Add your name to the member list.

Editing Goals

Stay calm and maintain a professional demeanor. Patience is key.
Avoid conflict, even when you know you are right. Give other editors the benefit of the doubt.
Assume good faith toward your collaborating editors, if not their edits. Assuming good faith is not intended to be self-destructive, but to avoid conflict.
Ignore attacks. Not easily done, but a real timesaver. Attacks and counter-attacks are hazardous to your mental health. The best and most frequently offered administrative advice is to move on, and, if absolutely necessary, return the next day.
Don't take it personally. Editors make mistakes. Communicating our thoughts is not easily done on the Internet.
Don't isolate your interpretation. There are many interpretations other than yours. What you read might NOT be what was meant.
Don't think of editing as a competition. WE are cohorts, collaborating to improve our thing.
Don't edit when angry or upset. Stay off the article and talk page in question. Never let your anger or frustration be the deciding factor in your behavior.
Don't forget the human dimension of Wikipedia editing. Keep things in perspective. There is a real, living and breathing, sensitive human on the other side of the discussion.

(edit this section)

Cukie Gherkin

Editor of the Week
for the week beginning December 8, 2024

Cukie Gherkin makes incredible contributions to Wikipedia's coverage of video game characters. In over 17,500 edits (45% to mainspace) they have created so many articles and nominated so many GAs that I have given up on counting. Many of these articles are on well-known characters or games, getting significant numbers of pageviews. Our coverage on video games and their characters would be noticeably lacking without Cukie's diligence. A busy member of WikiProject Video games and WikiProject Anime and manga.

Recognized for

video game coverage

Submit a nomination

Overview

Editor retention is a Wikipedia-wide problem. This WikiProject aims to build a stronger Wikipedia for the future, a Wikipedia in which editors want to work and participate, rather than pointing fingers or making accusations at one another. Pointing out the positive actions of administrators and others is encouraged, as we believe the best way to lead is by example. We want to point out what is RIGHT about Wikipedia, encourage others to use those methods, and establish new methods and ideas that make editing Wikipedia enjoyable, fulfilling, and rewarding for everyone.

Spreading awareness

Editors can display one of these userboxes to promote the project and let editors know your interest.
Welcome new users from the Special:Log/newusers list with our welcome template: {{subst:WikiProject Editor Retention/Welcome}} or one of the standardised templates found at Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates. Another available option for finding new editors is "Recent changes" in the drop-down menu (under the WikiGlobe to our left) under "Interaction". Scan for red linked talk pages of new editors that have already started their Wikipedia career.

Supporting editors

answer questions on the Teahouse Q&A board
send templated invitations to new editors listed on the Teahouse invitee report (it's refreshed daily!) Don't be shy about emailing people too; email + talk page invite works better than a template alone. And personalizing the invitation with an introduction or a "good job with your edits to the article FOO" is likely to have an even more positive impact. Currently, most of these editors are not being invited to the Teahouse.
post a welcoming message on the talk pages of editors who have recently introduced themselves on the Teahouse guests page. Currently, most of these are not being welcomed, even after they introduce themselves.

Sign up as a volunteer at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, a venue where small content disputes can be resolved as well as a gateway to other more consequential venues. Be involved with the Dispute resolution process. Early mediation of problems prevents blocks and protracted edit wars which disrupt Wikipedia and helps keep things civil.
Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is an optional method of reaching consensus. Our edits can and will be changed by others ...even this one. Interact with editors in a manner that encourages editing and improving the encyclopedia while using your experience and knowledge to teach and lead by example.
Cool down aggressive conversation if it begins in your presence. Be an advocate of collaboration. Of course, the challenge is not to become adversarial yourself. If a situation occurs and you feel administrative intervention is required, editors can create a post on a number of noticeboards such as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. You can discuss issues that affect administrators at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (however, most editors are expected to make some attempt to work it out themselves before going there, and without evidence of this attempt, most such postings will be rejected before they are given full administrative consideration).

Recognizing editors

Spread some Wikilove. Try to acknowledge and thank someone different for their contributions, each and every day: Give a barnstar, "cookies" or bacon as appreciation, or send them Thanks for an edit they made.

Working within the project

Keep an eye out for Nominees to be the WER Editor of the Week...and then nominate them.

(edit this section)

Project Goals

A part of increasing retention of editors at Wikipedia is to encourage new editors to continue editing in a positive and constructive manner. We therefore encourage you to:

Greet and help new editors: stop and help them when you know they may be stuck, misguided, incorrect or just stumbling, but continue to encourage interaction if/ when you get a less than thankful response
Advise and encourage new editors to learn how to be a Wikipedia editor before they are discouraged by some early pitfall
Patrol Special:Log/newusers to identify newer users who already have made contributions and put a Welcome Template on their talk page along with a personal note telling them to feel free to contact you if they have a question
Scan "Recent changes" searching for either new editors to welcome or situations to which you feel you can contribute from a "retention viewpoint"; soften the blow of speedy deletions, etc.

Even experienced editors can get discouraged, and we should always consider ways to retain those who have been here awhile. Many editors become semi-retired or just stop editing without declaring so for various reasons, some of them more obvious than others. With regard to them, our project goals are to:

Establish methods for use to prevent editor loss, such as promotion of the project and its suggestions
Encourage departed editors to return. Even many retired editors will watch their user talkpage for passing comments, so consider leaving an encouraging, personally written comment and suggest an edit they might be interested in making
Promote a more positive environment in which editors will want to participate
Review Wikipedia:WikiProject_Editor_Retention/FA_editors_list to find Featured Article (WP:FA) contributors who appear to have stopped contributing recently-- perhaps by contacting them you can encourage them to return to editing. WP:Good will lead you to Good Article (GA) contributors.

Document ways in which all editors can achieve these goals and organize them within the project's subpages

Sign up and participate with the various Help Projects located through Wikipedia:Help Project. This project is undergoing substantial reorganizing to make it easier for editors to find the appropriate help,^[when?] especially in high traffic areas where applicable, such as WikiProject Directory. Feel free to contribute to that project.

Reasons editors leave
Reasons editors leave [edit] Not all reasons that editors leave can be "fixed", as many simply move onto other interests or have lifestyle changes that limit their participation. This list focuses on the reasons that can be addressed at Wikipedia. These problems, in no particular order, are within the scope of this project. Feel free to modify. Negative behavior of other editors Interaction with biased, reckless editors with POV issues Ownership of articles by one or more editors Uninformed but relentless 'Randy in Boise'-type editing, with WP:OWN regularly cited to justify it, leaving editors to watch their work deteriorate Civil point of view promotion Tendentious editing. For articles that lack a significant following, it is difficult to find enough editors (particularly in a way that avoids accusations of canvassing) to establish a consensus. If a problematic editor does not respond to reasoned argument, time can be wasted trying to build a greater understanding but with no net result. Tendentious editors can ignore Wikipedia's bold, revert, discuss cycle and re-introduce their problematic edits; in cases where they are not amenable to dispute resolution mechanisms, there is no clear way to resolve the content dispute, and their edits become fixed in place. Sockpuppeting causing insurmountable obstacles to editing enjoyment Edit warring from other editors Personal attacks, accusations, incivility, and wikihounding, with the targets often discouraged from speaking out in case they are blamed Outing of personal, off-site information Perceptions of an anti-social atmosphere within a clique Regular templating of user talk pages Negative pressures from the wider community Deletion, threatened deletion, and the ubiquitous tagging of articles ("nag tags") Frustration caused by the plethora of policies and guidelines Poor dispute-resolution processes Too many editors who focus on dispute-resolution discussions (AN/I, RfC, RfAr), as opposed to content creation; their involvement can cause requests for dispute resolution to become bogged-down and protracted Experience of peer review processes as confrontational and hierarchical rather than collaborative Claims that long-term editors are "vested contributors" in a negative sense, which suggests that the project has no respect for experienced volunteers Lack of a supportive community Creating an account only results in negative feedback, easier to edit without an account Pressures related to admins or admin actions Frustration caused by bad blocks, threats of blocks, or other administrative actions, particularly against long-term editors Regular attacks on administrators both as individuals and as a group, leaving them unwilling to deal with anything contentious, which in turn leaves editors to cope with disruption without support Permanence and indelibility of the block record. Admins make bad blocks. Once an editor has a block record s/he is obliged to sport it in perpetuity. Blocks do not expire from the record, and they cannot be removed from it. Entropy Failure to defend high-quality work, leaving it to deteriorate over time Difficulty attracting or retaining expertise Experienced editors leave because others do, leading to a deterioration in the quality of discourse, which in turn dissuades potentially serious editors from joining. Personal feelings Boredom Exhaustion of patience Lack of recognition of contributions, or negative feedback for time spent editing in good faith Attempts to fight an addiction to editing Wider perceptions Perception that Wikipedia has been used for political or monetary gain (e.g. the SOPA initiative, Russian trolls, and the paid editing/advocacy/COI debates) Perception that the Wikimedia Foundation focuses more on bringing in new editors, than on finding ways to encourage experienced editors Perception that involvement in Wikipedia is pointless: a bottomless pit Frustration that poor BLP editing continues to cause problems for living people More data on this issue is available from the Former Contributors Survey Results. Some information can be gleaned by looking in the retired editors list at the final edit summaries retired users left

Reasons editors leave

[edit]

Not all reasons that editors leave can be "fixed", as many simply move onto other interests or have lifestyle changes that limit their participation. This list focuses on the reasons that can be addressed at Wikipedia. These problems, in no particular order, are within the scope of this project. Feel free to modify.

Negative behavior of other editors

Interaction with biased, reckless editors with POV issues
Ownership of articles by one or more editors
Uninformed but relentless 'Randy in Boise'-type editing, with WP:OWN regularly cited to justify it, leaving editors to watch their work deteriorate
Civil point of view promotion
Tendentious editing. For articles that lack a significant following, it is difficult to find enough editors (particularly in a way that avoids accusations of canvassing) to establish a consensus. If a problematic editor does not respond to reasoned argument, time can be wasted trying to build a greater understanding but with no net result. Tendentious editors can ignore Wikipedia's bold, revert, discuss cycle and re-introduce their problematic edits; in cases where they are not amenable to dispute resolution mechanisms, there is no clear way to resolve the content dispute, and their edits become fixed in place.
Sockpuppeting causing insurmountable obstacles to editing enjoyment
Edit warring from other editors
Personal attacks, accusations, incivility, and wikihounding, with the targets often discouraged from speaking out in case they are blamed
Outing of personal, off-site information
Perceptions of an anti-social atmosphere within a clique
Regular templating of user talk pages

Negative pressures from the wider community

Deletion, threatened deletion, and the ubiquitous tagging of articles ("nag tags")
Frustration caused by the plethora of policies and guidelines
Poor dispute-resolution processes
Too many editors who focus on dispute-resolution discussions (AN/I, RfC, RfAr), as opposed to content creation; their involvement can cause requests for dispute resolution to become bogged-down and protracted
Experience of peer review processes as confrontational and hierarchical rather than collaborative
Claims that long-term editors are "vested contributors" in a negative sense, which suggests that the project has no respect for experienced volunteers
Lack of a supportive community
Creating an account only results in negative feedback, easier to edit without an account

Pressures related to admins or admin actions

Frustration caused by bad blocks, threats of blocks, or other administrative actions, particularly against long-term editors
Regular attacks on administrators both as individuals and as a group, leaving them unwilling to deal with anything contentious, which in turn leaves editors to cope with disruption without support
Permanence and indelibility of the block record. Admins make bad blocks. Once an editor has a block record s/he is obliged to sport it in perpetuity. Blocks do not expire from the record, and they cannot be removed from it.

Entropy

Failure to defend high-quality work, leaving it to deteriorate over time
Difficulty attracting or retaining expertise
Experienced editors leave because others do, leading to a deterioration in the quality of discourse, which in turn dissuades potentially serious editors from joining.

Personal feelings

Boredom
Exhaustion of patience
Lack of recognition of contributions, or negative feedback for time spent editing in good faith
Attempts to fight an addiction to editing

Wider perceptions

Perception that Wikipedia has been used for political or monetary gain (e.g. the SOPA initiative, Russian trolls, and the paid editing/advocacy/COI debates)
Perception that the Wikimedia Foundation focuses more on bringing in new editors, than on finding ways to encourage experienced editors
Perception that involvement in Wikipedia is pointless: a bottomless pit
Frustration that poor BLP editing continues to cause problems for living people

More data on this issue is available from the Former Contributors Survey Results.

Some information can be gleaned by looking in the retired editors list at the final edit summaries retired users left

Damage to the editorial climate
Things causing damage to the editorial climate [edit] Tags that are more BITEY than necessary. See Wikipedia talk:First contact#Un-intentionally biting a New Editor for an example. Having a generally constant but limiting "We are Adversaries" mindset rather than a habitual far-reaching "We are Collaborators" mindset. One is a closing. The other, an opening. Choosing words that degrade or attack the other editor or his edits vs. taking the time to realize the fragile nature of the novice editor. Forgetting that conversation is the natural way that humans think when they are together and that, at times, it can get messy. Sarcasm. Sarcasm rarely works in real life. It is certainly out of place here. It leads to confusion, hurtfulness and trouble, even when tagged as sarcasm. It is an aggressive, dishonest form of communication. Alienation through use of aggressive idiolects or slang. Highly personalized or slangy writing styles are fine for friendly chats but not when debating serious issues with other editors, for whom such productions, which are not even amenable to machine translation, may turn out to be effectively more obscure than a different language. The interplay between (1) our affirmative and prompt deletion of certain types of articles (copyvio, unref BLP, attack, etc.) and (2) the complete lack of guidance to new article creators of those critical requirements before or during the article creation process. The combination of these two factors is the moral equivalent of a 20-foot pit lined with punji sticks. We can cover the punji stakes, but the problems remains; the pit, the lack of warning signage, and the stakes themselves. Please read Attractive nuisance doctrine. Suggestion; Since we are unlikely to give up the punji sticks (the copyvio deletions, etc), we put up a "sign" i.e., give new editors instructions in our policies before they create an article. Most times the new editor is concerned only with the article. But, the experienced editor is more concerned with the encyclopedia. The new user holds the article and his edits and his word choices as precious and can't bear to see them changed. They have great pride in their work and saving it becomes a mission. They need to be reminded that editing is not just a matter of deciding what to include. It's more a matter of what NOT to include. Because they misunderstand this fact, they see experienced editors as having a "cruel hand". Not enough praise for a new editor's hard work. Sorry to say but some veteran editors think new editors are clueless noobs with a burr under their saddles. Everyone likes to be appreciated. When the new editor feels attacked instead, sparks start to fly and somebody gets burned (usually the new editor). click to edit

Damage to the editorial climate

Things causing damage to the editorial climate

[edit]

Tags that are more BITEY than necessary.

See Wikipedia talk:First contact#Un-intentionally biting a New Editor for an example.

Having a generally constant but limiting "We are Adversaries" mindset rather than a habitual far-reaching "We are Collaborators" mindset.

One is a closing. The other, an opening.

Choosing words that degrade or attack the other editor or his edits vs. taking the time to realize the fragile nature of the novice editor.
Forgetting that conversation is the natural way that humans think when they are together and that, at times, it can get messy.
Sarcasm.

Sarcasm rarely works in real life. It is certainly out of place here. It leads to confusion, hurtfulness and trouble, even when tagged as sarcasm. It is an aggressive, dishonest form of communication.

Alienation through use of aggressive idiolects or slang.

Highly personalized or slangy writing styles are fine for friendly chats but not when debating serious issues with other editors, for whom such productions, which are not even amenable to machine translation, may turn out to be effectively more obscure than a different language.

The interplay between (1) our affirmative and prompt deletion of certain types of articles (copyvio, unref BLP, attack, etc.) and (2) the complete lack of guidance to new article creators of those critical requirements before or during the article creation process.

The combination of these two factors is the moral equivalent of a 20-foot pit lined with punji sticks. We can cover the punji stakes, but the problems remains; the pit, the lack of warning signage, and the stakes themselves. Please read Attractive nuisance doctrine. Suggestion; Since we are unlikely to give up the punji sticks (the copyvio deletions, etc), we put up a "sign" i.e., give new editors instructions in our policies before they create an article.

Most times the new editor is concerned only with the article. But, the experienced editor is more concerned with the encyclopedia.

The new user holds the article and his edits and his word choices as precious and can't bear to see them changed. They have great pride in their work and saving it becomes a mission. They need to be reminded that editing is not just a matter of deciding what to include. It's more a matter of what NOT to include. Because they misunderstand this fact, they see experienced editors as having a "cruel hand".

Not enough praise for a new editor's hard work. Sorry to say but some veteran editors think new editors are clueless noobs with a burr under their saddles.

Everyone likes to be appreciated. When the new editor feels attacked instead, sparks start to fly and somebody gets burned (usually the new editor).

click to edit

Project Tasks

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Start a project "style guide"
Cleanup : Check all lists and bullet points for stale proposals, pages, etc.
Infobox : Create a Project Infobox
Maintain : Maintenance of the Discussions section. Update listed discussion and archive stale discussions.
Map : Create an Index.
Merge : Merge relevant content.
Photo : Create an Image Gallery

(edit this section)

Discussions & Links

Initiatives

Create an easy-to-understand essay for requesting unblocks
Reward established editors that might not be noticed otherwise via Wikipedia's Editor of the Week

Current working groups

An essay on guidance for younger editors by User:Newyorkbrad

Retention and return team

Other areas of the project

Why do editors leave?

Identifying editors who have left, or who are at risk of leaving

Discussion

Main Talkpage discussion

Current discussions

Current discussions

General discussion

List of current sub-discussions

Administrator retention

Comments by editors as they retire

Reasons editors leave

Wikipedia:First contact Essay

Peripheral links suggested by editors

The directory of Wikimedia research projects
Editor engagement
Editor Trends Study
Employee retention – A similar concept
Findings from the Wikimedia Summer of Research
Former Contributors Survey Results
Imagine others complexly
Modelling Wikipedia's growth
The MoodBar
Morbidity and mortality conference
Nine Reasons Why Women Don't Edit Wikipedia by Sue Gardner, Executive Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Snuggle, a browser-based newcomer observation and support system.
The Teahouse
Reading lounge for editors who want to take a break and read through some interesting links
Wikimedia Foundation Growth Project
Wikipedia founder worries about future of editorial community
WikiStats 2 - English Wikipedia, the WMF engagement metrics.

(edit this section)

General research process ('Incubation')

[edit]

Planning: Defining goals and methods
Action: Implementing the plan
Tracking: Quantitatively determining degree of success

Resources

[edit]

Wikipedia Statistics
en.wikipedia user retention: graph showing histograms of number of edits made in a given month for all editors who started editing in the same month. Retention can be seen as how far from the starting month activity persists.
meta:Research:Teahouse - WMF funded research on reasons new users depart. The references are particularly valuable.

External links

[edit]

This is a WikiProject, an area for focused collaboration among Wikipedians. New participants are welcome; please feel free to participate!

v t e WikiProject Council
WikiProject guides	WikiProject Council Talk Guidelines/Intro WikiProjects Task forces Technical notes Assessment FAQ Work via WikiProjects
Directories and summaries	Directory Proposals Deletion Signpost Shortcuts Popular pages Database reports Watchers
Culture and the arts	Arts Music Performing Plastic Visual Broadcasting Crafts and hobbies Entertainment Games and toys Food and drink Internet culture Language and literature Biography Linguistics Media Philosophy and religion Sports
Geographical	Bodies of water Cities Countries Africa Americas Asia Europe Oceania Landforms Maps Parks, conservation areas and historical sites
History and society	History and society Business and economics Education Military and warfare Politics and government Transportation
Science, technology and engineering	Science Biology Chemistry Economics Geosciences Information science Mathematics Medicine Meteorology Physics Space Technology Time
Wikipedia assistance and tasks	Contents systems Maintenance Files Article improvement and grading Classroom projects WikiProjects

Wikipedia key policies and guidelines

Five pillars
- Ignore all rules

Content

P	Verifiability No original research Neutral point of view What Wikipedia is not Biographies of living persons Copyright (Copyright violations) Image use Article titles
G	Notability Autobiography Citing sources Reliable sources Medicine Do not include copies of lengthy primary sources Plagiarism Don't create hoaxes Fringe theories Patent nonsense External links

Conduct

P	Civility Consensus Harassment Vandalism Ignore all rules No personal attacks Ownership of content Edit warring Dispute resolution Sockpuppetry No legal threats Child protection Paid-contribution disclosure
G	Assume good faith Conflict of interest Disruptive editing Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point Etiquette Gaming the system Please do not bite the newcomers Courtesy vanishing Responding to threats of harm Talk page guidelines Signatures

Deletion

P	Deletion policy Proposed deletion Biographies Criteria for speedy deletion Attack page Oversight Revision deletion

Enforcement

P	Administrators Banning Blocking Page protection

Editing

Editing policy

Article size Summary style Be bold Disambiguation Hatnotes Broad-concept article Understandability
Style	Manual of Style Contents Accessibility Dates and numbers Images Layout Lead section Linking Lists
Classification	Categories, lists, and navigation templates Categorization Template namespace

Project content

G	Project namespace WikiProjects User pages User boxes Shortcuts Subpages

WMF (?)

P	Universal Code of Conduct Terms of Use List of policies Friendly space policy Licensing and copyright Privacy policy

List of all policies and guidelines
- P: List of policies
- G: List of guidelines
Summaries of values and principles

Wikipedia essays (?)

Essays on building, editing, and deleting content

Philosophy	Article content Articles must be written All Five Pillars are equally important Avoid vague introductions Be a reliable source Civil POV pushing Cohesion Competence is required Concede lost arguments Dissent is not disloyalty Don't lie Don't search for objections Editing Wikipedia is like visiting a foreign country Editors will sometimes be wrong Eight simple rules for editing our encyclopedia Explanationism External criticism of Wikipedia Here to build an encyclopedia Leave it to the experienced Levels of competence Levels of consensus Most ideas are bad Need Neutrality of sources Not broken is ugly Not editing because of Wikipedia restriction The one question Oversimplification Paradoxes Paraphrasing POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields Process is important Product, process, policy Purpose Reasonability rule Systemic bias There is no seniority Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia Tendentious editing The role of policies in collaborative anarchy The rules are principles Trifecta We are absolutely here to right great wrongs Wikipedia in brief Wikipedia is an encyclopedia Wikipedia is a community Wikipedia is not RationalWiki
Article construction	100K featured articles Abandoned stubs Acronym overkill Adding images improves the encyclopedia Advanced article editing Advanced text formatting Akin's Laws of Article Writing Alternatives to the "Expand" template Amnesia test A navbox on every page An unfinished house is a real problem Articles have a half-life Autosizing images Avoid mission statements Be neutral in form Beef up that first revision Blind men and an elephant BOLD, revert, discuss cycle Build content to endure Cherrypicking Chesterton's fence Children's lit, adult new readers, & large-print books Citation overkill Citation underkill Common-style fallacy Concept cloud Creating controversial content Criticisms of society may be consistent with NPOV and reliability Deprecated sources Dictionaries as sources Don't demolish the house while it's still being built Don't get hung up on minor details Don't hope the house will build itself Don't panic Don't "teach the controversy" Editing on mobile devices Editors are not mindreaders Encourage the newcomers Endorsements (commercial) Featured articles may have problems Formatting bilateral relations articles Formatting bilateral relations templates Fruit of the poisonous tree Give an article a chance How to write a featured article Identifying and using independent sources History sources Law sources Primary sources Science sources Style guides Tertiary sources Ignore STRONGNAT for date formats Inaccuracy Introduction to structurism Mine a source Merge Test Minors and persons judged incompetent "Murder of" articles Not every story/event/disaster needs a biography Not everything needs a navbox Not everything needs a template Nothing is in stone Obtain peer review comments Organizing disambiguation pages by subject area Permastub Potential, not just current state Presentism Principle of Some Astonishment The problem with elegant variation Pro and con lists Printability Pruning article revisions Publicists Put a little effort into it Restoring part of a reverted edit Robotic editing Sham consensus Source your plot summaries Specialized-style fallacy Stub Makers Run an edit-a-thon Temporary versions of articles Tertiary-source fallacy There are no shortcuts to neutrality There is no deadline There is a deadline The deadline is now Try not to leave it a stub What is a reliable source Understanding Wikipedia's content standards Walled garden What an article should not include Wikipedia is a work in progress Wikipedia is not a reliable source Wikipedia is not being written in an organized fashion The world will not end tomorrow Write the article first Writing better articles
Writing article content	Avoid thread mode Copyediting reception sections Coup Don't throw more litter onto the pile Gender-neutral language Myth vs fiction Proseline Use our own words We shouldn't be able to figure out your opinions Write the article first Writing about women Writing better articles
Removing or deleting content	Adjectives in your recommendations AfD is not a war zone Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions Arguments to avoid in deletion reviews Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions Arguments to make in deletion discussions Avoid repeated arguments Before commenting in a deletion discussion But there must be sources! Confusing arguments mean nothing Content removal Counting and sorting are not original research Delete or merge Delete the junk Deletion is not cleanup Does deletion help? Don't attack the nominator Don't confuse stub status with non-notability Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument Emptying categories out of process Follow the leader How the presumption of notability works How to save an article proposed for deletion I just don't like it Identifying blatant advertising Identifying test edits Immunity Keep it concise Liar liar pants on fire Nothing Nothing is clear Overzealous deletion Relisting can be abusive Relist bias The Heymann Standard Unopposed AFD discussion Wikipedia is not Whack-A-Mole Why was the page I created deleted? What to do if your article gets tagged for speedy deletion When in doubt, hide it in the woodwork No Encyclopedic Use

Essays on civility

The basics	Accepting other users Apology Contributing to complicated discussions Divisiveness Don't retaliate Editors' pronouns Edit at your own pace Encouraging the newcomers Enjoy yourself Expect no thanks High-functioning autism and Asperger's editors How to be civil Maintaining a friendly space Negotiation Obsessive–compulsive disorder editors Please say please Relationships with academic editors Thank you Too long; didn't read Truce Unblock perspectives We are all Wikipedians here You have a right to remain silent
Philosophy	A thank you never hurts A weak personal attack is still wrong Advice for hotheads An uncivil environment is a poor environment Be the glue Beware of the tigers! Civility warnings Deletion as revenge Failure Forgive and forget It's not the end of the world Nobody cares Most people who disagree with you on content are not vandals Old-fashioned Wikipedian values Profanity, civility, and discussions Revert notification opt-out Shadowless Fists of Death! Staying cool when the editing gets hot The grey zone The last word There is no Divine Right of Editors Most ideas are bad Nothing is clear Reader The rules of polite discourse There is no common sense Two wrongs don't make a right Wikipedia clichés Wikipedia is not about winning Wikipedia should not be a monopoly Writing for the opponent
Dos	Assume good faith Assume the assumption of good faith Assume no clue Avoid personal remarks Avoid the word "vandal" Be excellent to one another Be pragmatic Beyond civility Call a spade a spade Candor Deny recognition Desist Discussing cruft Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass Encourage full discussions Get over it How to lose Imagine others complexly Just drop it Keep it concise Keep it down to earth Mind your own business Say "MOBY" Mutual withdrawal Read before commenting Settle the process first
Don'ts	ALPHABETTISPAGHETTI Wikipedia:Because I can Civil POV pushing Cyberbullying Don't accuse someone of a personal attack for accusing of a personal attack Don't be a fanatic Don't be a jerk Don't be an ostrich Don't be ashamed Don't be a WikiBigot Don't be high-maintenance Don't be inconsiderate Don't be obnoxious Don't be prejudiced Don't be rude Don't be the Fun Police Don't bludgeon the process Don't call a spade a spade Don't call people by their real name Don't call the kettle black Don't call things cruft Don't come down like a ton of bricks Don't cry COI Don't demand that editors solve the problems they identify Don't drink the consensus Kool-Aid Don't eat the troll's food Don't fight fire with fire Don't give a fuck Don't help too much Don't ignore community consensus Don't knit beside the guillotine Don't make a smarmy valediction part of your signature Don't remind others of past misdeeds Don't shout Don't spite your face Don't take the bait Don't template the regulars Don't throw your toys out of the pram Do not insult the vandals Griefing Hate is disruptive Nationalist editing No angry mastodons just madmen No Nazis No racists No Confederates No queerphobia No, you can't have a pony Passive aggression POV railroad Superhatting There are no oracles There's no need to guess someone's preferred pronouns You can't squeeze blood from a turnip UPPERCASE
WikiRelations	WikiBullying WikiCrime WikiHarassment WikiHate WikiLawyering WikiLove WikiPeace

Essays on notability

Humorous essays

About essays

About essays	Essay guide Value of essays Difference between policies, guidelines and essays Don't cite essays as if they were policy Avoid writing redundant essays Finding an essay Quote your own essay
Policies and guidelines	About policies and guidelines Policies Guidelines How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance Policy writing is hard

Reasons editors leave

Things causing damage to the editorial climate

General research process ('Incubation')

Resources

See also

External links