Wikipedia talk:Editor assistance/Archive 2

Confused

Hi. I've been thinking about signing up here, but I'm not sure yet. Is this more for mediation requests or for assistance with understanding and interpreting policy (I assume both, but I'm not necessarily hugely confident in all of my abilities)? Master&Expert (Talk) 23:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that it is hard and fast - just pointing people in the right direction, sometimes jumping in and sorting it. Hope this helps,. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know why the page of Assistant Commissioner of Jakukbari has been deleted Ponjit Dowarah (talk) 08:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inactive?

Is this still an active group? There seems have been no talk page activity at all this year so far until now, and the main page also seems to get little activity? No one has signed up for the list of helpers since December 2009 either, and it doesn't look like anyone is maintaining the list or making sure its up to date. Several of the editors on the list haven't edited in some 2 years, and some are even blocked for vandalism... -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have just received a complaint about this very problem on the main WP:EAR board. This list will definitely have to be weeded. What should we do next, do you think? I was thinking anyone who posted 2008 or earlier should be removed and we could go through the remainder and see who is still active and interested. Or it might be a good option to just ask people to post on the main board, as it is routinely being monitored by volunteers, and get rid of this list altogether. Opinions? --Diannaa ^TALK 00:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe do like some projects do to update their member lists. Remove any indef blocked/retired editors, then move the remaining list to an inactive section. Then use a bot or AWB to leave a message saying the list is being cleaned up and asking them to come move their name back to the active section if they are still interested in participating. After a reasonable amount of time, delete the inactive list all together. I think having a list would be good, to offer options, but also making the board more visible (I never even noticed it when I was looking at the page LOL). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this project to be a very worthwhile and informal alternative to rushing straight to WP:ANI or WP:ARBCOM or any other such dispute resolution feature. It's also an alternative to the WP:Village Pump.

I think AnmaFinotera's suggestions are excellent, and the project needs something doing to revive it. To those, I would suggest that a WP:userbox and/or a {{topicon}} is also created for active members to put on their user pages. Anyone interested in making such a box or who has the time to do it could bear in mind that code is available that will also add userbox users to a category for members of the EA feature. It's also interesting to remember that WP:EAR is not an arbitration utility per se, and that advice should not be given in a way that could be interpreted as an official conclusion. I have noticed that some of the advice on these pages is either inappropriate, overly humorous, or comes out - allbeit in WP:GF - in support of advice seekers who may have been clearly and irrefutably been in the wrong. Most important therefore is that anyone offering help has read and fully understood the Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Assistants page and its implications.--Kudpung (talk) 01:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EXPECT and WP:EA#EXPECT shortcut

I have reused the WP:EXPECT shortcut - I hope that's okay with others here.

The new page Wikipedia:Expectations and norms of the Wikipedia community looks like it will be a major place newcomers are directed for information on the community's expectations regarding working with other users. WP:EXPECT is a natural shortcut for that. I checked and found that the link here was created 3.5 years ago in July 2007, and after all that time "whatlinkshere" shows just 5 mentions, all but one in its own archives (the exception is a mention on the talk page of an old RFC talk archive from April 2009).

I've changed the link from WP:EXPECT to WP:EA#EXPECT which makes it local to this page, and hope that is okay. Thanks :)

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking as a response to a request for editor assistance

I suggest clarifying that the role of an editorial assistant is to provide advice.

The policy at [Wikipedia:Dispute resolution] states that [editor assistance] provides,

one-on-one advice and feedback. While not a required part of dispute resolution, it is designed to help you understand how to clearly and civilly express your views and work toward consensus. You may request an assistant's help at any time, whether you're involved in dispute resolution or not. Assistants can also help you find the best way to resolve your dispute or issue. (emphasis added)

Currently, an editorial assistant may consider blocking a user in response to a request for help, [ref here].

Proposal, add to the section "What to expect from assistance" (additions are underlined):

Help in learning how to work with the community's standards, norms, and policies to achieve consensus, and how to correctly and non-disruptively make use of policy and process.
Help to understand what is and is not appropriate behavior, and how to deal civilly and rationally with other editors—including those with whom you may disagree. However, do not expect an assistant to automatically "take your side" in a dispute.
The role of an editorial assistant is to provide advice.
Note: If you're being disruptive or unreasonable, the assistant may let you know this. You are not required to do anything the assistant says, but advice from the assistant, as from any experienced editor, should be carefully considered. While honest mistakes are acceptable and sometimes expected, that doesn't mean abusive behavior will be overlooked. Be aware: If you cause disruption after being advised not to, you may be refused further assistance.

RB 66.217.117.102 (talk) 03:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, the role of an editorial assistant is to provide advice, but whenever you post anywhere on Wikipedia your edits will be open to scrutiny by other editors. If, by posting about one issue, you inadvertently call attention to another issue, then you can expect action to be taken on that issue. You may like to read Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be a "Yes" to the proposal. Let's give this some more time for clarifications or additional responses. RB 66.217.117.130 (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding "Disabling conditions" and competence of editors

Please see here for a question I believe may well be relevant to matters of accessibility of wikipedia editing by certain editors, known and unknown. Any response would be welcome. John Carter (talk) 02:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WMF grant proposal

I have submitted a proposal for one of WMF's new Individual Engagement Grants. It is a pilot project to determine whether coaching new editors on their writing for the English Wikipedia improves editor retention, focusing on women and Global Southerners. If you would like to endorse this project, you can do so here. I would also appreciate any other feedback, pro or con, which can be posted here. Thanks! Libcub (talk) 03:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IEngagement grant proposal for editor engagement

Likewise, I have submitted a Meta:Grants:IEG/Studying_content_interest_and_editor_engagement_factors_with_new_editors for the [Meta:Grants:IEG|Individual Engagement Grants]]. I aim to understand how engagement is produced in new editors and see if it is possible to achieve retention with suggestions and courses. In a way, I will be adopting users but at the same time studying them with methods such as interviews and metrics. I have conducted other studies with data processing in Wikipedia and surveys to understand communities. If you would like to endorse this project you can do it here. I would so appreciate any kind of feedback! Thank you very much. ----Marcmiquel (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VisualEditor

Have you all been looking at the VisualEditor? The WP:VisualEditor is designed to let people edit without needing to learn wikitext syntax. The articles will look the same (or nearly the same) in the new edit "window" as when you read them (aka WYSIWYG), and changes will show up as you type them, very much like writing a document in a modern word processor. This new editing system is intended especially to help new editors, so anyone who works with new editors will benefit from spending some time with the upcoming WP:VisualEditor now, so you'll be able to answer questions when it's deployed this summer (current target is 01 July 2013 for the English Wikipedia). More than 1,500 editors have tried this out so far, and feedback overall has been positive.

Right now, the early test version is available only to registered users who opt-in, and it's a bit slow and limited in features. You can do all the basic things like writing or changing sentences, creating or changing section headings, and editing simple bulleted lists. It currently can't either add or remove templates (like fact tags), ref tags, images, categories, or tables (and it will not be turned on for new users until common reference styles and citation templates are supported). These more complex features are being worked on, and the code will be updated as things are worked out, but this is where we are with the development and testing so far. Also, right now you can only use it for articles and user pages.

What the developers need from people like you—people who deal with basic questions from inexperienced editors—is for you to take it out for a spin and tell them how it worked. Please go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and tick the box at the end of the page, where it says "Enable VisualEditor (only in the main namespace and the User namespace)". Save the preferences, and then try fixing a few typos or copyediting a few articles by using the new "VisualEditor" tab instead of the section [Edit] buttons or the old "Edit" tab (which will still be present and still work for you). Fix a typo or make some changes, and then click the 'save and review' button (at the top of the page). We really need people who will try this out on 10 or 15 pages and then leave a note Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback about their experiences: Did it work for you? Did it screw up something simple? (Give a diff, please!) Did you try something complicated and it worked unexpectedly? Did something not work, but you think it should be a high-priority item because new editors are likely to encounter it? This is going to be a big change to the new-user experience, and they'd like to get it right. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Activity?

Is this program still active? No one has signed up to help Editors on the list since 2012. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requests to Editor Assistance Requests dropped significantly when the TEa House was introduced. Editors on this list occasionally receive requests for help, and the fact that there are no new additions to the list does not mean however that the editors or the project are are inactive. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]